Archived Information

**SECTION III**

**SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES**

**Modules**

1\. The Continuum of Placements: From Regular Classes to Residential
Facilities

2\. Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessments

3\. Developing a Partnership Between Families and Professionals

4\. The Continuum of Options in Dispute Resolution

5\. Monitoring Compliance with IDEA

6\. Advances in Teaching and Instructional Design

7\. Advances in Technology for Special Education

**The Continuum of Placements: From Regular Classes to Residential
Facilities**

Before the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was
enacted, approximately 1 million students with disabilities were
excluded from public schools, and few, if any, received educational
services. Although great progress has been made in guaranteeing services
for these students during the past 20 years, questions remain about the
extent to which those services are being provided in the least
restrictive environment (LRE). Particular concern has been raised about
the number of special education students receiving costly services in
private day and residential facilities at public expense and diverting
scarce resources from other areas of the educational system (Huefner,
1989; McCarthy, 1993).

IDEA requires that "to the maximum extent appropriate, children with
disabilities. . .are educated with children who are not disabled; and
that. . .removal of children with disabilities from the regular
educational environment occurs only when the nature. . .of the
disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of
supplementary aides and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily"
(U.S.C. 1412(5)(B)). The IDEA regulations further specify that a
continuum of alternative placements should be available to meet the
needs of children with disabilities for special education and related
services (34 CFR 300.551).

At one end of that continuum is placement in regular classes; at the
other end is placement in residential facilities and homebound/hospital
placements. This module examines the environments in which students with
disabilities receive special education services, with particular
attention to regular class and residential placements. How many children
are served in these settings? Are the proportions served increasing or
decreasing? If the proportions served are changing, what are the reasons
for these changes?

**Progress Toward Inclusion of Students with Disabilities**

Educators, parents, advocates, and others who promote appropriate
inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classes
believe that doing so will provide those students with greater access to
the general education curriculum, appropriate education with their
nondisabled peers, raise expectations for student performance, and
improve coordination between regular and special educators. They also
believe that greater inclusion will result in increased school-level
accountability for educational results.

In 1994-95, 2.2 million of the total 4.9 million students with
disabilities ages 6 through 21 spent at least 80 percent of their school
day in general education classes[^1], and more than 95 percent of all
students with disabilities attended regular schools. The environments in
which students receive services vary according to the individual needs
of the child. Although 87 percent of students with speech and language
impairments were served in regular classes for 80 percent or more of the
school day, only 9.7 percent of those with mental retardation were
served in regular class placements. Students ages 6-11 were more likely
to receive services in regular class placements than students ages 12-17
or 18-21.

Progress in serving students with disabilities in regular classes and
resource rooms has varied from State to State. A few rural States serve
more than 90 percent of their special education students in regular
class and resource room placements (Idaho, North Dakota, Vermont). Other
States or jurisdictions with larger urban populations serve fewer than
60 percent of students in those placements (District of Columbia,
Louisiana, New York).

During the past 5 years, the percentage of students with disabilities
ages 6-21 served in regular classes has gradually increased \-- from
32.8 percent in 1990-91 to 44.5 percent in 1994-95. During the same
period, the percentage of students served in resource room placements
has declined. The percentage of students receiving special education in
separate classes for more than 60 percent of the school day, and the
percentage served in separate schools have also declined gradually (see
figure III-1). In part, some of these changes may be attributed to
improvements in State data collection and reporting methods.

**Students with Disabilities and Residential Placements**

When placement decisions are made for students with disabilities, the
first criterion that must be considered is the appropriateness of the
placement. The placement must be "reasonably calculated to enable the
child to receive educational benefits" (*Board of Education v. Rowley*,
1982). The placement must be based on the IEP and must be in the least
restrictive environment, that is, to the maximum extent appropriate,
children with disabilities must be educated with children who are
nondisabled. Placement in special classes, separate schools, or other
removal from the regular environment is only permissible when the nature
or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes
with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved
satisfactorily.

For a small percentage of students, mainly those with severe and
profound disabilities, residential settings are considered to be the
appropriate placement. These placements are expensive. The issue of who
should bear the costs of these placements has been a subject of much
debate. For example, one question that has arisen is: should State
educational and local school districts have to bear all of the costs,
particularly when the placement is based primarily on medical and
therapeutic needs? For a more complete discussion about the cost of
special education, see "The Costs of Special Education" Section I.4.

**Figure III-1**

**Percentage of Students with Disabilities Ages 6-21 Served in Each
Educational Environment: 1990-91 to 1994-95**

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System
(DANS).![](media/image1.wmf){width="3.95in"
height="2.9472222222222224in"}

During the 1994-95 school year, 35,150 students with disabilities ages 6
to 21 attended public or private residential schools. These students
accounted for 0.7 percent of all students with disabilities, a
percentage that has remained fairly constant over the past 5 years. Of
all the students served in residential facilities, most have serious
emotional disturbance (39.9 percent), hearing impairments (18.6
percent), mental retardation (10.0 percent), specific learning
disabilities (9.3 percent), or multiple disabilities (9.1 percent). Many
States operate public residential facilities for students with visual or
hearing impairments, and as a consequence, larger percentages of these
students attend public residential schools than private ones. A small
percentage of students with disabilities (0.6 percent) receive services
in hospitals or at home. These students typically have other health
impairments, serious emotional disturbance, and learning disabilities.

Between 1987 and 2000, OSEP will have awarded 34 state-wide systems
change grants totaling \$42.5 million to increase the physical, social,
and academic integration of students with severe disabilities; increase
the capacity of State and local educational agencies to provide
effective services to students with severe disabilities; empower parents
to become actively involved in their childs education; and promote
collaboration among parents, students, and service providers. These
grants have helped move some students with the most severe disabilities
out of public and private day schools and residential facilities into
regular classes and schools by increasing the capacity of those schools
to meet these students' needs.

Some States that received systems change grants report moving sizeable
numbers of students to more inclusive settings. Prior to its Statewide
Systems Change project, 15 percent of Michigan's students with
disabilities were served in separate schools, more than three times the
national average. Project staff report that approximately 5,000 students
moved to less restrictive placements during the 5 years of the project.
In Colorado, there were about 100 centers for students with disabilities
open in the early 1980s. In 1994, after two systems change grants and
extensive reform efforts, 80 had closed. Other States have made changes
in State policies to support inclusion of students with disabilities,
revise preservice teacher training, and change the role of intermediate
units from providing direct services to providing program support.

**Summary**

Gradual progress has been made toward serving larger percentages of
students with disabilities in regular class placements, resource rooms,
and regular schools. However, that progress has been somewhat
inconsistent across disability groups, age groups, and States.
Elementary-aged students with disabilities, particularly those with
speech and language impairments, are served primarily in regular
classes. Lower proportions of students with mental retardation and
students ages 12-17 and 18-21 are served in regular classes. The
percentage of students served in regular class placements has increased,
and the percent-age served in resource room placements has decreased.

When placement in a residential setting is required to provide a free
appropriate public education (FAPE), then IDEA requires that it must be
provided. However, IDEA also requires that students with disabilities be
served in the least restrictive environment that appropriately meets
their needs. The percentage of students served in residential facilities
has declined very slowly, but constitutes less than 1 percent of all
special education placements. The trend toward increasing the number of
students in regular classes and the fact that 95 percent of all children
with disabilities are served in regular school environments are positive
reflections of State and local commitment to IDEA.

1\. OSEP defines a regular class placement as one in which students with
disabilities receive special education and related services outside of
the regular class for 0 to 20 percent of the school day. Resource room
placements are those in which students receive special education and
related services outside of the regular class for 21 to 60 percent of
the school day. Separate class placements include students who receive
special education and related services outside the regular class for
more than 60 percent of the school day.

**References**

Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176 (1982).

Huefner, D.S. (1989). Special education residential placements under the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act. *Journal of Law and
Education, 18*(3), 411-440.

McCarthy, M.M. (1993). Can costs be considered in special education
placements? *Journal of Law and Education, 22*(3), 265-282.

**Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessments**[^2]

Educational reform activities provide unique opportunities for students
with disabilities to more fully participate in the educational system.
State and local educational agencies are exploring ways to improve the
results of education for all students, including students with
disabilities. In particular, these agencies are setting high student
performance standards, implementing innovative instructional
methodologies (including new technologies) to help students reach those
high standards, and developing assessments designed to measure the
extent to which students are reaching the high standards.

Data from statewide assessments are used not only to measure what
students are learning but also to help make decisions about State‑level
education reform. Data from statewide assessments are also being used as
indicators of the level of performance of school boards, school
administrators, and school staff, who increasingly are being held
accountable for the performance of students on the state-wide
assessments.

As a result of these actions to improve educational results for all
students, larger numbers of students with disabilities are participating
in statewide assessment systems. Students with disabilities benefit from
participating in statewide assessment systems in several ways:

• By ensuring that students with disabilities participate in statewide
assessments, the educational system commits itself to the notion that
all educators are accountable for the learning of all students,
including students with disabilities.

• The expectations for students with disabilities are raised. Often,
these higher expectations lead to changes in curriculum or educational
strategies, or increased use of accommodations or adaptations, to assist
these students in reaching higher standards.

• When policy and other decisions are made on the basis of statewide
assessment results, the performance of students with disabilities is
considered.

In addition, parents want their children to participate in assessments
because they realize their children need to know how to do well in
assessment situations, which continue throughout life, particularly in
employment.

**The Status of Statewide Assessments**

In 1995 (the most recent year for which data were published), 45 of 50
States administered a statewide assessment to measure the performance of
students; another 3 States were developing their statewide assessments
(Bond, Braskamp, & Roeber, 1996). Statewide assessments vary widely in
terms of the number of assessment components, the content areas and
grade levels assessed, the types of assessments used, their purposes,
and in how the results affect students, staff, and others.

The participation of students with disabilities in these assessments
emerged as an issue in the early 1990s, when it became clear that often
such students were being excluded from assessments in which they could
have participated (McGrew, Thurlow, Shriner, & Spiegel, 1992; Ysseldyke
& Thurlow, 1994). Students were being excluded for many different
reasons, ranging from concerns about their test scores lowering overall
scores when aggregated with those of students without disabilities, to
concerns about the effect of assessments on the self-esteem or emotional
health of students with disabilities.

These reasons for excluding students with disabilities from statewide
assessments generally have been unfounded. Participation by students
with disabilities does not appear to significantly lower the average
performance level of students in a State because the number of students
with disabilities who participate in relation to the total number of
students who participate in the assessments is not large enough to
change the overall average. As far as assessments affecting the
emotional health of students with disabilities, many already participate
in assessments and seem to benefit from the experience of participating
in district and State assessments.

In fact, national and State assessment personnel (Ysseldyke, Thurlow,
McGrew, & Shriner, 1994; Ysseldyke, Thurlow, McGrew, & Vanderwood, 1994)
indicate that students with disabilities can participate in educational
accountability systems in at least three ways:

• in exactly the same way as students without disabilities participate;

• with accommodations in setting, scheduling, presentation, and/or
response; or

• in an alternate assessment, designed specifically for students with
severe disabilities.

The NCEO is exploring each of these ways to include students with
disabilities in statewide assessments. In addition, both the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) and the Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) support programs that conduct research on the
technical and implementation issues related to participation of students
with disabilities in statewide assessments.

In this module, several trends that have occurred since 1990 in
practices and attitudes about the participation of students with
disabilities in statewide assessments are described. Emerging issues and
future directions are also discussed.

**Participation in Statewide Assessments**

Since 1990, the goals of statewide assessment systems have broadened. In
addition to providing information on the performance of students,
assessments are used to help design instructional change and assign
educational accountability (Bond et al., 1996). States have also begun
to hold schools accountable for the educational results of students with
disabilities.

**Changes in Practices and Attitudes**

Evidence that practices governing and attitudes about the participation
of students with disabilities in state­wide assessments are changing
comes primarily from analyzing State policies concerning assessment. In
1992, 28 States indicated that they had participation guidelines; in
1993, 34 States indicated that they had guidelines; in 1994 and again in
1995, 45 States indicated that they had participation guidelines
Thurlow, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 1995b). Written guidelines provided by 34
States in 1996 showed that many factors are considered when making
decisions about the participation of students with disabilities in
statewide assessments.

Involving the individualized education program (IEP) team in the
participation decision is included in the written guidelines of nearly
every State that submitted guidelines. In many States, participation
decisions take into consideration curricular alignment (i.e., how well
the assessment is aligned with what the student is learning). A few
States include consideration of the physical placement of the student
(that is, the percentage of time the student is mainstreamed, or whether
content is received in a special education or general education class).
Finally, a few States consider whether the resulting score will affect
the validity or reliability of the measure.

In figure III-2, comparisons of the bases for decisions found in State
written guidelines on participation of students with disabilities in
statewide assessments are provided. From 1992 to 1995, there has been an
increased use of assessments. Many students with disabilities can
participate in State assessments only if appropriate accommodations are
provided. Concerns about technical three of the four indicators used.
The greatest increase has been in using the IEP team's recommendation
when deciding whether an individual child should participate in
statewide assessments.

Changing practices and attitudes about the participation of students
with disabilities in statewide assessments also are reflected in State
policies for the use of accommodations during issues, such as whether
scores of students who use assessment accommodations are comparable to
scores of students who do not use accommodations, often lead to
restrictive accommodation policies, even though the research data
necessary to assess the effects of accommodations on instrument validity
have not been collected.

**Figure III-2**

**Changing Bases for Making Decisions About Participation of Students
with Disabilities in Assessments**

\* Results based on 28 States.![](media/image2.wmf){width="3.95in"
height="3.45in"}

\*\* Results based on 34 States.

Source: Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Silverstein, (1993); Thurlow, Seyfarth,
Scott, & Ysseldyke (1996).

In 1992, 21 States indicated they had accommodations guidelines; in
1993, 25 States indicated they had guidelines; in 1994 and again in
1995, 39 States indicated they had accommodations guidelines (Thurlow,
Scott, & Ysseldyke, 1995a). Analysis of written guidelines provided by
33 States in 1996 shows that many kinds of accommodations are considered
when making decisions about the use of accommodations by students with
disabilities.

