Chapter 5 - Precision Teaching: Applications in Education and Beyond

Researchers, practitioners and theorists have raised concerns about the special education delivery and classification processes in the United States. The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education report (PCESE: 2002) examined these concerns and existing special education research, reports and opinions to develop recommendations for the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disability Act. National Association of School Psychologists Position Statements and other publications support the basic findings of the PCESE report. If enacted as recommended, the proposals will fundamentally change special education classification and service delivery. The changes have the potential to alter in fundamental ways the prevailing school psychology practices in the US. This article: (a) outlines some of the concerns and research that lead to calls for radical special education reform; (b) identifies National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) Position Statements and PCESE findings that respond to identified special education issues and (c) presents information about school-based practices that will likely change if reform actually occurs.

Special education consists of specially designed services available for students with disabilities, and should be available across placements. Students with the most significant disabilities continue to be taught in restrictive settings, despite accumulating evidence suggesting their special education services can be delivered effectively in general education settings. Every individualized education program (IEP) must contain a statement describing how the student will be provided a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. The present study used content analysis to examine least restrictive environment statements of 88 students’ IEPs to determine what factors, including supplementary aids and services, were considered in making placement decisions. We further analyzed the classes and activities in which students participated in general education settings. Findings reveal supplementary aids and services were not considered in placement decisions, although a number of factors centering on curricular considerations, environmental demands, student deficit, and personnel requirements were noted in making placement decisions. We further found students primarily participated in non-academic instruction while in general education settings. Implications for policy, practice, and research are included.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires public school districts to provide special education and related services to students with disabilities enrolled in private schools. When the private school is a parochial school this issue may be complicated because of the First Amendment's separation of church and state doctrine. Until recently, providing most on-site special education services was prohibited. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision lifted the ban, and the 1997 amendments to IDEA have helped to clarify a school district's obligation for providing services to parochial school students. In this article the authors summarize and analyze the major court decisions concerned with the provision of special education and related services to parochial school students and discuss their implications for providing on-site special education services at parochial schools. In particular, two questions are addressed: Must private school students with disabilities be provided with the same level of services as their public school peers? Are school districts required to provide parochial school students with on-site special education services?

Twenty years ago, the educational rights of students with disabilities were dramatically and firmly established in law and practice. Prior to that time, many students were refused enrollment or special educational services. As recently as 1973, at least one million students were denied enrollment in public schools solely on the basis of their disabilities, and at least two million others were not receiving an education appropriate to their needs. Although every state has provided some form of special education throughout this century, these services were largely at the discretion of local school districts. Only since a federal court case in 1972 and the passage of federal legislation in 1975 have all states been mandated to provide a free, appropriate public education to all students with disabilities. Today, as Parrish and Chambers point out in this journal issue, special education for students with disabilities is the largest categorical program in public schools, costing an estimated $32 billion. Since the passage of Public Law 94-142 in 1975 (later retitled the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or the IDEA), the number of elementary and secondary students receiving special education has increased from 3.7 million to 4.6 million, increasing also from 8% to 11% of all students in public schools. According to Parrish and Chambers, the population of students eligible for special education is expected to continue to rise. The IDEA governs the educational rights of individuals from birth to age 21, though only students in elementary and secondary school are addressed in this journal issue. The IDEA allowed access to the public schools for many students who had previously been denied enrollment. The IDEA has also been given partial credit for decreasing the rate of institutionalization of individuals with disabilities. Before the IDEA, many parents had the sole responsibility of meeting all the needs of their severely disabled children 24 hours per day; once schools began to provide extensive services to students with severe disabilities, more families were able to avoid institutionalization. Under the IDEA, states and local districts were given a mandate to provide specialized educational programs to students with special needs, and students and parents were given a mechanism for enforcement of their rights. In a 1989 survey, 94% of parents of students with disabilities agreed that services for these students had improved since the implementation of the IDEA. Yet special education today is widely criticized as expensive, ineffective, inadequately coordinated with regular education, and/or culturally biased. The National Association of State Boards of Education has recommended radical reduction in the size of special education. Special education also has its champions, who argue that many students perform better academically and have better self-esteem when provided with special services, often in a separate setting. This analysis addresses five questions concerning special education under the IDEA: (1) Why are so many students considered disabled? (2) What are the educational needs of students with disabilities? (3) How should appropriate, individualized services be funded? (4) Are the IDEA's procedural protections necessary? (5) Can regular education meet the needs of more students?

