Key Takeaway

Culturally responsive parent advocacy programs, like FIRME, are necessary elements of any special education program. If parents aren’t informed, empowered, and prepared to advocate for their child’s rights, then the entire system suffers. School personnel lose a powerful partner and children miss out on the inclusion of the people who know their strengths and needs best. —Erin Madonna

Rios, Burke, and Aleman-Tovar’s study focused on Latinx families with children who have intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (IDD), including autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The study inquired into one avenue, a pilot-test of the Familias Incluidas en Recibiendo Mejor Educación Especial (FIRME) advocacy program, for removing systemic barriers for Latinx families so that they are better able to ensure that their children are receiving the special education or disability services they deserve. 

Previous studies have shown that special education knowledge, empowerment, and advocacy are all aspects that can remove systemic barriers for families of students with disabilities.1-4 Increased parental stress can also impact a family’s preparedness to advocate for and access disability services.5 Increased levels of stress can be particularly challenging when other barriers exist simultaneously, such as language differences, lack of resources, inequitable power dynamics, or racism exhibited by school personnel. The study utilized both surveys (quantitative) and interviews (qualitative) to articulate the results of the FIRME program’s use with Latinx families of students with IDD.

Culturally-Responsive Approach

Knowing all of this and employing it successfully through an advocacy program within the Latinx community also requires culturally responsive practices, which the authors considered carefully in their recruitment phase as well as throughout the study. Prior to inviting parents to participate in the study, the authors volunteered with Latinx groups and conducted other research projects within the community in order to develop relationships of trust with the families. The sessions were organized in locations accessible by public transportation and participants were provided a small stipend for their time. The FIRME program was delivered in Spanish and families had the option to conduct their interviews in their preferred language.

Research Questions:

  • “Does FIRME affect parental perceptions of parent (i.e., knowledge, advocacy skills, empowerment, and stress) and child (i.e., unmet service need outcomes) outcomes among Latinx parents of children with IDD?
  • How do Latinx parents of children with IDD perceive the feasibility of FIRME?”

Author’s Hypotheses:

  • “The FIRME program would increase special education knowledge; advocacy; empowerment; and access to services and decrease stress.
  • The FIRME program would be feasible as demonstrated by: a high attendance rate; a low attrition rate; and positive participant satisfaction.”

Primary Findings:

  • Participants’ knowledge of special education, their sense of self-efficacy around issues of advocacy, and their feelings of empowerment all increased post-intervention.
  • The measured stress levels of participants increased over the course of the intervention, indicating that the FIRME intervention needs to better address participant stress moving forward. 
  • Despite a high attrition rate (53.5%), regular attendance and high rates of satisfaction were reported by those participants who completed the program. 

In the Families’ Words

A powerful aspect of this study is the inclusion of the parents’ personal reflections. While causation could not be established due to the lack of a control group, it is clear that the families involved perceived their participation in a positive light. As one family member stated, “I feel more confident to sit at the IEP meeting and disagree if something is said that I don’t agree with . . . and now, I could just ask questions as well, and if I don’t understand something, stop them [school personnel] and say, you know, I didn’t understand it . . . so, I feel really empowered.” One parent started a parent support group to share what she had learned, and another stated that “this [FIRME] will give me the opportunity in the future to help other parents of the Latinx community who have to know how to navigate the IEP.” Parents also reported feeling more supported post-intervention: “Yes, I really liked [hearing from other parents] because now I don’t feel that I am alone.”

Limitations and Implications for Future Research:

The authors note that, while promising, the findings should be considered with the following understandings and recommendations in mind:

  • This was a single group intervention study, so only correlational inferences can be made.
  • The sample size was small and the attrition rate was high.
  • Exit interviews were not collected which means the authors were unable to identify all of the reasons participants dropped out.
  • Future research using a randomized controlled trial design should be conducted to investigate the effectiveness of the FIRME intervention through a causal lens.
  • Longitudinal data should be collected in future studies to determine if the effects persist well beyond the end of the intervention.
  • Participant feedback should be considered when preparing future iterations, such as more sessions offered, the ability to have the FIRME coach review their child’s IEP with them in order to answer any questions unique to their situations, and the incorporation of stress reduction techniques.

Summarized Article:

Rios, K., Burke, M. M., & Aleman-Tovar, J. (2021). A Study of the Families Included in Receiving Better Special Education Services (FIRME) Project for Latinx Families of Children with Autism and Developmental Disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04827-3

Summary by: Erin Madonna- Erin philosophically aligns with the MARIO Framework’s deeply rooted belief that all learners are capable, and she firmly believes in MARIO’s commitment to the use of evidence-based practices drawn from the field of multidisciplinary research.

Researcher Meghan M. Burke participated in the final version of this summary.