The most frequently used accommodations can be classified into one of
four areas:

• setting (taking the test in a separate room, a carrel, or a small
group);

• scheduling (such things as extended time, breaks during testing, or
testing on certain days);

• presentation (using Braille or large print, sign language presentation
of directions, or tape recording directions); and

• responses (computer-generated and scribe-recorded answers, point to
answers, mark in booklet).

The specific assessment being administered will often influence the type
of accommodations that may be used. That is, an accommodation that is
allowed during a norm‑

referenced assessment might not be allowed during a criterion‑referenced
assessment.

More often in 1995 than in 1992, States' guidelines contained more
specific language as to when certain accommodations might not be
allowed. (For example, the guidelines might specify that a reading test
could not be read to the student). In figure III-3, we provide
comparisons of the types of allowed accommodations described in the 33
States' written guidelines. Although there has been an in-crease in all
four types of accommodations measured, the greatest increase has been in
the use of extended time and reading items to students.

State educational agencies (SEAs) have come to realize that determining
the participation rate of students with disabilities in State
assessments is actually quite complex (Erickson, Thurlow, & Ysseldyke,
1996). Participation rates may vary for different assessments and at
different grades. In addition, children may be counted at one time of
the year but have transferred out of the school, district, or State by
the time the assessment is administered.

Evidence suggests that in many cases, State personnel can only give
general estimates of participation rates. In 1992 and 1993, 55 States
and Outlying Areas reported overall participation rates ranging from
less than 10 percent to more than 90 percent (see Shriner & Thurlow,
1993; Shriner, Spande, & Thurlow, 1994). However, in 1994, when States
were asked by NCEO to provide the participation rates of students with
disabilities for *each* assessment the State administered, States were
able to provide estimates for only 49 of the 133 assessments
administered that year (Erickson, Thurlow, & Thor, 1995). The estimates
provided ranged from 4 to 100 percent.

**Figure III-3**

**Changes in Policies for Accommodations Allowed in Statewide
Assessments**

\* Results based on 28
States.![](media/image3.wmf){width="4.029861111111111in"
height="3.45in"}

\*\* Results based on 34 States.

Source: Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Silverstein (1993); Thurlow, Seyfarth,
Scott, & Ysseldyke (1996).

Since 1991, most State educational agencies have come to realize that
they have not defined their data elements in a way that facilitates
collection or analysis of quality data on students with disabilities.
During the past few years, SEAs have begun to add data elements to their
files that will enable them to identify students with disabilities. Some
States have begun requiring that a test form be completed for every
student in a school, so that participation rates are based on actual
school enrollments at the time of testing. States have also started to
gather data on the use of accommodations, which will help special
educators and administrators learn about the types of accommodations
that are actually used by students during assessments.

**Challenging Issues**

States have made much progress in implementing state-wide assessment
systems that include students with disabilities. However, there are at
least three challenging issues still to be addressed. First, States
continue to raise questions about maintaining student confidentiality
when including data from students with disabilities with data from other
students. These questions are most pertinent for schools and districts,
where the number of students with disabilities may be small, and it is
therefore relatively easy to match students with learning problems to a
particular score.

Second, it is not clear that the scores of students with disabilities
who were provided accommodations can be compared with those of students
who did not use accommodations. Are these scores similar? Are the scores
of students who use accommodations valid? More research must be done to
study the effects of accommodations on test validity.

Third, States soon will be struggling with how best to report data. In
the past, States often did not report state-wide assessment data for
students with disabilities, even though the data were available. Data
from these students were removed from aggregated scores, yet were still
not reported separately to provide information on the status of students
with disabilities.

These challenges are being addressed as States begin to systematically
evaluate the effect of including students with disabilities in
assessments. It is hoped that these efforts will increase the
educational system's accountability for all students and that more
comprehensive information on how well special education services are
meeting the needs of students with disabilities will become available.

**Alternate Statewide Assessments for Students with Disabilities**

Including a statewide assessment for students with disabilities who are
unable to participate in the regular assessment is an important part of
designing statewide accountability systems that include all students.
However, States have little experience in designing such assessments,
and areas of research are still being identified and refined.

**Purpose and Nature of Alternate Assessments**

The purpose of an alternate assessment system is to measure the learning
of those students who are not working toward the standards that are
assessed by the general assessment system. Typically, only students with
severe cognitive disabilities who are working on educational goals more
closely aligned with independent functioning skills should participate
in alternate assessments.

At this time, only three States have developed, or are developing, an
alternate assessment for students unable to participate in the regular
State assessment. Kentucky has an alternate assessment that it has
already implemented. Scores obtained on the alternate portfolio
assessment used in Kentucky contribute to overall accountability scores,
just as scores on the general assessment do. Maryland is field-testing
an alternate assessment system that it has developed. Texas is currently
developing an alternate assessment system.

**Challenging Issues**

Significant challenges will be associated with the development of
alternate statewide assessments. Research and experiences to date show
that at least three types of challenges will have to be addressed at the
onset of system development.

First, exactly who should participate in the alternate assessment will
have to be determined. There is a potential danger that too many
students with disabilities might be administered the alternate
assessment when they could take the regular assessment, either with or
without accommodations.

Second, the skills or goals to be assessed by the alternate assessment
must be defined. If the alternate assessment is to be used for
accountability purposes, scores need to be aggregated. In order to
aggregate the scores, some common core of learning will have to be
identified. A group of stakeholders that includes educators, parents,
and policy makers should reach consensus on the domains of learning that
are important for all students in the alternate system.

Third, a way must be found to integrate results from the alternate
assessment into the accountability system, which includes results from
the regular assessments as well as other types of information, such as
dropout rates.

The results of the alternate assessment will also have to be reported.
The methods used to resolve the three issues described above will
probably also provide a framework for the appropriate reporting of
results.

**Future Directions**

Increasing numbers of students with disabilities are being included in
statewide assessments. As clearer guidelines on participation criteria
and the use of accommodations are developed, the educational system is
likely to be held increasingly accountable for the educational results
of students with disabilities. Four developments are of particular
interest to State departments of education and other interested parties.

• First, efforts to identify the effects of including students with
disabilities in statewide assessment and accountability systems will
increase.

• Second, accommodations will become more available, and there will be
increased scrutiny of certain accommodations, such as reading aloud,
using scribes, clarifying directions, and others.

• Third, alternate assessments will be developed and implemented. Once
this takes place, the educational system can begin to be held
accountable for the educational results of the students with
disabilities who take alternate assessments.

• Fourth, results of assessments that include students with
disabilities, and of alternate assessments, will be increasingly
included in assessment reports. There is evidence that it may still be a
widespread practice to exclude results for students with disabilities
from score summaries and reports, even when the students take part in
regular assessments (see Thurlow et al., 1995b). The entire educational
system will assume greater responsibility for the education of students
with disabilities when these students' scores are reported, and as
measurement of their performance becomes part of State accountability
systems.

**References**

Bond, L.A., Braskamp, D., & Roeber, E. (1996). *The status report of the
assessment programs in the United States*. Oak Brook, IL: North Central
Regional Educational Laboratory and Council of Chief State School
Officers.

Erickson, R.N., Thurlow, M.L., & Thor, K. (1995). *State special
education results 1994*. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Erickson, R.N., Thurlow, M.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1996). *Neglected
numerators, drifting denominators, and fractured fractions: Determining
participation rates for students with disabilities in statewide
assessment programs* (Synthesis Report 23). Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

McGrew, K.S., Thurlow, M.L., Shriner, J.G., & Spiege­l, A.N. (1992).
*Inclusion of students with disabilities in national and state data
collection programs* (Technical Report 2). Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Shriner, J.G., Spande, G.E., & Thurlow, M.L. (1994). *State special
education results 1993*. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Shriner, J.G. & Thurlow, M.L. (1993). *State special education results
1992*. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M.L., Scott, D.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1995­a). *Compilation of
states' guidelines for accommodations in assessments for students with
disabilities* (Synthesis Report 18). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M.L., Scott, D.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1995­b). *Compilation of
states' guidelines for including students with disabilities in
assessments* (Synthesis Report 17). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M.L., Seyfarth, A., Scott, D., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1996). *State
assessment participation criteria and accommodations guidelines: 1996
analysis*. (in press).

Thurlow, M.L., Ysseldyke, J.E., & Silverstein, B. (1993). *Testing
accommodations for students with disabilities: A review of the
literature* (Synthesis Report 4). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Ysseldyke, J.E. & Thurlow, M.L. (1994). *Guidelines for inclusion of
students with disabilities outcomes in large­‑scale assessments* (Policy
Directions 1). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center
on Educational Outcomes.

Ysseldyke, J.E., Thurlow, M.L., McGrew, K.S., & Shriner, M. (1994).
*Recommendations for making decisions about the participation of
students with disabilities in statewide assessment programs* (Synthesis
Report 15). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes.

Ysseldyke, J.E., Thurlow, M.L., McGrew, K.S., & Vanderwood, M. (1994).
*Making decisions about the inclusion of students with disabilities in
statewide assessments* (Synthesis Report 13). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

**Developing a Partnership Between Families and Professionals**

During the past 25 years, a significant shift in philosophy has occurred
regarding the relationship between families of children with
disabilities and professionals that serve them (Winton, 1994; Turnbull &
Turnbull, 1996). Unlike the past, today's professionals consider the
family as a unit instead of solely focusing on the mother-child dyad;
they also understand there are family issues beyond those related to the
child that must be addressed to effectively serve children with
disabilities. Now professionals not only consider the needs of the
family but also its strengths when developing educational programs that
meet the child's needs. This philosophical shift has influenced the
development of special education legislation and the relationship
between families and professionals.

Involvement of families in decisions about their child's education is a
central component of family-school collaboration (Turnbull & Turnbull,
1996), and the role that families can have in the education of their
child with disabilities has evolved since the passage of P.L. 94-142.
Families of school-aged children served through the IDEA, Part B have
tended to be less involved in decisions than those of infants and
toddlers served under Part H. Although families of school-aged children
served under Part B are entitled to participate in their child's IEP
meeting, many do not. A recent longitudinal study conducted in a large
urban and primarily minority school district found that parent
attendance at IEP meetings decreased over a 3-year period (Harry, Allen,
& McLaughlin, 1995). In contrast, family participation is at the core of
the Part H program. This emphasis is evident in many ways. One example
is the importance given to families at the individualized family service
plan (IFSP) meeting for infants and toddlers with disabilities. During
these meetings, families are an integral part of the process of
designing the IFSP. This perspective is, in part, an out-growth of the
systems perspective of human development, which emphasizes that children
with disabilities do not exist in a vacuum. To comprehend the impact of
the disability, one must gain an understanding of the context of
children's lives (Turnbull, Turnbull, & Shankon, 1995).

This module describes some of the changes that have occurred in
parent-professional partnerships. The first section provides some recent
theories related to family functioning. The remaining sections discuss
the types of partnerships that have developed as a result of IDEA. The
sections include:

• a systems perspective of human development;

• family collaboration in IDEA, Part H;

• family collaboration in IDEA, Part B; and

• the challenge of transition.

**A Systems Perspective of Human Development**

From a systems perspective of human development, the way an individual
acts is a product of the interactions that occur between a person and
his or her environment. This section will examine recent developments in
family system theory related to the interactions within families and the
interactions between families and professionals.

Family systems theory provides a framework for understanding what a
family is and how it functions. It also provides professionals with a
model of how to collaborate with families. Turnbull and Turnbull (1996)
describe three assumptions that are central to family systems theory.
They are: (1) the input/output configuration of the system; (2) the
concept of wholeness and subsystems; and (3) the role of boundaries in
defining systems (Whitechurch & Constantine as cited in Turnbull &
Turnbull, 1996). The first assumption explains how the inputs (family
characteristics) interact with the system to produce outputs (family
function). For example, when a child with disabilities is born (family
characteristics), this places a new set of stresses on the family and
may change how family members interact with each other and with
individuals outside of the family (family function). The second
assumption is that the system must be understood as a whole and cannot
be understood by examining only its component parts (Whitechurch &
Constantine as cited in Turnbull & Turnbull, 1996). For example, it
follows from this assumption that it is necessary to understand the
family to understand the child. Finally, the third assumption is that
family subsystems are separated by boundaries that are created by the
interaction of family members within the family unit and with outside
influences. For example, the boundaries set with professionals are
likely to be different from the ones set with family members.

Much of the knowledge about the changes in the relationships between
parents and professionals that have occurred during the past 25 years
can be attributed to the work done by Bronfenbrenner. He stressed that
parenting behavior is influenced by environmental factors that are both
internal to and external to the family. These parenting behaviors then
influence the child's behavior. For example, Bronfenbrenner (1979, as
cited in Dunst, Trivette, Hamby, & Pollock, 1990) stated:

Whether parents can perform effectively in their child-rearing roles
within the family depends on role demands, stresses, and supports
emanating from other settings. Parents' evaluations of their own
capacity to function, as well as their view of their child, are related
to such external factors as flexibility of job schedules, adequacy of
child care arrangements, the presence of friends and neighbors who can
help out in large and small emergencies, the quality of health and
social services, and neighborhood safety. (p. 7).

This quotation emphasizes the role that outside influences can have on
families. Recognizing that role has been a critical factor affecting
many of the changes that have occurred in the parent-professional
relationship. It is important for anyone working with families to have
an understanding of family systems theory because it provides a
framework for understanding families in an individualized and
personalized way. Professionals who possess such an understanding are
more likely to be attuned to the families and their strengths,
expectations, priorities, and needs. Such an understanding in turn leads
to a more effective and collaborative relationship with families\--and
families are most able to promote students' positive educational results
(Turnbull & Turnbull, 1996).

