Special education in the USA is, in most respects, a 20th century phenomenon and is now governed primarily by federal legislation first enacted in 1975. The federal law in its most recent reauthorization (2004) continues to require a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for all students with disabilities, a full continuum of alternative placements (CAP) ranging from residential or hospital care to inclusion in general education, an individual education plan or program (IEP) for each student identified as needing special education, and placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE) that is thought best for implementing the IEP. Parents must be involved in the special education process. Approximately 14 percent of public school students were identified for special education in 2004–2005, but the number and percentage of students identified in most high-incidence categories as needing special education have declined in recent years (the total for all categories was about 8.5 percent of public school students in 2010). A variety of evidence-based interventions can be used to address the wide range of instructional and behavioral needs of students with disabilities and their families, including transition to further education or work, family services, and teacher education. Special education in the USA may find new sources of support and thrive or may become less common or be abandoned entirely due to criticism and withdrawal of support for social welfare programs of government.
Precisely when and where special education began in the USA is somewhat unclear, but it was initiated through the action and advocacy of physicians and ministers who often imitated or adapted what they had observed in Europe in the mid-19th century. Special education first involved individuals who were blind, deaf, or mentally retarded (i.e., had intellectual disabilities, in 2014 terminology), and was implemented primarily in special schools (see Kauffman, 1976, 1981, 2008; Kauffman & Landrum, 2006; Sarason & Doris, 1979; Seguin, 1866). Besides physicians and ministers, psychologists played an important role in early special education. Although it existed in some public schools in major cities in the late 19th century, special education is considered primarily a 20th century phenomenon (Gerber, 2011). Gerber also observed correctly that special education must be seen in the context of social, scientific, and political movements.
Naming pioneers in special education is questionable, as anyone who does so is certain to leave out important people. Elizabeth Farrell and many other women pioneers worked in partnership with men (see Gerber, 2011). Farrell was instrumental in establishing special education in New York City in the early 20th century and in founding the international Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). Certainly, Samuel Kirk, Lloyd Dunn, William Cruickshank, James Gallagher, and Edwin Martin are among USA pioneers, though there are many others. Kirk, Dunn, and Cruickshank are known for their early textbooks (beginning in the 1950s) and their other publications (including tests), although the first special education textbook was likely Horn’s (1924). Kirk, Dunn, and Cruickshank effectively described the variety of disabilities leading to most of the federal definitions and categories included in federal legislation. These categories (and common abbreviations of some of them) now include mental retardation or intellectual and developmental disability (MR, ID, or IDD), specific learning disability (SLD or LD), emotional disturbance (ED or EBD for emotional and behavioral disorders), communication (speech or language) disorders, deafness and impaired hearing, blindness and impaired vision, physical disability or other health impairment (OHI), and severe or multiple disabilities (e.g., deaf-blindness). In the late 20th century, other categories were added: autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Controversy continues around defining some disabilities (especially LD and ED) and whether some problems (e.g., attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder or ADHD) should be defined as separate categories or be included in an existing category.
Martin’s (2013) memoir about the enactment of the federal special education law in the USA in 1975 (first known as Public Law 94-142, later as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA) details the law’s political and social contexts as well as its basic requirements. IDEA requires an individualized education program (IEP) for all students with disabilities and placement of those with disabilities in the least restrictive environment (LRE) chosen from a continuum of alternative placements (CAP) (see Bateman, 2011).
Early special educators assumed that students with disabilities needed special instruction and that the primary reason for identifying them and providing special programs was that the teaching provided in general education was not appropriate for them. Many children with disabilities received no schooling at all in the first 75 years of the 20th century, and many who did go to school languished in classes that did not meet their needs. The two primary problems to be solved were, first, access to education of any kind and, second, access to appropriate education. Appropriate education for all children with disabilities was assumed to be possible only if instruction could be provided in a continuum of placements or CAP, ranging from regular public school classes to special schools and including such alternatives as resource rooms and special classes in public schools (see Hallahan, Kauffman, & Pullen, 2012). Unfortunately, the focus on appropriate and effective schooling and the attendant CAP was lost to the idea that all education (both general and special) could and should occur in the same place (see Kauffman, 2014; Kauffman & Badar, 2014; Kauffman & Hung, 2009; Zigmond, 2003; Zigmond, Kloo, & Volonino, 2009). This loss of focus also occurred in other nations (see Warnock, 2005).
Beginning in the 1980s, placement of students in the LRE came to dominate special education issues, and the idea of inclusion (sometimes referred to as inclusive education) led to a loss of focus on effective instruction and to preoccupation with the placement of students in regular public schools and general education classes (see Crockett & Kauffman, 1999; Hallahan & Pullen, 2015; Kauffman, 2008; Kauffman & Badar, 2014; Kauffman, Nelson, Simpson, & Mock, 2011; Kauffman, Ward, & Badar, in press; Zigmond & Kloo, 2011). Unfortunately, some assumed that placement should be decided before appropriate education was designed (see Bateman & Linden, 2006), that appropriate education could occur only in so-called inclusive settings, that disability of any kind carried the same implications for education as other differences (e.g., color, parentage, social status, national origin, religion, and sexual preference; see Kauffman & Landrum, 2009), and that all students, regardless of ability, could be taught appropriately in the same venue (see Kauffman & Badar, 2014; Kauffman & Hallahan, 2005a, 2005b).
Considerable misunderstanding of special education law, special education as a social project, and the continuing need for special education still exists in the USA and, perhaps, many other nations of the world (Kauffman, 2015; Kauffman & Badar, 2014; Kauffman & Hallahan, 2005a). Many issues about disability, the law, and the implications of disability for schooling remain controversial (see Hallahan et al., 2012).
Finally, we note that although giftedness (extraordinarily advanced abilities) has been recognized as an exceptionality for over a century in the USA, current federal legislation (IDEA) does not include any provision for gifted students unless they also have a disability. In that case, it is disability, not giftedness, that makes the student eligible for special education. Most students with disabilities do not also have abilities resulting in their classification as gifted. Thus, “twice exceptional” students, as those with a combination of disabilities and giftedness are sometimes called, are a relative rarity.
For about four decades after enactment of PL 94-142 in 1975, the number and percentage of students receiving special education school-aged (ages 6–21 years) increased. However, special education participation peaked in the 2004–2005 school year, when students with disabilities comprised 13.8 percent of all students (Scull & Winkler, 2011). Since 2005, the numbers and percentages have steadily declined, with the most recently reported federal child count data indicating that approximately 8.5 percent of the school-age population receives special education (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
The drop in special education enrollment after 2005 appears to be primarily attributable to a decrease in the numbers of students identified in the high-incidence (i.e., most often identified) disability categories of LD, ED, and ID. LD identification fell from a high of around 4.4 percent (ages 6–21) in 2000 to just over 3.4 percent in 2010. Students identified as having ID decreased from approximately 2.2 percent to 0.8 percent of all students. Identification of ED has also declined, and in recent years has been well under 1.0 percent of the school population, although prevalence estimates based on mental health surveys are at least five times higher (Forness, Freeman, Paparella, Kauffman, & Walker, 2012). The decrease in ED identification is particularly worrisome, as students with ED have historically been under-identified and under-served in special education (Forness et al., 2012; Kauffman, Mock, & Simpson, 2009).