Though treated as neutral and apolitical by schools, teachers, scholars, and administrators, special education is fraught with inequality and loaded language, and can function to segregate and disempower students. The debate over who is worthy of education–and what kind of education–is intimately tied to conceptions of dis/ability. Special education, despite all this, has potential as a site for social justice. The implementation of special education is political, considering the policies that teachers, schools, and parents must follow, skirt, and reproduce in order for dis/abled children to receive services. In this article, we discuss the history of special education, the social model of dis/ability and ableism in schools and beyond, and how these constructs permeate schools and the systems students operate within. We call for an intersectional approach, where the field of special education and its stakeholders reckon with the reality that special education is not neutral. We offer examples and recommendations for how educators can commit to transforming schools--and special education services--into sites of justice for all learners.<br>

Over the past three decades, various efforts have been made to develop special education policies and services in Syria. However, to guarantee the improvement of special education services and to develop sustainable national enhancements during both the emergency and reconstruction phases of the Syrian Civil War, it is necessary to continue to address the intersectional ways by which people with disabilities have been disproportionately impacted. This paper provides an update on disability and special education in Syria, including a brief account of the historical development of, impact of the civil war on, and major current challenges for the field of special education. These challenges include, but are not limited to, inadequate financial resources, a scarcity of integration programs, negative social attitudes because of a lack of knowledge, limited accessibility to services, and barriers to appropriate disability programmes. Recommendations for action are also offered. Further, we provide suggestions to improve special-education services for people with disabilities in Syria, as well as to develop sustainable national improvements for them.

Purpose. To develop and test an index of disability severity in a heterogeneous population of preschoolers with disabilities.Method. Using a nationally representative sample of 3104 children receiving special education services in the US, questions from a parent interview were used to develop an index of disability severity consisting of domains of functioning defined by gradients of severity. Regressions were used to examine the association between 15 functional domains and 8 cognitive, social/behavioural, and functional outcomes. Full and abbreviated versions of this disability index were compared. Correlations with proxy measures of disability in this population were used to establish concurrent validity, and the predictive ability of this measure was compared with that of the federally defined disability categories.Results. Of the 15 domains examined, most were significant predictors of at least two outcomes. A shortened index of only six variables was found to be as effective as the longer version in characterising children's level of severity. The index was significantly correlated with intervention variables such as the age at which children began receiving special education or therapy service, r(2802) = −0.22, p ≤ 0.0001, the extent of modification of curriculum materials needed for the child, r(248) = 0.42, p ≤ 0.0001 and the number of services the child received in the school, r(2014) = 0.37, p ≤ 0.0001. Adding severity to special education category significantly increased the amount of variance in outcomes over special education category alone.Conclusions. These results provide evidence for the importance of the construct of severity of disability and its measurement, particularly when conducting research with very young children.

Students with mathematics learning disability (MLD) are entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as outlined by their Individualized Education Program (IEP). The IEP is a roadmap to enhance in‐school and postschool outcomes for students with a disability. We reviewed IEPs ( n = 89) for secondary students with MLD enrolled in 15 rural independent school districts in the southeast part of the United States. Results suggested secondary students with MLD have needs in (a) calculation; (b) fractions, decimals, and percentages; (c) functional mathematics; (d) reading; and (e) social and behavioral skills based on annual goals written in their IEPs. Yet 70% of the IEPs reviewed included only instruction in the general education setting, without specialized services. IEPs included a variety of accommodations, but few goals facilitated access to grade‐level content or special education services to support specialized instruction to meet goals. Implications for practice, limitations, and future research are discussed.

School administrators are required to serve on Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams, yet many do not have the special education content knowledge and training to successfully participate in the special education process. With the accountability measures enacted by the Every Student Succeeds Act, a school administrator's performance is dependent upon the academic success of all students within their building, including students with disabilities. Throughout the special education process, particularly during an IEP meeting, school administrators must be able to ensure that students are receiving appropriate services in the least restrictive environment to foster academic success. The purpose of this phenomenological study is to explore the lived experiences of public school administrators without formal training in special education to understand their capacity to fully participate as an IEP team member. The study seeks to understand public school administrators', without formal training in special education, capacity to participate in the special education process. The study will specifically focus on school administrators' participation in evaluation meetings, reevaluation meetings, and annual IEP meetings. The study will also highlight the participants' perceptions of the preparation they received through their administrator preparation programs and professional development within their own districts that assisted in their ability to meaningfully participate in the special education process and how this participation encouraged or furthered steps towards community engagement. The following research questions guided this study: 1. How do public school administrators without formal training in special education describe how prepared they feel to meaningfully participate in the special education process? 2. How do public school administrators without formal training in special education describe their capacity to contribute to the determination of the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities during the IEP process? 3. How do public school administrators without formal training in special education engage families of students with disabilities within the school community? This study has the potential to provide information that may strengthen the capacity of IEP team members without formal special education training to serve all students with disabilities with fidelity, provide school leaders critical information that can assist them in avoiding being sanctioned and required to undergo due process, and highlight the connection between a school administrator involved in the special education process and community engagement.