**Family Collaboration in IDEA, Part H**

In 1986, Part H of IDEA stipulated that a family-centered approach be
used in serving eligible children from birth to age 3. Also, a
commitment to the parent-professional partnership is embedded throughout
the Part H regulations. Part H established the individualized family
service plan (IFSP) and required that professionals collaborate with
families when developing a plan for the child, consider the entire
family when deciding on services, and choose services that strengthen
families. As part of these requirements, the IFSP documents the family's
resources, priorities, and concerns related to the development of the
child (34 CFR §303.344(b)).

In an attempt to measure the degree to which early intervention services
are being implemented in a family-centered manner, McBride, Brotherson,
Joanning, Whiddon, and Demmitt (1993) conducted semi-structured
interviews with 15 families receiving early intervention services and
with 14 professionals. A major finding of the study was that over time a
shift toward family-centered practices had occurred. All of the families
stated that professionals showed concern for the family not just the
child with disabilities. Also, the professionals articulated that
implementing the IFSP requirements changed their professional practice
orientation from child-focused to family-focused. However, when
describing their practice, 5 of the 14 professionals discussed goals
that were still based on a child-focused orientation. The study also
examined the families' role in the decision-making process. Four
families deferred decision making to the professionals, and three
families chose to share the role. Ten families believed they could learn
the most about their child by observing the professional and answering
questions, and more than half the families described their role in the
decision-making process as having the final veto power. Finally, many of
the families stated their emotional well-being had improved through
contact with professionals who showed concern for their emotional needs
and with other parents who were in a similar situation.

Another study (Bailey, Palsha, & Simeonsson, 1991) found that
professionals were concerned about their changing roles. Results of a
survey of 142 professionals working in early intervention programs in
two States showed that professionals perceived a moderate level of
competence in their ability to work with parents and a higher level of
competence working with children. However, as a group, they considered
their role of working with families as important. Their primary concerns
were how family-centered practices would affect them personally and
whether they had the skills to engage in such practices. This study also
suggests that the level and type of training given to professionals can
significantly influence parent-professional relationships.

**Family Collaboration in IDEA, Part B**

The relationship between parents and professionals may change when
children with disabilities turn 3 and begin preschool. For most
families, the setting in which services take place changes from the home
to the school. Regularly scheduled private home visits between families
and professionals end. Children are served within a group setting, and
parents may be invited into the child's classroom. They may take on the
role of parent helper or observer. Also, school districts may transition
to an IEP to develop goals and objectives for the child instead of using
an IFSP to address the needs of the child and the resources, priorities,
and concerns of the family. Therefore, the goals and objectives tend to
become more child centered than family centered.

Typically, parents of children in primary and secondary special
education programs are given less support and have less input into their
child's education than parents of children from birth through age 5
(Winton, 1994). However, there are both informal and formal ways (e.g.,
IEP and individualized transition plan (ITP) meetings) to encourage
parent involvement and thereby increase collaboration. Informal
involvement includes the many opportunities for parent-teacher
communication. This can include written notes between school and home,
parent involvement in the classroom and extracurricular activities,
telephone contact, technology options such as the Internet, and
conferences (Turnbull & Turnbull, 1996). Increasing this communication
to include the accomplishments of the child as well as the child's needs
is an important part of developing collaboration.

OSEP recognizes the importance of the role that families need to play
and is taking steps to promote an increase in the participation of
families served through IDEA, Part B and Part H. A four-step plan to
strengthen the working relationship between families and schools has
been proposed. It includes: "(1) increasing involvement of families in
decision making, (2) improving information available to families, (3)
linking families to other resources and supports in the community, and
(4) reducing adversarial dispute resolution by using mediation" (U.S.
Department of Education, 1995).

**The Challenge of Transition**

There are several important factors to consider when providing services
to families. One, as mentioned earlier, is to have an understanding of
the family's perspective in order to develop a collaborative
relationship between families and professionals. Another is the
understanding that one of the most important factors in families' lives
is the attainment of certain milestones. Often these life milestones are
used to determine when services should be given. These milestones or
transitions that occur during one's lifetime can be traced in a variety
of ways. Two of these possibilities, as described by Mallory (1996), are
developmental transitions and institutional transitions. Developmental
transitions are associated with the maturational mile-stones an
individual reaches in life, such as learning to walk or talk during the
first years of life, reaching puberty, child bearing, and having
children leave home. Institutional transitions mark the changes of
moving from one institutional setting to another. They include events
such as entering day care; elementary, middle, or high school; college
or miliary service; and the work force.

The timing of when to administer services can be as influ-ential on the
family as the services themselves. Social policies have emphasized
institutional transitions, which are often independent from the
developmental transitions. This can have negative effects on individuals
with disabilities and their families. For example, the individual
experiencing the transition may lose his or her locus of control and
transition from setting to setting, based on institutional transitions
that are dictated by social policies such as laws and regulations. The
likelihood of this happening increases if the individual has a
disability and an assumption is made that the individual is less capable
of making his or her own decisions (Mallory, 1996). However, if there is
an open dialogue and a partnership between families and professionals,
the likelihood of the family or individual losing control is reduced.

Two institutional transitions in special education are the transition
from IDEA, Part H, to IDEA, Part B, at age 3 and the transition from
school to postschool activities. These are formal opportunities for
parent-professional collaboration. The Part B regulations contain
provisions for a smooth transition from Part H to Part B (34 CFR
§300.154) and for any transitions that take place while the individual
is served through Part B or ready to exit any or all Part B services (34
CFR §§300.344(c) and 300.346(b)). The Part B regulations stress parent
participation during IEP meetings as well as during transition periods
(34 CFR §300.345). Fostering positive interactions during these meetings
is especially important. Studies and testimony have shown that schools
try to comply with legal mandates and procedures but have not made the
effort to foster empowerment through collaboration (Green & Shinn, 1995;
Turnbull & Turnbull, 1996; National Council on Disability, 1995).
However, strategies for involvement are being pursued. They include
increased efforts to involve families in the assessment process (Winton,
1994) and using collaborative conference techniques to increase parent
and student participation.

Parent involvement can have a critical effect on the transition process
from school to postschool activities. A study by Morningstar, Turnbull,
and Turnbull (1995) found that families greatly influenced decisions
made by students with disabilities. With regard to the transition
process, students' perspectives about their vision for the future, how
to plan for the future, and their self-determination were all influenced
by their families. Most of the students based their career plans on
input received from parents and extended family members and not from
career planning courses in school. Although the IEP process requires
transition planning (34 CFR §300.346(b)), with the current format used
during IEP meetings, the majority of the students found the IEP process
irrelevant. Morningstar et al., suggest that parents' and extended
family members' viewpoints be incorporated into the IEP process in a
more meaningful way.

**Summary**

Family systems theory provides a framework for understanding the
dynamics that are present within families. Children with disabilities
and their families face a unique set of issues, as well as the usual
challenges of childhood. Understanding the issues that are important to
families is particularly critical when trying to develop a positive
relationship between professionals and families. Both formal and
informal avenues for collaboration exist. However, open communication is
the integral component of developing this important collaborative
relationship.

**References**

Bailey, D.B., Palsha, S.A., & Simeonsson, R.J. (1991). Professional
skills, concerns, and perceived importance of work with families in
early intervention. *Exceptional Children*, *58*(2), 156-165.

Dunst, C.J., Trivette, C.M., Hamby, D., & Pollock, B. (1990). Family
systems correlates the behavior of young children with handicaps.
*Journal of Early Intervention*, *14*(3), 204-218.

Green, S.K. & Shinn, M.R. (1995). Parent attitudes about special
education and reintegration: What is the role of student results.
*Exceptional Children*, *61*(3), 269-281.

Harry, B., Allen, N., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Communication versus
compliance: African American parents involvement in special education.
*Exceptional Children*, *61*(4), 364-377.

Mallory, B.L. (1996). The role of social policy in life cycle
transitions. *Exceptional Children*, *62*(3), pp. 213-223.

McBride, S.L., Brotherson, M.J., Joanning, H., Whiddon, D., & Demmitt A.
(1993). Implementation of family-centered services: Perceptions of
families and professionals. *Journal of Early Intervention*, *17*(4),
414-430.

Morningstar, M.E., Turnbull, A.P., & Turnbull, H.R. (1995). What do
students with disabilities tell us about the importance of involvement
in the transition from school to adult life. *Exceptional Children*,
*62*(3), 249-260.

National Council on Disability (1995). *Improving the implementation of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Making schools work for
all of America's children*. Washington, DC: Author.

Turnbull, A.P. & Turnbull, H.R. (1996). *Families, professionals and
exceptionality*. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Turnbull, A.P., Turnbull, H.R., & Shankon, L.D. (1995). *Exceptional
lives: Special education in today's schools*. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Merrill.

Winton, P.J. (1994). Families of children with disabilities. In N.G.
Haring, L. McCormick, & T.G. Haring (Eds.), *Exceptional children and
youth (sixth edition)* (pp. 502-525). New York: Merrill.

Whitechurch, G.G. & Constantine, L.L. (1993). Systems theory. In P.G.
Boss, W.J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.R. Schumm, & S.K. Steinmetz (Eds.),
*Sourcebook of family theory and methods: A contextual approach* (pp.
325-352). New York: Plenum.

U.S. Department of Education (1995). *Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act Amendments of 1995*. Washington, DC: Author.

**The Continuum of Options in Dispute Resolution^1^**

It is widely acknowledged among educators that multiple approaches are
needed to encourage and allow for resolution of educational differences
between families and schools. This module will discuss mediation and its
growth, goals, and characteristics, as well as alternative mediation
approaches. In addition, a brief description will be provided regarding
other informal alternative dispute resolution (ADR) approaches used
across the country.

**Unintended Consequences and Policy Directions**

After 20 years of experience with IDEA and State special education laws,
many parents and educators have come to the conclusion that due process
hearings and court litigation should not be the methods of first choice
for resolving educational differences and issues. As Perry Zirkel (1994)
and others have noted, the existing due process system has become too
time-consuming, overly adversarial, too expensive for all parties, and
perceived by parents as unfair.

In response to these and other concerns, States have begun to use
mediation and other alternative dispute resolution approaches to resolve
educational differences and issues. Although prior to the IDEA
Amendments of 1997 there had not been a specific provision for mediation
in IDEA, it is mentioned in a note in the Regulations under Section
300.506: "In many cases, mediation leads to resolution of differences
between parents and agencies without the development of an adversarial
relationship and with minimal emotional stress. However, mediation may
not be used to deny or delay a parent's rights. . . ."

OSERS has long supported using mediation and other less litigious means
for settling disputes between families and schools. In the IDEA
Amendments of 1997, Congress has now required all States to make
mediation available as an option for settling disputes.

**Continuum of Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures**

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) strategies, including mediation,
can be placed on a continuum and grouped according to how the decision
is reached, who makes the decision, extent of formality, costs incurred,
amount of preparation, and extent of privacy provided (see figure III-4
below adapted from Slaikeu, 1989, and reported by Schrag, 1996).

**Figure III-4**

**Dispute Resolution Continuum**

+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Negot   | Med     | Moc     | Arbi    | Mediati | Due     | Lit     |
| iation/ | iation/ | k/Mini- | tration | on-Arbi | Process | igation |
|         |         | Trial   |         | tration |         |         |
| Facil   | Conci   | Pre-    |         |         |         |         |
| itation | liation | hearing |         |         |         |         |
| Ombuds  |         | Con     |         |         |         |         |
| -person |         | ference |         |         |         |         |
| Ad      |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| vocates |         |         |         |         |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
|        |        |        |       |        |        |        |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| De      |         |         |         | De      |         |         |
| cisions |         |         |         | cisions |         |         |
| by the  |         |         |         | by a    |         |         |
| Parties |         |         |         | Higher  |         |         |
|         |         |         |         | Au      |         |         |
| I       |         |         |         | thority |         |         |
| nformal |         |         |         |         |         |         |
|         |         |         |         | Formal  |         |         |
| Low     |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| Cost    |         |         |         | High    |         |         |
|         |         |         |         | Cost    |         |         |
| Limited |         |         |         |         |         |         |
| Prep    |         |         |         | Ex      |         |         |
| aration |         |         |         | tensive |         |         |
|         |         |         |         | Prep    |         |         |
| Private |         |         |         | aration |         |         |
|         |         |         |         |         |         |         |
|         |         |         |         | Public  |         |         |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

As shown in figure III-4, ADR strategies being utilized across the
country range from informal to formal strategies. Informal strategies
include using problem-solving negotiation, often facilitated by an
advocate or ombudsperson. More formal ADR strategies include arbitration
and due process, in which a neutral party issues an opinion to settle a
conflict or dispute. The most formal ADR approach is, of course,
litigation, in which a judge renders a decision regarding a conflict or
dispute among the parties.

**Growth in Mediation**

Formal mediation systems have been implemented in the majority of
States. Ahearn (1994) reported that 39 of the 50 States operate special
education mediation systems. This compares to 35 States reported in an
earlier National Association of State Directors of Special Education
(NASDSE) survey (Sykes, 1989). The majority of State mediation systems
were initiated in the late 1980s. The first two mediation systems were
developed in Connecticut and Massachusetts in 1975. Of the 11 States
that did not report operating a State mediation system in the Ahearn
study, two were developing formal mediation procedures. Most of the
States without formal mediation systems, however, have some form of
mediation (e.g., informal pre-hearing settlement conferences, reliance
on local district implementation, or other informal mediation procedures
(Ahearn, 1994)).

**Goal and Characteristics of Mediation**

The goal of mediation is to resolve conflicts and differences with the
help of a trained, neutral third party. Many different mediation
approaches can be used, but all mediation has the following
characteristics (Engiles, Baxter, Quash-Mah, Peter, & Todis, 1995):

• It is a voluntary process in which the primary parties must be willing
to meet and discuss their concerns in order to negotiate a mutually
satisfactory agreement.

• It provides an opportunity and structure for the participants to have
a full discussion of issues and to work collaboratively to create
solutions.

• It is an empowering process in which the parties are the decision
makers and explore issues and design solutions.

• It is a process for mutual problem solving and not for assigning blame
or determining fault.

• Confidentiality is guaranteed to both parties.

