- Home
- >
- Publications
Publications
NASET News
NASET is proud to share the latest news, updates, and insights shaping the world of special education.
THE IMPACT OF ENDREW F.: AN UPDATED ANALYSIS OF RESULTING JUDICIAL RULINGS
by Perry A. Zirkel, Ph.D., J.D., LL.M.
In contrast with those commentators in the public media and education or law journals who characterized the Supreme Court’s decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 (2017) as dramatically raising the legal standard for the substantive appropriateness of IEPs under the IDEA, the judicial rulings that have applied Endrew F. during the six most recent full years have continued the same trend found during the immediate two or three years directly after its March 22, 2017 issuance–a 4:1 ratio in favor of school districts (i.e., approximately 20% for parents, and 80% for districts).
The article explains the methodology and discusses the findings. And in a follow-up article, which I’m currently writing, I found the same 4:1 ratio for the outcomes of the corresponding court rulings for the eight years preceding Endrew F., which applied the legal standard for appropriateness of IEPs under the predecessor Supreme Court decision–Board of Education v. Rowley (1982). Thus, the outcome odds of judicial rulings for this central issue under the IDEA strongly favored school districts at the same level before and after Endrew F.
February 2026 – Special Educator e-Journal
Download a PDF Version of This e-Journal
Table of Contents
Special Education Legal Alert
Buzz from the Hub
Update from the U.S. Department of Education
From Triggers to Glimmers: The Joy of Being a Special Education Teacher
Family Stress and Resilience Among Parents of Children with Disabilities
Acknowledgements
Special Education Legal Alert
Perry A. Zirkel
February 2026
This month’s update identifies two recent court decisions that address the nuances in the adjudication of not only FAPE but also remedies that are potentially of high stakes for the parties. For related publications and special supplements, see perryzirkel.com
| On January 23, 2026, a federal court in Pennsylvania issued an unofficially published decision in Laboratory Charter School v. A.M., addressing FAPE and remedy claims on behalf of a fifth grader. In grade 1 (2019–20), the child received private diagnoses of autism and ADHD. In grade 2 (2020–21), the charter school determined that the child was eligible under the classification of other health impairment (OHI) based primarily on ADHD and low academic achievement, and on February 1 provided him with an IEP. In 2021–22, he repeated second grade at his parents’ request. The school failed to fully implement his continuing IEP and, despite progress reports showing no improvement in math, issued a substantially similar IEP at the start of the second semester. For the first half of grade 3 (2022–23), his progress reports revealed a decline in math skills. Despite his regression in math and increase in problematic behavior, the mid-year IEP did not change the nature and reduced the amount of special education services in addition to lacking a behavior intervention plan. In grade 4 (2023–24), his triennial reevaluation included an autism rating scale at his parents’ request, and the teachers’ total scores were in the “Very Elevated” range, but the IEP team concluded that his current classification was sufficient. The report also revealed achievement test scores that increased the gap from those of his nondisabled peers. The resulting mid-year IEP failed to address various needs, including emotional/behavioral regulation and sensory processing. In March, his parents arranged for an independent educational evaluation (IEE) that diagnosed him with autism, and they promptly provided the school with the evaluation report. However, the school did not revise the IEP until the start of grade 5 (2024–25), and then without adding autism as a primary or secondary classification and continuing his limited special education services. In November 2024, the parents filed for a due process hearing, claiming denial of FAPE for the three years starting with grade 3. The hearing officer (HO) ruled in their favor, ordering an IEE at public expense, a 100-day autism-exclusive diagnostic placement, a 3-year compensatory education award. The district appealed. | |
| First, the school claimed that the hearing officer erred by finding denial of FAPE based on procedural violations. | Denying this claim, the court upheld the hearing officer’s ruling that the school violated procedural requirements, such as failing to timely produce student’s records and to keep complete records, resulting in losses in meaningful parental participation and appropriate student progress. |
| Second, the school claimed that the IEPs met the substantive standard for FAPE. | Rejecting this claim too, the court concluded that the IEPs’ failure to address the child’s identified increasing deficits showed that they were not reasonably calculated to yield appropriate progress, which is the applicable substantive standard under Endrew F. |
| Finally, the school challenged the remedies of diagnostic placement and compensatory education. | Again affirming the HO’s decision, the court concluded that (a) least restrictive environment does not apply to a diagnostic placement, and (b) the compensatory education award was equitable in relation to the denial of FAPE and not subject to the statute of limitations. |
| This decision is another illustration of the flexibility in the adjudicative standards for both denial of FAPE and the resulting remedies. | |
| On October 8, 2025, the federal district court for the District of Columbia issued an unofficially published decision in E.B. v. District of Columbia specific to the placement of a seventh grader with ADHD. At the end of grade 2 (2018–19), the district determined that the student was eligible as OHI based on ADHD and provided an IEP at her public school. At the end of grade 3 (2019–20), the parents disagreed with the next similar IEP based on her limited progress and unilaterally placed her in a well-established local private school specializing in students with specific learning disabilities (SLD), including those who also have ADHD. They filed for a due process hearing that resulted in a May 2021 decision in their favor, finding that the proposed placement in the school system was not appropriate, the private placement was appropriate, and tuition reimbursement was equitable for the 2020–21 school year. Meanwhile, the district proposed an IEP for public school placement for grade 4 (2021–22) that the parents challenged in another due process hearing. After the hearing officer issued an interim ruling that the private school was the stay-put, the parties settled the case for reimbursement for 2021–22. Starting earlier in that year, the district again proposed an IEP for placement back in the public schools, and the parents filed for another hearing. This time, the hearing found that the student qualified under the classifications of not only OHI but also SLD and needed the specialized features of the private school, including small classes and intensive instruction in reading. In this November 2022 decision, the remedy was not only reimbursement for tuition to date but also prospective continued placement at the private school for the rest of grade 5 (2022–23). At the end of the school year, the same pattern started again for grade 6 (2023–24). This time, the hearing officer ruled that the proposed placement was not appropriate, but the parents had not met their burden to prove that the private school met the standards for appropriateness. Because only a small percentage of the private school teachers had certification in special education, the hearing officer reasoned that the school did not meet the student’s need for extensive and intensive special education services. Consequently, the remedy was limited to an order for the district to issue a revised IEP. The parents appealed to federal court. | |
| First, the parents argued that the latest hearing officer, unlike the previous one, erred in applying the third of the five factors that the federal appeals court had specified for prospective placement – “the link between [the child’s] needs and the services offered by the private school.” | The court agreed with the parents for three alternative reasons: (1) the IDEA does not define “special education” to include only instruction provided by special education teachers; (2) the applicable certification regulations in D.C. are explicitly limited to public school teachers; and (3) the private school holds a certificate of approval to serve special education students from D.C.’s education agency. |
| Second, the parents argued that they were entitled to reimbursement for the residual tuition costs based on the IDEA’s stay-put provision. | Agreeing instead with the hearing officer, the court denied the parents’ request because the record in this case lacks specific evidence of inadequate or withheld tuition payments. |
| This case illustrates (1) the differences between the remedies of tuition reimbursement (for which teacher certification and other procedural standards applicable to public schools do not apply to the appropriateness of private schools) and prospective placement (for which this leading jurisdiction has established a multi-factor standard), and (2) the ponderously slow process of litigation under the IDEA (which in this case amounted to a declaratory judgment rather than a definitive resolution of the payment for the private school’s costs for 2023-24 and the subsequent period extending beyond 2024–25). Moreover, the potential additional issues include appeal or separate enforcement actions of this court decision and determination of the district’s liability for the parents’ attorneys’ fees. | |
Buzz from the Hub
Learning and Living the Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.: Lesson plans, activity ideas & other resources for teaching MLK Day
In honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Learning and Living the Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the National Education Association (NEA) offers a wide range of lesson plans, activities, and educational resources designed to help students understand Dr. King’s life and his significance in American history.