Counter to the decline of high-incidence disabilities sharp increases occurred in the prevalence of students with autism. The number of students with autism has risen steadily and at an accelerated rate, more than quadrupling from 1.5 to 7 percent of the total special education population and constituting 0.8 percent of the total student population. Similarly, the number of OHI students more than doubled from 4.8 percent in 1999–2000 to 10.6 percent of the special education population, constituting about 2.0 percent of the total student population. The sharp increase in OHI enrollment is attributable to the fact that, in 1999, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) were added to the list of conditions under OHI in IDEA. Prior to 1999, many of these students with autism and OHI potentially were identified under the LD category (Cortiella, 2011). The prevalence of developmental delay, often considered a general disability category for younger students (3–5 or 3–9 years of age) increased from 0.4 percent 1999–2000 to 0.7 percent of all students. The remaining disability types, comprising a small fraction of the total number of students with disabilities, have remained relatively stable or decreased only slightly from the time of their categorical formalization.
Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to provide a review of potential causes for the shifting prevalence of specific disability categories, researchers have provided some important hypotheses regarding the declines in high-incidence, as well as the declines in overall prevalence of students with disabilities enrolled in special education. One hypothesis is that identification practices for special education have improved, resulting in a decrease of “false positives” (students identified for special education who do not need such services). An alternative hypothesis is that schools in the United States are practicing better prevention of learning and behavior problems, thus reducing the number of students requiring special education (Cortiella, 2011). Still another possibility is that economic pressures (i.e., decreases in federal and state funds for public schools), perhaps in combination with persistent claims by some that special education is unnecessary, wasteful, or even harmful, have contributed to fewer students being identified for services (see Kauffman, 2009; Samuels, 2010; Zirkel, 2013).
In addition to the lack of recognition of factors that contribute causally to trends in growth or decline of disabilities, many issues cloud the accurate identification of students with disabilities and thus contribute to potentially unreliable estimates of prevalence for the various disabilities. Specifically, minority, as well as gender and socio-economic disproportionality (i.e., over-identification and/or under-identification) continue to plague special education (e.g., Coutinho, Oswald, & Best, 2002; Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Simmons, Feggins, & Chung, 2005; Wiley, Brigham, Kauffman, & Bogan, 2013). Under the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, the U.S. Department of Education placed an increased emphasis on addressing the challenge of disproportionate representation of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in special education. These difficulties continue, however, due to a variety of potential issues including flawed assessment practices or inadequate instruction (Skiba, Middelberg, & McClain, 2014; Skiba et al., 2008).
Until the federal law now known as IDEA was enacted in 1975, special education was left to state or local governments for all exceptionalities (see Martin, 2013). The law has been renamed and revised several times since 1975, with the most recent revision as of this writing being in 2004, which is sometimes referred to as Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA, but IDEA, or IDEA, 2004, is nevertheless used to refer to the federal law in general; see Huefner, 2006; Yell, 2012). The federal law was enacted primarily because of the demands of parents of children with disabilities. IDEA requires both appropriate education and related services such as transportation and physical therapy. Parents must also have the opportunity to be involved in decisions about their children’s special education. Free appropriate public education (FAPE) remains the central requirement of the law, but supplementary and transition services are required as well. Related federal law extends services to preschool children.
Only the central requirements of IDEA are mentioned here, as the legislation and the regulations related to it are quite detailed. Moreover, IDEA is not the only law addressing disabilities and special education. In general, the trend in all federal legislation related to education in the USA is to include students with disabilities in general education as much as possible. Until this century, students receiving special education often were not expected to take state-mandated tests, so their progress often could not be compared to that of students without disabilities. Now, most students with disabilities must take the same tests as their nondisabled peers. Proponents of this requirement argue that most students with disabilities who receive appropriate instruction should be expected to pass the same tests as nondisabled students. People who question this expectation point out that it is unreasonable and unfair, and that although students with disabilities should be expected to achieve all they can, the average for those with disabilities will always be lower than the average for those without disabilities, even if both groups receive the best possible instruction (see Kauffman, 2010, 2011).
Much controversy has accompanied trends in legislation and litigation, and some would like to see the law changed or interpreted to correspond to their views. Since the 1970s, an increasingly popular argument is that general and special education should be merged, such that the differences between them become increasingly imperceptible. A common suggestion has been that general and special education should not be separate but a single system serving all students. People who question the demand for a single, integrated system point out that special and general education are both part of public education and, therefore, already are part of a single system of education in the USA. They argue that any effective subpart of a system must have its own identity, authority, budget, and personnel. This is true in government generally (e.g., a government department is not merged with another if it is believed to be very important and has a unique mission). Special education must have these (identity, authority, budget, and personnel) if it is to have integrity, just as various other subunits of the public schools must have them (e.g., athletics and music; see Kauffman & Hallahan, 1993; Singer, 1988).
Another decade-old line of argument is that special education should develop and give to general education those ways of working with exceptional children that have been found successful, such that special education will gradually become superfluous (i.e., “work itself out of business”). Those questioning this have pointed out that the realities of mathematics preclude the elimination of low achievement and that special education will always be necessary to serve the extremes, regardless of how good general education becomes (see Kauffman, 2010; Kauffman & Hallahan, 2005a; Kauffman & Landrum, 2007; Kauffman & Lloyd, 2011).
A popular idea of the late 20th and early 21st centuries is that general and special education teachers should work together, should collaborate and consult with each other to discover what is best for the student or co-teach classes in which some of the students have disabilities and the general education curriculum is taught. Access to the general education curriculum is thought to be the key idea. Although collaboration, consultation, and co-teaching capture the imagination of many, research has not shown that these are better than instruction from a special education teacher in meeting the special needs of exceptional children. Those who question collaboration, consulting, and co-teaching of the general education curriculum point to the necessity of individualized, focused, intensive, persistent, and specialized instruction that only a well-trained special education teacher can provide, arguing that students with disabilities need the heart of special education – special instruction, and not just be in the general education curriculum (Kauffman & Badar, 2014; Zigmond, 2007; Zigmond & Kloo, 2011; see also other chapters in section III of Kauffman & Hallahan, 2011).
Trends in legislation, regulation, and litigation in the USA since 1975 have been more interpretative than legal or substantive. The core requirements of the initial legislation (Public Law 94-142) remain in IDEIA. FAPE is the centerpiece; IEPs are required; and placement in the LRE after consideration of the CAP remain legal requirements (see Bateman, 2011; Bateman & Linden, 2006). It is illegal under IDEA for any school to eliminate any option in the CAP. Someone who states or intimates – for whatever reason – that their schools simply do not support placement in one of the options in the CAP violates both the letter and the spirit or intent of IDEA (see Yell, 2012 and Section II of Kauffman & Hallahan, 2011).
