Media Review: Teaching Problem Students

Teacher‐directed violence has been acknowledged as a major issue in research over the past decade. Teacher‐directed violence is the over‐arching term used to describe teachers' experiences with physical violence and aggression (i.e., harassment, intimidation, verbal threats). This study is the first to quantitatively compare general education and special education teachers' experiences with violence from a variety of aggressors, including students, parents, colleagues, and administrators. Understanding the unique experiences of special and general educators is needed to inform intervention and prevention efforts focused on teacher‐directed violence. Data from 2363 teachers who participated in a national study in the United States examining teachers' experiences with violence and aggression were analyzed using multiple logistic regression. Comparisons of special and general educators revealed special educators were more likely to report experiencing aggression in the current or past year. Special educators were also more likely to report violence by student aggressors, while general educators were more likely to report violence by parent aggressors. Further, teacher demographic characteristics (i.e., age, gender, race/ethnicity, years of experience) and school setting (i.e., rural, urban, suburban) influenced experiences of teacher‐directed violence for both general and special educators. Findings suggest the need for future longitudinal and mixed‐methods studies, providing more educators, training, and supports in special education settings, and incorporating all school stakeholders in school‐wide interventions.

ABSTRACTAs we attempt to address the needs of students with challenging behaviors in today's classrooms, it is important to gain an understanding of general and special educators' knowledge, skills, and confidence about evidence-based behavior interventions. This article presents a national survey study of 277 special and general educators' reported behavioral knowledge and skills. Results indicated the special educators had greater knowledge about primary, secondary, and tertiary behavioral interventions than general educators. Over half of the combined educators had a less than average understanding of universal bully prevention strategies. Results also indicated the general educators had a lower level of training and confidence to work with students with challenging behaviors. Practical implications for teacher education and further research are presented.

Without intentional integration of disability justice principles, teacher preparation programs (TPPs) may perpetuate the appearance of inclusion without the structural transformation needed to center students’ agency, perspectives, and rights (Freedman et al., 2019). While some special education programs have started this integration (Ko et al., 2023), there are still limitations in general education programs. Inspired by the Salamanca Statement’s vision for inclusion, we explored how infusing disability justice principles in the context of a general education literacy methods course contributed to dismantling traditional inclusion barriers, while priming teacher candidates (TCs) for work in inclusive settings. Our study was framed by the principles of disability justice (Berne et al., 2018), complemented by Kafer’s (2013) and Mingus’s (2011) lens. Gathering data from class discussions and journals of undergraduate teacher candidates (n = 78), we highlighted the transformative, positive impact of incorporating disability justice in general education. TCs celebrated disability as an identity and critically questioned the role of ableism in education and their professional lives. Becoming more confident, TCs felt more prepared and committed to working in inclusive settings. Recommendations were provided for general education faculty and programs to consider incorporating disability justice principles as a first step toward meaningful work with diverse populations.

ABSTRACTStudent problem behaviors occur across all classroom settings, but preschool children are three times more likely to be expelled than students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. Determining the extent to which preschool students exhibit problem behaviors may help promote preventative practices in early childhood settings. This study examined the natural occurrence of externalizing behaviors within general, at-risk, and special education classrooms. Direct observations were collected across six classrooms to measure student off-task and disruptive behavior. No significant off-task differences were found across the three classroom types. However, a significant difference in disruptive behavior was found between special education and general education classrooms and between special education and at-risk classrooms. Implications and directions for future study are discussed.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess the effectiveness of a new general education program at Qatar University (QU) in achieving English writing and critical thinking outcomes. Design/methodology/approach – Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) test was used as direct assessment tool to identify the extent to which QU students are making progress with respect to general education outcomes, and how well QU students perform compared to US students on general education outcomes that are measured by the CAAP test. Findings – Findings show evidence that students make progress in English and critical thinking during their QU educational careers. However, QU students lag well behind their US counterparts in writing skills, but they performed relatively better in critical thinking and essay writing. Research limitations/implications – The sample of students tested was limited to students who met certain criteria. Therefore, the sample was neither representative nor random and does not reflect the performance of the entire student body. English is a second language for most QU students, and cultural differences as well as students’ high school preparation and quality of faculty at QU add to the complexity of the study. Practical implications – Research finding may have implication on the general education program curriculum plan, assessment process, assessment plan and tools. It may also trigger comprehensive review of courses addressing writing and critical thinking skills. Moreover, the findings will have impact on institutional total approach and support to retain and enhance some of the cornerstone skills that general education program promise to achieve. The pilot study, results and findings can have implications on similar GCC general educations programs that focus on English writing and critical thinking skills. Originality/value – This original pilot study indicates a need for improvement of internal assessment processes and reconsideration of general education program courses contributing to skills examined. It also provides evidence on students’ performance on two important generic skills, both are important for QU and its stakeholders. The study’s findings are of broad interest to assess the efficacy of internal assessment at international institutions using an internationally available standardized test.