Access all the resources here.
Pre-K Reading Assessment
The Pre-K Reading Assessment from the National Center on Improving Literacy (NCIL) is an interactive experience designed to help adults understand the early reading and language skills of their pre-kindergarten students. Children complete short, playful activities guided by Moji and Pebble, while adults score their responses. It can be used in classrooms, learning centers, or at home to observe early literacy development.
Learn more about the assessment here.
IDEA Disability Category Tip Sheet Series
This series of tip sheets developed by the PROGRESS Center, provides an overview of the qualifying disability categories as outlined in IDEA, describes how these disabilities may impact students, shares strategies for success, and provides links to additional resources.
Making the Move to Managing Your Own Personal Assistance Services: A Toolkit for Youth
This guide from the National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth (NCWD/Youth) assists youth in strengthening some of the most fundamental skills essential for successfully managing their own Personal Assistance Services (PAS): effective communication, time-management, working with others, and establishing professional relationships.
Plan Your Future: A Guide to Vocational Rehabilitation for Deaf Youth
This guide by the National Deaf Center on Postsecondary Outcomes explains how vocational rehabilitation (VR) services can support deaf young people in planning and achieving their education and career goals, outlining available services, how to apply, and tips for working with VR agencies to get the most out of the process.
Enhancing the School-Home Connection: Empowering Parents with Artificial Intelligence
Chapter 5 from the Center for Innovation, Design, and Digital Learning (CIDDL) report, Artificial Intelligence: The Impact of AI on Education for All Learners, emphasizes the pivotal role of parents in integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into their children’s educational journey, particularly for students with disabilities. It underscores the importance of collaboration between schools and parents to ensure AI effectively enhances learning experiences in and out of the classroom.
Access the chapter here.
Disability Advocacy Videos for Families
The PACER Center has created a set of short videos in multiple languages that address parent’s common questions and concerns about advocating for their child with a disability at school and beyond. Tip sheets are also available in English and Spanish and can be found in the video’s description.
Watch the videos here in English, Spanish, Somali, and other languages.
Update from the U.S. Department of Education
Birth to Grade 12 Education-Reources
https://www.ed.gov/birth-to-grade-12-education
Available Grants
https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/apply-grant/available-grants
U.S. Department of Education Issues Guidance on Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Schools
February 5, 2026
Today, the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) issued guidance on constitutionally protected prayer and religious expression in public elementary and secondary schools.
January 29, 2026
The Department today issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking aimed at reducing the cost of higher education and simplifying federal student loan repayment, as outlined in President Trump’s historic Working Families Tax Cuts Act
January 28, 2026
Today, the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office found that the California Department of Education (CDE) is in continued violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
January 28, 2026
Today, the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) found that San José State University (SJSU) violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX).
January 27, 2026
The U.S. Departments of Education and Treasury today released a joint fact sheet on the Education Freedom Tax Credit that was created by President Trump’s historic Working Families Tax Cuts Act.
January 26, 2026
Today, the ED’s Office for Civil Rights and HHS’ Office for Civil Rights notified the Minnesota Department of Education and the Minnesota State High School League that it is referring their case to DOJ for enforcement action.
January 26, 2026
The Department today announced its intent to establish the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization negotiated rulemaking committee to develop proposed regulations to reform accreditation.
U.S. Department of Education Celebrates National School Choice Week
January 26, 2026
The Department of Education kicked off its celebration of National School Choice Week, a time to highlight the many different types of education across the United States and to empower families to choose the best learning option for their child’s success.
January 22, 2026
Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon named Donella Wagner, Head Custodian at Raintree Elementary School in Baldwin, Louisiana, as the 2026 National Recognizing Inspiring School Employees (RISE) Award honoree.
January 22, 2026
Today, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) concluded its investigation into Connetquot Central School District (the District) in Long Island, New York.
January 21, 2026
Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon visited Sophie B. Wright Charter School in New Orleans, Louisiana as part of the U.S. Department of Education’s national History Rocks! Trail to Independence tour.
January 21, 2026
The Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education sent a letter to every chief state school officer highlighting the existing flexibility states have to encourage Title I schools to consolidate their federal, state, and local funds.
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Celebrates President Trump’s Historic First Year
January 20, 2026
Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon released the following statement to celebrate a historic first year of education reforms under the Trump Administration.
Secretary McMahon Visits Georgia on the Returning Education to the States Tour
January 16, 2026
Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon visited Georgia on her Returning Education to the States Tour, she was joined by U.S. Congressman Brian Jack and Georgia Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones.
January 16, 2026
ED announced that it will delay the implementation of involuntary collections on federal student loans, including Administrative Wage Garnishment and the Treasury Offset Program, to enable the Department to implement major student loan reforms.
January 15, 2026
Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon visited Georgetown Middle School in support of the Department’s History Rocks! Trail to Independence tour and Bluegrass Community and Technical College on her Returning Education to the States Tour.
January 15, 2026
Today, the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED’s) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ’s) Title IX Special Investigations Team (Title IX SIT) initiated an investigation into the California Community College Athletic Association.
January 15, 2026
Today, the U.S. Departments of Education (ED) and Labor (DOL) announced that they have taken additional steps to integrate the nation’s postsecondary education and workforce development programs.
January 14, 2026
Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon visited Jack Britt High School in Fayetteville, North Carolina as part of the Department of Education’s national History Rocks! Trail to Independence tour.
U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Initiates 18 Title IX Investigations
January 14, 2026
Today, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) initiated investigations into eighteen educational entities in ten states based on complaints submitted to OCR alleging that they have violated Title IX.
Secretary McMahon’s Speech Outside of Supreme Court as Justices Hear Landmark Title IX Cases
January 13, 2026
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Speaks at Supreme Court as Justices Hear Landmark Title IX Cases
January 13, 2026
Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon visited Rhode Island in support of both the Department’s History Rocks! Trail to Independence tour and her Returning Education to the States tour.
January 9, 2026
The Department has reached consensus on the third and final regulatory package to implement the historic changes made to higher education as part of President Trump’s Working Families Tax Cuts Act .
January 9, 2026
Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon visited Elmira High School as part of the U.S. Department of Education’s national History Rocks! Trail to Independence tour in celebration of America’s upcoming 250th birthday.
January 9, 2026
Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon sent a Dear Tribal Leader Letter inviting tribal leaders to a consultation on the Indian Education Partnership Interagency Agreements.
January 8, 2026
Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon was joined by Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin at An Achievable Dream Middle & High School on the national History Rocks! Trail to Independence tour in celebration of America’s 250th birthday!
U.S. Department of Education Approves Iowa’s Returning Education to the States Waiver
January 7, 2026
Today, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) approved Iowa’s Returning Education to the States Waiver, empowering state education officials to have more discretion over their federal education dollars. Iowa is the first state to apply for and receive such
January 5, 2026
The Department awarded $169 million from the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education in new grant awards to support AI, foster civil discourse, drive reforms in accreditation, and build capacity for high-quality, short-term programs.
From Triggers to Glimmers: The Joy of Being a Special Education Teacher
By: John Paul G. Luaña
Triggers.
Anyone who works in Special Education knows this word well—and understands how powerful it is. Every single day, we are on high alert, watching for triggers: anything that might cause a strong, unexpected reaction from our students. Triggers can be internal or external. Sometimes we can see them coming; most of the time, we honestly have no idea what just happened. That is why we collect, collect, and collect ABC data.
