Table of Contents
Message from the Executive Directors
Legal Issues Corner
New Projects in Special Education
This Just In: New Research Helps to Improve Understanding of Bipolar Disorder in Youth
This Just In: Targeting the Most Aggressive Children May Be Cost-EffectivePrevention of Later Conduct Disorders
Special Education Topic of the Month: Collaboration Between General and Special Education: Making it Work
Update from the National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities
What’s Happening in Special Education Today
Resources from the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET)
Funding Forecast, Grants, Awards, and Scholarships
Calls to Participate
Upcoming Conferences, Workshops, and Events
Acknowledgements
Message from the Executive Directors
Welcome to the December 2006 edition of the NASET Special Educator e-Journal. To those of you who are new members, this is NASET’s publication that keeps its members up to date with all of the latest news in special education that we feel is important for special education teachers, professors, and those seeking a career as a special education teacher.
In this edition of the Special Educator e-Journal, we cover numerous topics on exceptional children. We hope that this broad range of interest enhances your knowledge of the current state of the field of special education, while being practical for your use in the classroom, school building, and with parents.
Remember that NASET is your organization, and anything we can do to enhance your professional development, we will take very seriously. We are working very hard to meet all of your needs, and will continue to furnish you with high quality professional and practical resources.
On a personal note, we want to extend the warmest of holiday wishes and hope that you a very happy and healthy holiday season.
Sincerely,
Dr. Roger Pierangelo and Dr. George Giuliani
Executive Directors
To top
Legal Issues Corner
OSEP Director’s Presentation from Community-Based Public Meetings on IDEA 2004
To provide the public with an overview of the Part B Final Regulations implementing the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) has been hosting a series of community-based public meetings. The presentation given by Alexa Posny, director of OSERS’ Office of Special Education Programs, is available online. It covers discipline, Response to Intervention, IEPs, monitoring, highly qualified teachers, private schools, the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS), and procedural safeguards.
U.S. Social Security Administration Announces 3.3 Percent Benefit Increase for 2007
On October 18, 2006, the U.S. Social Security Administration announced that the monthly benefits for Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI) and Social Security beneficiaries will increase by 3.3 percent in 2007. In addition, the substantial gainful activity (SGA) level will increase by $40 per month for individuals with a disability and by $50 per month for individuals who are blind or visually impaired.
Twenty-Sixth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
The Twenty-Sixth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is now available online. Volume 1 focuses on the children and students being served under IDEA and provides profiles of individual states’ special education environments. Volume 2 contains state-reported data tables and appendices.
NCLB and IDEA: What Parents of Students with Disabilities Need to Know & Do
This guide from the National Center for Educational Outcomes informs parents of students with disabilities about The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), two of the most important federal laws relating to public education. Available in PDF (23 pages, 753 KB).
Final regulations of IDEA Now Available
You've no doubt heard that final regulations for IDEA 2004 have been published. They're only 307 pages long--- including the comments and analysis of changes--- perfect reading for a 3-day weekend. Pick up your copy of the regs (in PDF), at:
How Has IDEA Changed?-- Comparing IDEA 2004 to IDEA 1997
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) answers this question with its Topic Briefs prepared just for the new regulations. Hook up with available briefs at:
Implementing IDEA: How Are We Doing?
Marking the Progress of IDEA Implementation discusses the implications from the six-year Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of IDEA (SLIIDEA). SLIIDEA addressed how states, districts, and schools made progress toward issues of concern identified by Congress in the 1997 amendments to IDEA. A three-volume Sourcebook has been prepared to complement the report provided at the link above. Volume I summarizes study findings for each of the Congressional topics. Volume II consists of tables that display state, district, and school-level data for each data collection year and that show changes, including trends over time, in responses to individual survey items for each Congressional topic. Volume III provides a complete description of the sampling design and analytic approach used in SLIIDEA. Where would you find these three volumes? At the link above as well, where all the reports from the project can be found.
OSEP-Reviewed Materials on IDEA 2004
The materials listed on this Web page from NICHCY, the National Dissemination Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities, relate to IDEA 2004 and its implementing regulations. They have been reviewed by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs for consistency with the IDEA Amendments of 2004. Materials are available on the following topics: assessment, behavior/discipline, disproportionality, due process, early intervening services, evaluations/reevaluations, funding, highly qualified teachers, IEPs/IFSPs, learning disabilities, mediation, model forms, NCLB, NIMAS, Part C, preschool, prior written notice, private schools, procedural safeguards, state complaint procedures, and transition.
