Andrew L. Wiley

Research in the Wake of the No Child Left Behind Act: Why the Controversies Will Continue and Some Suggestions for Controversial Research.

The authors provide an analysis of why the controversies surrounding educational treatment are likely to continue even with scientific validation of practices as called for in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. They describe how bias in human judgment makes it difficult to trust others and also difficult to doubt oneself relative to important decisions and suggest that science, through its mechanism of self-correction, is the best tool for overcoming these biases. The developing relationship between general and special education since NCLB is described. Several suggestions are provided for researchers, including the need to (a) reexamine the functions of individualized education programs, (b) develop standard treatment protocols for students who need support beyond that provided by school-wide discipline programs, and (c) scrutinize the academic demands faced by students with emotional or behavioral disorders vis à vis compliance with NCLB.

Does Providing Transition Services Early Enable Students with ASD to Achieve Better Vocational Outcomes as Adults

This study investigated whether receiving transition services early (i.e., by age 14) promoted better vocational outcomes than receiving transition services later (i.e., by age 16) for young adults with ASD. To do this, the outcomes achieved by two matched groups were examined—453 young adults from states requiring transition services be addressed by age 14 and 453 young adults with ASD from states requiring transition services be addressed by age 16. In each of the four years examined (i.e., 2006–2009), individuals from the early transition states were significantly more likely to be employed than individuals from the later transition group. Further, early transition individuals who became employed appeared to earn more wages and cost less to serve.

School Context and the Academic Achievement of Students With Emotional Disturbance

The authors examined the academic characteristics of 140 elementary-aged students served under the category of emotional disturbance (ED) from schools that differed in income level, performance on state testing, and suspension rates. School income accounted for a large amount of the variance in the reading and math achievement of students with ED as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson III. However, relative academic performance (as measured by performance on state testing compared with same-school peers and teacher ratings of academic competence) was similar across school income levels. Implications for intervention research and eligibility practices for students with ED are discussed.

Disproportionate Poverty, Conservatism, and the Disproportionate Identification of Minority Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Previous investigations of disproportionate representation of students from certain ethnic groups in special education have suggested that disproportionality is the result of bias against the members of overrepresented groups or, conversely, the result of disproportionate exposure to poverty for these students. Strong evidence in favor of either position has failed to emerge over the past decades, leading us to conclude that the models underlying these examinations might be inadequate. We, therefore, examined disproportionality in ED at the national level (50 states and DC) for two ethnic groups, African-American and Hispanic students. Using a more complex model, we found that disproportionate poverty was positively associated with representation of these two groups in ED classification. The representation of African-Americans in the ED category was negatively correlated with levels of conservatism for a state while poverty more strongly affected individuals from Hispanic backgrounds. We suggest that the general underidentification of individuals from all ethnic groups may be the larger problem.

Inclusive Education Moving Forward

Abstract Change is not synonymous with improvement. Improvement of special education requires better instruction of individuals with disabilities. Although LRE and inclusion are important issues, they are not the primary legal or practical issues in improving special education. Federal law (IDEA) requires a continuum of alternative placements, not placement in general education in all cases. To make actual progress in education of students with disabilities, a single and strict principle of equality or/and antidiscriminatory legal instruments, such as the CRPD, is not enough. Social justice as a multifaceted principle can serve the education of the whole spectrum of special educational needs in national and international contexts. Responsible inclusion demands attention to the individual instructional needs of individuals with disabilities and consideration of the practical realities involved in teaching. If inclusive education is to move forward, it must involve placing students with disabilities in general education only if that is the environment in which they seem most likely to learn the skills that will be most important for their futures.

Special Education Today in the United States of America

Abstract Special education in the USA is, in most respects, a 20th century phenomenon and is now governed primarily by federal legislation first enacted in 1975. The federal law in its most recent reauthorization (2004) continues to require a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for all students with disabilities, a full continuum of alternative placements (CAP) ranging from residential or hospital care to inclusion in general education, an individual education plan or program (IEP) for each student identified as needing special education, and placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE) that is thought best for implementing the IEP. Parents must be involved in the special education process. Approximately 14 percent of public school students were identified for special education in 2004–2005, but the number and percentage of students identified in most high-incidence categories as needing special education have declined in recent years (the total for all categories was about 8.5 percent of public school students in 2010). A variety of evidence-based interventions can be used to address the wide range of instructional and behavioral needs of students with disabilities and their families, including transition to further education or work, family services, and teacher education. Special education in the USA may find new sources of support and thrive or may become less common or be abandoned entirely due to criticism and withdrawal of support for social welfare programs of government.

Conservatism and the Underidentification of Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders in Special Education.

Underidentification of students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD; emotional disturbance or ED in federal language) is a critical issue, perhaps explainable in part by causal attributions of problem behavior associated with conservatism. Conservatism in 58 counties in the state of California was measured by finding the percentage of voters in the county voting in favor or Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, under the assumption that opposition to gay marriage is an indicator of conservatism. We conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses in which conservatism, ethnicity, free/reduced lunch, and suspension/expulsion were used to explain county rates of ED, intellectual disability, and learning disability identification. The model for county identification of ED accounted for 45% of the variance from county to county, with conservatism being the strongest predictor (β = −0.78, p < 0.001). More conservative counties had lower rates of ED identification. Other variables may contribute to under-identification, but causal attributions associated with conservatism may play a significant role.