For those outside Special Education, ABC stands for Antecedent (what happened before the incident—often the trigger), Behavior (what happened), and Consequence (what happened after). Through this process, we begin to understand the root causes of behavior. We identify triggers, and with that knowledge, we can better support our students.
In my eleven years in education, I have seen all kinds of triggers. I still remember one of my very first students in an extensive support needs special day class when I moved to the United States from the Philippines. Her trigger? The idea of burping. Whether someone in the room burped, a fish burped in a computer-assisted activity, or she simply read the word burp on a worksheet, it would immediately throw her off. Our calm, chill day would suddenly turn into a very exciting one.
Another memorable trigger I encountered was the word graduation. I once taught a wonderful, incredibly artistic student—the sweetest voice, the gentlest gestures, and the kindest heart. He was loving and calm… until he heard the word graduation. When it was mentioned, his voice would drop into a deep, intimidating tone, and he would begin flipping tables. Yes, my sweetest student could flip desks when triggered.
Over time, we learned that graduation symbolized growing up, and that transition terrified him. Beginning in his junior year, we slowly introduced intentional exposure strategies and coping skills. To make a long story short, he graduated with no problems at all. I walked beside him during the ceremony as support, and he whispered, “I’m going to make you proud today, Mr. JP.” He marched, graduated smoothly, and afterward I told him, “You made me proud today, but I’m even more proud of you.”
This year, I have a student who is so deeply empathetic that when I correct his classmates’ behavior, he tries to protect them: by hitting me. Once, when a classmate threw a marker at him, I addressed the classmate’s behavior. He became upset with me and almost threw a marker back at me. Through social stories and role-play, he learned not to hurt people. So instead of throwing the marker at me, he threw it at the bulletin board instead. Progress? Definitely.
His trigger turned out to be adults correcting his friends. When I dug deeper, I learned he had experienced trauma from adults who had hurt him in the past. For him, any adult correction, even calm, proactive, and nonviolent, felt threatening. This understanding helped guide a more trauma-informed approach to supporting him.
One of the most common triggers in the Special Education world is the word “no.” Denying access to preferred items, food, activities, or people is rarely easy for students. That is why, in Special Education classrooms, you will hear a great deal of positive language. Instead of “Don’t run,” we say, “Walking feet.” Instead of “No Chromebooks,” we say, “First worksheet, then Chromebook.” When students attempt to hit, scratch, or slap, we do not say, “No hitting.” We say, “Safe hands.” The power of positive language is real.
When students are triggered, unbelievable things can happen in the classroom—things that might sound completely made up. I have been stripped of my shirt, watched a classroom TV break after a student slapped it when Lord Farquaad from Shrek appeared on screen, and had a student with OCD poke my pimple because he was not used to seeing me with one. And those are just a few examples.
Despite all of this, I stayed in Special Education. Not because I am a martyr—and certainly not because of the pay. I stayed because I see glimmers every single day. There are no dull days in Special Education, and no two days are ever the same. Within the chaos, there is constant joy.
Glimmers.
Not everyone in the Special Education world talks about glimmers, but I believe everyone should. This work is draining—mentally, emotionally, and physically. The patience, love, empathy, tears, and sweat we pour into our days are immeasurable. That is why it is essential to notice the glimmers around us: the small and big moments of joy that recharge our souls. Some glimmers require intention to notice. Others are so powerful they hit you with joy without warning.
One day, I was completely exhausted. IEPs were piling up, behavior and progress reports needed to be written, and lessons had to be differentiated. I could not hide my stress anymore—and when you change, your students notice. One of my students, who typically avoided physical contact, came up to me and asked, “What’s the problem, Mr. JP?” I replied, “I’m just tired, but I’m okay.”
Out of nowhere, he hugged me and said, “Good boy. You are a good boy, Mr. JP.”
The entire classroom froze. Tears of joy were shed that day. A student who never wanted physical contact gave the warmest hug imaginable. We all laughed afterward because it is so rare for a teacher to be called a “good boy.”
Another glimmer I will never forget was when my student with selective mutism began speaking in class. I worked patiently with him, celebrating even the smallest progress. I joked with him, asked silly questions, and constantly checked in. I would ask him what my name was, and when he would not answer, I would give myself a ridiculous name instead. He would smile, and I would say, “Then you have to tell me my real name, I forget!” I asked him that question at least ten times a day.
One day, just as I was about to make up another silly name, he whispered, “Mr. JP.” I cried. A lot.
At first, people were skeptical because there was no “proof” he spoke to me. But the whispers continued. Now, he speaks in class using a microphone, sings during karaoke, reads paragraphs aloud, co-hosted a Kahoot game with me, and even spells words orally.
I love celebrating small wins, and in my classroom, every win—big or small—matters. These wins are glimmers. A student independently completing Morning Meeting. A student transitioning from drinking water with a spoon to using an adaptive bottle. A student writing sentences independently using speech-to-text. A student who once stayed silent now cracking jokes and singing. A student telling me, “I don’t need help anymore, Mr. JP. I can do it by myself.” Or a student reminding me, “Rule number six: If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again.”
These moments feed my soul. The glimmers fill my heart.
There are days when I get triggered too. On those days, I seriously think about finding a new career. I have told myself, “I’m quitting,” more times than I can count. But every single day, this job gives me glimmers—a kind of joy that is hard to find anywhere else. A fuel for my passion. A sense of purpose.
This job can be exhausting, overwhelming, and consuming, but it also fills me with love and joy in the form of glimmers. So the next time you feel triggered, pause. Take the self-care you need: guilt-free rest, a mental health day, a cup of coffee, a piece of chocolate, a conversation with loved ones, a massage, a quiet walk, binge-watching your favorite show—and maybe, just maybe, allow yourself to notice a glimmer. Triggers may shake us, but glimmers are the quiet miracles that keep us going!
Family Stress and Resilience Among Parents of Children with Disabilities
By Dominique Whitehead
Families raising children with disabilities often balance joy with ongoing emotional, physical, and logistical demands. Daily routines may include therapy appointments, school meetings, medical decisions, behavior planning, and managing services across agencies. These layers of responsibility can make parents feel overwhelmed, isolated, or stretched thin, especially when support systems are inconsistent.
At the same time, research continues to show that families are not defined by their stress. With the right combination of support, information, cultural connection, and school partnership, parents often develop remarkable resilience. Understanding how stress and resilience interact is essential for educators because the emotional health of caregivers directly influences the child’s learning environment.
This article brings together insights from recent studies to help educators better understand what contributes to parental stress, how resilience develops, and what practical steps teachers can take to strengthen school–family partnerships.
Understanding Parental Stress
Parents of children with developmental or intellectual disabilities consistently report higher stress levels compared to parents of typically developing peers. Woolfson and Grant (2006) found that daily caregiving demands, such as managing behavior, communication challenges, or intensive supervision, can make it difficult for parents to maintain consistent routines, even when they want to.
Similarly, Pastor-Cerezuela et al. (2016) noted that stress is often tied to the child’s support needs, communication level, and level of independence. Parents who felt less confident in their ability to manage these demands reported more emotional strain. The study also highlighted an important point for educators: parents’ perception of their own resilience can protect them from stress-related outcomes such as depression, frustration, or burnout.
More recent work by Skura et al. (2025) emphasized the role of self-compassion. Parents who engaged in realistic thinking, sought emotional support, and gave themselves grace were less likely to internalize challenges as personal failures. For educators, this serves as a reminder that communication should avoid judgment and instead reinforce parents’ strengths, efforts, and small victories.