Mandates such as IDEA (2004) have prompted schools to embrace proactive approaches to preventing and reducing educational risk (academic, behavioral, or social). Multi-tiered models of education are currently used to identify students for targeted academic (Response to Intervention [RtI], Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006) and behavioral (School-Wide Positive Behavior Support [SWPBS], Sugai & Horner, 2002) interventions. A Comprehensive, integrated, three-tiered model of support (CI3T; Lane, Kalberg, & Menzies, 2009) is another comprehensive model that blends the RtI and SWPBS framework and incorporates a social skills component. Multi-tiered models (e.g., RtI, SWPBS, and CI3T) have similar structures. Specifically, each model strives to provide every student (regardless if they are eligible for special education) with scientifically based instruction (O’Connor & Sanchez, 2011), whether it is academic or social/behavioral instruction, making sure all students have every opportunity to learn.
In addition to ensuring that effective instruction is provided, another common component of multi-tiered models is reliable detection of at-risk students through systematic screenings. Once identified, students are provided with small-group or targeted interventions (for children birth through age three this is called early intervention). Thus these models offer a continuum of support that increases in intensity in response to the individual student’s need. Student progress is monitored consistently throughout the process to determine the interventions’ effectiveness. For some students the targeted interventions (Tier II and Tier III) remediate learning or social-behavioral needs. If adequate progress is not made, a student could be referred for a special education evaluation to determine whether he or she qualifies for special education services. Students with disabilities receive special education services when their disability affects their ability to learn and they require specialized instruction. Once a student is found eligible for special education under the guidelines set forth in IDEA (2004), educators work with the parents to develop a plan. Children under three years of age typically receive an individualized family service plan (IFSP). School-aged students receive an IEP. In addition to an IEP, adolescents with disabilities receive a transition plan to help prepare them for adulthood.
Infants and toddlers in the USA who are identified as having a disability are legally required to receive early intervention services through an IFSP. Early intervention reduces the number of children who require special education later in life by improved developmental functioning (Guralnick, 1997, 1998). Services include medical diagnosis, special education, applied behavior analysis, speech language therapy, and physical therapy (Hallahan et al., 2012). The IFSP also requires that the child’s family participate in developing the plan with the care manager and service providers. The IFSP outlines the child’s present level of development along with family factors related to the child’s development such as strengths, resources, concerns, and priorities. Expected outcomes, service delivery information, and the steps to transition the child to preschool are also noted in the IFSP (Hallahan et al., 2012). Once children transition to preschool, they are to be reassessed for special education eligibility.
It is common for children with disabilities starting at age three to receive interventions, services, accommodations, necessary assistive technologies and supports that are prescribed in their IEP. The IEP goals are developed by a team that often includes the following members: the student with the disability (when appropriate), the parents of the student with a disability, teachers (both special and general education teachers), a representative from the local education agency, an individual who can interpret evaluation results, and other individuals who have expertise regarding the child, such as a speech-language pathologist or occupational therapist (Hallahan et al., 2012). The team works together to develop annual goals for the student in his or her deficit area(s). These goals contain information regarding the instructional approach, accommodations, and assistive technology required for the student to meet the goals. Examples of assistive technology include low-tech devices (e.g., calculators, graph paper, and spell-checkers) and high-tech devices (e.g., assistive communication devices and Kurzweil readers; see Bausch & Ault, 2008; Berekely & Lindstrom, 2011 for additional information). The specific intervention domains, along with secondary transition plans, featured in the IEP depend on the student’s need and age level and may include interventions in academic, behavior, and social skills domains.
Techniques for teaching students with high-incidence (e.g., SLD) and low-incidence (e.g., autism) disabilities include using explicit instruction (Brophy & Good, 1986). For example, Direct Instruction (DI) is a research-supported program that provides students with explicit and systematic instruction (Adams & Engelmann, 1996; Becker & Carnine, 1981). Stein, Carnine, and Dixon (1998) described the model as an “integration of effective teaching practices with curriculum design” (p. 227). These design features (e.g., organization of instructional content; teaching of explicit, generalizable strategies; scaffolded instruction, skills and concepts integration; and providing a review of material) have been studied and tested to ensure that learners master a skill (Carnine, 1980; Engelmann, 1979; Gersten, White, Falco, & Carnine, 1982). Engelmann (1970) identified DI as an effective intervention for students at risk; research continues to build on Engelmann’s foundational work. DI has been effective for students with autism (Flores & Ganz, 2007; Ganz & Flores, 2009), LD (Glover, McLaughlin, Derby, & Gower, 2010), and ID (Horner & Albin, 1988) as well as English Language Learners (Viel-Ruma, Houchins, Jolivette, Fredrick, & Gama, 2010). It has been effective in general education classrooms (Kamps et al., 2008), special education settings (Miao, Darch, & Rabren, 2002), and in the community (Horner & Albin, 1988). Other common research-based academic interventions for students with high and low-incidence disabilities include explicit instruction in math (Kroesbergen & Van Luit, 2003), repeated readings to promote oral reading fluency (Rasinski, 1990), and self-regulated strategy development (Harris, Graham, Mason, & Friedlander, 2008) for persuasive and narrative writing (Ennis & Jolivette, 2014; Lane et al., 2011).
In the USA, schools also address student behavior when it impedes their learning or the learning of peers. One way to mitigate the challenging behavior is through proactive behavioral interventions such as the use of Functional Behavior Assessments (FBA) and Functional Assessment-Based Interventions (FABI; Umbreit, Ferro, Liaupsin, & Lane, 2007), which is based in applied behavior analysis. FBAs can also be used to identify and address skill and performance deficits (Umbreit et al., 2007). Unlike traditional assessments that use norm-based criteria to determine behavioral deficits, an FBA evaluates the student within a setting using multiple methods to hone in on the student’s target behavior(s). In addition, norm-referenced interventions typically are based on the behavior’s topography (what the behavior looks like) instead of on the behavior’s function (why the it occurs). Targeted function-based interventions (FABIs) can teach replacement behaviors and adjust contingencies to set the stage for a replacement behavior (Umbreit et al., 2007). However, current special education law does not specify the procedures that should be employed when developing a FABI. Moreover, neither Congress nor the Department of Education delineates what components should be included in a FABI. This poses a threat to the integrity of the programs that are being developed and implemented for all students, including those with EBD. Consequently, studies have identified vast differences between conducting an FBA and implementing a FABI (Blood & Neel, 2007; Conroy, Alter, & Scott, 2009; Gable, 1999; Scott, McIntyre, Liaupsin, Nelson, & Conroy, 2004). Katsiyannis, Conroy, and Zharg (2008) argue that researchers and practitioners lack consensus on this important topic.
However, FBAs have long been a practical and efficient means of enacting meaningful changes in problem behaviors across diverse individuals and settings (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968, 1987). Historically, function-based assessment and interventions have largely been restricted to individuals with severe disabilities and primarily in clinical settings (Dunlap, Kern-Dunlap, Clarke, & Robbins, 1991; Sasso, Conroy, Stichter, & Fox, 2001). In recent years, they have been shown to be effective for students with diverse demographic backgrounds and across a range of target behaviors, disability categories, and academic placements. For example, function-based interventions have been used with students who have ADHD (Ervin, DuPaul, Kern, & Friman, 1998) and students at risk for EBD (Lewis & Sugai, 1996). Further, studies have shown the effectiveness of FBA in self-contained classrooms (Kern, Dunlap, Clarke, & Childs, 1994; Umbreit & Blair, 1997), general education classrooms (Umbreit, Lane, & Dejud, 2004), and job-share classrooms (Lane et al., 2009).