THE IDEA that our education system is at risk is not a new one. Though its history is longer, this notion was brought to top of public agenda 25 years ago publication of A Nation at Risk. And it is still actively being addressed through legal reforms, mandates, and laws. Here we will discuss recommendations outlined in that landmark report that are specifically related to field of special education, look at efforts to address those recommendations, and end a glimpse into future of field. THE ROLE OF STANDARDIZED TESTING A Nation at Risk addresses matter of testing and discusses use of testing in education system. In brief, report recommends that standardized achievement tests be administered to students at major transition points in their education; that these tests be used to identify need for remediation or for accelerated work; and that tests be given as part of a nationwide system of state and local standardized tests, which would also include other diagnostic procedures designed to help teachers judge student progress. While it seems that A Nation at Risk was on right track its call for tests that would provide baseline data, identify student need, and assist teachers, traditional standardized testing doesn't lend itself to these purposes. Consider case of special education. Controversy and confusion have surrounded use of standardized tests for making decisions in special education, especially their role in I.Q./achievement discrepancy model that federal government previously recognized as way to define a learning disability. (1) A central concern using tests in this way is that they are given only after student has failed and been referred by classroom teacher. The instrument is used to evaluate evaluate whether student meets criteria for a specific learning disability, not to identify remedial strategies. The special educator must then do specific follow-up testing for instructional and remediation needs. Thus a search for alternative kinds of assessments for identifying students for special education has emerged. And Individuals Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) makes change a part of federal law in stating explicitly that the screening of a student by a teacher or specialist to determine appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation shall not be considered to be an evaluation for eligibility for special education and related (2) Partly in response to these statements from IDEA and to recommendation in A Nation at Risk that baseline data are needed to assess progress, a kind of package deal has emerged from field of special education: RTI (response to intervention) and CBM (curriculum-based measurement), approaches that allow educators to forgo discrepancy model and use assessments that lend themselves to individualized instruction. RTI uses students' responses to high-quality instruction to guide educational decisions, including decisions about efficacy of instruction and intervention, eligibility for special programs, design of individualized education programs (IEPs), and effectiveness of special education services. (3) In that way it allows for early intervention without waiting for students to fail before providing necessary services and support. (4) RTI may be described in this context as an alternative to I.Q./achievement discrepancy model, and embedded in RTI is CBM. CBM can be characterized as any set of measurement procedures that uses direct observation and measurement to judge a student's performance in school curriculum. (5) In other words, CBM provides information regarding student's abilities as they relate directly to classroom curriculum, and it can be used to assess all academic subjects across all grade levels. CBM also provides educators with a stronger link between assessment and instruction than do standardized tests of achievement. …

Since March 2020, many school districts across the country have employed remote learning procedures in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. During the pandemic, schools continued to provide special education services, yet little is known about how services were adapted for remote or hybrid learning during the height of the pandemic in the United States. In the current study, 332 respondents completed a web‐based survey that asked what special education services were provided remotely, whether services were deemed effective, and how remote learning has influenced their well‐being. Most respondents identified as White (79.5%), females (92.4%), and worked as special education teachers (52.9%) and school psychologists (35.4%). In compliance with federal guidelines, most respondents continued to hold individualized education plan meetings, conduct assessments, and provide interventions and related services. There was a significant decrease in respondents' reports of efficacy and sense of school connectedness during remote and hybrid learning. Respondents' identification as a person of color, along with reports of higher school connectedness and self‐efficacy were positive predictors of their perceived effectiveness of remote special education service delivery. Recommendations are made for school districts to inform decisions regarding their approach to special education services and staff support during remote or hybrid learning.