How Families Build Resilience
Resilience does not mean families stop experiencing stress. Instead, it reflects their ability to adapt, recover, and continue supporting their child in meaningful ways.
Brief, Practical Supports Make a Difference
VanVoorhis et al. (2023) found that even a single 5-hour psychoeducational workshop significantly reduced parental anxiety and improved coping. The workshop covered practical strategies, communication tools, and guidance for navigating school–home collaboration. Caregivers left feeling more confident and connected.
For educators, this shows that support does not need to be long, complex, or clinical. Short, focused check-ins, family workshops, or resource-sharing sessions can boost caregiver confidence.
Community and Shared Experience Matter
Supporting families is not only about providing information. Connection itself can be healing.
Zuurmond et al. (2019), studying caregivers of children with cerebral palsy in Ghana, found that parents gained confidence simply by being surrounded by others who understood their experiences. Peer support reduced guilt, strengthened coping, and helped families interpret disability in more hopeful ways.
This reinforces the value of:
- Parent support groups
- Family-to-family mentorship
- School-sponsored community gatherings
- Spaces where families can talk openly without fear of judgment
When schools create opportunities for parents to connect, resilience grows.
The Power of Cultural and Informal Supports
Culture shapes how families view disability, what types of support they trust, and how comfortable they feel interacting with schools.
Rose et al. (2024) found that Latino parents relied heavily on informal networks—extended family, neighbors, church communities, and friends, for both emotional and practical support. These informal systems often filled gaps left by limited formal services. Families with strong cultural networks also reported more positive interactions with educators.
However, the study also identified barriers: language differences, fear of judgment, and previous negative school experiences. These barriers can cause families to disengage even when they care deeply about their child’s learning.
For educators, this means:
- Communication must be respectful, culturally aware, and free of jargon
- Translation and interpretation should be accessible
- Extended family members should be welcomed, not excluded
- Teachers should learn about the cultural networks that sustain families
By honoring the family’s cultural identity, schools shift from being a system families must navigate to becoming a team families can trust.
What This Means for Educators: Practical Takeaways
Research consistently shows that educator actions, big or small, can strengthen or weaken family resilience. Special education professionals, especially in early childhood settings, can play a significant role in supporting families by being intentional in their communication and relationship-building.
1. Normalize the Stress Parents Feel
Families often believe they are alone in their struggles. Teachers can help by:
- Acknowledging that raising a child with a disability brings unique challenges
- Reassuring parents that emotions such as worry, fatigue, or frustration are normal
- Highlighting efforts rather than focusing solely on outcomes
This builds trust and decreases self-blame.
2. Offer Short, Realistic Supports
Not all families can attend long workshops or meetings. Instead, teachers can:
- Provide short, focused resource sheets
- Host quick 15-minute check-ins
- Share simple coping strategies,breathing exercises, visual schedules, or community referrals
- Send home clear, step-by-step guidance on behavior or communication strategies
Small supports can have a big impact.
3. Strengthen School–Family Collaboration
Parents feel more resilient when they feel valued by professionals. Teachers can:
- Invite parents to share what works at home
- Make communication two-directional
- Avoid overwhelming families with paperwork without explanation
- Collaborate on goals in a way that feels doable, not demanding
This turns partnership into shared problem-solving.
4. Connect Families to Each Other
Schools can foster community by:
- Organizing parent coffee hours
- Matching new families with experienced mentors
- Creating WhatsApp or ClassDojo groups for support
- Inviting families to share strategies with one another
Connection reduces isolation.
5. Honor Culture and Belonging
Culturally responsive communication is a protective factor. Educators should:
- Ask families about preferred communication styles
- Provide translated materials and interpreters
- Recognize the role of extended family
- Avoid assumptions about disability based on cultural norms
Families feel respected when their values are reflected.
Conclusion
Family stress is a real and ongoing part of raising a child with a disability, but the research is clear: resilience grows when families feel supported, understood, and connected. Educators play a powerful role in easing stress by building strong relationships, sharing practical tools, and honoring families’ cultural strengths.
When schools adopt a partnership mindset, one rooted in empathy, shared problem-solving, and cultural responsiveness. families become more confident, children thrive, and the entire learning community becomes stronger. Supporting family resilience is not extra work; it is an essential part of effective special education practice.
References
Rose, D. M., Loomis, A., Mogro-Wilson, C., & Longo, E. (2024). The Role of Informal Supports on Parent Stress and Family–Professional Partnerships of Latino Parents of Children with Disabilities. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2024.2422103
Williams, M. E., Berl, M. M., Corn, E., Ansusinha, E., Arroyave-Wessel, M., Zhang, A., Cure, C., & Mulkey, S. B. (2023). Positive and negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on families of young children in rural Colombia and implications for child outcome research. Child: Care, Health and Development. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.13120
VanVoorhis, R. W., Miller, K. L., & Miller, S. M. (2023). A Single-Session Intervention Designed to Promote Resilience for Parents of Children with Disabilities. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 32(8), 2406–2418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-023-02622-z
Allen, P. J., Roberts, L. D., Baughman, F. D., Loxton, N. J., Van Rooy, D., Rock, A. J., & Finlay, J. (2016). Introducing StatHand: A Cross-Platform Mobile Application to Support Students’ Statistical Decision Making. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00288
Zuurmond, M., Nyante, G., Baltussen, M., Seeley, J., Abanga, J., Shakespeare, T., Collumbien, M., & Bernays, S. (2018). A support programme for caregivers of children with disabilities in Ghana: Understanding the impact on the wellbeing of caregivers. Child: Care, Health and Development, 45(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12618
Woolfson, L., & Grant, E. (2006). Authoritative parenting and parental stress in parents of pre-school and older children with developmental disabilities. Child: Care, Health and Development, 32(2), 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00603.x
Acknowledgements
Portions of this or previous month’s NASET’s Special Educator e-Journal were excerpted from:
- Center for Parent Information and Resources
- Committee on Education and the Workforce
- FirstGov.gov-The Official U.S. Government Web Portal
- Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals (JAASEP)
- National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth
- National Institute of Health
- National Organization on Disability
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
- U.S. Department of Education
- U.S. Department of Education-The Achiever
- U.S. Department of Education-The Education Innovator
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- U.S. Department of Labor
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration
- U.S. Office of Special Education
The National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET) thanks all of the above for the information provided for this or prior editions of the Special Educator e-Journal
Sarah S. Ayala, LSU | Associate Editor, NASET e-Journal
Download a PDF Version of This e-Journal
Advance your career with an online special education master’s degree
This content is sponsored by The University of Cincinnati Online.
Deepen your impact with learners who need you most through the University of Cincinnati‘s online Master of Education in Special Education. Designed for working professionals, this flexible program prepares you to provide exceptional direct and indirect services while meeting the intellectual, social, and emotional needs of children and adults with disabilities.
What makes this program unique:
- Three concentration paths: Choose Licensure with Reading Endorsement, Supporting Students with Complex Needs, or Transition to Work Endorsement and Special Education Leadership to match your career goals.
- Comprehensive, evidence-based learning: Gain specialized knowledge in advanced strategies, curriculum planning, autism spectrum disorders, applied behavior analysis, and special education leadership.
- Designed to fit your life: Fully online, part-time flexibility lets you continue learning while balancing work, family, and life’s commitments. Start in spring, summer, or fall.
Ranked #2 Best Online Program in Ohio by U.S. News & World Report and accredited by the Higher Learning Commission, UC’s online M.Ed. in Special Education delivers the quality and rigor you need to advance your career while maintaining the flexibility working professionals require.