Good social skills are critical to success both in school and later in life for students with disabilities. Social skills are a group of behaviors that allow students to: (a) initiate and maintain positive social relationships, (b) contribute to peer acceptance and to a satisfactory school adjustment, and (c) cope effectively and adaptively with large social environments (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). This also includes nonverbal communication, including gestures and affect. These nonverbal skills may include imitative behavior, turn-taking, and appropriate body language (Brown, Odom, & McConnell, 2008). Students with positive social and communication skills have been shown to be more successful academically (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura, & Zimbardo, 2000). Moreover, research suggests that students with poor social skills have a difficult time forming and maintaining relationships and have lower academic achievement (Caprara et al., 2000; Lane, Menzies, Oakes, & Kalberg, 2012). This could be due to a lack of skills or knowledge of how to produce the behavior, which signals a skill deficit. On the contrary a student could possess the skill but they lack the motivation to produce the socially appropriate behavior, which signals a performance deficit.
One framework with a growing evidence base is Social and Emotional Learning programs (SEL; Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2003; Elias et al., 1997). SEL promotes social-emotional development through self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making through teaching students skills that help them (Mart, Dusenbury, & Weissberg, 2011). This occurs when social and emotional skills are explicitly taught in a caring environment that provides opportunities for students to practice the skills (Collaborative for Academic Social, and Emotional Learning, 2003; Mart et al., 2011). SEL has proven to help students across the K-12 continuum demonstrate the following outcomes: superior academic performance, improved attitudes and behaviors, fewer negative behaviors, and decreased emotional stress (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011).
By the time students are 16 years old, schools are required to add a transition section to a student’s IEP (this section can also be added earlier based on the student’s need). The purpose is to support a successful transition of students with disabilities to postsecondary education, independent living, employment, and community engagement (Hallahan et al., 2012). Postsecondary goals are derived from age-appropriate assessments and may be related to education, training, employment, and independent living skills, when they are appropriate for the student (Hallahan et al., 2012; IDEA, 2004). In addition to postsecondary goals, the IEP must outline transition services that are required to facilitate the student meeting those goals. These services may include academic courses, training, or independent living skills (Madaus, Banerjee, & Merchant, 2011). In addition, promoting self-determination is critical for a successful transition to postsecondary education (Fielder & Danneker, 2007).
As students prepare for the transition to adulthood, self-determination is considered one of the most critical skills. Self-determination was described by Field, Martin, Miller, Ward, and Wehmeyer (1998) as:
a combination of skills, knowledge, and beliefs that enable a person to engage in goal-directed, self-regulated, autonomous behavior. An understanding of one’s strengths and limitations together with a belief in oneself as capable and effective, are essential. When acting on the basis of these skills and attitudes, individuals have greater ability to take control of their lives and assume the role of successful adults. (p. 2)
Self-determination has been highlighted in the IDEA (2004) and in research. Carter, Lane, Pierson, and Glaeser (2006) noted that self-determination may improve secondary student outcomes, such as academic performance (Martin et al., 2003), employability (Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003), independence (Sowers & Powers, 1995), and quality of life (Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997). For additional information on self-determination research see Carter, Lane, Crnobori, Bruhn, and Oakes (2011).
Parent involvement in special education is legally mandated in the United States and is considered critical to meeting the educational needs of students with disabilities. Parents and families are viewed as equal partners with the schools in making important educational decisions and supporting positive educational and developmental outcomes (Turnbull, Turnbull, Erwin, Soodak, & Shogren, 2011). Before IDEA, parents were typically viewed as lacking the professional training necessary to participate in decision-making related to special education services for their own children (Yell, Rogers, & Rogers, 1998). Both the spirit and the letter of IDEA make it clear that parents and families are to be full and equal partners in all decision-making aspects of the special education process (Shepherd, Giangreco, & Cook, 2013). This does not mean that parents actually teach their children in school. Rather, it means that parents are allowed and encouraged to contribute as members of the IEP team to the development, implementation, and monitoring of special education services (Christle & Yell, 2012).
There are two major reasons for the emphasis on parent participation in special education. The first is the role for parents envisioned by IDEA. Many provisions of IDEA are based on the assumption that parents are best suited to advocate for their children’s education, and to hold schools accountable for providing timely and appropriate services. In this regard, IDEA grants considerable power to parents. Parental consent is required for many aspects of the special education process, and parents have a right to impartial due process if they disagree with school actions or decisions. The main vehicle for parent involvement in their child’s special education is through the various stages of the IEP process (e.g., eligibility; goal-setting; developing and evaluating the effectiveness of the IEP; see Bateman & Linden, 2006).
The second major reason for the emphasis on parent and family participation is substantial research indicating that active, meaningful parent involvement can enhance educational outcomes for students with disabilities (Turnbull et al., 2011). Parents and family members can provide the school and the IEP team with information and insights that are essential for developing effective IEPs, and they can support the educational progress of the student in numerous other ways. Building on the parent participation principle in IDEA, some special education researchers and advocates have called for even greater family participation in providing special education to students with disabilities (Shepherd et al., 2013). Family-centered approaches place family’s needs and wants at the center of special education (Bruder, 2000) and work to incorporate family involvement beyond the IEP process.
Unfortunately, the vision of active parent participation leading to better services and more positive student outcomes does not always reflect what actually happens in schools. It is important to note that parents differ in their desire to play an active role in their child’s education. Some parents wish to be fully involved, while other parents want to be less involved, and schools are expected to honor and accommodate these differences among parents (Bruder, 2000). When parents do wish to participate in their child’s special education, several barriers can hinder active and productive family–school partnerships For example, family members may feel unprepared to participate, can be intimidated by schools and educational jargon, and may have difficulty expressing their ideas and desires in formal meetings (Turnbull et al., 2011). Language and cultural differences can also inhibit effective collaboration between families and schools (Harry, 2008). Furthermore, educator attitudes can be barriers to parent participation and involvement. Despite legal requirements, some educators continue to believe that parents should not play an active role in special education decision-making (Gerber, Banbury, Miller, & Griffin, 1986). Finally, IEP teams may lack the skills, tools, and knowledge needed to initiate, build, and sustain productive family–school partnerships (Turnbull et al., 2011). Overcoming barriers to parent participation requires thoughtful and deliberate action by both schools and families.
Numerous strategies exist for improving collaboration between families and schools. Shepherd et al. (2013) overview several approaches that have at least some research support for their effectiveness. One example is COACH, which stands for Choosing Outcomes and Accommodations for Children (Giangreco, Cloninger, & Iverson, 2011). COACH provides a collaborative decision-making framework for families and schools that enables families to make informed decisions and helps all stakeholders develop IEPs for students with severe disabilities. Through a structured interview process, families and schools identify high priority instructional goals and develop an educational plan for pursuing those goals. Shepherd and colleagues describe several other practices and strategies for encouraging and enabling meaningful collaboration between schools and the families of students with disabilities.