Additional References:

  1. Burke, M., Arnold, C., & Owen, A. (2018a). Identifying the correlates and barriers of future planning among parents of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 56(2), 90–100. https:// doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-56.2.90.
  2. Casagrande, K. A., & Ingersoll, B. R. (2017). Service delivery outcomes in ASD: Role of parent education, empowerment, and professional partnerships. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(9), 2386–2395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0759-8.
  3. Cohen, S. R. (2013). Advocacy for the “Abandonados”: Harnessing cultural beliefs for latino families and their children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 10(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12021.
  4. Taylor, J. L., Hodapp, R. M., Burke, M. M., Waitz-Kudla, S. N., & Rabideau, C. (2017). Training parents of youth with autism spectrum disorder to advocate for adult disability services: Results from a pilot randomized controlled trial. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47, 846–857. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10803-016-2994-z. 
  5. Trainor, A. A. (2010). Diverse approaches to parent advocacy during special education home-school interactions: Identification and use of cultural and social capital. Remedial and Special Education, 31(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508324401.


Key Takeaway

Despite decades of growth in the identification of special educational needs and provision of services, academic performance in students with learning disabilities remains lower than their neurotypical peers. Therefore, we must ask if special education services improve academic outcomes for students with disabilities? Results suggest that entering special education early has the biggest impact on students who have been classified with specific learning disabilities. —Frankie Garbutt

Analyzing Public Data on Students with Learning Disabilities and Academic Performance

In this article, Amy Ellen Schwartz (Syracuse University), Bryant Gregory Hopkins (Michigan State University), and Leanna Stiefel (New York University) analyze the “New York City public school data of the 44,000 students with specific learning disabilities over a seven-year period” to investigate the effects of special education services on academic performance.

The researchers point out that “there is surprisingly little evidence to guide special education policy and answer the question of whether services work.” They argue that there is a growing wealth of literature on the effects of school policy on general education students yet a lack of research into the efficiency of special education services. 


The study focuses on students with specific learning disabilities (LDs) “in particular for two reasons. First, LDs are the largest group of students with disabilities (SWD) in 2015, representing 35 percent of SWDs nationally and 40 percent in NYC.1 Second, because the majority of LDs are classified after school entry (typically grades 3 through 8), we observe outcomes both before and after classification.”

The study thoroughly examines “the quantitative literature on the effectiveness of special education,” “background regarding the special education classification process and the nature of learning disabilities,” and “data and models, respectively” before discussing results and conclusions.

Recommendations and Limitations


Overall the research indicates “that special education works to improve outcomes for students with learning disabilities.” As a result, the authors suggest earlier identification for special needs services to ensure gains in students’ performances. Moreover, it is suggested that findings could be generalized for students with learning disabilities, yet “more work investigating the differential effects of alternative service settings could be useful for policymakers.” 

However, it is acknowledged that there are several limitations, i.e. the lack of data analyzed for high school students or kindergarten as the study focused on elementary and middle school students. Similarly, authors could not “distinguish severity of disability within LDs and it is possible that effects differ with severity.”

The paper highlights the positive effect of special education on students’ academic performance and paves the way for methods to evaluate data on the efficacy of policies and practices, as well as starting to build the evidence base to improve special education for all in the USA. 

Summarized Article:  

Schwartz, A. E., Hopkins, B. G., & Stiefel, L. (2021). The effects of special education on the academic performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 40(2), 480–520. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22282 

Summary by: Frankie Garbutt – Frankie believes that the MARIO Framework encourages students to become reflective, independent learners who progress at their own rate.

Additional References:

  1. U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2018). Digest of Education Statistics, 2016. NCES 2017–094, Chapter 2.

Key Takeaway

The inclusion of students with disabilities (SWDs) within general education classrooms and the improvement of academic performance continues to be a challenge faced by many school districts across the United States. However, data collected on special education reform in America’s largest school district, New York City (NYC), suggests that progress on inclusion is possible, yet increases in academic performance are more difficult to achieve, emphasizing the need for new policies that address this gap in the educational system. —Taryn McBrayne

A Decade-Long Study

In this article, Stiefel et al. share the findings of their decade-long (2005-2015) empirical study on special education reform. The study “examines progress toward the twin legislative goals of both the federal Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) and NYC district goals of (a) including SWDs in general education settings and (b) improving their academic performance.”

As Stiefel et al. outline, between 2000 – 2010 various educational reports circulated in the state of New York, highlighting concerns regarding the representation of SWDs in NYC schools. According to the 2012 NYC Public Advocate report, “data from 2009 to 2010 revealed that SWDs had lower rates of inclusion, high school graduation, and math and English proficiency.”1 

In response to such reports, A Shared Path to Success policy was initiated in 2010. Here, SWDs were provided with one of four support services based on need, including support services, supplemental instruction, co-teaching, and self-contained services.  

In an attempt to assess the legislative goals over time, Stiefel et al. examined yearly trends in areas including but not limited to the distribution of SWDs across classrooms, math and ELA standardized test scores, and high school graduation rates. 