January 2026 – Special Educator e-Journal
Download a PDF Version of This e-Journal
Table of Contents
Special Education Legal Alert
Buzz from the Hub
Update from the U.S. Department of Education
Rethinking Behavior Plans: Building Executive Function Skills Instead of Managing Misbehavior
The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Autism Spectrum Disorder Interventions: Literature Review
Acknowledgements
Special Education Legal Alert
Perry A. Zirkel
January 2026
This month’s update identifies two recent court decisions that respectively address whether emails are student records and how student elopement may interact with extended school year (ESY). For related publications and special supplements, see perryzirkel.com
| On November 26, 2025, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an officially published decision in Clark County School District v. Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada. The issue was whether emails are student records under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which is incorporated in the IDEA. In this case, the child was a special education student in the district, and the child’s grandmother was his adoptive mother and legal guardian. After filing for a due process hearing to challenge the alleged inappropriate change in placement of the child, she requested access to his educational records. Believing that the documents that the school district provided in response to her request were incomplete and seeking them also for the child’s dependency case in state court, the guardian specifically requested all emails mentioning her child that the district stored on its Google cloud server. The district refused. The guardian filed a motion in the dependency case for expedited production of the emails. The state court granted her motion, and the school district sought a writ of prohibition from the state’s highest court. A panel of three members of the state supreme court ordered the lower court to determine which of the emails directly related to the child. The district sought reconsideration en banc, i.e., by the full membership of the state supreme court. | |
| The initial issue was whether this special writ procedure, which is reserved for cases in which the seeking party lacks an adequate and speedy legal remedy, was appropriate in this case. | The court ruled that it was appropriate because the lower court’s order, which was upon joinder of the school district to the guardian’s dependency case, was not a final decision and, thus, was not appealable to the state’s intermediate, appellate court. |
| Both parties cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s Owasso (2002) decision, which ruled that “educational records” under FERPA means student-identifiable information “maintained” by the institution. | Nevada’s highest court interpreted Owasso to apply to “an institutional record stored in a designated place that is, typically, overseen by a designated individual responsible for maintaining such records” in contrast with (a) “materials informally created in the ordinary course of business ….” and (b) records that only “incidentally … mention the student’s name .…” |
| Ultimately then, do emails that mention a student qualify as educational records, as the child’s custodian requested in this case? | In this court’s view, only those emails qualify that directly relate to the student and are deliberately stored by the district’s records custodian; thus, the court vacated the lower court’s order because the guardian’s request was clearly much too broad. |
| This decision does not necessarily extend to other states, although a few courts in other jurisdictions have issued similar rulings. Moreover, this decision does not exclude all email, and it was a close case decided by a 4×3 vote. Finally, note that FERPA and the IDEA provide parents and guardians with the right of access (i.e., “inspect and review”), which does not necessarily extend to copies. | |
On December 23, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, issued an officially published decision in North East Independent School District v. I.M. The child in this case was a fourth grader with autism, intellectual disabilities, and speech impairment. His communication is largely through gestures, facial expressions, and an iPad with a specialized communications app. His third-grade IEP included a special education class, speech and occupational therapy, elopement-avoidance software on his iPad, and an ESY program that was 2 weeks longer than the standard 3-week, half-day program. He had eloped during 18% of the 3-week program at the end of grade 2. During grade 3, he ran away for 40% of the school days until the spring break, with added regression directly thereafter. In response, the IEP team met to plan for grade 4 and disagreed about ESY. His parents sought full days for the entire summer, but the district members prevailed in limiting ESY to half-day sessions for 6 weeks, leaving a month-long break until the start of grade 4. His behavior regressed again, including elopements during 30% of the school days in the first 2 weeks and at least 20 toileting incidents during the first 6 weeks. Concerned with this regression even after short breaks and fearing for his life based on the elopements, his parents requested an IEP meeting to meaningfully address his elopements and toileting regression. The IEP team did not agree that the problems were attributable to school breaks, thus only responding with other revisions, such as a safety vest on the school bus and added behavior interventions. A few weeks later, in his most dangerous elopement to date, he escaped campus through an unlocked gate and ran into a busy road, only to be saved by bystanders. The IEP team met again, and the parents unsuccessfully requested more extensive ESY services not only for the summer but also after shorter school breaks. They filed for a due process hearing, and the hearing officer decided in their favor. The remedy was full-summer ESY services and a year-round voice-assisted communication device. After the federal district court affirmed, the school district appealed to the Fifth Circuit. | |
| First, challenging the lower court’s ruling that its IEP failed to appropriately address elopement and toileting, the district argued that the child’s IEP included a behavior intervention plan (BIP) that more generally effectuated progress for both these behaviors. | Puzzled by the district’s stopping its systematic tracking of elopement, the court found the evidence nevertheless sufficient to show that the failure to extend ESY services to the final month of the summer and to other breaks caused regression for toileting and—”pos[ing] a grave, present danger—elopement. |
| Second, the district argued that the lower court’s ruling was not in accord with previous Fifth Circuit decisions specific to substantive appropriateness, including the significant weight that they accorded to academic progress and BIPs. | To the contrary, the Fifth Circuit distinguished its previous district-favorable decisions except for their holistic analysis and found neatly fitting instead its Boone decision in light of the life-threatening elopement behaviors. The court also cited the Endrew F. “appropriately ambitious” factor for students who are not fully integrated and cannot achieve on grade level. |
| This otherwise weighty federal appeals court decision is tempered by (a) the rather relaxed standard of appellate review for lower court decisions, (b) the emphasis on the particular severity of the child’s disability and his elopement behaviors, and (c) the failure to address limiting the remedy to the full summer period. Nevertheless, it merits careful attention for its effect on other behavior-focused cases and on the appropriateness of, as distinct from the eligibility for, ESY services, including the potential extension to non-summer breaks. | |
Buzz from the Hub
24 Ways to Make the Holidays Kid-Friendly: Strategies to help families of children with autism, ADHD, anxiety, and other challenges sidestep common sources of stress
This article for the Child Mind Institute provides strategies for families of kids with autism, anxiety, ADHD, and other challenges to make the holiday season more enjoyable for everyone.
Read the article here.
An Age-By-Age Guide to Helping Kids Manage Emotions
When we teach kids to identify their emotions, we give them a framework that helps explain how they feel, which makes it easier for them to deal with those emotions in a socially appropriate way. This free printable from Quality Start LA shares simple tips to help young children, from infancy to preschool-age, manage their emotions.
New to Special Education? Start here!
This resource page from PEATC, the Parent Training and Information (PTI) center in Virginia, offers resources and support for families navigating the special education system. It includes guides, templates, fact sheets, and tools to help parents understand evaluations, IEPs, 504 Plans, and their rights under the law. Some of the resources and information are specific to state of Virginia.
Access all the resources here.
For your state specific information, contact the PTI that serves your state. Search for the PTI here.
Employment Checklist for Students (Ages 14-22) with Disabilities
Getting a job is an exciting experience that takes planning. There are important documents you may need before you can get a job. There are skills you will need to prepare you for employment, and actions that you may need to take to be successful. This checklist from PEATC can help you prepare for employment.
Self-Advocacy Storytelling Toolkit
Another great tool on self-advocacy! The Self-Advocacy Storytelling Toolkit, developed by the Youth Engagement Transition Initiative (YETI), is a guide to empower youth with disabilities in sharing their personal stories effectively.
Disability Advocacy Videos for Families
The PACER Center has created a set of short videos in multiple languages that address parent’s common questions and concerns about advocating for their child with a disability at school and beyond. Tip sheets are also available in English and Spanish and can be found in the video’s description.
Watch the videos here in English, Spanish, Somali, and other languages.