Policy and program decisions involve choices among different ways of preparing teachers. These choices are shrouded in increasingly contentious debates as teacher shortages reach crisis proportions. Yet, research on special education teacher education is almost nonexistent. Findings from comparative research documenting the characteristics of effective teacher education programs can inform these choices, but these findings should be grounded in what we know from previous research in general teacher education. To assist educators, we have analyzed literature in general and special teacher education toward two ends. First, we present a framework, derived from work in general education, for analyzing teacher education programs. Second, we use this framework to analyze practice in teacher education in special education. Specifically, we conducted an exhaustive review of special education program descriptions and evaluations. We conclude by describing steps necessary to improve the special education teacher education research base.

Early childhood during its development period experiences significant changes in various aspects, including emotional and behavioral aspects. Problems that arise related to emotion and behavior can affect their overall growth and development. In a previous study, 81 children aged 4-10 years were identified through a Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) filled out by parents in Krendang Village, West Jakarta. The results found significant differences between boys and girls. Boys were more often in the abnormal category, especially in the aspects of emotional, behavioral, and social relationship problems, which means that boys are more vulnerable in these categories. While girls fared better, there’s just little difference in terms of percentages between the two genders. The majority of children, both boys and girls, are still in the normal range, but parents still need to pay attention to signs of behavioral and emotional problems in their children. The results of this study were then socialized back to the parents, accompanied by the provision of psychoeducation about handling emotional and behavioral problems in early childhood. The results of this psychoeducation are considered very useful for parents, because through this psychoeducation and dissemination, tips and knowledge about parenting have been given. That way, parents can also understand that proper parenting can help overcome children's emotional and behavioral problems. Early childhood during its development period experiences significant changes in various aspects, including emotional and behavioral aspects. Problems that arise related to emotion and behavior can affect their overall growth and development. In a previous study, 81 children aged 4-10 years were identified through a Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) filled out by parents in Krendang Village, West Jakarta. The results found significant differences between boys and girls. Boys were more often in the abnormal category, especially in the aspects of emotional, behavioral, and social relationship problems, which means that boys are more vulnerable in these categories. While girls fared better, there’s just little difference in terms of percentages between the two genders. The majority of children, both boys and girls, are still in the normal range, but parents still need to pay attention to signs of behavioral and emotional problems in their children. The results of this study were then socialized back to the parents, accompanied by the provision of psychoeducation about handling emotional and behavioral problems in early childhood. The results of this psychoeducation are considered very useful for parents, because through this psychoeducation and dissemination, tips and knowledge about parenting have been given. That way, parents can also understand that proper parenting can help overcome children's emotional and behavioral problems.

This study investigates the impact of the extension of the duration of general education on educational opportunities and labour market performance. Taking the example of the Polish education reform of 1999, which we treated as a natural experiment, we used a regression discontinuity design and estimated the effects of an additional year of general education on the relative opportunities for rural and urban children to obtain secondary general, secondary vocational, or tertiary education and on their wages. Although the impact was quantitatively small, a shift towards increased enrolment in general education programmes was observed. Whereas prolonged compulsory education translated to higher wages for basic and secondary vocational school graduates from rural areas, it did not do so, for those from urban areas.

Organizational context (e.g., climate, culture, resources) can impede or enhance implementation of evidence-based practices in general education settings or special education settings serving students with autism spectrum disorder. We examined the relations between organizational context and individual (i.e., implementation leadership, administrator- or service provider-role) or school (i.e., enrollment size, public/nonpublic school type) characteristics. Participants were administrative or service providing leaders (n = 34) from 11 schools in one state on the East Coast of the United States. School leaders’ average ratings of the organizational context were generally more positive for special education than general education; however, greater culture stress was reported for special education. Correlation analyses indicated being an administrator and implementation leadership were positively associated with implementation climate in both education settings. Being an administrator was also positively associated with cultural effort (i.e., how hard people work towards achieving goals) in special education, but negatively associated with culture stress in general education. In special education, nonpublic schools had better climates (both learning and implementation), but more culture stress. Additionally, school enrollment size was negatively related to available resources and implementation climate in special education. Investigating the similarities and differences in organizational context across educational settings is needed in future research.

Art and visual education are vital in both general and special education, fostering creativity, critical thinking, and emotional well-being. In general education, art enhances academic performance, supports self-expression, and promotes cultural awareness. It builds communication skills and helps students analyze and interpret visual information. In special education, art plays a transformative role, supporting fine motor skill development, cognitive growth, and emotional expression. It provides inclusive opportunities tailored to individual needs, fostering social interaction and teamwork. Art therapy helps students with emotional or behavioral challenges process their feelings effectively. By integrating art into the curriculum, educators create a holistic learning environment that nurtures every student's potential, breaking barriers and building confidence. Art and visual education are not just creative outlets but powerful tools for personal and academic growth, enriching lives and enabling all learners to thrive.

