Views From the Trenches

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.

Camera, 208 Capitalism, scepticism of policies on education in future based on society with influx of, 42 Carnegie Learning, 251-252 Central government, 92 Challenges to inclusion, 84-85 Change of practice concept, 253 Character qualities of sets in twenty-first century, 25-33 communicative competencies, 28-31 digital competencies, 31-33 'grit' for inclusive and special education teachers, 27-28 high self-efficacy, 25-27 Children, rights and characteristics of, 4-5 Children with disabilities in rural areas in Telangana state, providing services to, 174-177 259 Children with special needs in VUCA world, preparation for education administrators to manage education for, 241-244 Chlorpyrifos, 64-65 City local government, 93-99 Civil rights, 39-40 Classic economic liberal theory, 41-42 Classrooms with assistive technology, improving efficiency of, 250-252 Climate change, 64-65 Collaboration, 180 Collaborative learning, 23-24 Communication, 180 channels, 29-30 disabilities, 211 Communicative competencies, 28-31 Community resource persons (CRPs), 175 Competency-based education, 23-24 Complexity, 80-81 Comprehensive teaching strategies, 236 Computer-assisted tools, 128 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (1945), 89-90 Constructive Alignment model, 21 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), 159 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 158-159 Conversations, feedback and recognition (CFR), 225 Core educational subjects, 179 COVID-19, 18-19, 118-119, 123-124 crisis, 7-8 inclusive learning for students with special needs during, 108-110 learning experiences during, 114-116 learning experiences of KU

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.

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.

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. …

Inclusive resources can contribute to the development of inclusive teaching practices and equity in education. The study aimed to analyze the perception of Brazilian and Portuguese teachers who work with students with special educational needs regarding the inclusive resources available and their inclusive practices, correlating them with personal variables (age, gender) and professional variables (teaching experience, education cycle in which they work, and participation in Special and Inclusive Education courses). A total of 85 Brazilian and 94 Portuguese teachers from public basic education schools participated in the study. The majority were women, with a mean age of 43.6 years among Brazilian teachers and 54.5 years among Portuguese teachers. For most Brazilian teachers, teaching experience was under 20 years, whereas for Portuguese teachers, it was over 20 years. Brazilian teachers predominantly worked in Early Childhood Education and Elementary School I, while Portuguese teachers mainly worked in the third cycle of basic education. Regarding training, 70% of Brazilian teachers and 42% of Portuguese teachers had completed courses in Special and Inclusive Education or related areas. Data collection employed a sociodemographic questionnaire and the Resources and Practices for Inclusive Education instrument, composed of 24 items: nine to assess available resources and 15 to assess inclusive practices in the classroom. Data were collected online. Results indicated that 80% of Portuguese teachers and 34% of Brazilian teachers agreed that resources for inclusion were available. Regarding inclusive practices, 98% of teachers from both countries reported using them in the classroom. Among Brazilian teachers, those with more students specific needs and those who had training in inclusive education perceived more available resources and reported better practices. Brazilian teachers with less experience and those teaching students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and alongside students with other conditions perceived fewer available inclusive resources. Among Portuguese teachers, those who perceived more resources available reported more inclusive practices, and teachers who used additional measures exhibited higher levels of inclusive practices.

Disruptive student behavior is a significant challenge in schools and a predictor of student failure. Effective classroom management is a crucial skill that middle level teachers must acquire to foster student engagement and learning. This qualitative study explored the experiences and perceptions of 35 middle level teachers in both general education and special education settings regarding effective classroom management techniques. Eight focus group interviews were conducted with 25 general education teachers and 10 special education teachers at one of five middle schools in Kansas, Missouri, or Utah. Focus group transcripts were analyzed using iterative qualitative content analysis to identify themes and subthemes. Findings revealed that effective classroom management includes teachers’ use of appropriate positive and negative reinforcement, student buy-in to reward systems, positive immediate feedback to students, teachers’ consistent follow-through with consequences, and positive teacher-student relationships. We also report similarities and differences between middle level general education and special education teachers’ perceptions. Limitations and areas for future research are addressed.

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.