Update from the U.S. Department of Education
Birth to Grade 12 Education-Reources
https://www.ed.gov/birth-to-grade-12-education
Available Grants
https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/apply-grant/available-grants
December 11, 2025
The U.S. Department of Education today announced that it has prevented $1 billion in Federal student aid fraud since January 2025.
December 10, 2025
The Department today issued a Request for Information (RFI) to solicit feedback from the public on how best to reenvision and update the Accreditation Handbook.
December 9, 2025
Yesterday, Chancellor of the University System of Georgia Sonny Perdue visited Allatoona High School in Acworth, Georgia as part of the national History Rocks! Trail to Independence Tour.
December 9, 2025
ED announced a proposed joint settlement agreement with the State of Missouri that would end the Biden Administration’s illegal ‘Saving on a Valuable Education’ (SAVE) Plan.
December 8, 2025
The Department launched a new earnings indicator to complement the FAFSA process. Drawn from existing ED data, the indicator provides students and their families with clear, easy-to-understand information about a school’s post-graduate earnings.
December 5, 2025
Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon completed the U.S. Department of Education’s (the Department) first three school visits on the national History Rocks! Trail to Independence Tour in celebration of America’s upcoming 250th birthday.
December 5, 2025
Today, the U.S. Departments of Education (ED) and Labor (DOL) provided an update on the Trump Administration’s historic actions to integrate the federal government’s workforce development portfolio.
U.S. Department of Education Awards Over $208 Million in Mental Health Grants
December 11, 2025
Today, the U.S. Department of Education announced over $208 million in new grant awards for the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration and School-Based Mental Health programs.
December 12, 2025
The Department today concluded the first week of its AHEAD negotiated rulemaking committee, where negotiators reached consensus to create the federal government’s new Workforce Pell Grant program as outlined in President Trump’s Working Families Tax Cuts.
December 15, 2025
Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon visited Maple Elementary in Cambridge, Maryland, as part of the U.S. Department of Education’s national History Rocks! Trail to Independence tour in celebration of America’s upcoming 250th birthday.
December 15, 2025
Today, the U.S. Department of Education announced $256 million in new Education Innovation and Research (EIR) grants to improve literacy nationwide.
December 15, 2025
Today, the U.S. Department of Education announced the launch of the Presidential 1776 Award, a nationwide competition recognizing exceptional student knowledge of the American founding.
December 15, 2025
Today, the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) announced the launch of the Connecting Talent to Opportunity Challenge.
December 16, 2025
Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon visited West Pelzer Elementary School in Pelzer, South Carolina as part of the U.S. Department of Education’s national History Rocks! Trail to Independence tour in celebration of America’s 250th birthday.
U.S. Department of Education Reaches Historic Milestone in FAFSA Completions
December 18, 2025
The Department announced that more than 5 million 2026–27 FAFSA® forms have been successfully submitted by students and families across the country, a nearly 150% increase in the number of applications submitted at the same time last year.
December 19, 2025
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon today released a statement regarding the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of racial quotas and preferences in the Department of Education’s Minority Serving Institution Programs.
U.S. Department of Education Announces Review of Brown University for Potential Clery Act Violations
December 22, 2025
Today, the U.S. Department of Education announced it will conduct a program review of Brown University in response to the December 13, 2025, shooting on its campus, which killed two students.
Rethinking Behavior Plans: Building Executive Function Skills Instead of Managing Misbehavior
By Latasha Duncan, Alexander Capo, Tahisha Merrell
You’ve seen it before. A student blurts out answers, forgets materials, or shuts down during transitions. The familiar response is to issue a warning, pull a clip, or take away recess because that’s what the behavior plan says to do.
But what if the problem is not motivation or defiance? What if the student is not refusing to behave but instead struggling with a skill they have not yet mastered? What if the missing piece lies within the brain’s executive function system?
In special education, we know that punishment alone rarely transforms behavior. It may stop a momentary outburst, but it does not teach self-regulation, planning, or sustained focus. When we shift from compliance to skill-building, we stop managing behavior and start growing independence.
This article explores the neuroscience behind behavior, why traditional systems fall short, and how to embed executive function (EF) instruction into everyday routines to create calmer, more capable classrooms.
The Brain’s Control Center: Understanding Executive Function
Executive function skills are the brain’s management system. They include working memory, planning, organization, emotional control, flexibility, and self-monitoring. These are the skills students use to follow multi-step directions, transition smoothly, persist through challenges, and manage frustration.
Research shows that students with ADHD, autism, and emotional-behavioral disorders often experience significant EF deficits (El Wafa et al., 2020). When a child cannot stay seated, loses focus, or becomes overwhelmed, the behavior is often not “won’t do,” but “can’t do yet.”
Recent studies confirm that direct EF interventions improve students’ emotional control, attention, and task persistence (Kälin & Oeri, 2024). Embedding EF supports into classroom instruction enhances both academic outcomes and behavior, creating lasting gains in self-regulation (Zelazo et al., 2017).
Why Punishment Misses the Mark
Traditional behavior systems such as clip charts, token economies, or office referrals rely on the assumption that students choose to misbehave and will choose differently next time. But if the challenge lies in a skill deficit, no amount of consequence will teach that missing skill.
Four Pitfalls of Punishment-Based Systems
- They may stop a behavior temporarily but do not teach planning, impulse control, or emotional regulation.
- Students with EF challenges often know what is expected but lack the cognitive control to consistently do it.
- Punitive responses can heighten anxiety, drain EF capacity, and damage relationships.
- They interpret behavior as “won’t do” rather than “can’t do yet,” missing an opportunity for growth.
As McIntosh and Fox (2019) explain, effective behavior support requires teaching cognitive and emotional regulation just as intentionally as we teach reading or math.
Reframing Behavior: From “Won’t Do” to “Can’t Do Yet”
Behavior is communication. When a student blurts out, shuts down, or refuses to start a task, the issue is often not defiance but a missing executive function skill. Shifting the question from “Why are they misbehaving?” to “What skill is this student missing?” transforms how educators respond.
Ask yourself:
- Is the student forgetting steps because working memory is overloaded?
- Is task initiation breaking down because impulse control or planning skills need support?
- Is the student overwhelmed or emotionally dysregulated because co-regulation or scaffolding is missing?
This reframing allows teachers to interpret behavior as a signal rather than a choice. The IRIS Center (2022a; 2022b) emphasizes that when EF skills are weak, students need explicit teaching, modeling, and guided practice, not more consequences. A student who appears oppositional may simply lack the internal tools to begin, persist, or transition successfully.
By recognizing behavior as a reflection of developing cognitive systems, educators shift from reacting to the outward behavior to teaching the underlying skill. This mindset supports the use of coaching language, predictable routines, and consistent scaffolds that help students move from “can’t do yet” to true independence.
Teaching Executive Function Skills Explicitly
Executive function can and should be taught directly. These skills are the foundation of academic and social success, and they can be strengthened through modeling, practice, and scaffolding.
Core EF Skills and Classroom Strategies
1. Emotional Regulation and Impulse Control
- Model a “pause and plan” strategy: recognize the feeling, take a breath, then decide the next step.
- Use cue cards or scripts such as “Pause → Breathe → Think → Act.”
2. Task Initiation and Time Management
- Provide visual timers, countdowns, and “start cards” that outline the first step.
- Scaffold initiation until students can self-start independently.
3. Working Memory and Sequencing
- Offer step-by-step checklists (“1. Read. 2. Highlight. 3. Respond.”).
- Use repetition and consistent routines to reduce cognitive load.
4. Planning and Persistence
- Teach micro-goals (“I’ll finish three problems before break”) and reflective questioning: “What helped? What will I do next time?”