• Communication and creative problem solving are stressed, with the
mediator present to help the parties define the problem, explore each
other's interests, and work together to develop a solution, plan of
action, or agreement.

• It is future-oriented (i.e., what future interactions, plans,
agreements, behavior changes will occur).

Mediation models/options vary in:

• the way local school districts can request or obtain the services of a
mediator;

• the presence, absence, and extent of follow-up involvement of the SEA;

• the way mediators are selected and/or assigned;

• scheduling of the session; and

• the amount of time for a mediation session.

**Trends and Variations in Mediation Strategies**

State and local educational agencies across the country have implemented
several methods of using mediation, including using single mediators,
co-mediators, and a team or panel of mediators. Based on a 1994 survey
of the 50 States, Schrag (1996) reported that the following selected
single, co-mediation, and panel mediation models are being used in 39
States.

Eight States have implemented a State mediation model that uses a single
mediator (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Utah). The individuals who perform the
single mediator role within the States are hired and paid in a variety
of ways. Ahearn (1994) reported that at least 11 States use SEA
employees as mediators (Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa,
Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Utah).
Massachusetts has several full-time mediators working for an independent
bureau, the Bureau of Special Education Appeals. Ahearn (1994) also
reported that contracted organizations are utilized in 16 States. For
example, Michigan's mediation system is operated through a contract with
a third party who manages the system. New Hampshire has relied on
trained volunteers to serve as mediators for the past 15 years. Arizona
also uses volunteer mediators.

Approximately 13 States have a pool of impartial individuals trained in
mediation, including administrative law judges, persons with mediation
background, persons with special education background, persons
independent from education, and others (Ahearn, 1994). At least seven
States\--Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota,
and South Dakota\--have had their mediators trained and certified by the
Justice Center of Atlanta, Inc. (JCA).

Mediation involving co-mediators is being implemented in several States.
Co-mediation procedures are similar to single mediation procedures. The
main difference between the two options is that two people, rather than
one person, serve as mediators and facilitate the mediation process.
Co-mediators are also being used in some States to train mediators by
pairing a less experienced mediator with a mediator with more experience
(e.g., Arizona, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New
Hampshire). In addition, several States (e.g., Colorado, Illinois,
Massachusetts, and Vermont) have utilized co-mediators in disputes
involving multiple agencies or other complex issues.

Panel mediation is a third mediation approach emerging throughout the
country. Panel mediation is similar to that of single and co-mediator
options. The difference is that a panel (typically three to four
persons) facilitates the mediation process. During the late 1970s, the
Community Boards Program of San Francisco, Inc. (CBSF), developed a
panel conciliation model for use with disputes in San Francisco's
diverse neighborhoods. The CBSF model of panel mediation is a structured
three-part process of conflict resolution: case development, panel
process, and follow-up. This model utilizes trained volunteers in the
community to serve on mediation panels. The CBSF currently has a
contract with the San Francisco School District to carry out special
education mediations.

Under a grant from OSEP, the Direction Service Ombuds-person Project in
Lane County, Oregon, is also implementing an adaptation of the panel
conciliation model. The Ombudsperson Project utilizes a four-step
problem-solving process that is preceded by an opening and followed by a
closing, and includes: (1) information gathering, (2) issue and interest
identification, (3) option generation and evaluation, and (4) reaching
agreement (Engiles, Baxter, Quash-Mah, Peter, & Todis, 1995).

The Contra Costa SELPA (Special Education Local Plan Area) in California
has implemented a locally based panel mediation process, called the
Solutions Panel, that uses a four-person panel that facilitates special
education conflict resolution.

**Other Promising Parent-Professional Partnership Projects**

A number of State and local educational agencies have implemented
parent-professional partnership projects that try to enhance
communication between parents and school personnel and minimize
disagreements and conflicts. For example, the Arizona SEA has supported
several parent support efforts, including PALS (Parents Liaisoning with
the Schools), in which parents serve as resources to other parents to
assist in communicating with the schools and resolving differences with
them.

The Marquette-Alter Intermediate School District in Marquette, Michigan,
has implemented a pilot Parent/Educator Partnership project. The purpose
of this project is to train key parents and educators to achieve more
effective communication skills. This proactive dispute resolution
technique is intended to encourage communication within the local
community and to implement resolution-oriented strategies to minimize
disputes.

Many schools and school districts have implemented conflict-resolution
programs for students and adults. Although not specifically related to
special education disputes, using peer mediation has enhanced
cooperation and improved the culture within many schools. Annette
Townley, Executive Director of the National Association of Mediation in
Education (NAME), has estimated that more than 5,000 schools nationwide
offer some kind of conflict resolution program (Unpublished handouts
provided by NAME). Typical strategies include training students to
mediate disputes among their peers, teaching conflict resolution as part
of the curriculum, and/or training staff in conflict-resolution skills.
The most successful school programs involve both students and educators,
because they build a school community in which all members share some
common norms and strategies for dealing with conflict.

**Staff Development/Training in Conflict Resolution**

Several State and local educational agencies have provided workshops,
seminars, and other training opportunities focused on conflict
resolution skill training for school district staff (general and special
education teachers and administrators) and for parents (e.g.,
communication, problem solving, and conflict resolution). For example,
the Illinois SEA provides periodic training for school district
personnel and parents in conflict resolution. The Colorado SEA has
developed a videotape on conflict resolution for school district
personnel. The Minnesota SEA provides seminars in negotiation and group
consensus building.

The Massachusetts SEA has periodically provided training workshops on
mediation and negotiation skills for mixed groups of school district
personnel and parent advocacy group representatives. Also, the Arizona,
Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Vermont SEAs provide
mediation/conflict resolution training for administrators, parents, and
advocates.

**Summary**

An important trend throughout the country is the implementation of a
broad continuum of alternative dispute resolution approaches and
options. Within this continuum, there is an emphasis on resolving
differences as early as possible. Preventative strategies such as
parent-professional partnerships, peer mediation, and ongoing staff
development are effective in encouraging cooperative school/community
cultures.

There is an emerging interest nationally in the use of alternative
dispute resolution approaches and options, including the study of
strategies currently used to improve and expand options available for
successful conflict resolution between families and schools, as well as
to identify effective training strategies. However, current research and
other forms of documentation regarding the effectiveness of mediation
and other ADR approaches and their effect on special education is
sparse. Although limited in scope, current data and information gathered
by SEAs throughout the country indicate that mediation and other ADR
strategies have positive results.

**References**

Ahearn, E. (1994). *Mediation and due process procedures in special
education: An analysis of state policies.* Alexandria, VA: National
Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Engiles, A., Baxter Quash-Mah, S., Peter, M., & Todis, B. (1995).
*Utilization of dispute resolution for special education disagreements.*
Unpublished paper. Eugene, OR: Author.

Schrag, J.A. (1996). *Mediation and other alternative dispute resolution
procedures in special education.* Alexandria, VA: National Association
of State Directors of Special Education.

Schrag, J.A. & Ahearn, E. (1996). *Continuum of options and the national
experience*. *NICHCY news digest*. Washington, DC: Academy for
Educational Development.

Slaikeu, K.A. (October 1989). Designing dispute resolution systems in
the health care industry. *Negotiation Journal in Practice Dispute
Systems Design: A Special Section*, 395-400.

Sykes, D. (1989). *National survey on special education mediation
systems.* Columbia, OH: Great Lakes Area Regional Resource Center.

Zirkel, P.A. (April 1994). Over-due process revisions for the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. *Montana Law Review, 42*.

**Monitoring Compliance with IDEA**

The IDEA directs the Department to assess the impact and effectiveness
of State efforts to provide a FAPE to children and youth with
disabilities and early intervention services to infants and toddlers
with disabilities. Primarily through OSEP, the Department assists SEAs
and local school districts in implementing Federal special education
mandates by making grants pursuant to congressional appropriations and
providing technical assistance, policy support, and monitoring
oversight.

OSEP works in partnership with States, institutions of higher education,
students with disabilities and their families, advocacy groups, and
others to help ensure positive educational results for students with
disabilities. OSEP uses research, dissemination, demonstration, systems
change, and other strategies to provide State and local educational
agencies with tools to assist them in improving teaching and learning.

OSEP also recognizes the critical importance of its compliance
monitoring responsibility and activities to ensure a FAPE for students
with disabilities. OSEP places the highest priority on compliance with
those IDEA requirements that have the strongest positive relationship
with improved services and results for students with disabilities and
their families. In addition, OSEP tailors its monitoring and technical
assistance activities in each State to maximize positive impact on
educational services and results for students in that State.

OSEP has determined that the requirements with the strongest links to
positive results and general supervision include those addressing:

• Access to the full range of programs and services available to
nondisabled children (and the supports and services that they need to
learn effectively in those programs, as determined through the
develop-ment of an IEP), including regular and vocational education
programs and curriculums and work-experience programs;

• Transition services for students with disabilities beginning no later
than age 16 (and younger if deter-mined appropriate);

• Education in the least restrictive environment; and

• Parent involvement in decisions regarding their children's education.

Because each State has general supervision responsibility for all
educational programs for its children with disabilities, OSEP focuses
its monitoring activities on each State's systems for ensuring that all
public agencies comply with the requirements of Part B, including those
emphasized above, in providing services to students with disabilities.
These systems include: the State's procedures for monitoring public
agencies to determine compliance with Part B requirements as they apply
to students with disabilities\--including students placed by public
agencies in private schools or facilities\--and ensuring that public
agencies correct any deficiencies; the State's complaint management and
due process hearing systems; and its procedures for ensuring that
special education programs administered by State agencies other than the
SEA meet State standards and Part B requirements.

In the 1995-96 school year, OSEP began to monitor some States for
compliance with the requirements of the Infants and Toddlers Program
under Part H of IDEA. OSEP uses the same basic process to monitor
compliance with Part H, that it uses to monitor compliance under Part B:
(1) a week-long "pre-site" visit that includes public meetings, small
outreach meetings with groups of advocates, and interviews with
officials from the State's Lead Agency for Part H and other appropriate
State agencies; followed by (2) an "on-site" week, during which OSEP
staff review compliance at both the State and local levels.

OSEP's monitoring procedures reflect the interagency focus of Part H. As
it does in monitoring for compliance under Part B, OSEP focuses its Part
H monitoring process on requirements that are most closely related to
improving results for infants and toddlers and their families. These
include requirements relating to:

• Child find and public awareness;

• Service delivery;

• Transition of children at age 3 from programs providing early
intervention services under Part H to programs providing special
education and related services under Part B.

In working with States to ensure compliance and improved results for
students with disabilities, OSEP emphasizes partnerships and technical
assistance, together with a strong accountability system. OSEP works
with States, Regional Resource Centers, and others to identify systemic
strengths and weaknesses and to develop strategies for systemic reform
and improvement. OSEP also provides and brokers technical assistance to
States on an ongoing basis regarding legal requirements and best
practice strategies for ensuring compliance in a manner that ensures
continuous progress in educational results for students with
disabilities. OSEP uses these strategies for State improvement in
conjunction with a multifaceted compliance review process that includes:
review and approval of State Plans, on-site compliance reviews,
procedures to ensure the effective and timely implementation of
corrective action plans, and discretionary review of final State
decisions on Part B complaints.

During the past 4 years, OSEP has worked intensively to reorient and
strengthen its monitoring system so that it will\--in conjunction with
research, innovation, and technical assistance efforts\--support
systemic reform that produces better results for students with
disabilities, [and]{.underline} ensure compliance. To ensure a strong
accountability system, OSEP has emphasized: strong and diverse customer
input in the monitoring process;[^3] effective methods for ensuring
compliance with IDEA, with the strongest emphasis on requirements that
relate most directly to continuous improvement in learner results;
prompt identification and correction of deficiencies; and corrective
action requirements and strategies that yield improved access and
results for students.

During the 1995-96 school year, OSEP conducted comprehensive monitoring
visits to 11 States. OSEP has scheduled comprehensive monitoring visits
to 8 States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, during
the 1996-97 school year (see table III-1 for the projected schedule of
these reviews; all tables are at the end of this chapter). Table III-2
summarizes the procedures typically used by OSEP to plan and implement
on-site reviews. However, OSEP tailors its monitoring and technical
assistance activities to the needs in specific States. Thus, some States
(e.g., States with relatively few findings in their last review or with
findings of a technical nature, and with demonstrable success in
completing corrective actions) may require only a more narrow, focused
review, while others will continue to require frequent OSEP
comprehensive and follow-up monitoring visits.

Thirteen monitoring reports that OSEP issued in FY 1996 (see table III-3
and table III-4) summarize those findings. The findings concentrated in
areas directly related to:

• student access to instruction and vocational preparation (e.g.,
placement in the least restrictive environment, and the provision of a
FAPE);[^4]

• transition from school to employment and other post-school activities;

• procedural safeguards for children with disabilities and their
parents; and

• the SEA's exercise of its general supervision responsibility (e.g.,
monitoring, complaint management, responsibility for special education
programs administered by other State agencies and review and approval of
local policies and procedures).

Earlier OSEP reports consisted largely of detailed and technical
findings regarding the content of local educational agency applications,
local educational policies and procedures, and explanations of
procedural safeguards. OSEP now collects data and writes reports to
stress findings and corrective actions that more strongly affect student
results. Thus, for example, data collection and reports include a strong
focus on State and local policies, procedures, and practices relating to
transition and placement in the LRE.

Prior to the 1994-95 school year, each OSEP monitoring report included a
corrective action plan developed by OSEP with limited dialogue with the
State. Often States implemented the required procedures with little
verifiable impact on services and results for students with
disabilities. OSEP found that, to better ensure that corrective actions
positively affect student results in a State, it is important to work
with the State to develop and define corrective action requirements and
to integrate technical assistance with the development, implementation,
and evaluation of the corrective actions. While some States completed
all required corrective actions, OSEP noted continuing deficiencies when
it next monitored those States. Accordingly, OSEP has revised its
corrective action procedures to emphasize joint development of
corrective action plans, and to provide for technical assistance to
support implementation of corrective action, and "follow-up" visits to
assess the effectiveness of correction and identify needs for further
technical assistance. (See table III-5 for a general description of
OSEP's corrective action procedures.)