Students with disabilities in the USA are sometimes instructed by both general education teachers and special education teachers (SETs). The two groups of teachers are often expected to share the responsibility of educating students with disabilities (Hallahan et al., 2012). Their joint responsibilities should include: (a) providing evidenced-based instruction that is differentiated to meet the individual student’s needs, (b) assessing student performance across academic areas, (c) documenting intervention efforts prior to referring for special education, (d) participating in special education eligibility meetings, (e) participating in the development of the IEP, (f) communicating with parents during an evaluation process, (g) attending due process hearings if a family is dissatisfied with the school, and (h) collaborating with each other and other professionals (Hallahan et al., 2012). In addition to the previously stated joint responsibilities, Hallahan and colleagues (2012) outlined additional responsibilities for SETs, who are expected to: (a) provide direct instruction to students with disabilities, (b) address behavior problems, (c) evaluate and integrate technology to support students with disabilities, and (d) have a firm understanding of special education law. SETs gain these skills through traditional and alternative certification programs.
In the USA, teacher licensure rules and regulations vary by state. It is common for states to require SETs to complete a state-approved educator program. Accreditation programs such as the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) help establish high-quality teacher preparation programs. There are currently 656 accredited programs in the USA. Together with the Council for Exceptional Children (the USA’s largest special education advocacy group), NCATE outlined standards that are designed to unify the coursework and experiences (e.g., semester long student teaching placement) across the accredited institutions. NCATE/CEC (2002) emphasize that SETs have an understanding of special education history, law, evidenced-based practices, and procedures. SETs typically possess an understanding the characteristics of learners, understanding of curriculum content and goals, and an understanding of and skills for teaching in addition to completing a supervised student teaching (Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, 2005). In addition to completing an accredited program, the SET must hold a bachelor’s degree in education to teach at a public school and complete a series of teaching exams.
In the 1980s, there was a decline in the number of candidates completing traditional teaching programs. Researchers reported a need for 74,000 teachers across the country (Boe, Sunderland, & Cook, 2006; Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Mills, 2011). Moreover 98 percent of schools reported a shortage of SETs (ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, 2001). This shortage of teachers was addressed through alternative teacher certification programs along with provisional and emergency licenses (Mastropieri et al., 2011). These programs recruit individuals who already have a bachelor’s degree but lack the education courses and experience required for certification. The alternative certification teachers (ACTs) complete an intensive teacher training, often during the summer, prior to fall school year. Examples of training topics include teaching methods, classroom management, and child development. Throughout the school year the ACTs participate in on-going professional development and receive coaching from a mentor teacher with special education experience. During this time ACTs may also enroll in graduate school to earn a master’s degree in education.
In the USA, laws specify that “highly qualified” teachers are defined as demonstrating mastery in all subjects they teach (Mastropieri et al., 2011). Both traditional teachers and alternative certification teachers must complete the state licensure. In order to be licensed applicants must hold a bachelor’s degree, complete the necessary coursework (or be enrolled in an alternative certification program), pass the state exams, and apply for a teaching license through the state’s Department of Education.
Teaching licenses are issued for a specific period of time and must be renewed. Teachers must demonstrate that they are engaging in professional development by earning continuing education units (CEUs). Attending educational workshops and enrolling in a graduate level course could count as CEUs. Each state has different renewal periods and requirements.
If an applicant moves to another state, he or she may apply for reciprocity, which is the process of the new state acknowledging the previous state’s teaching license. The teacher must review the requirements for the new state and submit a formal application to have the license transferred. However, reciprocity does not guarantee that the license will be recognized.
The most significant progress has depended on the foundational, legal guarantee that IDEA makes to students with disabilities and their families to provide a FAPE in the LRE. Before IDEA, the vast majority of students with disabilities were denied the right to an education, and in fact many states had laws that expressly forbade students with certain disabilities from attending public schools. For the few attending public schools, the instruction and related services were often inadequate (Gerber, 2011). We highlight three areas in which significant change has occurred in (a) inclusion of students with disabilities in general education, (b) evidence-based instructional practices, and (c) early childhood education and transition. Much of this change has depended on federal subsidies. Whether the change represents progress is an open question in particular instances.
The expectation that all students attend school and that students with disabilities receive special education in their LRE highlighted issues surrounding special classes and schools for students with disabilities and the need for closer working relationships between general and special educators. According to IDEA, educating students in special classes should only occur when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in general classes, with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be satisfactorily achieved.
Interpretations vary regarding the legal determination of the LRE for students with disabilities, but there is little doubt that the law has led to their greater inclusion in the regular education classroom. During the last 30 years there has been a dramatic decrease in the percentage of students with disabilities who are served in separate educational environments. Today, over 95 percent of students with disabilities are educated in their local neighborhood schools, and over 55 percent of these students spend 80 percent or more of their school day in general education classrooms, with another 24 percent spending 40–79 percent of the day in general education classrooms (see McLeskey, Landers, Williamson, & Hoppey, 2012; West & Whitby, 2008). Many will automatically view this trend toward inclusion in neighborhood schools and general education classrooms as progress. However, without additional information about the appropriateness and effectiveness of services, it is impossible to say whether, and for whom, a change from one educational environment to another represents improvement (Kauffman & Badar, 2014; Zigmond & Kloo, 2011; Zigmond & Volonino, 2009).
There is growing emphasis on identifying and using evidence-based educational practices. Federal mandates (e.g., IDEA, 2004) support the idea that the academic and behavioral interventions should be supported by sound scientific research documenting their effectiveness. Practices that meet a threshold of support from high-quality research studies are referred to as evidence-based practices.
There are numerous challenges associated with identifying and implementing evidence-based practices in special education; however, the increased focus on scientific evidence (as opposed to popular opinion, ideology, or other non-scientific sources of information) as the primary basis for educating students with disabilities represents progress and has the potential to greatly improve services and outcomes for students with disabilities (see Cook & Odom, 2013; Cook & Tankersley, 2013; Walker & Gresham, 2014).
Progress has also been made in the areas of early intervention and early childhood special education, as well as at the other end of the childhood-age continuum with stipulation of and improvements in transition services (i.e., preparing students with disabilities for life after school). In 1986, IDEA was extended to require special education services for children with disabilities ages 3–5 years old, with additional incentives for states to develop and implement early intervention programs for infants with disabilities from birth to 36 months. Early childhood special education includes not only services available to students with known disabilities but those children judged to be at risk for poor developmental outcomes (Ramey & Ramey, 1998). Whether due to the inclusion of students determined to be “at-risk” for poor development or other reasons, the number of children ages birth to five receiving early childhood special education, either at home or in preschool, increased dramatically after 1995 (Diamond, Justice, Siegler, & Snyder, 2013). For approximately 16 percent of these children, early intervention served as successful primary prevention (i.e., their functioning improved to the point that they no longer needed services). Features of early childhood education, including qualities of teacher–student relationships, peer experiences, and instructional foci and use of specific instructional strategies continue to be critically associated with positive outcomes of children with disabilities (e.g., Mashburn & Pianta, 2010).