5. Self-Monitoring and Flexibility
- Use reflection sheets or peer feedback: “Am I on task? What distracted me? How can I refocus?”
Embedding these strategies into daily instruction helps students internalize EF processes and gradually become more independent.
Structure Supports Success: Reducing Cognitive Overload
Executive function skills thrive in structured and predictable environments because these conditions reduce cognitive load and support self-regulation. Clear routines reduce decision fatigue, freeing mental energy for learning.
Classroom Supports that Make a Difference:
- Visual schedules: Post icons or images that show the sequence of classroom activities.
- Transition scripts: Practice consistent language (“When the timer rings, close your book and walk to the carpet”).
- Color-coded systems: Organize materials by color to reduce confusion.
- Timers and chunked tasks: Break large tasks into short segments with built-in breaks.
- Routine practice: Revisit expectations weekly so the routine itself becomes the scaffold for behavior.
As noted by Moses (2024) through the National Association for the Education of Young Children, structured environments combined with consistent co-regulation support the development of lifelong self-control.
The Power of Co-Regulation and Coaching Language
Students learn self-regulation by borrowing it from adults. Co-regulation means maintaining calm, attuned support as students practice managing their emotions. The goal is to model composure and gradually transfer that control to the learner.
Try reframing directives as coaching statements:
☒ Instead of: “Stop doing that!”
✓ Try: “I see you’re frustrated. Let’s pause, take a breath, and look at your checklist together.”
☒ Instead of: “Get to work or lose recess.”
✓ Try: “Starting can be tough. Let’s do the first problem together, then you can finish on your own.”
- Afterward, reflect: “You took a breath and got back on track. What helped you do that?”
Research in Frontiers in Psychology (2022) confirms that teacher co-regulation directly influences student self-regulation capacity. Calm modeling creates the safety students need to access higher thinking and executive control.
What to Measure Instead: Data for Growth
If we only track behavior incidents, we only see deficits. Instead, measure skill use and progress.
Examples of Meaningful Data
- How often a student used a checklist or strategy.
- Number of independent task initiations.
- Frequency of “pause-and-plan” success moments.
As the Center on PBIS (2025) advises, proactive data helps educators assess instructional effectiveness and student growth, not just compliance.
Outcome: Building Thinkers, Not Just Rule Followers
When behavior plans center on control, students may comply, but they do not grow. When they center on executive function, students develop skills that last a lifetime.
Behavior support at its best is not about compliance but capacity. As educators, our job is not merely to make students behave; it is to teach them to think, plan, adapt, and regulate independently.
This shift, from reaction to reflection, from punishment to skill-building, transforms classrooms. We move from asking, “How do I stop this behavior?” to “How do I help this student succeed?” That is where real growth begins.
References
Center on PBIS. (2025). Supporting and responding to students’ social, emotional, and behavioral needs: Evidence-based practices for educators. Center on PBIS. https://www.pbis.org/resource/supporting-and-responding-to-behavior-evidence-based-classroom-strategies-for-teachers
El Wafa, H.E.A., Ghobashy, S.A.E.L. & Hamza, A.M. (2020). A comparative study of executive functions among children with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder and those with learning disabilities. Middle East Current Psychiatry, 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43045-020-00071-8
IRIS Center. (2022a). Executive function (part 1): Understanding why some students struggle. Vanderbilt University. https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/ef1/
IRIS Center. (2022b). Executive function (part 2): Strategies to improve students’ academic performance. Vanderbilt University. https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/ef2/
Kälin, S., & Oeri, N. (2024). Linking persistence and executive functions with later academic achievement. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 48(5), 442-449. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254241265596
McIntosh, L., & Fox, L. (2019). A practice guide for teaching executive skills to preschoolers through the Pyramid Model. National Center for Pyramid Model Innovations. https://challengingbehavior.org/docs/Executive-Function_Practice-Guide.pdf
Moses, A. (2024). Self-regulation and executive function: Responsive and informed practices for early childhood. NAEYC. https://www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc/summer2024/self-regulation-and-executive-function
Zelazo, P. D., Blair, C. B., & Willoughby, M. T. (2017). Executive function: Implications for education. Institute of Education Sciences. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED570880.pdf
The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Autism Spectrum Disorder Interventions: Literature Review
By Alva Ward
Author’s Note
This literature review was authored by an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) specialist committed to enhancing inclusion in the classroom for learners with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). It reviews existing academic literature that supports AI-based interventions in education, where communication, social-emotional learning, and ethics is a collaborative effort between educators, parents, and technology.
Introduction
AI has proven to be a game-changing concept in special education for students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). AI applications have evolved into not only diagnostic tools but also emotion-recognition applications, socially assistive robots, and adaptive learning platforms that personalize instruction to meet individual needs.
AI for ASD intervention has a fundamental task to solve in education. It needs to be able to offer targeted, personalized, consistent, and meaningful learning skills to promote generalization and emotional regulation. As emphasized by Habibi et al. (2025), AI can enhance self-regulation and improve understanding when adhering to ethical and inclusive school systems. The aim of these innovations is not to replace human instruction but to expand teachers’ ability to provide meaningful, data-informed support for children. The inclusion of the parents in this work is key as AI tools are ccapable of delivering ongoing quality data and engagement opportunities that can connect the home and school ecosystems.
Assessment of current research
Several researchers have shown the potential of the adoption of AI in supporting students with ASD. Atturu and Naraganti (2024) assessed an AI-based personalized learning platform with parental input and interactive modules, and reported significantly higher levels of attention, retention, and adaptive behavior in children. Similarly, Clabaugh et al. (2019) researched extended personalization of socially assistive robots in home environments. Parent satisfaction and student engagement improved over time when this personalization was delivered in a sustainable way in the home environment. They demonstrated the significance of long-term and contextualized learning continuity. These results are consistent with the idea that AI can work as a complement to human instruction rather than a substitute for it.
Alnafjan et al. (2025) determined that robots with a human action recognition system improved imitation skills and attention spans in students with ASD. Integrating robotics into therapy environments enabled active learning and increased social responsivity. These findings are consistent with those in Diehl et al. (2012), who found beneficial effects of robotic intervention in supporting social communication and emotional expression. Alcorn et al. (2019) investigated educators’ perspectives on humanoid robots and observed cautious optimism. Teachers welcomed the motivational aspects but emphasized the importance of predictability, structure, and clarity of educational purposes. Their thinking highlights the fact that technology must supplement, not override, the relational dimensions of teaching.
AI also has the potential to assist in emotional recognition and regulation. Aside from direct instruction, Kushki et al. (2013) found biosensor-based AI models capable of monitoring autonomic response patterns associated with anxiety. Biosensored AI models were capable of monitoring response patterns associated with anxiety-related autonomic states. This can provide support for educators and caregivers with proactive behavior support. These discoveries add to the work of Boccanfuso and O’Kane (2011) who found that biofeedback-driven robots can be used to teach emotional awareness through play. Warren et al. (2015) also found that robotic actions can enhance joint attention skills. Their robotic interactions demonstrated the social engagement effects of robots, resulting in increased attention and social awareness. These studies show AI’s potential to improve emotional growth and communication in a personalized and measurable way.
As an ESE professional, I’ve observed that the most effective implementations happen when teachers, therapists, and families collaborate in interpreting data and supporting progress across different contexts. Alcorn et al. (2019) found that teachers appreciated the predictability AI might provide to lesson plans. However, they stressed the importance of professional development to ensure the implementation of AI appropriately. Likewise, Vallor (2018) stated the importance of fostering the virtues of empathy, patience, and respect. Technology must integrate inclusive, respectful, and family-centered practices in the field. Teachers, therapists, and families must communicate across environments.