The Results

The results of the study by Stiefel et al. can be summarized as follows: 

  • Although more SWDs were represented in the school system, the proportion with particular disabilities changed. This difference is likely because “students with certain disabilities can be more difficult to integrate.”2
  • “NYC schools experienced changes in student composition that made achieving progress for SWDs on test performance more challenging.”
  • “Performance [on math and ELA exams] varied considerably by student type and over time,” thus making trends difficult to assess. 
  • Data concluded that “SWDs have made some progress in graduating . . . but they have some distance to go before achieving anything close to those of GENs.”
  • In terms of attendance, statistics showed that “In NYC high schools… the attendance rate for SWDs in 2015 was 81%, trailing GENs by about 8% points.” 

Key Implications

The authors also highlight three key implications of their study:

  1. Educators and policymakers must consider what makes special education policies successful. 
  2. Educators and policymakers must consider “the implications that the movement toward more SWDs in general education classrooms has for supports and resources.”
  3. The study illustrates the kind of “systemwide work that must accompany specific program evaluation studies.” The authors call for increased research in additional school districts across the country. 

Ultimately, Stiefel et al. conclude that “although NYC has made progress towards increasing the amount of time that SWDs and GENs spend together, achievement gaps persist.” It is important to acknowledge that the research consulted in this study is largely descriptive and quantitative in nature, therefore its main limitation is that it cannot be considered causal. Rather, this study serves as a motivator to conduct additional, qualitative research in other districts across the United States and to further investigate why such gaps continue to exist in education. 

Summarized Article:

Stiefel, L., Gottfried, M., Shiferaw, M., & Schwartz, A. (2021). Is Special Education Improving? Case Evidence From New York City. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 32 (2), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207320934810

Summary by: Taryn McBrayne – Taryn believes in the power of student voice and, through the MARIO Framework, strives to create more opportunities for both educators and students to regularly make use of this power.

Additional References:

  1. Fund for Public Advocacy. (2012). Educating all students well: Special education reform in New York City public schools.http://archive.advocate.nyc.gov/special-ed
  2. MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., & Forness, S. R. (1996). Full inclusion: An empirical perspective. Behavioral Disorders, 21(2), 145–159.

Key Takeaway

For people with severe intellectual disabilities, transitioning to adult services marks a significant point in their lives. It is during these times and beyond that their involvement in big decisions, such as planning transitions, and the relationships between these people and family members have never been more important. This study explores the transition of six individuals with severe intellectual disabilities; the findings highlight how professionals can also form a close relationship with these individuals. — Michael Ho

Understanding Transitions

“While the need to better understand transitions to adult services for people with severe intellectual disabilities has been acknowledged, studies that examine transitions mostly include participants with mild-to-moderate intellectual disabilities”1 This aligns with the need to better understand the unique situation of individuals with severe intellectual disabilities transitioning to adult services.

Jacobs, Quayle, Wilkinson, and Macmahon (2021) investigated the transition experiences of six adults with severe intellectual disabilities, including transitions from school to adult services and moving out of the family home. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between families and professionals, to understand how they work together and what influenced their actions during transitions.

The ethics of care perspective is the backbone of this study that centers around relationships. “Ethics of care is a philosophical theory that emphasises the importance of interpersonal relationships and care to understand human flourishing.”2 It stresses that vulnerability and dependence are central to human life.

The participants’ immediate environments, as well as how far transitions were shaped by organizational practices and political and cultural spheres, were explored. Each case referred to the transition experience of one of the six participants. Information was collected through different data sources and through the perspectives of different stakeholders. In all six transition journeys, the participant was involved in planning their transitions. 

Findings

The study found that the participants were involved in decisions only within their immediate setting and not across ecological levels that included policy-making and service provision. This adds to the evidence that “people with intellectual disability and their families are largely excluded from decision-making processes on wider levels.”3 

There was evidence that participants were valued based on the relationships they had with support in their immediate environment. However, barriers included experiences of scarce resources, inflexible organizational structures, and a gap between the ideals of policies and actual possibilities within practice.

Another key finding highlights that while families, particularly mothers, play a central role in the lives of the child, relationships between people with severe intellectual disabilities and professionals cannot be overlooked.

This study highlights the understanding of transitions as multidimensional, which emphasizes that transitions never just affect one person and that they are influenced by the wider socio-economic context. This relational perspective shows that not only does the person with intellectual disabilities have needs, but their carers and other stakeholders involved also have needs and required support. 

Limitations

There were limitations to this study. First, all six participants were able to access services and involve their families to advocate on their behalf. This may not reflect the reality of other people with severe intellectual disabilities. In addition, the input and responses were from adults who knew and spent time with the participants. Therefore, the researchers cannot claim to represent the views and opinions of the participants themselves. 