Transition services have also improved for students with disabilities, in large part because of amendments to IDEA and related research initiatives to develop more effective transition programs. An important advance in transition services has been preparing students with disabilities (particularly students with moderate to severe disabilities) for supported competitive employment (as opposed to working in special or “sheltered” work environments; Wehman, 2012). From 1987 to 2005, the percentage of students with disabilities enrolled in postsecondary education increased from 14 percent to almost 32 percent, and some indicators suggest positive trends in post-school employment (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Post-school outcomes and quality of life indicators vary widely for different disability groups (Newman et al., 2011) and, despite significant advances in transition services, it is clear that there is need for more effective approaches.
Precisely what will become of special education in the USA in the coming decades is unknown. In part, what happens will depend on how the differences we call disabilities are perceived, whether they are related to education in ways that other differences (e.g., height, weight, wealth, color, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation) are not. In part, what happens will depend on economic and political circumstances – whether the public finds it appropriate to spend the money necessary to fund special education for given groups of students. In part, what happens will depend on public notions of fairness and social justice and on how disabilities are viewed philosophically (see Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2011, 2012, 2013).
One possibility is the obliteration of public special education under the assumption that it will be an invisible service subsumed completely under general education. This scenario seems most likely if it is assumed that whatever is good for students in general is good for all students regardless of their differences, that all students should receive the same instruction (or at least not instruction labeled special education or not provided in settings other than general education classrooms), and that all students should have the same academic goals and meet the same academic standards.
A second possibility is that special education will be offered only to those with the most obvious and severe disabilities, simply because these students so clearly cannot be expected to meet the same expectations as average students. This scenario seems most likely if it becomes politically infeasible to fund special education for a substantial percentage of the school-age population and funding is thought feasible for only the most extreme cases.
A third possibility is that special education will be seen as a good idea that needs to be maintained at its current level but improved. This scenario seems most likely if instruction becomes the central focus of special education and its teachers are trained to use practices based on sound scientific evidence after having been successful teachers in general education (see Kauffman, 2011; Kauffman & Landrum, 2007).
Special education in the USA faces unusual if not unique challenges in coming decades. One of the clearest challenges is providing special education fairly to a student population that is extraordinarily diverse. Another is fitting special education into an education system that has no clearly defined national curriculum and that for the most part is left to the control of extremely diverse states and localities. Still another is the argument that special education is broken, often ineffective and undesirable, a second-rate, stigmatizing, and wasteful way of dealing with difference. Because no way of dealing with the differences we call disabilities in schooling is flawless, educators will be greatly tempted to abandon special education as conceptualized in IDEA for a newer but equally flawed concept. Finally, special education may face the same challenges as other social welfare programs of government, the charge that it was a misguided attempt to address intransigent social problems through federal over reach and largess.
Adams, G. L., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research in direct instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: Educational Achievement Systems.
Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2011). A social constructionist approach to disability: Implications for special education. Exceptional Children, 77, 367–384.
Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2012). Disability as cultural difference: Implications for special education. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 139–149.
Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2013). The social model of disability: Dichotomy between impairment and disability. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 38, 441–459.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1987). Some still-current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 313–327.
Bateman, B. D. (2011). Individual education programs for children with disabilities. In and J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 91–106). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Bateman, B. D., & Linden, M. A. (2006). Better IEPs: How to develop legally correct and educationally useful programs (4th ed.). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Bausch, M. E., & Ault, M. J. (2008). Assistive technology implementation plan: A tool for improving outcomes. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41, 5–14.
Becker, W. C., & Carnine, D. W. (1981). Direct instruction: A behavior theory model for comprehensive intervention with the disadvantaged. In and S. W. Bijou & R. Ruiz (Eds.), Behavior modification: Contributions to education (pp. 145–210). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berekely, S., & Lindstrom, J. H. (2011). Technology for the struggling reader: Free and easily accessible resources. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43, 48–55.
Blood, E., & Neel, R. S. (2007). From FBA to implementation: A look at what is actually being delivered. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(4), 67–80.
Boe, E. E., Sunderland, B., & Cook, L. (2006, November). Special education teachers: Supply and demand. Paper presented at the meeting of the Teacher Education Division of the Council of Exceptional Children, San Diego, CA.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In and M. C. Whittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Brown, W. H., Odom, S. L., & McConnell, S. R. (2008). Social competence of young children: Risk, disability, and evidenced-based practices (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Bruder, M. B. (2000). Family-centered early intervention: Clarifying our values for the new millennium. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20, 105–116.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2000). Prosocial foundations of children’s academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11, 302–306.
Carnine, D. (1980). Relationships between stimulus variation and the formation of misconceptions. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 106–110.
Carter, E., Lane, K. L., Pierson, M., & Glaeser, B. (2006). Self-determination skills and opportunities of transition-age youth with emotional disturbances and learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 333–346.
Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., Crnobori, M. E., Bruhn, A. L., & Oakes, W. P. (2011). Self-determination interventions for students with and at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders: Mapping the knowledge base. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 100–116.
Christle, C. A., & Yell, M. L. (2012). Individualized education programs: Legal requirements and research findings. Exceptionality, 18(3), 109–123.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2003). Safe and sound: An educational leader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning programs. Chicago, IL: Author.
Conroy, M. A., Alter, P. J., & Scott, T. M. (2009). Functional behavior assessment and students with emotional/behavioral disorders: When research, policy, and practice collide. In and T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Policy and practice (Vol. 22, pp. 133–167). Advances in Learning and Behavior Disabilities. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79, 135–144.
Cook, B. G., & Tankersley, M. G. (Eds.). (2013). Research-based practices in special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Cortiella, C. (2011). The state of learning disabilities. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
Coutinho, M. J., Oswald, D. P., & Best, A. M. (2002). The influence of socio-demographics and gender on the disproportionate identification of minority students as learning disabled. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 49–59.
Crockett, J. B., & Kauffman, J. M. (1999). The least restrictive environment: Its origins and interpretations in special education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (Eds.). (2005). A good teacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Diamond, K. E., Justice, L. M., Siegler, R. S., & Snyder, P. A. (2013). Synthesis of IES research on early intervention and early childhood education (NCSER 2013–3001). Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.
Dunlap, G., Kern-Dunlap, L., Clarke, S., & Robbins, F. R. (1991). Functional assessment, curricular revision, and severe behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 387–397.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432.
Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M. … Shriver, T. P. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Engelmann, S. (1970). The effectiveness of direct instruction on IQ performance and achievement in reading and arithmetic. In and Helmuth, J. (Ed.), Compensatory education: A national debate. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel Publishers.
Engelmann, S. (1979). Theory of mastery and acceleration. In and J. W. Lloyd, E. J. Kameenui, & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 177–195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ennis, R. P., & Jolivette, K. (2014). Existing research and future directions for self-regulated strategy development with students with and at-risk for E/BD. Journal of Special Education, 48, 32–45.
ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (2001). Educating exceptional children: A statistical profile. Arlington, CA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
Ervin, R. A., DuPaul, G. J., Kern, L., & Friman, P. C. (1998). Classroom-based functional and adjunctive assessments: Proactive approaches to intervention selection for adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 65–78.
Field, S. S., Martin, J. E., Miller, R. J., Ward, M., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (1998). Self-determination in secondary transition assessment. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 181–190.
Fielder, C. R., & Danneker, J. E. (2007). Self-advocacy instruction: Bridging the research to practice gap. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(8), 1–20.
Flores, M. M., & Ganz, J. B. (2007). Effectiveness of direct instruction for teaching statement inference, use of facts, and analogies to students with developmental disabilities and reading delays. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 224–251.
Forness, S. R., Freeman, S. F. N., Paparella, T., Kauffman, J. M., & Walker, H. M. (2012). Special education implications of point and cumulative prevalence for children with emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 20, 1–14.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to responsiveness-to-intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 92–99.
Gable, R. A. (1999). Functional assessment in school settings. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 246–248.
Ganz, J. B., & Flores, M. M. (2009). The effectiveness of direct instruction for teaching language to children with autism spectrum disorders: Identifying materials. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 75–83.
Gerber, M. M. (2011). A history of special education. In and J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 3–14). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Gerber, P. J., Banbury, M. M., Miller, J. H., & Griffin, H. D. (1986). Special educators’ perceptions of parental participation in the individual education plan process. Psychology in the Schools, 23(2), 158–163.
Gersten, R. M., White, W. A., Falco, R., & Carnine, D. (1982). Teaching basic discriminations to handicapped and non-handicapped individuals through a dynamic presentation of instructional stimuli. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 305–317.
Giangreco, M. F., Cloninger, C. J., & Iverson, V. S. (2011). Choosing outcomes and accommodations for children (COACH): A guide to educational planning for students with disabilities (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Glover, P., McLaughlin, T., Derby, K., & Gower, J. (2010). Using a direct instruction flashcard system with two students with learning disabilities. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8, 457–472.
Guralnick, M. J. (Ed.). (1997). The effectiveness of early intervention. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Guralnick, M. J. (1998). Effectiveness of early intervention for vulnerable children: A developmental perspective. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 102, 319–345.
Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2012). Exceptional learners: An introduction to special education (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Hallahan, D. P., & Pullen, P. C. (2015). What is special education instruction? In and B. D. Bteman, J. W. Lloyd, & M. M. Tankersley (Eds.), Understanding special education issues: Who, where, what, when, how and why. New York, NY: Routledge.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse families: Ideal versus reality. Exceptional Children, 74, 372–388.
Horn, J. S. (1924). The education of exceptional children: A consideration of public school problems and policies in the field of differentiated education. New York, NY: Century.
Horner, R. H., & Albin, R. W. (1988). Research on general procedures for learners with severe disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 375–388.
Huefner, D. S. (2006). Getting comfortable with special education law: A framework for working with children with disabilities (2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. 20 U.S.C., 1415 et seq. (2004).
Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Wills, H., Veerkamp, M., & Kaufman, J. (2008). Effects of small-group reading instruction and curriculum differences for students most at risk in kindergarten two-year results for secondary- and tertiary-level interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 101–114.
Katsiyannis, A., Conroy, M., & Zharg, D. (2008). District-level administrators’ perspectives on implementation of functional behavior assessments in schools. Behavioral Disorders, 34, 14–26.
Kauffman, J. M. (1976). Nineteenth century views of children’s behavior disorders: Historical contributions and continuing issues. Journal of Special Education, 10, 335–349.
Kauffman, J. M. (1981). Introduction: Historical trends and contemporary issues in special education in the United States. In and J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 3–23). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kauffman, J. M. (2008). Special education. In and T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A reference handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 405–413). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kauffman, J. M. (2009). Attributions of malice to special education policy and practice. In and T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Policy and practice (Vol. 22, pp. 33–66). Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Kauffman, J. M. (2010). The tragicomedy of public education: Laughing and crying, thinking and fixing. Verona, WI: Attainment.
Kauffman, J. M. (2011). Toward a science of education: The battle between rogue and real science. Verona, WI: Attainment.
Kauffman, J. M. (2014). Past, present, and future in EBD and special education. In and B. G. Cook, M. Tankersley, & T. J. Landrum (Eds.), Special education past, present, and future: Perspectives from the field (Vol. 27, pp. 63–88). Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Kauffman, J. M. (2015). Why should we have special education? In and B. Bateman, J. Lloyd, & M. Tankersley (Eds.), Enduring issues in special education: Personal perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kauffman, J. M., & Badar, J. (2014). Instruction, not inclusion, should be the central issue in special education: An alternative view from the USA. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 17, 13–20.
Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (1993). Toward a comprehensive delivery system for special education. In and J. I. Goodlad & T. C. Lovitt (Eds.), Integrating general and special education (pp. 73–102). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan.
Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (2005a). Special education: What it is and why we need it. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). (2005b). The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of special education. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Kauffman, J. M., & Hung, L. Y. (2009). Special education for intellectual disability: Current trends and perspectives. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 22, 452–456.
Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2006). Children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders: A history of their education. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2007). Educational service interventions and reforms. In and J. W. Jacobson, J. A. Mulick, & J. Rojahn (Eds.), Handbook of intellectual and developmental disabilities (pp. 173–188). New York, NY: Springer.
Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2009). Politics, civil rights, and disproportional identification of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptionality, 17, 177–188.
Kauffman, J. M., & Lloyd, J. W. (2011). Statistics, data, and special education decisions: Basic links to realities. In and J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 27–36). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Kauffman, J. M., Mock, D. R., & Simpson, R. L. (2009). Problems related to underservice of students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 33, 43–57.
Kauffman, J. M., Nelson, C. M., Simpson, R. L., & Mock, D. R. (2011). Contemporary issues. In and J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 15–26). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Kauffman, J. M., Ward, D. M., & Badar, J. (in press). The delusion of full inclusion. In and R. M. Foxx & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Controversial therapies for autism and intellectual disabilities (2nd ed edn.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Kern, L., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Childs, K. E. (1994). Student-assisted functional assessment interview. Diagnostique, 19, 20–39.
Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special needs: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97–114.
Lane, K., Harris, K., Graham, S., Driscoll, S., Sandmel, K., Morphy, P., & Schatschneider, C. (2011). Self-Regulated strategy development at tier 2 for second-grade students with writing and behavioral difficulties: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 322–353.
Lane, K. L., Eisner, S. L., Kretzer, J. M., Bruhn, A. L., Crnobori, M. E., Funke, L. M. … Casey, A. M. (2009). Outcomes of functional assessment-based interventions for students with and at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders in a job-share setting. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 573–604.