As part of the extensive technical assistance that OSEP provided to one
SEA, it convened a task force to assist the SEA in identifying
discretionary grants for which the SEA might be eligible to apply. OSEP
has traveled to other States to provide on-site technical assistance
regarding complex issues, such as: (1) monitoring procedures to ensure
placement in the LRE and (2) ensuring correction of noncompliance in
large urban school districts.

As noted in table III-1, OSEP conducted four follow-up visits during the
1995-96 school year to determine the extent to which the State has
effectively implemented selected components of the agreed-upon
corrective action plan and to work with State personnel to develop any
further corrective actions and provide technical assistance needed to
ensure full and effective correction. OSEP noted significant progress in
each of those States and provided additional technical assistance
regarding additional steps that would be needed to reach full
compliance. OSEP plans to conduct second follow-up visits to three of
those States during the 1996-97 school year, as well as follow-up visits
to three additional States. (See table III-1.)

**Summary**

OSEP recognizes that it is important to focus on both student results
and compliance and uses a broad range of technical assistance,
partnership, and accountability strategies to ensure compliance,
especially with those requirements that relate most strongly to learning
opportunities and results for students with disabilities. OSEP tailors
its technical assistance and monitoring activities in each State to the
needs and strengths of that State, and OSEP's revised monitoring
procedures have resulted in monitoring reports and corrective actions
that ensure compliance while supporting State reform efforts and
improved teaching and learning.

**Table III-1**

**Schedule of On-site Monitoring Reviews**

**1995-96 Cyclical Reviews**

Alabama (9/95)

Indiana (9/95)

Vermont (9/95)

Kentucky (9/95)

Nevada (10/95)

Rhode Island (1/96)

Tennessee (1/96)

Kansas (3/96)

Colorado (5/96)

Georgia (5/96)

Oklahoma (5/96)

**1996-97 Cyclical Reviews**

Texas (9/96)

Alaska (9/96)

Maine (9/96)

West Virginia (12/96)

Florida (1/97)

Guam (3/97)

American Samoa (3/97)

Commonwealth of the Northern

Mariana Islands (3/97)

District of Columbia (3/97)

Mississippi (4/97)

Oregon (4/97)

Missouri 4/97)

Virgin Islands (5/97)

**1995-96 Follow-Up Reviews**

Pennsylvania (11/95)

New Jersey (12/95)

New York (12/95)

Missouri (3/96)

**1996-97 Follow-Up Reviews**

Michigan (11/96)

Connecticut (2/97)

Massachusetts (3/97)

New York (3/97)

New Jersey (5/97)

Pennsylvania (5/97)

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Division of Monitoring and State Improvement Planning.

**Table III-2**

**Typical Steps in On-site Monitoring Reviews**

+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **Step**      | **Specific Activities**                              |
+===============+======================================================+
| **Step 1:**   | Select States that OSEP will monitor during the      |
|               | following school year.                               |
| Select States |                                                      |
| OSEP will     | In the spring, inform States that will be monitored  |
| monitor       | the following school year.                           |
| following     |                                                      |
| school year   |                                                      |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **Step 2:**   | Conduct spring monitoring academy for States OSEP    |
|               | will monitor the following year.                     |
| Conduct       |                                                      |
| monitoring    | At the time of the academy or shortly thereafter,    |
| academy and   | arrange dates with each State for public             |
| arrange visit | meeting/pre-site visit and on-site visit.            |
| dates         |                                                      |
|               | Disseminate to national organizations schedule of    |
|               | public meetings and on-site visits.                  |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **Step 3:**   | Send notice to SEA, State and national advocacy      |
|               | organizations, and parents to inform them of         |
| Conduct       | upcoming compliance review and the purpose,          |
| public        | schedule, and location of public meetings and to     |
| mee           | invite their oral or written comments.               |
| ting/pre-site |                                                      |
| visit         | Conduct public meetings, and smaller "outreach"      |
|               | meetings with representatives of groups representing |
|               | students with disabilities and their families, to    |
|               | gather input regarding appropriate issues and        |
|               | geographical focuses of visit.                       |
|               |                                                      |
|               | Meet with SEA officials to plan on-site visit, to    |
|               | collect data regarding State systems for general     |
|               | supervision, and to collect other information to     |
|               | assist in identifying appropriate issues and         |
|               | geographical focuses for OSEP compliance review.     |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **Step 4:**   | After pre-site visit, continue to receive (and, if   |
|               | appropriate, solicit) comments to assist in          |
| Plan on-site  | identifying appropriate issues and geographical      |
| data          | focuses for OSEP compliance review.                  |
| collection    |                                                      |
| procedures    | Analyze and synthesize information from: public and  |
|               | outreach meetings and other comment sources;         |
|               | pre-site meetings with SEA documents (including      |
|               | State plan, monitoring and local educational agency  |
|               | application review documents, placement data,        |
|               | funding formulas, etc.); previous OSEP monitoring    |
|               | report(s) and related corrective action documents;   |
|               | and other relevant information.                      |
|               |                                                      |
|               | Use information from public input, preliminary       |
|               | interviews of State officials, and review of State   |
|               | plan and other documents, to determine appropriate   |
|               | focuses for compliance review, to design data        |
|               | collection and verification strategies and forms,    |
|               | and to select State agencies and local educational   |
|               | agencies to be visited to collect data regarding the |
|               | effectiveness of SEA's systems for general           |
|               | supervision.                                         |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **Step 5:**   | Interview SEA officials and review SEA documents to  |
|               | complete collection of data regarding SEA's systems  |
| Conduct       | for general supervision.                             |
| on-site       |                                                      |
| review        | Interview officials from other State agencies that   |
|               | provide educational and/or residential services to   |
|               | students with disabilities to determine whether the  |
|               | educational programs for such students are under the |
|               | general supervision of the SEA and meet its          |
|               | standards.                                           |
|               |                                                      |
|               | Collect data in a number of public agencies,         |
|               | including local educational agencies, to determine   |
|               | effectiveness of SEA's systems for general           |
|               | supervision. (Data collection methods include        |
|               | reviewing student records and interviewing agency    |
|               | administrators, teachers, related service providers, |
|               | and parents.)                                        |
|               |                                                      |
|               | Conduct a focus group in at least one public agency  |
|               | in each State to provide parents an opportunity to   |
|               | inform OSEP of their experiences in the development  |
|               | and implementation of an educational program and     |
|               | placement for their children with disabilities.      |
|               |                                                      |
|               | Note exemplary programs and practices.               |
|               |                                                      |
|               | Summarize preliminary findings in exit conference    |
|               | with SEA officials.                                  |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **Step 6:**   | Analyze and synthesize data collected from all       |
|               | sources to determine areas of noncompliance.         |
| Prepare and   |                                                      |
| disseminate   | Prepare report that includes commendations and       |
| report        | findings of noncompliance, data that support each    |
|               | finding, and results expected from the corrective    |
|               | actions.                                             |
|               |                                                      |
|               | Issue report to the SEA and to the public. (If the   |
|               | State concludes that evidence of noncompliance is    |
|               | significantly inaccurate or that one or more         |
|               | findings are incorrect, it may request\--within 15   |
|               | calendar days\--reconsideration of the finding. If   |
|               | OSEP agrees, it issues a letter informing the State  |
|               | that the finding is revised or withdrawn.)           |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **Step 7:**   | Work with State to develop CAP.                      |
|               |                                                      |
| Develop and   | Agree on a CAP, including activities, timelines and  |
| implement     | needed resources, using the State's preliminary CAP  |
| corrective    | as the basis. This is done in a meeting or           |
| action plan   | conference call with representatives from the SEA,   |
| (CAP)         | the State Advisory Panel, and OSEP staff.            |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Division of Monitoring and State Improvement Planning.

**Table III-3**

**Monitoring Reports Issued During Fiscal Year 1996**

Alabama

Georgia

Illinois

Indiana

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maryland

Nevada

Ohio

Rhode Island

Tennessee

Vermont

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Division of Monitoring and State Improvement Planning.

**Table III-4**

**Summary of Findings in 13 Fiscal Year 1996 Monitoring Reports**

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Requirements         
  on Which               
  Findings Were          
  Based/number of        
  Reports with           
  Findings**             
  ---------------- ----- -------------------------------------------------
  **TRANSITION**   6     Student and representatives of other agencies
                         likely to be responsible for transition invited
                         to IEP meeting

                   2     If student doesn't attend meeting, agency takes
                         steps to consider preferences/interests

                   8     Content of meeting notice

                   9     Statement of needed transition services

  **LEAST          10    Removed from regular education only if education
  RESTRICTIVE            cannot be achieved satisfactorily in regular
  ENVIRONMENT**          class with supplementary aids and services

                   2     Placement determined at least annually

                   4     Placement decision based on IEP

                   5     Continuum of alternative placements

                   8     Student participates with non-disabled students
                         in extracurricular/nonacademic activities

  **FREE           7     Extended school year services
  APPROPRIATE            
  PUBLIC                 
  EDUCATION**            

                   7     Related services provided to meet student's needs
                         as determined through development of IEP

                   1     Length of school day consistent with State
                         standard

                   2     Initial evaluation meets State timelines

                   1     Services continue if suspended long-term or
                         expelled

  **PROCEDURAL     1     Agencies establish safeguards
  SAFEGUARDS**           

                   6     Prior notice or proposed/refused actions provided
                         to parents

                   5     Prior notice includes full explanation of
                         procedural safeguards

                   4     Prior notice includes other required content

                   1     Finality of hearing decision

                   7     Hearing and review timelines

  **MONITORING**   6     Procedures to identify deficiencies

                   7     Procedures to correct deficiencies

  **COMPLAINT      5     Complaints resolved within 60 days
  MANAGEMENT**           

  **GENERAL        5     Programs administered by State agency other than
  SUPERVISION**          SEA meet SEA standards & Part B requirements

  **IEP**          2     IEPs are developed and reviewed at least annually
                         in a properly constituted meeting

                   1     Agency representative participates in IEP meeting

                   5     IEPs include required content

  **EVALUATION**   3     Students reevaluated at least once every 3 years
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Division of Monitoring and State Improvement Planning.

**Table III-5**

**General Procedures for Corrective Action**

+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **PHASE**     | **ACTIONS TAKEN**                                    |
+===============+======================================================+
| **MONITORING  | Throughout the on-site process, OSEP discusses       |
| VISIT**       | preliminary findings and possible strategies for     |
|               | corrective action with the SEA.                      |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **MONITORING  | Each monitoring report sets forth parameters for the |
| REPORT**      | development of a CAP, specifying expected results of |
|               | corrective action for each finding. The extent to    |
|               | which each report prescribes the specific steps that |
|               | the State must follow to ensure correction and       |
|               | specific timelines for each step depends upon a      |
|               | configuration of factors, including the severity of  |
|               | the findings and the persistence of the identified   |
|               | noncompliance (including whether the same violations |
|               | were identified in a previous monitoring report).    |
|               |                                                      |
|               | The cover letter to each report invites the State to |
|               | meet with OSEP (in Washington or through a           |
|               | conference telephone conversation) to establish more |
|               | specific steps and timelines for the CAP. OSEP also  |
|               | invites a representative of the State's Special      |
|               | Education Advisory Panel to participate in the       |
|               | meeting or conference call, and encourages the State |
|               | to invite additional resource people, such as        |
|               | Regional Resource Center staff, who could assist in  |
|               | the development of the CAP.                          |
|               |                                                      |
|               | The cover letter to the report also informs the      |
|               | State that the CAP must be developed within 45 days  |
|               | of the State's receipt of the report, and that if a  |
|               | CAP is not jointly developed within 45 days, OSEP    |
|               | will unilaterally develop a detailed CAP for the     |
|               | State.                                               |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **DEVELOPMENT | State develops preliminary proposals for corrective  |
| AND APPROVAL  | actions.                                             |
| OF CORRECTIVE |                                                      |
| ACTION PLAN** | OSEP monitoring staff consult with other OSEP staff, |
|               | as appropriate, who are knowledgeable about          |
|               | technical assistance resources, including systems    |
|               | change initiatives, research and dissemination       |
|               | projects, Regional Resource Centers and other        |
|               | technical assistance centers, etc.                   |
|               |                                                      |
|               | OSEP meets\--in person or by teleconference\--with   |
|               | representatives of the SEA, a representative of the  |
|               | State's Special Education Advisory Panel, and any    |
|               | additional resource people invited by the SEA. In    |
|               | the meeting, the participants discuss strategies,    |
|               | resources, and specific action steps for the         |
|               | development and implementation of a CAP that will    |
|               | ensure compliance and support systemic reform        |
|               | resulting in improved student results. The           |
|               | participants work toward\--and as much as possible   |
|               | reach\--agreement on the specific results, steps,    |
|               | resources, documentation procedures, and timelines   |
|               | for corrective action.                               |
|               |                                                      |
|               | Having determined that the State's proposal includes |
|               | actions and timelines to ensure effective, timely,   |
|               | verifiable correction of all deficiencies, OSEP      |
|               | approves the State's CAP.                            |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **            | The SEA submits information to OSEP to document the  |
| DOCUMENTATION | effective completion of all corrective actions.      |
| OF CORRECTIVE |                                                      |
| ACTION**      | Having determined that the submitted information     |
|               | documents the effective completion of all corrective |
|               | actions, OSEP approves the completed corrective      |
|               | actions.                                             |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **ON-SITE     | When determined appropriate, OSEP conducts an        |
| VERIFICATION  | on-site follow-up review to verify effective         |
| OF CORRECTIVE | completion of one or more corrective actions.        |
| ACTION**      |                                                      |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Division of Monitoring and State Improvement Planning.

**Advances in Teaching and Instructional Design**[^5]

The past decade has witnessed a "quiet revolution," both in what
educators envision as an appropriate education for students with
disabilities, and in schools' ability to provide such an education.
These subtle but significant changes have been due, in large part, to
applied research studies supported by OSEP. Recent advances also have
enabled educators to consistently think about a much broader, richer
curriculum that supports students' complex thinking, learning, and
achievement. Advances have also provided educators with guidelines for
strategically and efficiently building proficiencies in reading and
writing and mathematics.