Summarized Article:

Jacobs, P., Quayle, E., Wilkinson, H., & Macmahon, K. (2021). Relationships matter! Utilising ethics of care to understand transitions in the lives of adults with severe intellectual disabilities . British Journal of Learning Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12380

Summary by: Michael Ho — Michael supports the MARIO Framework because it empowers learners to take full control of their personalized learning journey, ensuring an impactful and meaningful experience.

Additional References:

  1. Foley, K.-R., Dyke, P., Girdler, S., Bourke, J., & Leonard, H. (2012). Young adults with intellectual disability transitioning from school to post-school: A literature review framed within the ICF. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34, 1747–1764.
  2. Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. London: Psychology Press.
  3. Löve, L., Traustadóttir, R., Quinn, G., & Rice, J. (2017). The inclusion of the lived experience of disability in policymaking. Laws, 6, 33.

 Researcher Paula Jacobs participated in the final version of this summary. 

Key Takeaway

When implementing a tiered model of prevention, such as the comprehensive, integrated, three-tiered model, it is important to attend systematically to the elements that can positively impact the success of the model. Strong value-driven leadership, data-based decision making, and professional development in the theoretical and practical aspects of a positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) system must be consistently integrated. —Erin Madonna

Ci3T Model and Teacher Perceptions 

In this study, Menzies et al. (2021) explored teacher perceptions of the comprehensive, integrated, three-tiered (Ci3T) model of prevention through interview-based focus groups. Ci3T has a foundation in applied behavior analysis (ABA) and is designed to address student needs in three learning domains, academic, behavior, and social-emotional well-being, through data-based instruction and intervention. Within the model, behavior management is designed to be proactive and positive, rather than reactive, aversive, or punitive. 

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate teacher perceptions of the Ci3T model and its implementation. The researchers realized a prevailing theme was emerging in teacher interviews around challenges implementing certain aspects of Ci3T, namely the PBIS plan. 

Teachers highlighted struggles with applying proactive management strategies, a reluctance to transition away from punishment-based management strategies, and organizational elements which both improved or limited the successful implementation of Ci3T in their contexts as central to their experiences.

“As demonstrated in this study, closer attention to teachers’ beliefs about the theoretical underpinnings of the model, and cultural norms in conflict with it, might have resulted in smoother adoption of the PBIS components” (Menzies et al., 2021).

Misconceptions

As Menzies et al. analyzed the entirety of the interviews, they recognized that misconceptions of ABA and professional beliefs around behavior management were complicating a high-fidelity adoption of PBIS. 

“Disturbingly, there seemed to be an understanding among the participants that the word ‘consequences’ was code for punishment, in its most negative and everyday sense, and it was deemed a very effective strategy for managing behavior” (Menzies et al., 2021). In ABA, a consequence is simply what occurs after the behavior and is not synonymous with punishment. 

The concept of holding students accountable through corrective measures, largely encompassing punitive responses, was echoed through interviews with teachers and indicated a strong desire to stick with systems that were perceived to have worked previously (clip charts, etc). 

Teachers were encouraged to instead use explicit instruction as a way to teach expected behaviors and positive reinforcement of prosocial behaviors when they occurred as methods for improving problem behaviors. 

Positive Outcomes and Impact

Despite reluctance, there were some signs that positive results were beginning to impact teacher implementation of Ci3T. It seems that when teachers had training to understand the Ci3T model or were able to experience small successes, their perceptions of the new system became more positive.

When considering the factors that aided the adoption of Ci3T, the researchers found that “using data to inform decisions and leadership from the site administrator were essential elements in changing teachers’ perceptions about the utility of the Ci3T model.” The educators perceived that the Ci3T model was more likely to be implemented with fidelity and social validity when they had the support of their leadership in administration. 

In the schools where leadership presented a clear vision of Ci3T and championed the belief that it had the potential to positively impact the culture of the school, teachers expressed more positive perceptions and seemed more invested in shifting their behavior management approach. 

Furthermore, key to a culture shift was the attention paid to data and its role in informing instructional choices. When an educator is able to see a positive trend in the behavioral data for their class as a result of implementing proactive strategies, they become more willing to commit to leaving punitive measures in the past. 

Summarized Article: 

Menzies, H. M., Oakes, W. P., Lane, K. L., Royer, D. J., Cantwell, E. D., Common, E. A., & Buckman, M. (2021). Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions of a Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered Model of Prevention. Remedial and Special Education, 42(4), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932519896860]

Summary by: Erin Madonna — Erin philosophically aligns with the MARIO Framework’s deeply rooted belief that all learners are capable, and she firmly believes in MARIO’s commitment to the use of evidence-based practices drawn from the field of current multidisciplinary research.

Researchers Holly M. Menzies, Wendy P. Oakes, Kathleen L. Lane, and Mark Buckman participated in the final version of this summary. 