Lane, K. L., Kalberg, J. R., & Menzies, H. M. (2009). Developing schoolwide programs to prevent and manage problem behaviors: A step-by-step approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lane, K. L., Menzies, H. M., Oakes, W. P., & Kalberg, J. R. (2012). Systematic screenings of behavior to support instruction: From preschool to high school. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lewis, T., & Sugai, G. (1996). Functional assessment of problem behavior: A pilot investigation on the comparative and interactive effects of teacher and peer social attention on students in general education settings. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 1–19.
Madaus, J. W., Banerjee, M., & Merchant, D. (2011). Transition to postsecondary education. In and J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 571–583). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Mart, A., Dusenbury, L., & Weissberg, R. P. (2011). Social, emotional, and academic learning: Complementary goals for school-family partnerships. In and S. Redding, M. Murphy, & P. Sheley (Eds.), Handbook of family and community engagement (pp. 38–42). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Martin, E. W. Jr. (2013). Breakthrough: Federal special education legislation 1965–1981. Sarasota, FL: Bardolf.
Martin, J. E., Mithaug, D. E., Cox, P., Peterson, L. Y., Van Dycke, J. L., & Cash, M. E. (2003). Increasing self-determination: Teaching students to plan, work, evaluate, and adjust. Exceptional Children, 69, 431–447.
Mashburn, A., & Pianta, R. (2010). Opportunity in early education: Improving teacher-child interactions and child outcomes. In and A. Reynolds, A. Rolnick, M. Englund, & J. Temple (Eds.), Childhood programs and practices in the first decade of life: A human capital integration (pp. 243–265). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Mills, S. (2011). Special education teacher preparation. In and J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 47–58). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2012). Are we moving toward educating student with disabilities in less restrictive settings? Journal of Special Education, 46, 131–140.
Miao, Y., Darch, C., & Rabren, K. (2002). Use of precorrection strategies to enhance reading performance of students with learning and behavior problems. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29, 162–174.
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A. M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., & Wei, X. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: A report from the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011–3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
O’Connor, R. E., & Sanchez, V. (2011). Responsiveness to intervention models for reducing reading disabilities and identifying learning disability. In and J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 123–133). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (1998). Early intervention and early experience. American Psychologist, 53, 109–120.
Rasinski, T. V. (1990). Effects of repeated reading and listening while reading on reading fluency. The Journal of Educational Research, 83, 147–150.
Samuels, C. A. (2010, September 15). Boom in learning-disabled enrollments ends. Education Week, 1–15.
Sarason, S. B., & Doris, J. (1979). Educational handicap, public policy, and social history. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Sasso, G. M., Conroy, M. A., Stichter, J. P., & Fox, J. J. (2001). Slowing down the bandwagon: The misapplication of functional assessment for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 282–296.
Scott, T. M., McIntyre, J., Liaupsin, C., Nelson, C. M., & Conroy, M. (2004). An examination of team-based functional behavior assessment in public school settings: Collaborative teams, experts, and technology. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 384–395.
Scull, J., & Winkler, A. (2011). Shifting trends in special education. Washington, DC: Thomas E. Fordham Institute.
Seguin, E. O. (1866). Idiocy and its treatment by the physiological method. New York, NY: W. Wood.
Shepherd, K. G., Giangreco, M. F., & Cook, B. G. (2013). Parent participation in assessment and in development of individualized education programs. In and B. G. Cook & M. Tankersley (Eds.), Research-based practices in special education (pp. 260–272). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Singer, J. D. (1988). Should special education merge with regular education? Educational Policy, 2, 409–424.
Skiba, R. J., Middelberg, L., & McClain, M. (2014). Multicultural issues for schools and EBD students: Disproportionality in discipline and special education. In and H. M. Walker & F. M. Gresham (Eds.), Handbook of evidence-based practices for emotional and behavioral disorders: Applications in schools (pp. 54–70). New York, NY: Guilford.
Skiba, R. J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Simmons, A. B., Feggins, L. R., & Chung, C. G. (2005). Unproven links: Can poverty explain ethnic disproportionality in special education. Journal of Special Education, 39, 130–144.
Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Karega Rausch, M., Cuadrado, J., & Chung, C. G. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264–288.
Sowers, J., & Powers, L. (1995). Enhancing the participation and independence of students with severe physical and multiple disabilities in performing community activities. Mental Retardation, 33, 209–220.
Stein, M., Carnine, D., & Dixon, R. (1998). Direct instruction: Integrating curriculum design and effective teaching practice. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33, 227–234.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2002). Introduction to the special series on positive behavior supports in schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 130–135.
Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Erwin, E. J., Soodak, L. C., & Shogren, K. A. (2011). Families, professionals, and exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partnerships and trust (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Umbreit, J., & Blair, K. (1997). Using structural analysis to facilitate treatment of aggression and noncompliance in a young child at-risk for behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 22, 75–86.
Umbreit, J., Ferro, J. B., Liaupsin, C. J., & Lane, K. L. (2007). Functional behavioral assessment and function-based intervention: An effective, practical approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Umbreit, J., Lane, K. L., & Dejud, C. (2004). Improving classroom behavior by modifying task difficulty: Effects of increasing the difficulty of too easy tasks. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 13–20.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2010). Thirty-five years of progress in educating children with disabilities through IDEA. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
Viel-Ruma, K., Houchins, D. E., Jolivette, K., Fredrick, L. D., & Gama, R. (2010). Direct instruction in written expression: The effects on English speakers and English language learners with disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(2), 97–108.
Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in schools: Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Walker, H. M., & Gresham, F. M. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of evidence-based practices for emotional and behavioral disorders: Applications in schools. New York, NY: Guilford.
Warnock, M. (2005). Special educational needs: A new look. Impact No. 11. London: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.
Wehman, P. (2012). Supported employment: What is it? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 37, 139–142.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Palmer, S. B. (2003). Adult outcomes for students with cognitive disabilities three years after high school: The impact of self-determination. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 131–144.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 245–255.
West, J. E., & Whitby, P. J. S. (2008). Federal policy and the education of students with disabilities: Progress and the path forward. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41(3), 1–16.
Wiley, A. L., Brigham, F. J., Kauffman, J. M., & Bogan, J. E. (2013). Disproportionate poverty, conservatism, and the disproportionate identification of minority students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 36(4), 29–50.
Yell, M. (2012). The law and special education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Yell, M. L., Rogers, D., & Rogers, E. L. (1998). The legal history of special education: What a long, strange trip it’s been! Remedial & Special Education, 19, 219–238.
Zigmond, N. (2003). Where should students with disabilities receive special education services? Is one place better than another? The Journal of Special Education, 37, 193–199.
Zigmond, N. (2007). Delivering special education is a two-person job: A call for unconventional thinking. In and J. B. Crockett, M. M., Gerber, & T. J. Landrum (Eds.), Achieving the radical reform of special education: Essays in honor of James M. Kauffman (pp. 115–137). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zigmond, N., & Kloo, A. (2011). General and special education are (and should be) different. In and J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 160–172). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Volonino, V. (2009). What, where, and how? Special education in the climate of full inclusion. Exceptionality, 17, 189–204.
Zirkel, P. A. (2013). The trend in SLD enrollments and the role of RTI. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 473–479.