This module describes several major advances in the areas of
instructional design and teaching for students with disabilities. OSEP
has a long history of taking relatively abstract principles from
psychology and sociology and utilizing them to develop *feasible*
interventions that account for the realities of classrooms and schools
(Gersten, Schiller, & McInerney, in press). These interventions, many of
which were developed and validated, initially, for children with
learning disabilities, can also be used with other students who
experience problems related to their academic performance. In general,
this module describes interventions validated through research that not
only improve students' knowledge but increase both their persistence in
learning and their ability to learn from new experiences.

Before discussing these advances, some of the major changes in special
education that have occurred in the past 10 years are reviewed. The
review provides the context for understanding how research supported by
OSEP has contributed to advances in teaching strategies and
instructional design for students with disabilities.

**Changing Context for Special Education Teaching**

A decade ago, the primary instructional goal for most students with
disabilities was *remediation* of deficits in academic skills. Often,
even secondary students with disabilities would spend much of their
academic day on "drill and practice" in arithmetic computation,
spelling, and other academic tasks that rarely demanded use of cognitive
skills. Such practices reflected the mistaken belief among many
educators that the development of basic academic skills, such as the
ability to read, compute, and understand basic mathematics facts, write
expressively, and spell correctly, was an essential precursor to
development of problem-solving and comprehension abilities. The steady
emphasis on the "basics" provided many students with disabilities with
an inadequate and unstimulating curriculum. In fact, this practice
seemed to backfire in several respects. First, many students failed to
really learn basic skills, even after many years of special education
(Woodward & Howard, 1994; Parmer, Cawley, & Frazita 1996).

Second, students with disabilities lacked access to a meaningful
curriculum. Due to the heavy reliance in many classrooms on
textbook-based instruction, students with disabilities (many of whom are
not skilled independent readers) were essentially excluded from
comprehensible lessons in subjects such as science or social studies
(McIntosh, Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, & Lee, 1993). In fact, students were,
often unwittingly, deprived of instructional experiences essential for
subsequent employment and involvement in society.

Finally, the shift away from a purely remedial model was spurred by the
widespread realization among educators that disabilities do not simply
"disappear" when students learn how to read or acquire mathematical,
writing, or spelling skills. Without question, teaching these necessary
skills to students with disabilities is an essential part of special
education. However, research consistently demonstrates that many
students with learning disabilities will continue to experience
difficulties in areas related to memory, language (especially abstract
language), and the abilities required to organize material.

Providing meaningful access to the core curriculum to students with
disabilities is increasingly considered a major element of the very
purpose of the IDEA. That goal is also related to inclusion of special
education students in the ambitious goals and performance standards of
*Goals 2000*.

**Advances in Teaching Essential Concepts and Building Problemsolving
Abilities**

**The Need for Explicit Instruction**

As researchers examined the learning characteristics of children with
many types of learning disabilities and related academic problems,
educators' understanding of how these children learn contributed to
development of more sophisticated instructional interventions.
Researchers such as Deshler and Schumaker (1993) and Englert and Thomas
(1987) observed that students with learning disabilities were,
typically, unaware of the "tricks of the trade" and that proficient
learners use problem-solving strategies to organize their thoughts or
plan an approach to solve complex problems. Building upon these and
other studies, as well as on theoretical models (e.g., Swanson, 1988),
special education researchers began to develop and validate
instructional approaches that teach such strategies to students with
disabilities.

The research of Williams (1992) described a major comprehension problem
of many students with disabilities and helped provide direction for
instructional interventions. When asked to retell (or summarize)
stories, many students with disabilities tended to add seemingly
extraneous elements. Williams found that the elements were based upon
their personal feelings and their experiences, rather than being derived
from the text. In fact, at times, these personal experiences and
associations tended to "override" information presented in the book they
were reading.

Instructional approaches have been developed to help students *perceive*
what others in society view as important. One advance in the past decade
is the realization that an important goal of instruction is to show
students how the academic material studied is related to their lives
(Kinzer, Gabella, & Rieth, 1994) or the lives of others (Harniss,
Hollenbeck, Crawford, & Carnine, 1994). When this instructional practice
is utilized, retention of material increases.

In summary, the need for explicit instruction for many students with
disabilities was derived from the understanding that often students with
learning disabilities (or other problems related to academic
performance): (1) have a difficult time organizing information on their
own (especially abstract information), (2) bring limited background
knowledge to many academic activities (especially those involving
abstractions), and (3) need a good deal of feedback and practice to
retain abstract information.

*What Is Explicit Instruction?*

To introduce students to complex concepts and to build essential skills
in reading and mathematics, teachers, and the instructional materials
they use, should be *"explicit* about what needs to be done, or said, or
written\--rather than leaving it to learners to make inferences from
experiences that are unmediated by such help" (Cazden, 1992, p.111). The
purpose of the instructional interventions described in this section is
to provide essential structures or frameworks so that students can make
sense of new concepts, relationships, and learning experiences. Students
are provided with models of appropriate methods for solving problems or
explaining relationships, are supported amply during the stages of the
learning process, and are provided with adequate practice. Examples are
selected so students see the whole range of situations for which a
concept is relevant or the wide range of uses of a strategy.

Explicit instruction is an important technique in special education. It
provides explicit frameworks for students with disabilities to use as
they write or study or engage in group activities. The explicit
frameworks offer a shared language that teachers and students can use as
they engage in cognitive activities and as they work with one another
(Mathes, Fuchs, Fuchs, Henley, & Sanders, 1994). The ultimate rationale
is that by immersion in a learning environment that is rich in clear,
explicit discussions of relationships, and full of a systematic use of
relevant examples, students increasingly make linkage on their own.

The principles of explicit instruction, described in table III-6, were
adapted from Carnine, Jones, and Dixon (1994), and Gersten, Carnine, and
Woodward (1987). Because instructional design research continues to
evolve, and the principles shift from one academic domain to another, no
one set of principles is exact.

**Table III-6**

**Principles of Explicit Instruction**

• Providing students with an adequate range of examples to exemplify a
concept or problem-solving strategy;

• Providing models of proficient performance, including step-by-step
strategies (at times) or broad, generic questions and guidelines that
focus attention and prompt deep processing;

• Providing experiences where students explain how and why they make
decisions;

• Providing frequent feedback on quality of performance and support so
that students persist in activities; and

• Providing adequate practice and activities that are interesting and
engaging.

*An Example of Explicit Instruction: Preventing Reading Failure in the
Early Grades*

Recent research by O'Connor, Notari-Syverson, and Vadasy (1996) has
addressed prevention of reading failure in a fashion consistent with the
instructional design principles.

Students spend time each day engaged in series of *phone-mic* activities
(i.e., activities that build students' knowledge of letter sounds, their
understanding that words are composed of such sounds, practice in
composing sounds into real words, and breaking real words into component
sounds). Increasingly, research suggests that students must develop
phonemic awareness in order to become readers. Though some students
develop this awareness on their own, it often does not occur for
students with disabilities.

The activities that served as the basis of the reading interventions can
be thought of as more systematic components of activities that teachers
always have done with kindergartners. Two examples are using Dr. Seuss
books to introduce the concept of rhyming and focusing children's
attention on the first letter sound of common words. What distinguishes
the instructional activities of O'Connor et al. (1996) is adherence to
several key instructional design principles. The first is related to the
instructional design principles of example selection (Carnine, 1994).
Students begin with easy, clear instances of these principles and then
move on to more subtle and difficult examples. In addition, they receive
adequate numbers of examples each day, so that even students with
erratic attention spans and weak memories still grasp the principles.
The second is that the new principles and skills are practiced and
reviewed so that they become automatic for students. This is
particularly important when teaching phonemic skills (O'Connor et al.,
1996). Student engagement is increased by the variety of activities, the
game-like nature of many of the activities, and the fact the students
are asked to do most of the work.

**Advances in Cognitive Strategy Instruction**

A major technique adopted by many educators who use explicit instruction
has been cognitive strategy instruction. In the words of Harris and
Pressley (1991, p. 395), "Strategy instruction provides students with
their culture's best kept secrets about how to obtain academic success."
It teaches strategies many students either would not discover at all or
would discover only after a great deal of frustration and failure. These
strategies, some relatively complex, others seemingly quite simple, are
typically derived from observations of how competent students perform
these tasks. The goal is to provide students a structure or a series of
steps they can use to help them distinguish important from less
important material (to be reminded of how others organize themselves and
their resources to complete the task successfully). These strategies can
be applied to a variety of academic areas, including expressive writing,
reading comprehension, mathematical problem solving, and scientific
reasoning.

Typically, students are first taught a plan of action to utilize when
pursuing a cognitive goal. In the second, most extensive phase of
instruction, students must learn to use the plan proficiently. Students
receive feedback from their teachers or peers and learn from watching
fellow students how to utilize the same plan of action.

Another critical aspect of cognitive strategy instruction is the
development of *routine,* or the virtually automatic use of strategies.
Concurrently, teachers attempt to build a sense of "ownership" by the
students. In other words, students are encouraged to make minor shifts
in the strategy, to streamline it, and to expand on facets of interest.
Teachers convey a sense that there is not one precise method but that
methods can and should be evaluated and discussed.

Metacognitive knowledge is "an understanding of where and how to use it"
(Harris & Pressley, 1991, p. 398). Meta-cognitive knowledge develops
from observing the efficacy of the strategy through repeated use of
learned strategies. Through this lengthy process of learning and using
strategies, the individual modifies them, and ultimately invents new
strategies based on the old. The goal of strategy instruction is to help
students understand when and how to apply a particular strategy. This is
very important for students with learning disabilities because this is
precisely the domain in which they have the most problems\--learning how
to apply what they know to novel situations.

In the following sections, a number of research-based examples of
cognitive strategies are presented.

*Procedural Facilitators: A Means to Deep Processing of Text*

*Procedural facilitators* (or procedural prompts) are a series of
questions that teachers use on a daily basis with a group of adolescents
with reading disabilities to promote deep processing and understanding.
The questions are structured, but the students are allowed great
latitude in their approaches to them.

Procedural facilitators for reading comprehension are both cognitive
(examples 1 and 2) and metacognitive (examples 3 and 4). As shown in
table III-7, they encourage students to link what they read in the text
to their background knowledge (example 2). In addition, each student's
perspective is continually valued (example 5).

**Table III-7**

**Examples of Procedural Prompts for Reading Comprehension**

1\. "How does \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ affect \_\_\_\_\_?"

2\. "What is a new example of \_\_\_\_\_?"

3\. "What do you find most difficult in the passage you just read?"

4\. "How can you try to figure this out?"

5\. "Tell me what you learned from reading this. . .what were the main
points, the most interesting things?"

Adapted from Anderson and Roit (1993).

During reading class, for example, the teacher would clarify that each
student's responses to the questions in table III-7 are likely to be
different from each other as well as different from those of the
teacher. In this way, the students' "images are personal" (Harris &
Pressley, 1991, p. 396). However, students need to be able to discuss
and justify their decisions. This discussion led to the type of *deep
processing* that promotes comprehension.

*Story Grammar*

Another commonly used cognitive strategy, *story grammar*, is an example
of what researchers call a text structure. Research by anthropologists
has found that when people tell stories, their narratives follow certain
set patterns. These patterns are called *story grammars.* To increase
students' understanding of the stories they read, they are explicitly
taught the elements of story grammar and asked to apply them to
subsequent stories. Table III-8 contains a sample story grammar adapted
from Harris & Pressley (1991).

**Table III-8**

**Example of Story Grammar Questions**

1\. Who is the main character? Who else is in the story?

2\. When does the story take place?

3\. Where does the story take place?

4\. What does the main character want to do?

5\. What happens when he or she tries to do it?

6\. How does the story end?

7\. How does the main character feel?

Adapted from Harris & Pressley (1991)

Whereas proficient readers usually assimilate key elements as they read,
some students with disabilities fail to do so. By systematically
teaching these elements, students can begin to grasp the essential
elements of literary analysis. The teacher and the class can "work
through" how the elements fit together and how they lead to a potential
theme. The story grammar elements provide a common language so that
teachers can help students organize what they have read. It also
provides them with a means to discern what is important and what is not
as important; in other words, a means to prioritize. This strategy has
been shown to enhance the comprehension of short stories by students
with learning disabilities (Gurney, Gersten, Dimino, & Carnine, 1990;
Harris & Pressley, 1991).

*Think Sheets To Promote Effective Writing*

Several cognitive strategies use "text structures" for factual
(expository) material. Like story grammar, text structures have been
used to increase comprehension and promote expressive writing in history
and science. For example, the *compare-contrast* text structure has been
used successfully to assist some students with disabilities in the
elementary grades in "getting started" in the writing process (Englert
et al., 1992).

A *problem-solution-effect* text structure is another example of a
cognitive strategy which has been used successfully as a basis for
teaching American history to students with learning disabilities
(Harniss et al., 1994; Kinder & Bursick, 1993). Using this text
structure, students view historical events as problems facing groups of
people. They learn to articulate the problems, the attempts a nation or
group of people took to attempt to solve their problems, and then
evaluate the success or failure. Students are encouraged to view this
event from multiple perspectives. In other words, they may view the
American Revolution from both the colonists' and the British perspective
or analyze the Russian Revolution from the perspectives of a factory
worker and a landlord.

**Learning Through Experience:**

**Research on Anchored Instruction**

Numerous researchers have used advances in cognitive science research to
design an innovative instructional approach called anchored instruction.
Anchored instruction is described as follows: "situating or anchoring
instruction involves recreating some of the advantages of the informal
learning environments like those that occur in. . .apprenticeships. .
.These permit sustained exploration by students and teachers (that). .
.enable them to see and understand how information and knowledge can be
used as tools for real-world problem-solving" (Cognition and Technology
Group at Vanderbilt Learning Technology Center, 1993, p. 121).