Key Takeaway: The pandemic has disrupted teaching and learning in many ways. Students with IEPs likely had these documents changed to adapt to the current mode of learning. In particular, students with social-based interventions may have needed to put these on hold as social distance and virtual learning made these infeasible. As students return to a more normal school routine, IEP teams will have to reassess students’ Present Level of Performance (PLOP) and likely conduct reassessment and revision of IEPs. —Ayla Reau

Students with autism rely on routine and often require individualized instruction. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the disruption to education worldwide, Sarah Hurwitz, Blaine Garman-McClaine, and Kane Carlock (Indiana University Bloomington) sought to investigate how special educators and specialists adapted practices for such students in response to pandemic schooling conditions. 

“Special education professionals were asked to complete an online survey inquiring about service provision for students with autism during the COVID-19 pandemic.” Participants reported:

  • making changes to Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). 
    • Adding Individualized Continuity of Learning Plans (ICLPs) to describe how service could be provided across learning modalities (i.e. online, hybrid, face-to-face). 
    • Adjusting service minutes to provide more flexibility
  • “having less time to work on behavioural goals, track student progress, or help students interact socially.” Some educators dropped social-based IEP goals and spent much less time implementing social interventions due to distancing requirements and inapplicability to virtual instruction, “with about 80% reporting more difficulty addressing social goals than before the pandemic.” 
  • having to stop using peer helpers and running social groups, which afforded fewer opportunities for social skills practice. 
  • making modifications to every aspect of teaching including materials, personnel, and format. Modifications were also made to who implemented the interventions, including coaching paraprofessionals who would then deliver small group instruction over Zoom and build collaboration with parents.

Overall, special education teachers described feeling less able to meet IEP requirements during online learning “and struggled to deliver the services, support, and attention that their students needed.”

However, the results also indicated the importance of collaboration between teachers and guardians. Getting and keeping caregivers involved in a child’s education is imperative to maintaining progress, especially while the children work from home. Since parents may not have the required training and experience needed to effectively implement their child’s education plan, offering the option to hold virtual parent-teacher meetings and case conferences may facilitate access. 

Educators also found that while some students with more intense needs struggled, others actually preferred virtual instruction. “For some students with autism, staying at home where they feel comfortable and can engage in self-regulating activities without negative social consequences, may reduce their stress and have positive impacts on learning.” This raises concerns for the future when social expectations resume. 

The authors conclude that students with disabilities are likely to have had a diminished learning experience during the pandemic. “As such, compensatory services may be required going forward.” They suggest that as schools return to more normal functioning, “IEP teams should assess what services were, in fact, delivered during school closures and across the changing educational modalities, and then conduct an assessment of each student’s current needs (i.e. reassess their Present Level of Performance (PLOP)).” If regression has occurred or limited progress was made in meaningful skills, the authors suggest IEP teams issue a COVID-19 compensatory services plan. Further, they predict reassessment and revision of IEPs to become common requirements as in-person learning resumes.  

Schools must also continue to address mental health and provide additional layers of support for teachers to address burnout, in order to retain the teachers they have, especially special education teachers. 

It is important to note that participants were all from public schools in Indiana, and the data was collected from a specific moment in the pandemic (middle of the 2020-2021 academic year), so their “perspective is grounded in experiences from a state that endeavored to open schools early, with precautions, allowing many school districts to offer hybrid and full-time in-person learning for considerable portions of the year.”

Summarized Article:

Hurwitz, S., Garman-McClaine, B., & Carlock, K. (2021). Special education for students with autism during the COVID-19 pandemic: “Each day brings new challenges”. Autism : the international journal of research and practice, 13623613211035935. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211035935

Summary by: Ayla Reau—Ayla is excited to help continue to grow the MARIO Framework, seeing the potential for it to impact all students across any educational context.

Key Takeaway: Working conditions may be powerfully related to the day-to-day instruction a teacher provides to their students. Special educators often work with students who exhibit a range of academic, emotional, and behavioural challenges. Special educators who experience more supportive working conditions reported more manageable workloads, less emotional exhaustion and stress, and felt greater self-efficacy for instruction—contributing to more frequent use of evidence-supported instructional practices to address student needs. —Ayla Reau

This paper by Michelle Cumming (Florida International University), Kristen Merrill O’Brien (George Mason University), Nelson Brunsting (Wake Forest University), and Elizabeth Bettini (Boston University) explores how the working conditions of special educators relate to the provision of effective instructional or behavioural management practices for students with emotional behavioural disorders (EBD) in self-contained settings. 

Note that: 

  • “Working conditions are the contexts of teachers’ work, including the demands placed on them and the social and logistical resources they have for meeting those demands.” 
  • Students with EBD tend to “demonstrate low academic achievement and problematic behaviours that impede success.” These needs can be met with; 1) effective research-support instruction “characterized by frequent opportunities to respond to academic prompts, evidence-based practices, and high rates of feedback;” 2) highly effective behaviour management strategies; 3) feedback like praise or token economies to acknowledge positive behaviours. 
  • Self-contained settings are schools and classes that are specifically designed for students who need intensive services to address significant behavioural needs.