The experiences of three students with significant disabilities and their educational teams were studied during these students’ first year of receiving general education services. Interviews were conducted with general educators, special educators, and parents to identify issues encountered during the year. Also, classroom observations were conducted throughout the year in both self-contained and general education settings for each student, and time sampling data were collected on instruction, downtime, and problem behavior. Results indicated that the education teams encountered several issues related to providing general education access for students with significant disabilities relating to two primary areas: (a) philosophical differences about the purpose of providing access to general education for students with significant disabilities, and (b) efforts to collaboratively team and meet the educational needs of the students with significant disabilities. Observational results indicated that the students received more instruction, experienced less downtime, and engaged in fewer problem behaviors in general education settings.

This study highlights the efforts of Indiana University East to make substantive changes to its general education program, resulting primarily from state mandates and legislation, on an extremely aggressive timeline. While fraught with challenges, these legislative mandates also presented opportunities for the institution to make necessary and impactful improvements to its general education curriculum, policies, and procedures that may not have occurred without the looming deadlines and requirements of the legislation. Indiana is one of several states that have enacted and implemented similar legislation, causing curricular and procedural change in general education programs throughout the nation. While often difficult to manage, these legislative measures can be viewed as opportunities at institutions, like Indiana University East, that desperately needed general education reform.

The purpose of this study was to examine classroom placement, inclusive versus non-inclusive, relative to the academic performance of students with specific learning disabilities in secondary content area classrooms. Fifty-seven high school students with learning disabilities were assessed using the Grade Level Short Form of the Multilevel Academic Survey Test (MAST). Their reading and math scores were examined relative to each student's grade level, number of general and special education classes attended, and types of placement (i.e., inclusive or non-inclusive setting). The results revealed no statistically significant evidence to indicate that students' academic achievement varied based on inclusive versus non-inclusive placement. The only statistically significant differences observed regarded participants enrolled in a general education literature class compared to those participants placed in a special education setting for literature. Implications for practice, limitations of the study, and considerations for future research are discussed. ********** Recent trends reveal that students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) are increasingly educated in general education classrooms, while the number receiving instruction in resource rooms or separate classes has decreased substantially (Holloway, 2001). Despite the increase in students with disabilities placed in general education settings there is limited research, particularly at the secondary level, to suggest where students with SLD achieve more academically. Of the many issues related to the integration or inclusion of students with disabilities into general education classrooms, there is none more important than the effects of placement on students' learning and social relations with classmates (Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1995). The research literature reviewed for this study was mixed regarding whether academic outcomes for students with disabilities are improved in inclusive classroom settings. Previous research suggested that students with SLD in elementary schools achieve more academically in inclusive programs versus non-inclusive programs (Banerji & Dailey, 1995; Waldron & McLeskey, 1998). Other studies suggested that middle school students achieve more academically in inclusive programs (Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002). For example, Rea et al. (2002) reported that students with disabilities had higher grades, fewer behavioral infractions, and attended school more often than students educated in non-inclusive programs. In contrast, a number of other studies concluded that students with disabilities achieved more in inclusive classroom settings (Baker, et al., 1995; Madden & Slavin, 1983; Carlberg & Kavale, 1980). The only certainty regarding the effects of class placement is that there is no consensus. Researchers have drawn vastly different conclusions (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980) such as: (a) Students with severe learning disabilities and emotional and behavioral disorders may achieve more in special classrooms (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980); (b) Students with disabilities may achieve more academically in programs that combine the inclusive model with the resource model as opposed to either model on its own (Holloway, 2001); and (c) Inclusive versus non-inclusive placements produce no differences in the academic achievement of students with disabilities (Affleck, Madge, Adams, & Lavenbraun, 1988; Manset & Semmel, 1997; Waldron & McLeskey, 1998). Another perspective voiced is that the frequently posed question of class placement is the wrong question to consider (Leinhardt & Palloy, 1982; Zigmond, 2003; Hocutt, 1996). Researchers taking this position point out that the evidence is inconclusive on whether students with disabilities achieve more in one instructional setting as opposed to another, and contend that questions regarding class placement for students with disabilities are at odds with a focus on individualized educational planning. …

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. …

The current prevalence rates for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) coupled with the mandate to provide services to students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms warrants the need to examine the dynamics of inclusion for students with ASD. Focus groups were conducted with special and general educators at the elementary, middle, and high school levels to determine the needs of students with ASD in fully inclusive settings as well as teachers’ needs in facilitating their students’ success. The study was translational in nature by focusing on the practice and daily experiences of teachers for informing professional development. Teachers highlighted the knowledge and skills teachers need for students with ASD to fully benefit from inclusive educational placements. Those included the need to fully understand ASD, differentiation, and social support strategies for students with autism as well as the strong need for increased collaboration between general and special educators.