This section describes research projects that show promise for enhancing
engagement of students with disabilities in learning, motivation, and
genuine understanding of abstract concepts. These studies address
several learning problems that many students with disabilities
experience. The first is the issue of enhancing students' *intrinsic*
motivation\--their ability to expend adequate intellectual energy in
learning activities. The second is retention and transfer. As previously
noted, students with disabilities often have great difficulty
remembering what they have previously learned and using it in novel
situations.

**Applying Principles From Science and**

**Mathematics to Real World Problems**

There are several possible methods for increasing retention and
enhancing transfer of skills learned. Two recently conducted research
studies that have several features in common are described below. In
both cases, the researchers first taught students the essential academic
concepts explicitly and then engaged them in a strategy called authentic
problem solving. In one case, the concepts were from biology, in the
other from mathematics.

In the first study (Hollingsworth & Woodward, 1993), students were given
an array of scenarios or health profiles of individuals and asked to
describe what their problems were and what steps should be taken to
prevent serious health problems. Often these problems involved
prioritization (e.g., weighing the importance of cutting down on smoking
versus increasing exercise to reduce the risk of cancer). Students were
provided with a series of procedural facilitators to help them with the
problem-solving process. The students with disabilities not only
performed well on these problem-solving exercises but also remembered
the core biology information significantly better than the students
taught with more traditional methods.

Similarly, in mathematics, Bottge and Hasselbring (1993) found that by
providing students with "anchored instruction," that is, an array of
real-world problems in which they could practice and expand upon their
knowledge of mathematical operations involving fractions, students were
able to transfer their problem-solving abilities to new situations. In
this study, the students applied their knowledge of fractions as they
learned how to build a kite frame from a plan and a materials list, with
only a limited amount of money with which to purchase materials. The
instructor used a series of procedural prompts to help support the
students when they experienced difficulties.

**Increasing Student Engagement in Learning**

**Through Peer Tutoring**

The importance of students' active engagement in learning and its
relationship to increased achievement in areas such as reading and
mathematics have long been known. Recent longitudinal research (McKinney
& Osborne, 1993) has demonstrated that regardless of current levels of
academic performance, the ability to persist on academic tasks was a key
predictor of how well and how much students learn in school. In the past
decade, major initiatives have attempted to train teachers in methods
that increased students' engagement in learning. However, educators now
realize that engagement often increases dramatically when teachers break
out of the lecture-recitation mode and use peers to teach others
(Greenwood et al., 1992) or to work collaboratively on academic
projects.

Classwide peer tutoring techniques are based on direct observations of
student performance in the classroom by special education researchers,
such as Greenwood and colleagues at the University of Kansas (1992).
This body of observational research consistently demonstrated that some
students with disabilities were rarely engaged in academic activity in
general education classrooms. Delquadri, Greenwood, Whorton, Carta, and
Hall (1986) describe a typical special education student in a fourth
grade class, whom we will call Juwan.

When first observed, Juwan was engaged in reading for only 8 of the 60
minutes of the reading period. He ". . .was seldom called on by the
teacher to read or answer questions, instead the child passively watched
the teacher provide instruction" (p. 536). However, with intensive
instruction from a reading specialist, Juwan's academic engagement
dramatically quadrupled. His growth in oral reading grew at a
corresponding rate, tripling his oral reading accuracy rate.

Juwan's progress underscored the importance of academic engagement for
students' academic growth. However, Greenwood and his colleagues (1992)
realized that intensive one-on-one instruction was not always possible
for the large number of students in need of assistance\--nor was it
necessarily always desirable. So they began to experiment with the
concept of students working with each other on many of the activities
that students normally work on individually. For example, students were
asked to practice reading to each other, to answer questions for one
another, and to provide feedback for each other. Over 40 studies
conducted in classrooms across the country have demonstrated that use of
classwide peer tutoring can dramatically increase the amount of time
students with learning dis abilities spend engaged in learning. The data
also indicate strong and significant growth in achievement among
students who had previously experienced difficulty learning.

The effect on students with disabilities was, initially, examined in a
series of controlled experimental studies. The approach was then refined
and expanded to include a wide range of academic areas and age groups.
Although on-going data collection and recordkeeping were crucial to
earlier research, current approaches place much less emphasis on these.
Similarly, contemporary approaches allow teachers to use a wide range of
implementation strategies. In a sense, the original concept of peer
tutoring has been adapted to "fit" the realities of various learning
situations. In addition, it is important to note that the improvement
experienced by students with disabilities in classes that used peer
tutoring is roughly equivalent to that made by their nondisabled peers
(Mathes et al., 1994).

In summary, the advantages of classwide peer tutoring include increased
engagement in reading and mathe-matics, opportunities to share
information with and provide feedback to peers in a private fashion, and
opportunities to build the fluency in and familiarity with the core
basic skills essential for comprehension or problem solving.

**Summary**

During the past decade, significant advances have been made in
instructional design and teaching strategies that enhance the access of
students with disabilities to complex concepts. Innovative instructional
research has been shaped by many sources, including advances in
cognitive science, classroom observational research, and descriptive
studies of the learning characteristics of students with disabilities.

Building on well-established instructional design principles, many of
which were developed initially in the 1970s and 1980s, special education
for many students with disabilities has shifted from a primarily
remedial emphasis to a more balanced approach that includes systematic
development of reading and mathematics proficiency simultaneously with
instruction involving abstract concepts. Students are provided an array
of explicit strategies for learning, as well as explicit presentations
of relationships among conceptual ideas and themes. Invariably, there is
a system or logic to the instruction. As a result, students have
opportunities to see numerous examples of the strategy or numerous
instances of the concept, can verbalize their understanding, and can
receive feedback on their responses. In addition, educators increasingly
understand the benefits of structuring classrooms so that students are
actively engaged in learning with their peers as well as thoughtfully
engaged in learning with their teachers.

As research continues to provide information about these principles of
instructional design and teaching, innovative interventions and
approaches are, in the words of Harris and Pressley (1991), "unlocking
the secrets" of learning for many students with disabilities. These
advances are supporting the development of abilities in expressive
writing, mathematical problem solving, and other higher order
intellectual processes that help prepare students with disabilities for
lifelong learning and achievement.

**References**

Anderson, V. & Roit, M. (1993). Planning and implementing collaborative
strategy instruction for delayed readers in grades 6-10. *Elementary
School Journal*, *94*, 121-137.

Bottge, B. & Hasselbring, T. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for
teaching complex, authentic mathematical problems to adolescents in
remedial math classes. *Exceptional Children*, *59*(6), 556-566.

Carnine, D. (1994). Introduction to the mini-series: Diverse learning
and prevailing, emerging, and research-based educational approaches and
their tools. *School Psychology Review*, *23*(3), 341-350.

Carnine, D., Jones, E., & Dixon, R. (1994). Mathematics: Educational
tools for diverse learners. *School Psychology Review*, *23*(3),
406-427.

Cazden, C.B. (1992). *Whole language plus: Essays on literacy in the
United States and New Zealand*. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt Learning Technology Center
(1993). Integrating media: Towards a theoretical framework for utilizing
their potential. *Journal of Special Education Technology*, *100*(3),
298-324.

Delquadri, J., Greenwood, C.R., Whorton, D., Carta, J.J., & Hall, R.V.
(1986). Classwide peer tutoring. *Exceptional Children*, *52*(6),
535-542.

Deshler, D.D. & Schumaker, J.B. (1993). Strategy mastery by at-risk
students: Not a simple matter. *Elementary School Journal*, *94*(2),
153-167.

Englert, C.S. & Thomas, C.C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure in
reading and writing: A comparison between learning disabled and
non-learning disabled students. *Learning Disability Quarterly*,
*10*(2), 93-105.

Englert, C.S., Raphael, T.E., & Anderson, L.M. (1992). *Cognitive
strategy instruction in writing project*. East Lansing, MI: Institute
for Research on Teaching.

Gersten, R., Carnine, D., & Woodward, J. (1987). Direct instruction
research: The third decade. *Remedial and Special Education*, *8*(6),
48-56.

Gersten, R., Schiller, E., & McInerney, M. Advances in teaching and
learning. In M. McInerney et al., (in press), *Supporting legislative
intent: How special education research improves policies and practices
in schools* (pp. III-1-III-19). Washington, DC: American Institutes for
Research.

Greenwood, C.R., Carta, J.J., Hart, B., Kamps, D., Terry, B.,
Areaga-Mayer, C., Atwater, J., Walker, D., Risley, T., & Delquadri, J.
(1992). Out of the laboratory and into the community: 26 years of
applied behavior analysis at the Juniper Gardens Children's Project.
*American Psychologist*, *47*, 1464-1474.

Gurney, D., Gersten R., Dimino, J., & Carnine, D. (1990). Story grammar:
Effective literature instruction for high school students with learning
disabilities. *Journal of Learning Disabilities*, *23*(6), 335-342.

Harniss, M., Hollenbeck, K.L., Crawford, D.B., & Carnine, D. (1994).
Content organization and instructional design issues in the development
of history texts. *Learning Disability Quarterly*, *17*(3), 235-248.

Harris, K.R. & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy
instruction: Interactive strategy construction. *Exceptional Children*,
*57*, 392-404.

Hollingsworth, M. & Woodward, J. (1993). Integrated learning: Explicit
strategies and their role in problem-solving instruction for students
with learning disabilities. *Exceptional Children*, *59*(5), 444-455.

Kinder, D. & Bursick, W. (1993). History strategy instruction:
Problem-solution-effect analysis, timeline, and vocabulary instruction.
*Exceptional Children*, *59*(4), 324-335.

Kinzer, C.K., Gabella, M.S., & Rieth, H.J. (1994). An argument for using
multimedia and anchored instruction to facilitate mildly disabled
students' learning of literacy and social studies. *Technology and
Disability*, *3*(2), 117-128.

Mathes, P., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Henley, A.M., & Sanders, A. (1994).
Increasing strategic reading practice with Peabody classwide peer
tutoring. *Learning Disability Research and Practice*, *8*(4), 233-243.

McIntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S., Haager, D., & Lee, O. (1993).
Observations of students with learning disabilities in general education
classrooms. *Exceptional Children*, *60*, 249-261.

McKinney, J.D., Osborne, S.S., & Schulte, A.C. (1993). Academic
consequences of learning disability: Longitudinal prediction of results
at 11 years of age. *Learning Disabilities Research and Practice*,
*8*(1), 19-27.

O'Connor, R.E., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vadasy, P.F. (1996). Ladders to
literacy: The effects of teacher-led phonological activities for
kindergarten children with and without learning disabilities.
*Exceptional Children*, *63*(1), 117-130.

Parmer, R.S., Cawley, J.F., & Frazita, R.R. (1996). Word problem-solving
by students with and without mild disabilities. *Exceptional Children*,
*62*(5), 415-429.

Swanson, H.L. (1988). Toward a metatheory of learning disabilities.
*Journal of Learning Disabilities*, *21*(4), 196-209.

Williams, J.P. (1992). Reading instruction and learning disabled
children. In M.J. Dreher & W.H. Slater (Eds.), *Elementary school
literacy: Critical issues* (pp. 157-183). Norwood, MA: Christopher
Gordon.

Woodward, J. & Howard, L. (1994). The misconceptions of youth: Errors
and their mathematical meaning. *Exceptional Children*, *12*(2),
149-163.

**Advances in Technology for Special Education**[^6]

Remarkable progress has been made during the past 10 years in using
technology to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Research
projects in this field have primarily been funded through the U.S.
Department of Education, OSEP. Researchers in special education and
software developers have demonstrated that technology can dramatically
improve the quality of a student's life and allow access to more complex
learning environments. Challenges once considered daunting now are
surmountable for many students with disabilities, and technology is
allowing them to become more productive workers and active, independent
learners. A comprehensive analysis and discussion of these trends has
been recently described in a historical review of technology research in
special education over the past decade[^7]. What follows are some of the
highlights of that report.

**Technology Use for Students with Severe Cognitive and Physical
Disabilities**

Some of the most striking examples of how technology has enhanced the
lives of students with disabilities during the past decade include the
ways researchers have customized technology to meet the needs of
students with severe cognitive and physical disabilities. At times, the
solutions to the everyday problems that confront these students are
seemingly obvious and "low tech" in nature.

Specially designed everyday items such as pencils, scis sors, and
silverware\--all technologies at one level\--are examples of these types
of solutions. These solutions, which all require time to design and
manufacture the implements and a commitment to train the student in
their use, can result in considerable independence for young learners.

Other students require more novel solutions, and researchers have found
ways to apply technologies which were until only recently available to
corporations and the military. Voice recognition and word prediction
systems, virtual reality, and expert systems have all rapidly declined
in cost over the past 10 years and have become widely available for a
variety of purposes.

Researchers at Utah State University (Hofmeister et al., 1994), for
example, have developed an expert system program that can help service
providers such as teachers and school counselors identify solutions for
a wide range of student behaviors. The system allows teachers to access
in-depth descriptions of problems such as teeth grinding or
self-injurious behavior in persons with moderate retardation and can
also present them with research-based remediation programs tailored to
the teacher's skill level (i.e., the teacher's capacity to deliver the
recommended program of instruction). Because it adjusts its output to
the teacher's skill level, the expert system does not recommend remedies
the teacher cannot implement.

In the past, teachers or care providers addressing a student's behavior
problem would have to investigate it in any one of a number of complex
manuals and then search the professional literature for appropriate
interventions. This process was time-consuming and often ineffective.
The expert system program developed by the Utah researchers has
dramatically reduced the time required to identify appropriate
interventions and has been able to offer a significant level of
professional development at the same time.

Researchers at the University of Delaware (Brown & Cavalier, 1992) have
used voice recognition systems for individuals with severe disabilities
as a way of enhancing communication. Although voice recognition has
commonly been used as an alternative to keyboard input for desktop

**Figure III-5**

**Example of the Use of Voice Recognition Systems**

Sue is a individual with profound mental retardation and cerebral palsy.
Given her condition, what appears to us as "the simple things in life"
are of profound importance to her. She enjoys watching home movies on a
TV mounted above her bed, images of her sister showing off her new car,
her mother giving the family dogs a bath, and her little nephew dancing
in the kitchen. She recognizes the figures, and with sounds nearly
unintelligible to most people, she calls them by name and laughs with
glee.