The purpose of the study was to “investigate how working conditions related to SETs’ [special education teachers] affective outcomes (workload manageability, emotional exhaustion, stress, and self-efficacy) and reported use of effective instructional and behaviour management practices.” The authors of this study choose to focus on the working conditions of: 

  • demands (i.e., instructional groups, instructional responsibilities)
  • social resources (i.e., administrative support, school culture, and paraprofessional support), and 
  • logistical resources (i.e., instructional resources, planning time)

Analysis of the data collected from a national (United States) survey of SET’s with students with EBD in self-contained settings found that “SETs who experienced more supportive working conditions (i.e., stronger logistical resources, lower demands) rated their workloads as more manageable, experienced less emotional exhaustion and stress, and thus felt more efficacious in using effective instructional practices.” This finding aligns with the “growing body of research in educational leadership and policy [that] indicates that working conditions may be powerfully related to the quality of instruction teachers provide.” 

While the study did have limitations and the authors were unable to find “predictors of self-efficacy for reported use behaviour management practices, and social resources did not demonstrate good model fit when included,” the findings do still present implications for policy and practice. When SET’s feel their workloads are less manageable they are less likely to use effective instructional practices—this would have a significant impact on students who benefit from this research-supported instruction, such as students with EBD. The authors suggest that school leaders and administrations should consider how best to support SETs, in particular by protecting planning times and ensuring that SETs have access to the curricular resources they need to meet their students’ learning needs. They also encourage leaders to provide instructional supports, such as training in the use of resources, in addition to behavioural supports to SETs in self-contained settings. 

It is crucial that school leaders address SET’s working conditions “both to improve their experiences, and to ensure that students with EBD receive the kinds of effective practices necessary to improve their outcomes.”

Summarized Article:

Cumming, M. M., O’Brien, K. M., Brunsting, N. C., & Bettini, E. (2021). Special Educators’ Working Conditions, Self-Efficacy, and Practices Use with Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 42(4), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932520924121

Summary by: Ayla Reau—Ayla is excited to help continue to grow the MARIO Framework, seeing the potential for it to impact all students across any educational context.

Key Takeaway: Mueller illuminates key gaps in the present educational system that inhibits disability identity development; educators, administrators, and school staff should collectively work to counteract the lack of curriculum representation, community, and disabled staff in effectively teaching and empowering learners with special needs.—Emmy Thamakaison

Carlyn O. Mueller (University of Wisconsin) shares her qualitative interview study exploring disability identity development and its relationship to educational experiences. Nine adults with special needs were asked to reflect on their schooling experiences through a semi-structured interview process.

Disability identity is defined as “a sense of self that includes one’s disability and feelings of connection to, or solidarity with, the disability community.”1 It is generally accepted that the development of one’s disability identity is heavily influenced by educational experiences during youthful years; more often than not, those with disabilities are “often positioned such that they are likely (and even encouraged) to reject identifying as disabled”2 during their schooling. 

After the current study’s participants reflected upon their past educational experiences in relation to their disability identities, several unifying patterns emerged: firstly, all of the participants noticed a lack of disability representation in both special education and general education curriculum. 

  • Planned or guided discussions around disabilities were minimal if not nonexistent during their schooling years, as one participant noted, “it did not come up. It wasn’t shown in any of the history, or social studies, or multi-media, or anything else… there’s no word for [disability], no vocabulary.” 
  • Though the relationship between curriculum representation and disability identity may be influenced by extraneous factors (ie. stigma), the participants still implore for “more direct, explicit discussion around disability identity” in the schooling system; representation of disability culture and history may help mitigate negative experiences that are beyond the control of schooling and allow individuals with special needs to relate to themselves and others in the community better. 

Furthermore, the participants recalled a lack of disability community during their education. Connection with fellow individuals with special needs, perceived role models, or simply a sense of membership were often “actively discouraged,” as one participant recalled, “I remember them telling me, ‘…don’t associate with those people [other students with intellectual disabilities]’… even though those people I relate with the most.”

  • Importantly, special education spaces often foster “under-developed” disability communities, with their “segregated nature” and narratives that “there was something fundamentally wrong with their bodies, minds, or ways of being.” 
  • To this end, Mueller calls for the identification, correction, and counteraction of such narratives, as well as opportunities for students to “grow and learn around other children with disabilities”3 in a special education context.

Participants also unanimously agreed that there was a lack of school staff with open relationships with disabilities. Not only does this represent a missed opportunity for student empowerment through role-modelling, it also leads to educators being forced to “make their own assumptions, [which] produces really undesirable outcomes.” One participant states that “I would often get yelled at by some of my teachers when I was doing . . . normal autistic stuff, weird for neurotypicals,” and another recalls, “the special ed system didn’t really prepare me for adulthood in a lot of ways . . . it’s not built by people who understand what it’s really like.” 