Inclusion is usually regarded as the placement of special education students in general education settings. But Mr. Sailor and Ms. Roger present a new vision of integrated education, in which previously specialized adaptations and strategies are used to enhance the learning of all students. AS A FIELD, special education presents an excellent case study of the paradox of differentiation and integration, wherein we seek solutions through increased specialization but, in so doing, we redefine a problem in terms of discrete parts at the expense of the whole. As Thomas Skrtic pointed out more than a decade ago, a large and ever-widening gap exists between the purpose of special education -- to provide needed supports, services, adaptations, and accommodations to students with disabilities in order to preserve and enhance their educational participation in the least restrictive environment -- and its practice.1 And that practice has evolved over three decades into a parallel and highly differentiated educational structure, often with only loosely organized connections to the general education system.2 Having disengaged from general education early on, special education began to undergo a process that, at times, has seemed to mimic cell division. At one point in its ontogeny, the field could list some 30 distinct eligibility categories for special education services (e.g., learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, severe disabilities, autism, and so on).3 Many of these early categories further subdivided, with autism, for example, splitting into a host of subcategories lumped under autism spectrum disorders.4 How has all of this come about? The paradox of differentiation and integration -- with its tensions in practice and contradictions in policy -- offers a reasonable hypothesis. In our efforts to better meet the educational needs of specific identifiable groups, we have promoted differentiation at the expense of integration. If such a policy produced exemplary outcomes, the only remaining questions would concern how to direct scarce resources to meet the needs of a few individuals, and the values underlying special education would no doubt resolve the tension in favor of customization and differentiation. But the positive outcomes don't seem to be there.5 In its early days, special education embraced the diagnostic/prescriptive model characteristic of modern medicine, and disability was viewed as pathology. Psychology, with its partner the test industry, became the gatekeeper for special education. Students referred by teachers and parents were diagnosed in one of the categories of disability and tagged for separate (highly differentiated) treatment. Indeed, special education policy handbooks at the district level came to resemble the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. Then in the 1980s, the U.S. Department of Education began to advance policy reforms designed to slow the growth in the number of special education categorical placements and practices. These initiatives occurred against a backdrop of publications citing positive outcomes from integrated practices and a corresponding barrage of studies associating separate classrooms and pullout practices with negative outcomes.6 The first of these reforms was called the Regular Education Initiative and was designed to stimulate the provision of special education supports and services in general education classrooms. It generated enormous controversy within special education. Indeed, a special issue of the Journal of Learning Disabilities was devoted entirely to an attempt to refute the research underlying the policy.7 Framing the reform of special education policy as general education policy (regular education initiative) failed completely within the community of special education. More recently, federal policy has advanced inclusion as recommended practice and has expended significant funds for training, research, and demonstration purposes. …

Special services usage and related assessment procedures were investigated for 50 students with epilepsy. Fifty-six percent of students with epilepsy received special education services, with mental retardation designation and self-contained placement common, especially among individuals with epilepsy plus a coexisting neurological diagnosis. Sixteen percent of participants had an “other health impairment” designation, and several of these were deemed eligible in at least one other special education category. The majority of students who had been evaluated were administered IQ, adaptive behavior, speech/language, and sensorimotor components, whereas few were assessed for executive or memory functions. Little information about antiepileptic drugs, their effects, or the actual manifestation of students' seizures appeared in special services school documents. Additional empirical information regarding services for children with chronic health conditions, such as epilepsy, is necessary to improve school psychologists' practice. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Psychol Schs 43: 169–181, 2006.

Special education and related services began in Nigeria, the most populous nation of Black people in the world, only a couple of decades ago courtesy of the efforts of missionaries from Europe and America. Although the government took over the responsibility of providing special education and related services to individuals in the late 1970s, evidence indicates that the provision of these services is beset by numerous formidable obstacles such as the absence of supporting laws, inadequacies in funding of services, inclusion programs, early identification and intervention services, personnel training programs, facilities, and educational materials. This chapter discusses these issues and focuses on current ways to improve the provision of meaningful special education and related services for people with disabilities in Nigeria.

Purpose The current literature on pediatric autoimmune encephalitis (AE) focuses on medical identification/diagnosis and medical treatments. Data about the identification and treatment of communication disorders in these children are limited. This clinical focus article provides an example of the speech, language, and communication characteristics, intervention, and recovery of a single child with medical diagnoses of pediatric AE and pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome (PANS) and special education eligibility under the autism spectrum disorder category. Method This is an in-depth illustrative/descriptive case study. Medical, educational, and speech-language documentation of one child diagnosed with AE at age 7 years was reviewed. Methods included interviews with family members, teachers, and the school speech-language pathologist and reviews of documentation including evaluations, reports, and Individualized Education Programs. Results This child received special education and therapy services through his public school and a university speech-language clinic. He concurrently received medical treatment for AE and PANS. Comprehensive augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) intervention included the use of core words, modeling, parallel talk, self-talk, expansive recasts, shared book reading, family counseling, and collaboration with the parents and the school speech-language pathologist. The child made progress on all goals despite irregular attendance to therapy due to medical complications. Discussion Because experimental research including this population is currently limited, this descriptive case study provides valuable information to clinicians, educators, pediatricians, medical diagnosticians, and anyone providing services to a child with a complex neuropsychological disorder like AE. Future research is needed with more children who have AE, especially experimental investigations of the intervention methods utilized here. Additional research of more children with AE can provide information about the scope and severity of speech, language, and communication needs and the trajectory of recovery given AAC intervention.