Objectives This study analyzes trends in domestic elementary and secondary AI education research, suggesting directions for future studies and providing insights to support further research activities. Methods To investigate research trends in AI education for elementary and secondary schools in South Korea, The literature was searched using RISS by combining nine keywords: ‘AI,’ ‘artificial intelligence,’ ‘chatbot,’ ‘machine learning,’, ‘deep learning’, ‘education,’ ‘class,’ ‘learning,’ and ‘teaching’. After a second screening, we selected 140 documents published from 2019 to March 2023 and analyzed them based on basic, research purposes, meth-ods, and content trends. Results First, the number of publications in domestic AI education research for elementary and secondary schools increased from 2019 to 2021 but decreased by one in 2022, with 21 papers published by March 2023. Second, the study subjects were ranked in order of elementary, middle, and high school levels. Third, the primary research fo-cus for elementary and middle schools was on ‘Development and Application of AI Education Programs,’ while high school research also included ‘Analysis of AI Education Curriculum.’ Fourth, developmental research was the most common method, focusing on AI education programs and teaching models across all levels. Fifth, ‘Other’ and ‘Mathematics’ were the most frequently applied subjects. Sixth, the most common teaching methods in-cluded ‘Other,’ emphasizing experiential learning and practical training. Lastly, the most common dependent vari-ables were ‘Attitudes towards artificial intelligence’ at the elementary level, ‘Academic achievement’ at the middle level, and ‘Other’ at the high school level. Conclusions This study is significant in analyzing trends in AI education research within domestic elementary and secondary schools, thereby shedding light on future research directions.

Special education experiences and stress among Latina mothers of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)

Task-based learning uses language as a tool for expressing, not a body ofknowledge to be memorized, thus, using tasks to improve student’s language skills.This study aimed to identify and evaluate the communication strategies used byyounger siblings of ASD children in selected domestic tasks and characterizethe response of ASD children to these communication strategies. Five pairs ofsiblings were tasked to finish a set of household chores and were video-recorded.The videos were transcribed and analyzed. Younger siblings, researcher and anobserver assessed the strategies based on six criteria. Strategies observed in thestudy are affirmation, correction and modeling strategies. It showed that thecriteria with the highest and lowest scores are speed of the ASD child’s responseand ability to negotiate is the criterion, respectively. Strategies used are effective ineliciting fast responses from the ASD child but not in facilitating communication.Results showed that communication strategies induced responses on ASD child; these were categorized as compliance, non-compliance and neutral. Results show that younger sibling use affirmative strategies to continue guiding theASD child to compliance and finish the domestic task. When the ASD child,however, manifests non-compliance and/or neutrality younger siblings the use ofcorrective and modeling strategies are needed to direct them back to compliance. Keywords: Special Education, communication strategies, Autism Spectrum Disorder,Task-Based Learning, descriptive-evaluative design, Philippines

The purpose of this study was to examine the special education teachers’ evaluation experience and perception for determining special education eligibility for students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). For this reason, focus group interviews were conducted with 12 special teachers who are currently in charge of diagnostic evaluation at the Special Education Support Center. As a result of analyzing the focus group interview data, five main themes and 16 sub-themes were derived. The main themes were: 1) the meaning and significance of determining special education eligibility for students with ASD; 2) experience in the diagnostic evaluation process; 3) experience and effort in diagnostic evaluation; 4) remaining limitations and difficulties; and 5) needs for a reasonable eligibility determination system and diagnostic evaluation tools for students with ASD. Based on these results, we conclude that the process of determining special education eligibility for students with ASD should be conducted as part of the special education delivery system. Additionally, future directions for valid and reliable screening and diagnostic evaluation tools were discussed.

This study examines longitudinal student progress and achievement on the elementary, middle, and high school levels in relation to accountability policy incentives in a large urban district in Texas. Using quantitative analyses supplemented by qualitative interviews, the authors found that high-stakes testing policies that rewarded and punished schools based on average student scores created incentives for schools to “game the system” by excluding students from testing and, ultimately, school. In the elementary grades, low-achieving students were disproportionately excluded from taking the high-stakes Texas Assessment of Academic Skills tests, demonstrating gains not reflected on the low-stakes Stanford Achievement Test–Ninth Edition. Student exclusion at the elementary level occurred through special education and language exemptions and missing scores. Furthermore, gaming strategies reduced educational opportunity for African American and Latino high school students. Sharp increases in 9th-grade student retention and disappearance were associated with increases in 10th-grade test scores and related accountability ratings.

There is an expanding body of research focused on exploring inclusive science learning for students with complex support needs. The aim of this qualitative case study was to explore how a research partnership focused on expanding inclusive science learning for students with complex support needs (CSN) could support the learning of a focal student with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and his general education and special education teachers. We framed the study using critical inclusion and expansive learning frameworks to explore how a new expansive learning space, science-as-practice, was created and supported the learning of both the focal learner and his teachers. Findings suggest that the flexible learning contexts, across and within both his general education and special education classrooms, supported the focal learner in engaging meaningfully in science learning. Furthermore, evidence of his learning helped expand his teachers’ views of science learning for students with CSN.

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.