  • In mitigating these present outcomes, Mueller suggests including disability history, pride, and community in teacher preparation programs; not only would this prime educators for teaching curricula with disability representation, it would also push teachers to challenge and expand their own beliefs about disabilities and commit to anti-ableist approaches that translate to a classroom setting. 
  • Active efforts to include educators, administrators, and paraprofessionals with disabilities into educational spaces are also vital. These individuals would potentially bring “a unique and powerful set of experiences and insights into the needs of children, youth, and families they serve.”4 

Ultimately, Mueller’s study illuminates gaps in the current general and special education system, in relation to students with disabilities. Through the words of individuals with special needs themselves, Mueller calls for a transformation of services and contexts that shape the disability identities of millions across the globe. Schools should make an active effort to “intentionally strengthen and name disability as an identity experience” so that future students look at the world and see a place for themselves in it.

Summarized Article:Mueller, C. O. (2021). “I Didn’t Know People With Disabilities Could Grow Up to Be Adults”: Disability History, Curriculum, and Identity in Special Education. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 44(3), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406421996069

Summary by: Emmy Thamakaison — Emmy is a recent high school graduate attending Stanford University and is an enthusiastic advocate of MARIO Framework.

Additional References:

  1. Dunn, D. S., & Burcaw, S. (2013). Disability identity: Exploring narrative accounts of disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 58(2), 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031691
  2. Annamma, S. A., Connor, D., & Ferri, B. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511
  3. Linton, S. (1998). Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York University Press.
  4. Council for Exceptional Children. (2016). CEC’s Policy on Educators with Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 82(4), 407–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916651880

Key Takeaway: According to two studies,1,2 autism is diagnosed in 1 out of 100 people in England. It is imperative that transitions and plans for learners who are diagnosed with autism and needing additional services are put in place in order for them to experience success and independence in their adult years. —Nika Espinosa

In their article, Crane et al. (2021) gathered data on how educational professionals in the United Kingdom view the transition for young people with autism and additional learning needs in relation to the Children and Families Act (2014) and the associated SEND Code of Practice, as well as their experiences in the field. According to the author’s research, for young adults who have been diagnosed with autism and additional learning needs after age 16, education doesn’t look favorable. The studies done by Anderson et al. (2016)3 and Wehman et al. (2014)4 support this picture. Thus, “there is an urgent need to understand how to promote good outcomes for autistic young people with additional learning needs as they transition into adulthood.”

The authors focused on 3 key areas of the SEND reforms:

  1. Help and support
  2. Having a say
  3. Achieving better outcomes

When providing help and support for the students, educational professionals acknowledged the challenges of limited finances, inadequate support from stakeholders, and the shift to using experiential knowledge to inform pedagogy. The participants expressed that in the current economic climate, funds for training have diminished, and at times, only one educational professional gets the training and is then expected to share their newly acquired knowledge with other colleagues. Another issue educational professionals face is that they rarely have time to implement the training they have undergone and are sometimes relying on experiential knowledge to guide their practice. They also mentioned that even receiving support for these students in the local community has been difficult to obtain. For example, the waiting list for the mental health services is often quite long. “While this finding is not specific to post-16 education, an emphasis on implementation with this vulnerable group, at this crucial phase of education, is arguably more important here than at any other time.”

When it comes to giving their students a voice, the themes that emerged in the study were uncertainties around doing the right thing and flexibility in the school environment. “Despite using various tools and techniques to support students in having a say in their education, participants doubted whether they were using the ‘right’ strategies to elicit the voices of their vulnerable students.” One participant said part of their uncertainty was whether the students were providing honest answers, echolalic (repetition of spoken words), or giving answers that they believe their educational professional is expecting to hear. Sometimes, school systems can diminish student voices when up against accreditation requirements and curriculum demands. “Even if education professionals are able to elicit and document the voices of their pupils genuinely and meaningfully, this becomes tokenistic if their views cannot be acted on.” It’s therefore important that student voice is acted upon by the supporting community.

In the area of achieving better outcomes, the themes that emerged from the participants were the need for an individualized approach to identify successful outcomes for these young learners with additional needs and the concern about the opportunities available for them. The participants partly attributed their concerns to the follow-through of transition opportunities and the lack of awareness that a person with autism can contribute to the workplace and society. It is important that the individualized approach is complemented with opportunities. As the authors recommend, establishing school-work partnerships and providing support for these young adults in the workplace is imperative to their continuous growth as individuals and enables them to be successful in their adult years.

Summarized Article: Crane, L., Davies, J., Fritz, A., O’Brien, S., Worsley, A., Ashworth, M., & Remington, A. (2021). The transition to adulthood for autistic young people with additional learning needs: the views and experiences of education professionals in special schools. British Journal of Special Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12372

Summary by: Nika Espinosa—Nika believes that personalized learning is at the heart of special education and strives to collaborate with educators in providing a holistic, personalized approach to supporting all learners through the MARIO Framework.

