Special Education for Students with Disabilities: Analysis and Recommendations

The article focuses on problems of special education and psychological-pedagogical support for students with learning disabilities. The research aim is to identify current trends in special education for these students, certain conditions and factors that impact their academic performance and development of life competencies. Research methods: analysis of today’s legislation, regulations, proceedings papers, guidance and other policy documents on special educational needs for students with learning disabilities in public elementary and middle school; analysis of statistical data on education for students with learning disabilities in 2019/2020 academic year in all 85 constituent entities of Russian Federation; an online random sample survey among specialists who work in public schools that students with learning disabilities attend. Conclusions based on the conducted study are as follows: the number of students with learning disabilities on inclusive terms is increasing; there is a legal backing and methodological support for special education in public elementary schools; special education conditions need to be provided not only in public elementary school but also in middle school; inclusive education specialists are lacking knowledge on learning, teaching and psychological-pedagogical support for students with learning disabilities in today’s school environment; there is a shortage of special education professionals in schools and learning centres. The results of the study can be used to develop educational policy, learning plans, programmes and to improve quality of inclusive education specialists training.

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?

Background Although a large number of children in foster care in the United States are receiving special education services, little is known about their educational experiences.Method This exploratory study used focus group research to look more closely at the complexity of the problems and needs that this population experiences with the special education system.Results Five major procedural issues, relating to identification and placement in special education and provision of appropriate services, were identified.Conclusion There is an urgent need to address the complex problems that children in foster care experience with the special education system. Recommendations are presented for closer collaboration between the child welfare and school systems, and for the training of educators, social workers, court personnel, and caregivers in special education rights and services.

School-Age Test Proficiency and Special Education After Congenital Heart Disease Surgery in Infancy

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. …

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>

Much of the literature related to the skimming or cropping of students by charter schools has ignored special education students. This article examines the relationship between the severity of student disabilities and their likelihood of having attended an Arizona charter school in the 2002-2003 school year. After adjusting for student traits, local education agency characteristics, and the mix of available special education services, a multilevel logistic regression analysis suggests that students who had more severe and thus more expensive disabilities were less likely to attend an Arizona charter school. Findings from an ancillary set of hierarchical linear models suggested that special education students enrolled in charter schools were less expensive on average than similar traditional public-school special education students.

The social status of elementary students with learning disabilities (LD) served by the Integrated Classroom Model (ICM) was compared to the social status of elementary students with learning disabilities served in a regular class with resource room support. The ICM serves elementary special education and non-special-education students (1:2) together as one class. The comparison group was composed of students with learning disabilities who received special education services outside of their regular classroom for a portion of their school day. Social status was determined by assessing interpersonal relationships among students, using a peer rating method. The results of analyses of various dimensions suggest that while special education students in both programs have significantly lower social status on average than their non-special-education peers, the children in the ICM have a better opportunity to blend successfully into the classroom than the children who go out to a resource room.

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.

As a consequence of a recent reform of junior secondary education in the Netherlands, instruments for the assessment of cognitive abilities of students who are eligible for special educational support must be designed. In constructing a new test battery contemporary theory on crystallized and fluid intelligence (Gf-Gc theory) was considered. Complete coverage of the factors in Gf-Gc theory was not striven for, because the status of some of these factors in relation to referral to education with special educational support is not entirely clear. The sample in the study consisted of students from regular and special primary as well as secondary education, aged between 11 and 15 years. Approximately two-thirds of the sample was of Dutch origin, whereas the remaining third was of a different ethnic origin. Results show that the factors verbal-crystallized ability, fluid-reasoning ability, spatial-visualization ability and memory capacity can explain the positive correlations between the tests in the battery for the greater part. Students from regular and special education can be distinguished on the basis of their cognitive profiles reasonably accurate, thus supporting the criterion validity of the test battery. Students requiring special educational support are characterized by a significant discrepancy between short-term recall and long-term retention and retrieval.

American Indian students are disproportionately represented in school discipline referrals (ODRs) and administrative outcomes across general school populations (Brown and DiTillio in J Educ Learn 2(4):47–59, 2013; Whitford and Levine-Donnerstein in Behav Disord 39(2), 2014). The purpose of this study was to examine the ODRs and administrative outcomes of 1612 students in special education, with particular attention to American Indian students (29.2% of the sample). Results indicated, although proportionally referred to school administration for disciplinary action, American Indian students in special education were more likely to be given an out-of-school suspension and/or expulsion, than both White and Hispanic/Latino students in special education, for the same identifying behaviors. Implications for improved practice are provided.

To provide pediatricians with a comprehensive guide to the special education evaluation process and available accommodations, enabling them to better support families navigating educational services for their children with disabilities. The number of children receiving special education services in US public schools has been steadily rising, with a recent utilization estimate of greater than 15% of children in primary and secondary school. Children in the United States have the right to a Free Appropriate Public Education, including special education services delivered through an IEP, 504 Plan, or IFSP that help achieve this for students with disabilities. Pediatricians are in a unique position to identify children who may benefit from such services and to advise parents throughout the lengthy process of obtaining accommodations.

This handbook provides a concise overview of special education services in countries across the world, using the Article on Education in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as the analytical frame. The Praeger International Handbook of Special Educationpresents a concise and clear overview of special education services in more than 70 countries across the world using the Article on Education in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities as the analytical frame. Each chapter offers information about the country in general, followed by sections on the public education system, the private education system, the special education system, teacher training requirements, and barriers to and promising trends in inclusive and special education. The volumes and chapters are organized by the United Nations Geoscheme, with Volume 1 including an overview of the volumes and chapters on countries in the Americas, Volume 2 addressing countries from Europe and Africa, and Volume 3 focusing on countries in Asia and Oceania. This is the most complete exploration of the delivery of supports and services to children and youth with disabilities across the globe available. The volumes do not compare among or between countries, but rather provide a baseline for understanding current special education practices and their relationship with general education and inclusive practices across the globe. Readers will come away with an in-depth understanding of what is happening with regard to the implementation of special education services and Article 24 of the Convention for the Rights of People with Disabilities. This valuable reference set serves researchers, graduate students, and policymakers in special and general education as well as professionals focused on issues of education worldwide and scholars focused on international special education. As such, this handbook will be an important reference source for university libraries, professional associations, and policy entities.

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.

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.