Explore the vast range of titles available.

Educational policies mandate the consideration of accommodations so that students with disabilities become proficient in the objectives outlined by state academic content standards and demonstrate proficiency on high-stakes assessments. However, neither policies nor empirical research provide sufficient guidance for educators to effectively select and implement accommodations. This study reviews the effectiveness of accommodations for students in the special education eligibility category of emotional disturbance and those with diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). First, we propose definitions that delineate accommodations from modifications and interventions. Next, we identify strategies that could serve as potential accommodations for this population. Next, we conduct a systematic literature review and calculate effect sizes to evaluate the effectiveness of the included strategies. Finally, we review the evidence to determine whether each included strategy meets the proposed definition of an accommodation. Although several potential strategies are beneficial to youth with ADHD and/or emotional and behavioral disorders, this review indicates that very few purported accommodations actually meet all the criteria in the definition of accommodations, and there is very little evidence supporting the effectiveness of commonly recommended accommodations for youth with behavioral challenges. Our critique of the state of the science on accommodations highlights several important issues that can be used to inform current research and practice in schools.

As a result of the upcoming Federal reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), practitioners and researchers have begun vigorously debating what constitutes evidence-based assessment for the identification of specific learning disability (SLD). This debate has resulted in strong support for a method that appraises an individual's profile of cognitive test scores for the purposes of determining cognitive processing strengths and weaknesses, commonly referred to as patterns of strengths and weaknesses (PSW). Following the Fuchs and Deshler model, questions regarding the psychometric and conceptual integrity of the PSW model are addressed. Despite the strong claims made by many PSW proponents, the findings by this review demonstrate the need for additional information to determine whether PSW is a viable alternative to existing eligibility models and worthy for large scale adoption for SLD identification. Implications for public policy and future SLD research are also discussed.

Determining the most effective curricula for students with severe disabilities requires increased attention as legislation and curricular changes are being made in the field of special education. This article a) reviews the legislation mandates from the 2004 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) and the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), b) discusses evidence-based practices for a standards-based curriculum and functional curriculum, and c) examines longitudinal outcomes for students with severe disabilities. The research suggests that students working on functional skills provided through a meaningful curriculum leads to a more independent life. Recommendations for future research and discussion are also presented.

Although comparison studies are important in early intervention/early childhood special education (EI/ECSE), results of well-designed comparison studies are likely to be unpublished because of undifferentiated or differently differentiated results across participants. The purpose of this article is to highlight the utility of comparison designs in the identification of evidence-based interventions for individual children. We present results from three single case comparative studies analyzing embedded and massed-trial instruction, high- and low-fidelity instruction, and small group versus 1:1 instruction conducted in ECSE settings. All participants learned all targeted behaviors in both instructional conditions and learned no behaviors assigned to control conditions. Results suggest that evidence-based practices are not a “one-size-fits-all” conclusion and that data-based decision making is critical even when empirically supported interventions are used.

Purpose: This study documented evidence-based practice (EBP) patterns as reported by speech-language pathologists (SLPs) employed in public schools during 2010-2011. Method: Using an online survey, practioners reported their EBP training experiences, resources available in their workplaces, and the frequency with which they engage in specific EBP activities, as well as their resource needs and future training format preferences. Results: A total of 2,762 SLPs in 28 states participated in the online survey, 85% of whom reported holding the Certificate of Clinical Competence in Speech-Language Pathology credential. Results revealed that one quarter of survey respondents had no formal training in EBP, 11% of SLPs worked in school districts with official EBP procedural guidelines, and 91% had no scheduled time to support EBP activities. The majority of SLPs posed and researched 0 to 2 EBP questions per year and read 0 to 4 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) journal articles per year on either assessment or intervention topics. Conclusion: Use of ASHA online resources and engagement in EBP activities were documented to be low. However, results also revealed that school-based SLPs have high interest in additional training and resources to support scientifically based practices. Suggestions for enhancing EBP support in public schools and augmenting knowledge transfer are provided. (Contains 5 tables, 3 figures, and 1 footnote.)

In this article, we provide an overview of current knowledge on the underlying cognitive deficits associated with mathematics learning disabilities (MLD). We highlight difficulties surrounding the identification of MLD that include inconsistency in defining MLD, comorbidity with other disabilities, problems associated with assessment tools and actual skills measured, and the limited research on MLD. We offer suggestions for strengthening the research base, which in turn should contribute to improved outcomes for students with mathematics disabilities.

This article examines a critical question for the special education community: What should be the current meaning of “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) in light of not only the Supreme Court's landmark Rowley decision in 1982 but also developments in the 30 years since then? After synthesizing what the Rowley Court, the scholar-commentators, and the post-Rowley lower courts have said, the author examines the latest answer from Congress via the 2004 Individuals With Disabilities Education Act amendments. Particular attention is paid to the provision concerning peer-reviewed research and the recent case law interpreting this provision. The author suggests that the time is ripe for the special education community to help Congress fashion an appropriately heightened substantive or at least procedural standard for FAPE.

This article examines what we know about the experience of parents in the special education system—in particular, parents of children with learning disabilities since the passage of PL-94-142. Toward this end, I offer a review of special education literature about parent and professional collaboration, a rationale for relying upon a plurality of methodological frameworks in conducting research with parents of children with LD, and a challenge to the profession to raise and respond to ethical questions about our naturalized practices in alliance with parents.

In this article, James J. Gallagher proposes that understanding the political issues and the debate surrounding the education of gifted students is based on the recognition that education policy (including rules, regulations, financial allocations, etc.) reflects social policy. Hence, society prioritizes needs so that the most important of these are dealt with first and the most critical needs are addressed before resources are expended. Gallagher adds, though, that even if American society were to place a high priority on support for excellence in education for gifted students, the implementation of actions to create change would suffer because of the current structure of the educational system. That is, the current overall support systems and educational infrastructure at the national, state, and local levels are not sufficiently developed to mobilize resources effectively to utilize them in the best way in serving gifted students. For education of the gifted to be established as a readily available option for all gifted students, educational programming for gifted students needs a support system or infrastructure similar to the one already in existence for children with disabilities. The author offers recommendations of what components this kind of support system would require.

Students with emotional and behavioral disorders often experience difficulties in expressive writing and social outcomes in school and beyond. Therefore, writing instruction and self-determination skills are critical for this population. This research study, in which special education teachers were trained to be implementers, successfully intertwined persuasive writing with self-determination instruction to improve students' writing and self-determination skills. Emphasis was given to teaching students how persuasive writing can be used to self-advocate for needs and wants. The Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model of writing instruction was examined with a multiple-probe-across-participants design to evaluate the instructional effects. Instruction was provided 4 days per week, 40 min per session, for 14 to 23 days. Visual analyses indicated level changes and a functional relation between the SRSD/self-determination instruction and students' writing skills. Students' essays increased for number of words written, transition words, number of essay parts, and overall quality. Furthermore, students' self-determination perceptions and knowledge as well as writing self-efficacy significantly increased as a result of instruction. Teachers implemented the intervention with high degrees of fidelity. Teacher and student interviews revealed an overall satisfaction with SRSD procedures and results.