Additional References:

1. Baird, G., Simonoff, E., Pickles, A., Chandler, S., Loucas, T., Meldrum, D. & Charman, T. (2006) ‘Prevalence of disorders of the autism spectrum in a population cohort of children in South Thames: the Special Needs and Autism Project (SNAP)’, Lancet, 368 (9531), 210–215.

2. Brugha, T. S., McManus, S., Bankart, J., Scott, F., Purdon, S., Smith, J., Bebbington, P., Jenkins, R. & Meltzer, H. (2011) ‘Epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders in adults in the community in England’, Archives of General Psychiatry, 68 (5), 459–465.

3. Anderson, K. A., McDonald, T. A., Edsall, D., Smith, L. E. & Taylor, J. L. (2016) ‘Postsecondary expectations of high-school students with au- tism spectrum disorders’, Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 31 (1), 16–26.

4. Wehman, P. H., Schall, C. M., McDonough, J., Kregel, J., Brooke, V., Molinelli, A., Ham, W., Graham, C. W., Riehle, J. E., Collins, H. T. & Thiss, W. (2014) ‘Competitive employment for youth with autism spec- trum disorders: early results from a randomized clinical trial’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44, 487–500.

Key Takeaway: In education, we throw around the term evidence-based quite casually, at times without the awareness of whether the evidence we rely on is empirically sound. Bringing clarity to how we ascertain veracity can support our ability to identify high-quality interventions. – Erin Madonna

In this article, Kauffman and Farkas discuss veracity as it pertains to special education, particularly around issues of policy and access to services. The authors outline two types of beliefs that drive educational decisions, Type A or scientifically verifiable beliefs and Type B, opinions or personal assertions which are not scientifically verified. The authors argue that when Type A beliefs have been established as replicable and truthful, they should be given precedence over Type B beliefs when making educational decisions.

In defining Type A and Type B beliefs, the authors provide the example of reading instruction to illustrate the difference between scientific beliefs and those based upon opinion. A Type A belief around reading is that explicit reading instruction of decoding skills works, while a Type B belief around reading is that reading emerges naturally in a literature-rich environment. We know this Type B belief as a “whole language” or a “balanced literacy” approach. The Type A belief has been verified scientifically, replicated, and is determined to be an evidence-based intervention not because we believe it to be, but because it has qualified as such through rigorous testing. This Type A belief can be challenged and reverified or debunked at any point. 

  • A Type A belief is not based on popular opinion, it is based upon the outcome of credible scientific study. 
  • The Type B belief is based upon personal testimonies and is often reinforced by the assertions of an authority figure or by a collective opinion held by a large group. It has not been exposed to the same scientific scrutiny as the Type A belief but is accepted by many because it fits with their personal opinions. This particular Type B belief is based upon flawed research which demonstrates how a Type B belief can be reinforced by data that does not meet the requirements of scientific assessment, but that is accepted anyway, becoming pseudoscience.

With the definition of Type A and Type B beliefs established, the authors go on to discuss practical applications of greater awareness around the two types of belief. “When we claim that something is evidence-based in special education, the matter of Type A belief about it—the empirical evidence—is of enormous consequence.” This is because making educational choices without empirical evidence risks, at best, neutral outcomes and, at worst, potential harm for our students. “Conformity to a personal version of belief, Type B, must not be substituted for a confirmable reality.”

The authors connect the concept of veracity with social justice when they discuss the impact of Type B beliefs on public policy, including the belief of “over-representation of certain racial or ethnic groups” in special education. With only partial veracity, amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) aimed at addressing the belief that “over-representation” is occurring have denied Black students badly needed services. “When a social policy or the fate of an individual is in question, as is often the case in special education, then Type A truth matters a great deal.” 

Educators must look beyond the fads or popular movements in education and seek out information about whether the interventions they plan to implement are based upon a Type A belief or a Type B belief. Part of this process for the individual is being willing to adjust their practice if new empirical evidence demonstrates that a previously held belief is not in fact a Type A belief. Adaptability and commitment to relying on scientific evidence provide the best opportunity for delivering a high-quality educational experience for our students. Allowing for external pressures to influence our choice of intervention without evidenced veracity is problematic. 

The authors are careful to express that Type B beliefs can positively influence education. They make clear that Type A and Type B beliefs may not always be in conflict. When one’s personal beliefs allow them to “make better sense of the objective world and/or provide moral guidance or a star to steer by,” that Type B belief can provide the motivation to advocate for special education services or improved policy. The point is not to abandon all Type B beliefs but to become conscious of how they influence our decisions as educators and to always check our Type B beliefs against available evidence before acting upon them. 

Summarized Article:

[Kauffman, J. M., & Farkas, G. (2021). Veracity in Special Education. Exceptionality, 1-14. DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2021.1938066]

Summary by: Erin Madonna—Erin philosophically aligns with the MARIO Framework’s deeply rooted conviction that all learners are capable, and she firmly believes in MARIO’s commitment to the use of evidence-based practices drawn from the field of current multidisciplinary research.