The Intersection of Special Education and Language Services

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?

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.

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.

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.

In this study, a review of the professional literature from 1985 through 1999 was conducted to identify any reports of technology-mediated distance education programs designed to prepare special education and related services personnel in rural areas. Data collection involved an index search of refereed journals as well as conference programs or proceedings of professional organizations, an online search of Web sites of colleges and universities, and contacts with professional colleagues known to be engaged in distance education. For each reference or report located, data were collected to answer questions related to the target population, the technologies used for delivery, the program components, the funding sources, and the intended outcomes of the program. Where needed data were lacking, researchers sought additional information by reviewing the program's Web site, brochure or other material, and interviewing personnel reposnsible for each program to clarify inconsistencies or obtain missing data. Analysis of the data revealed that many of the distance education programs that currently exist in special education and related services are focused on personnel preparation in rural areas. In addition. the technologies utilized for distance education have changed considerably over time as new options became available, with most programs making use of a combination of media for distance delivery. The demonstrated longevity of many distance education programs suggests that this mode of delivery will continue to have a major impact on personnel supply and demand in rural special education and disability services in the years to come.

A major goal of special education services is to prepare graduates for productive and rewarding lives as adults in the community. Follow-up studies, however, consistently have indicated very poor post-school outcomes for special education graduates. While there has been a wealth of research related to the effectiveness of services in inclusive general education settings for students of school age, few studies have investigated the impact of inclusive educational services on long-term outcomes for students with significant disabilities. The purpose of this study was to describe how two brothers with similar diagnoses involving significant disabilities and who had a 10-year age difference functioned in their natural settings as young adults after receiving services in the same rural one-building district. The older brother received special education services in self-contained settings throughout his school career, while the younger brother received special education services in inclusive general education settings. Qualitative data were collected through records, interviews, and field notes of observations. Findings suggest that the brother who received special education services in the school's inclusive general education settings achieved more positive long-term outcomes. Implications are discussed for future research and provision of educational services.

Very little information is currently available to practising school psychologists regarding the educational experience of individuals whose home country is Mexico. This limitation is particularly true for practitioners attempting to learn about school psychology and special education services which might have been received in Mexico. The number of school-age children who immigrate from Mexico to other countries each year highlights the importance of a shared understanding of available services. This article provides practising school psychologists with an introduction to school psychology and special education services in Mexico. Information gained from a review of the available literature, in-depth interviews with special education administrators working in Mexico and tours of facilities throughout the nation is presented. While focusing on Mexico, the information gathering procedures utilized in the present study may serve as a model for practitioners from various nations who serve populations of children for whom immigration and a lack of understanding of previous educational services are an issue.

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. …

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?

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.

Early indicators of academic risk were used to predict the academic skills, socioemotional functioning, and receipt of special education services at age 10 among children from low-income families who participated in the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project. Pairwise comparison of academic skills and socioemotional functioning among early academic risk indicator groups was used, and logistic regression modeling was used to predict receipt of special education services. Children who received early intervention or early childhood special education services or were suspected of having developmental delays before age 3 or at age 5 scored lower on academic skills and poorer on socioemotional functioning at age 10 than those without academic risk indicators. Children who had only biological risks before age 3 or at age 5 did not differ in academic skills or socioemotional functioning at age 10 compared to children without any academic risk indicators. Generally, children’s academic risk indicators identified later (at age 5) were stronger predictors of poor academic skills and socioemotional functioning at age 10 than were earlier academic risk indicators (before age 3). Only children who received early intervention services before age 3 or early childhood special education services at age 5 were more likely to receive special education services at age 10 than other groups. Early universal screening, monitoring, and continuous provision of appropriate services for children from low-income families and with academic risks are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)

The term "related services" is defined in Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, as follows: . . . related services means transportation, and such developmental, corrective and other supportive services (including speech pathology and audiology, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, and medical and counseling services, except that such medical services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposes only) as may be required to assist a handicapped child to benefit from special education, and includes the early identification and assessment of handicapping conditions in children. Under PL 94-142, all handicapped children are to have available to them "a free, appropriate, public education which includes special education and related services to meet their unique needs." Such services are to be provided at no cost to the child or family in conformity with an Individual Education Plan. PROBLEMS In the implementation of PL 94-142, the physician's role in providing related services has been narrowly defined as meaning: . . . services provided by a licensed physician to determine a child's medically related handicapping condition which results in the child's needs for special education and related services. This definition fails to recognize the physician's potential role in the supervision, program planning, medical management, and monitoring process. According to the definition, the physician's role in the delivery of related services has become limited to diagnosis. Little physician input is sought on treatment-related issues. As a result, the delivery and coordination of related services have posed a serious problem.1,2

This chapter addresses potential challenges and opportunities of developing innovative programs in interdisciplinary personnel preparation in special education and related services. The mission of this chapter is to advocate for an interdisciplinary personnel preparation model in special education and related services, particularly for serving young children with significant disabilities and their families from high-need communities. First, an interdisciplinary conceptual framework that guides the model is illustrated. Second, the authors demonstrate essential components of the model with evidence and highlight the features of the model. Finally, three program examples of the model are presented to provide evidence-based strategies for serving children with high-intensity needs and their families. The chapter concludes with recommendations for future directions.

Prevalence of depression and protective factors in a population of children aged 8 to 10 years, suffering from specific learning disorders, in a special education and home care service (SESSAD)