To top
New Projects in Special Education
Autism Society of America, Autism Research Institute Join Forces
On October 31, 2006, the Autism Society of America (ASA) and the Autism Research Institute (ARI) announced a strategic partnership that will improve the lives of all those affected by autism in the U.S. The two organizations will collaborate on conferences, publications, and services. ASA is the largest parent-based autism organization in the U.S., with over 100,000 members and supporters and 200 local chapters. ARI, with over 70,000 supporters nationwide, has pioneered the study of medical problems of individuals with autism and effective treatments.
U.S. Department of Labor Forms Alliance with Society for Human Resource Management to Promote Employment of People with Disabilities
The Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) of the U.S. Department of Labor and the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) have established an alliance to promote the employment of people with disabilities. The formal alliance, ODEP’s first with a major organization, will ensure that SHRM and ODEP stakeholders collaborate in this national effort by providing information, guidance, and access to resources. The partnership will target areas in training and education, outreach and communication, and technical assistance, and encourage a national dialogue on the employment of persons with disabilities—an underutilized human resource.
To top
This Just In
New Research Helps to Improve Understanding of Bipolar Disorder in Youth
Bipolar disorder may be hard to identify in children and adolescents for several reasons, including a lack of age-appropriate diagnostic guidelines and symptoms different than those commonly seen in adults with the disorder. However, findings from two studies by NIMH-funded researchers, published in the October issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry, may help scientists to better understand bipolar disorder in youth.
David Axelson, M.D., of University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues found that three different classifications of bipolar disorder among youth—bipolar I, bipolar II, and bipolar disorder not otherwise specified (BP-NOS)—represent varying levels of impairment on a continuum, with elevated mood as a common feature of the bipolar spectrum illness in youth. Elevated mood was present in about 92 percent of youth diagnosed as having bipolar I disorder, as well as nearly 82 percent of those with BP-NOS. Youth with bipolar II disorder showed less functional impairment and were less likely to be hospitalized than those with bipolar I disorder, and also had higher rates of co-occurring anxiety disorders than those with either bipolar I or BP-NOS. According to the researchers, this is the first study to systematically assess and compare children and adolescents with these different types of bipolar disorder.
In another study, Barbara Geller, M.D., and colleagues at WashingtonUniversity showed that prepubertal and early adolescent-onset bipolar I disorder appears to be the same illness as adult-onset bipolar I disorder. Previous studies have shown differences in symptom severity, frequency of cycling between manic and depressive episodes, and other aspects that raised questions as to whether bipolar disorder in youth was the same illness as in adults. Dr. Geller also demonstrated that bipolar disorder is significantly more prevalent in relatives of such affected youth, compared with relatives of youth with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or healthy youth. In addition, the prevalence of bipolar disorder in relatives was significantly greater if relatives had co-occurring disorders, such as ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, or conduct disorder, and for parents the age of onset of bipolar disorder was significantly younger if he or she also had ADHD. The prevalence of major depression was not significantly different between relatives of youth with bipolar disorder and ADHD, although in both of these groups the prevalence was significantly greater than that found in relatives of healthy youth.
Targeting the Most Aggressive Children May Be Cost-Effective Prevention of Later Conduct Disorders
Targeted preventive interventions may help reduce conduct problems in children displaying the most aggressive or disruptive behaviors. Such interventions also may be cost-effective when compared to the personal and societal costs of delinquency and crime that can arise from untreated childhood conduct disorders. NIMH-funded researchers provided an analysis of one targeted intervention program in the November 2006 issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry.
E. Michael Foster, Ph.D., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Damon Jones, Ph.D., PennsylvaniaStateUniversity, in conjunction with the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, examined the cost effectiveness of the NIMH-funded Fast Track program, a 10-year intervention designed to reduce aggression among at-risk children. Risk for developing a conduct disorder was determined using parent and teacher reports of aggressive, oppositional, or other behaviorally disruptive behaviors in the children. Most study participants scored in the top 20 percent on these reports, representing those at elevated risk for developing later conduct disorders. The Fast Track evaluation enrolled 891 children from 55 schools. The schools were grouped into nine matched pairs and then randomly assigned as intervention or control groups. According to their schools' assignment, a total of 445 children and their families received the intervention, and 446 served as controls.
Previous results showed that among children moderately at risk for conduct disorder, there were no significant differences in outcomes between the intervention group and the control group. However, among the high-risk group, fewer than half as many cases of conduct disorder were diagnosed in the intervention group as in the control group. These results were extended in the current paper to consider also the cost effectiveness of providing the early intervention. By weighing the costs of the intervention relative to the costs of crime and delinquency found among the study participants, the researchers concluded that this early prevention program was cost-effective in reducing conduct disorder and delinquency, but only for those who were very high-risk as young children. Considering the disproportionate costs to society in crime and delinquency caused by a relatively small number of youth, the researchers concluded that the intervention program is likely cost-effective for high-risk children, but not for moderate risk children.