Recently, Sue has learned how to control these images and communicate
with other devices in her environment through a simple application of a
voice recognition system. By learning some basic commands, Sue was able
to control a variety of appliances such as a VCR, an audiocassette
player which reads the pages of her favorite storybooks, her massage pad
which she often lies on, and a radio tuned to her favorite country
western music station.

This is a marked change from life in her residential facility where most
adults had abandoned virtually any effort to engage her in meaningful
activities because they had no sense of her needs. Since the voice
recognition system was installed, care providers have noticed a
significant change in her behavior. She's more alert and animated. The
staff even feels that she can do more on her own, and partly as a result
of these changes, she has moved to a less restrictive environment near
her family.

computers, it can also be used to control everyday appliances. By
training students with severe disabilities to produce a limited number
of commands in a consistent manner, they can gain greater control over
their surroundings, as demonstrated by the example in figure III-5.

Applications of virtual reality and word prediction systems offer even
more remarkable examples of how technology can fundamentally change a
student's day-to-day experiences, leading to greater success and
independence.

Research conducted at the Oregon Research Institute (Inman, 1996) in
Eugene, Oregon, shows how students with cerebral palsy can learn to
navigate wheelchairs in a safe "staging ground" of narrow corridors,
desks and chairs, and crowded sidewalks contained in a virtual
environment before attempting to navigate them through the real world.
The potential for using virtual reality to teach students with physical
disabilities how to perform common tasks safely while they receive a
considerable level of practice and feedback from an assistant is
immense.

Word prediction programs enable mainstreamed students with physical
disabilities to complete ordinary tasks such as writing. In one study
recently conducted by researchers at the University of Oregon (Todis, in
press), a fifth-grade girl with cerebral palsy used a word prediction
program to complete daily assignments that were once almost impossible
for her to do. Before she started using the word prediction program, the
student was only able to use one finger to type assignments on the
laptop computer attached to her wheelchair, and she found it very
difficult to finish her assignments on time. Now that she uses the word
prediction program, she can type the beginning letters of a word and the
computer will generate a list of words that use those letters. The girl
can then choose the appropriate word rather than laboriously typing it
out. This feature of the word prediction program has allowed her to
complete assignments on a timely basis.

**Technology Use for Students with Mild Disabilities**

Providing adequate instruction for students with learning disabilities
has become one of the central challenges to public education over the
past decade. Increasingly, these students are taught in a variety of
learning environments and spend the majority of their day in their
general education classrooms. For these students (as well as those with
attention deficit disorders, behavior disorders, and mild mental
retardation), acquiring basic skills at the same rate as their peers who
do not have disabilities is a perpetual problem.

During the past 10 years, a number of ways have been found to design or
modify software programs so that students with disabilities can learn
basic skills more readily. For example, an important skill any student
must have before he or she can study any advanced level of mathematics
is a mastery of math facts. The number of students in middle schools who
still do not know their multiplication tables is a common lament in the
media. A large part of the problem is that students are often
overwhelmed with the number of facts they must learn at any one time.
Because they must memorize 100 separate facts in a short period of time,
students rely on finger counting, guessing, or they simply give up.

In response, special education technology researchers at Vanderbilt
University in Tennessee (Hasselbring, Goin, & Bransford, 1988) created a
drill and practice program that carefully pretests students on what they
already know and then gradually introduces a small set of facts for
instruction. Once the student masters the first set, new facts are
introduced along with a random but limited number of old facts.
Microcomputers are well-suited to this kind of instructional management,
and they provide the consistency and controlled practice\--not to
mention the time\--that usually is not available in the classroom. This
program is now available as a commercial product. Other researchers have
conducted similar work in vocabulary instruction (Johnson, Gersten, &
Carnine, 1987) as well as basic skills practice on fractions, decimals,
and ratios, using microcomputer and videodisc programs (Moore & Carnine,
1989). The students using these programs show significant gains in the
acquisition of basic skills.

Reading is one of the most difficult academic skills for many students
with disabilities. Early research at Florida State University (Jones,
Torgesen, & Sexton, 1987; Torgesen, Waters, Cohen, & Torgesen, 1988)
indicated that the different presentational features of the
micro-computer\--text, sound, and graphic animation or pictures\--could
be used effectively to teach students with learning disabilities how to
read or "decode" words. Later efforts showed that using a microcomputer
to read words back to students through a speech synthesis program was a
particularly promising way to enhance beginning reading instruction.

Work in the early 1990s showed that microcomputer instruction could also
be an effective medium for helping students understand or comprehend
textbooks. Understanding these texts has always been a particularly
crucial issue for students who struggled with the large amount of
information and challenging vocabulary so often found in social studies
and science texts.

Through widely available commercial programs like *Hypercard* from
Apple Computers, researchers at the University of Las Vegas, Nevada
(Higgins & Boone, 1990, 1991), can make traditional printed text more
"dynamic" for students with learning disabilities. Programs like
*Hypercard* allow the user to click buttons or boldface text, link
directly to other text or graphic information, and display it. This idea
is widely used today as millions of Americans scan the Internet with
user-friendly browsers that allow them to jump from one source of
information to the next. By using a *Hypercard* version of the
traditional text, a student can click on the word "monument," for
example, and a definition of the word or a picture of a monument like
the Jefferson Memorial appears on the screen. Appropriate definitions or
pictures that are based on the context in which the word appears can be
added. Similar efforts that use flexible software authoring programs
like *Hypercard* to modify traditional texts have been developed by
researchers at the University of Maryland (MacArthur & Haynes, 1995).

When students reach middle school and high school, they are expected to
complete assignments that are increasingly sophisticated in nature.
Students are expected to write brief papers that interpret short stories
or important historical events. They must also be able explain
mathematical concepts, particularly as they appear in the context of
everyday events. To be able to complete these types of assignments and
begin to acquire the level of literacy required in an information
society, students must have mastered basic skills such as math facts,
how to spell or decode words, and how to write complete sentences.

Multimedia methods of instruction for middle school students with
learning disabilities on historical topics, such as the Civil War, the
American Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution, have also been
developed at the University of Delaware (Ferretti & Okolo, 1996; Okolo &
Ferretti, in press). These students often have difficulty learning from
traditional textbooks, which often present historical topics in a
superficial and highly descriptive manner. Students with learning
disabilities are easily overwhelmed by the large number of names, facts,
and dates cited in traditional textbooks. However, many students with
learning disabilities are visual learners. Therefore, multimedia
presentations such as those just described allow the student to grasp
information more easily and at a deeper level.

The researchers taught students with learning disabilities how to
collect information on American history topics from a variety of
sources, such as CD ROMs, Internet files, audiovisual presentations, and
other sources that use different vocabularies or visual presentation
strategies that are easier to read and comprehend. The students learn to
use user-friendly, commercially available software for personal
computers to organize their various source materials into a multimedia
presentation that contains written text and visual images. For example,
students compose a multimedia presentation based on an inter-pretation
of or argument for the various causes of the Civil War. The special
education researchers felt that teaching students to synthesize
information and construct defensible arguments, rather than just restate
facts presented in the textbooks, is of critical importance, because
doing so generates greater student interest, increases motivation, and
provides the opportunity to develop higher-order thinking skills.

In an effort to teach secondary students with learning disabilities the
kinds of skills and knowledge needed in the workplace, researchers at
the University of Puget Sound in Washington (Woodward & Baxter, 1997)
have designed an integrative approach to teaching mathematics and
writing. The project teaches students how to collect and analyze data,
communicate effectively both orally and in brief written communications,
and work with others in small groups or teams.

The mathematics instruction teaches the students to understand concepts
such as fractions, percents, ratios, and their applications in everyday
settings (e.g., the stu-dents may operate a mock business). Moreover,
students learn to use calculators and spreadsheets\--two widely used
technological tools in the workplace\--to solve problems. Students
communicate their findings orally, and in one-page reports that often
contain data and charts. Students use the program Microsoft *Works* to
do much of the work, and Microsoft Corporation provides support for the
project and helps disseminate curricular products.

**Summary**

Technology-based research and development projects funded by OSERS
during the past decade have helped a wide range of students with
disabilities achieve better educational results and more independence.
Researchers have been able to tailor specialized applications of common
as well as novel technologies to meet the unique needs of students with
severe disabilities. Their solutions have resulted in increased mobility
and independence, enhanced communication, and improved capacity to
participate in regular classrooms.

For the larger number of students with disabilities such as learning
disabilities, attention deficit disorder, behavior disorders, and mild
mental retardation, advances in technology-based instruction have helped
these students master basic skills and develop higher-order thinking
skills. Technology can provide the time and the appropriate level of
practice that enables students with disabilities to develop higher skill
levels in spelling, beginning reading, or math facts, which many
students have difficulty mastering. Students can also use various
technologies to help them solve problems and to complete complex
assignments. In the future, as more innovative technologies,
particularly multimedia tools, become commercially available, research
on using technology to teach students with disabilities may influence
the way educators think about using technology in education for all
students.

**References**

Brown, C. & Cavalier, A. (1992). Voice recognition technology and
persons with severe mental retardation and severe physical impairment:
Learning, response differentiation, and affect. *Journal of Special
Education Technology*, *11*(4), 196-206.

Ferretti, R. & Okolo, C. (1996). Authenticity in learning: Multimedia
design projects in the social studies for students with disabilities.
*Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29*(5), 450-460.

Hasselbring, T.S., Goin, L.I., & Bransford, J.D. (1988). Developing math
automatically in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized
drill and practice. *Focus on Exceptional Children*, *20*(6), 1-7.

Higgins, K. & Boone, K. (1990). Hypertext computer study guides and the
social studies achievement of students with learning disabilities,
remedial students, and regular education students. *Journal of Learning
Disabilities*, *23*, 529-540.

Higgins, K. & Boone, K. (1991). Hypermedia CAI: A supplement to an
elementary school basal reader program. *Journal of Special Education
Technology*, *11*(1), 1-15.

Hofmeister, A., Althouse, R., Likins, M., Morgan, D., Ferrara, J.,
Jenson, W., & Rollins, E. (1994). SMH.PAL: An expert system for
identifying treatment procedures in students with severe disabilities.
*Exceptional Children*, *61*(2), 174-181.

Inman, D. (1996). *Virtual reality training for students with physical
disabilities*. Paper presented at the Technology, Educational Media, and
Materials Program Cross-Project Meeting, Washington, DC.

Johnson, G., Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. (1987). Effects of instructional
design variables on vocabulary acquisition of LD students: A study of
computer-assisted instruction. *Journal of Learning Disabilities*,
*20*(4), 206-213.

Jones, K.M., Torgesen, J.K., & Sexton, M.A. (1987). Using computer
guided practice to increase decoding fluency in learning disabled
children: A study using the Hint and Hunt I program. *Journal of
Learning Disabilities*, *20*(2), 122-128.

MacArthur, C. & Haynes, J. (1995). Student assistant for learning from
text (SALT): A hypermedia reading aid. *Journal of Learning
Disabilities*, *28*(3), 150-159.

Moore, L. & Carnine, D. (1989). Evaluating curriculum design in the
context of active teaching. *Remedial and Special Education*, *10*,
28-37.

Okolo, C. & Ferretti, R. (in press). Knowledge acquisition and
multimedia design projects in the social studies for students with
learning disabilities. *Journal of Special Education Technology*.

Todis, B. (in press). Tools for the task: Perspectives on assistive
technology. *Journal of Special Education Technology*.

Torgesen, J., Waters, M., Cohen, A., & Torgesen, J. (1988). Improving
sight-word recognition skills in LD children: An evaluation of three
computer program variations. *Learning Disability Quarterly*, *11*,
125-132.

Woodward J. & Baxter, J. (1997). *Rules and reasons: Decimal instruction
for academically low achieving students*. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Woodward, J. & Rieth, H. (Submitted for publication). An historical
review of technology research in special education. *Review of
Educational Research*.

[^1]:
    > OSEP defines a regular class placement as one in which students
    > with disabilities receive special education and related services
    > outside of the regular class for 0 to 20 percent of the school
    > day. Resource room placements are those in which students recevie
    > special education and related services outside of the regular
    > class for 21 to 60 percent of the school day. Separate class
    > placements include stduents who receive special education and
    > related services outside the regular class for more than 60
    > percent of the school day.

[^2]: 1This module reports on the work of the National Center on
    Education Outcomes (NCEO), one of several research centers funded by
    the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).

[^3]: 1OSEP uses a variety of methods to involve the families of
    students with disabilities in the monitoring process, including:
    public meetings and smaller "outreach" meetings with representatives
    of groups representing students with disabilities and their
    families, as part of the pre-site visit to each State; one or more
    parent "focus group" meetings in at least one of the public agencies
    that OSEP visits in each State; and inviting a representative of
    each State's special education advisory panel to participate in
    meetings held to develop a corrective action plan.

[^4]: 2 OSEP also made findings regarding requirements related to
    evaluation of students with disabilities and the development of
    IEPs. Both sets of requirements and OSEP's findings relate directly
    to the provision of a FAPE; evaluations serve as a critical source
    of informatino for making individualized determinations regarding
    the program and placement that each student needs, and Congress has
    mandated the development of an IEP as the mechanism for making such
    determinations.

[^5]: 1 This module reports on work conducted by Russell Gersten at the
    Eugene Research Institute, one of several research institutes funded
    by OSEP. The institute conducts research on linguistic diversity,
    technology, teacher development, and instructional design.

[^6]: 1This module reports on work conducted by John Woodward at the
    School of Education at the University of Puget Sound. The research
    described in this report was funded through OSERS, public school
    districts, and the Microsoft Corporation.

[^7]: 2 Woodward J. & Reith, H. (submitted for publication). An
    historical review of technology research in special education.
    Review of Educational Research.