To top
Special Education Topic of the Month
Collaboration Between General and Special Education: Making it Work
By Michael N. Sharpe and Maureen E. Hawes
Defining the Issue
Throughout the last decade, nearly every state in the nation implemented some type of standards-based reform. Sharing a common mission that all students should be held to high standards of learning, many states have dramatically restructured their educational systems in an effort to demonstrate greater accountability for student results. While most of these efforts have helped states to more clearly articulate what students should know and be able to do, they have also resulted in questions concerning the participation of students with disabilities in accountability systems.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA) (P.L. 105-17) explicitly emphasize the importance of providing access to the general curriculum, so that students with disabilities can meet the educational standards that apply to all children. As a result, special education and general education teachers nationwide now find they need to develop new skills and strategies to meet these challenges. Signifying a period of genuine professional transformation, these changes are leading many in the field to reevaluate service delivery and collaborative partnerships needed to support students with disabilities in general education settings.
What We Know
Legal Considerations
Schools are required to provide access to the general curriculum by giving students with disabilities the opportunity to achieve the same standards as all other students. IDEA stresses the importance of participation of students with disabilities in the general curriculum.
In addition to IDEA, the recently passed Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) legislation, also known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, (P.L. 107-110), seeks “to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach or exceed minimum proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments” (Sec. 1001, Part A, Title I of ESEA; 20 U.S.C. 6301). This includes participation in assessments used to measure the achievement of all students at the same grade level (Sec. 1111, Part A, Title I of ESEA; 20 U.S.C. 6311 [b][3]).
Like IDEA, it is anticipated that this legislation will become a major catalyst in influencing the way in which supplementary aids and services are provided in the context of the general education curriculum. As such, there will be a need to increase collaborative teaching initiatives among the entire array of instructional services (e.g., general education, special education, Title I) available to targeted populations.
Research Considerations
A significant challenge faced by all educators will be to maintain high educational standards for all students, while also ensuring that each child’s unique instructional needs are met. These goals need not be viewed as mutually exclusive. Standards can serve as the impetus for focused instructional planning for students with disabilities within the general education classroom, resulting in improved achievement. For example, McLaughlin, Nolet, Rhim, and Henderson (1999) reported that many special education teachers believe students have access to a wider array of learning opportunities as a result of standards-based reforms. In addition, they found that special education teachers felt that standards helped them focus their instruction and better define what is required of students. Research findings have suggested that “rather than focusing on deficits, Individual Education Program (IEP) teams now have an opportunity to focus on helping students work toward high educational standards” (Thompson, Thurlow, & Whetstone, 2001, p. 6).
Implementation Considerations
Despite findings indicating that standards can help students with disabilities to achieve, many special educators continue to voice concerns about how to effectively align standards with the individualized goals and objectives of the IEP. In the report, Educating One & All: Students with Disabilities and Standards-Based Reform (McDonnell, McLaughlin, & Morison, 1997), the Committee on Goals 2000 and the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities acknowledged that standards-based reform initiatives pose many challenges to special educators, especially in regard to implementation. For example:
The complicated part is determining how to accommodate individual student needs and provide the special services that some may require, while still affording each student appropriate access to the common curriculum and ensuring accountability for his or her outcomes (p. 176).
Research (McDonnell et al. 1997; Sands, Adams, & Stout, 1995) also suggests that, in addition to facilitating inclusion, special education teachers need to develop a more consistent approach to determining curricula and appropriate content standards for students with disabilities. For example, to what degree should curricula be driven by the special educator and the planning team as opposed to being dictated by local curricular standards?
A further challenge is for both general and special education teachers to acquire the capacity to identify and focus on skills a student needs to meet the standard. To accomplish this goal, some researchers have suggested creating a curriculum base that would provide guidance for teachers on how to include students with disabilities in the general education classroom (McLaughlin et al. 1999). A “curriculum base” generically refers to a set of agreed-upon curriculum practices designed to meet the needs of students in special education.
According to Sands et al. (1995), “the absence of establishing such a base that provides direction for special education programs only increases the likelihood that instructional decision-making and practices will continue to be haphazard and widely divergent” (p. 69). Special educators must become more adept in content knowledge and curriculum development, and general educators must understand their role in implementing IEP goals and objectives—that is, how to accommodate students with disabilities within the general education classroom.