Family engagement links technical interventions to lived experience. When parents know how to use data gathered from digital tools, they can better understand their child’s emotional and behavioral goals at home. While AI interventions serve as technology-induced change agents. Clabaugh et al. (2019) showed that ongoing family engagement and personalization lead to increased children’s responsiveness to interventions and to long-term skill retention.
Similarly, Habibi et al. (2025) emphasized that culturally relevant and ethical AI requires a focus on transparency and family involvement. Professionally, these findings confirm that AI only works best in conjunction with a network of human support. Families help generalize these scholastic skills with schools to build academic achievement and also emotional success.
Practice Recommendations
1. Think about how to use AI within educational architectures to improve instruction. Educators should use AI as a complement to, not as an alternative to, evidence-based teaching strategies. The implementation should be organized in collaboration with teachers, families, and administrators.
2. Work toward ethical use and information transparency. Habibi et al. (2025) emphasized that the AI systems should be operated on with protections to preserve the privacy and dignity of students. Teachers and parents should be given clear explanations of how data is collected, stored, and used.
3. Support professional development for teachers. Alcorn et al. (2019) and Alnafjan et al. (2025) note a need for further professional development in understanding the function of AI, interpretation of data, and aligning technology with learning goals.
4. Support family–technology partnerships. Families are the backbone of consistency in skill acquisition. Educators should help parents reinforce learning and emotional regulation strategies at home with responsible use of technology. Studies have shown that AI can be helpful in recognition of ASD as well.
5. Encourage and promote interdisciplinary collaboration and study. Through cross-sector collaboration and partnerships with educators and the technology field, we can develop more flexible and equitable solutions for a diverse population of learners.
Conclusion
The research suggests that when used ethically and in partnership, AI can help improve students’ communication, attention, and emotional regulation. It can also provide families and teachers with direct access to practical knowledge. Technology alone cannot be a substitute for connections, and AI must function within a compassionate structure that respects the uniqueness of every learner. As Habibi et al. (2025) state, the future of AI in education is determined by equity, transparency, and cultural responsiveness. As an educator, it is my responsibility to navigate this innovation in ways that support students with ASD and their learning in environments that celebrate both technological advancements and human connection.
References
Alcorn, A. M., Ainger, E., Charisi, V., Mantinioti, S., Petrović, S., Schadenberg, B. R.,
Tavassoli, T., & Pellicano, E. (2019). Educators’ views on using humanoid robots with autistic learners in special education settings in England. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 6, Article 107. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00107
Alnafjan, A., Alghamdi, M., Alhakbani, N., & Al-Ohali, Y. (2025). Improving imitation skills in children with autism spectrum disorder using the NAO robot and a human action recognition. Diagnostics, 15(1), Article 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15010060
Ahmed, M., Hussain, S., Ali, F., Gárate-Escamilla, A. K., Amaya, I., Ochoa-Ruiz, G., & Ortiz-
Bayliss, J. C. (2025). Summarizing recent developments on autism spectrum disorder detection and classification through machine learning and Deep Learning Techniques. Applied Sciences, 15(14), Article 8056. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15148056
Atturu, H., & Naraganti, S. (2024). Effectiveness of AI-driven individualized learning approach for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). European Psychiatry, 67(Suppl. 1), S77. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2024.205
Boccanfuso, L., & O’Kane, J. M. (2011). Charlie: An adaptive robot design with hand and face
tracking for use in autism therapy. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3(4), 337– 347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-011-0110-2
Clabaugh, C., Mahajan, K., Jain, S., Pakkar, R., Becerra, D., Shi, Z., Deng, E., Lee, R., Ragusa,
G., & Matarić, M. (2019). Long-term personalization of an in-home socially assistive robot for children with autism spectrum disorders. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 6, Article 110. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00110
Diehl, J. J., Schmitt, L. M., Villano, M., & Crowell, C. R. (2012). The clinical use of robots for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A critical review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6(1), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2011.05.006
Elbattah, M., Ali Sadek Ibrahim, O., & Dequen, G. (2024). Editorial: Improving autism
spectrum disorder diagnosis using machine learning techniques. Frontiers in
Neuroinformatics, 18, Article 1529839. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2024.1529839
Goodwin, M. S., Velicer, W. F., & Intille, S. S. (2008). Telemetric monitoring in the behavior
sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 328-41.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.328
Habibi, F., Sedaghatshoar, S., Attar, T., Shokoohi, M., Kiani, A., & Malek, A. N. (2025).
Revolutionizing education and therapy for students with autism spectrum disorder: a scoping review of AI-driven tools, technologies, and ethical implications. AI and Ethics, 5(3), 2055–2070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00608-1
Kushki, A., Drumm, E., Pla Mobarak, M., Tanel, N., Dupuis, A., Chau, T., & Anagnostou, E.
(2013). Investigating the autonomic nervous system response to anxiety in children with autism spectrum disorders. PLoS One, 8(4), Article e59730.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059730
La Fauci De Leo, A., Bagheri Zadeh, P., Voderhobli, K., & Sheikh Akbari, A. (2025). A new AI framework to support social-emotional skills and emotion awareness in children with autism spectrum disorder. Computers, 14(7), Article 292.
https://doi.org/10.3390/computers14070292
Parsons, S. (2016). Authenticity in virtual reality for assessment and intervention in autism: A conceptual review. Educational Research Review, 19, 138–157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.08.001
Vallor, S. (2018). Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford University Press.
Warren, Z. E., Zheng, Z., Swanson, A. R., Bekele, E., Zhang, L., Crittendon, J. A., Weitlauf, A. F., & Sarkar, N. (2013). Can robotic interaction improve joint attention skills? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(11), 3726–3734.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1918-4
Xiao, N. (2025). The impact of XR technologies on the well-being of children with autism: A
systematic review. [Master’s Thesis, University of Iowa]. ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global.
Acknowledgements
Portions of this or previous month’s NASET’s Special Educator e-Journal were excerpted from:
- Center for Parent Information and Resources
- Committee on Education and the Workforce
- FirstGov.gov-The Official U.S. Government Web Portal
- Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals (JAASEP)
- National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth
- National Institute of Health
- National Organization on Disability
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
- U.S. Department of Education
- U.S. Department of Education-The Achiever
- U.S. Department of Education-The Education Innovator
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- U.S. Department of Labor
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration
- U.S. Office of Special Education
The National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET) thanks all of the above for the information provided for this or prior editions of the Special Educator e-Journal
Sarah S. Ayala, LSU | Associate Editor, NASET e-Journal
Download a PDF Version of This e-Journal
Empower learners with an ABA master’s degree online
This content is sponsored by The Ohio State University Online.
Deepen your impact with the learners you support through The Ohio State University’s online Master of Educational Studies, Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA). Designed for working professionals, this ABAI-accredited program prepares you to implement evidence-based ABA interventions that promote learning, foster independence, and improve quality of life.
What makes this program unique:
- BCBA preparation: An ABAI-accredited program that meets coursework, degree, and supervised field experience requirements for BCBA Pathway 1.
- Comprehensive, evidence-based learning: Learn to design and implement interventions across academic, social, communication, vocational, and daily living areas.
- Designed to fit your life: Fully online, mostly asynchronous courses let you continue learning while balancing work, family, and life’s commitments.
“This program has enabled me to begin taking steps toward conducting research that I hope will make a difference in the lives of the children I work with and the ABA community as a whole. It’s allowing me to dedicate time and resources to my studies and gain the knowledge I need to truly make an impact.”
–Thandiwe, Ohio State ABA Graduate Student
December 2025 – Special Educator e-Journal
Download a PDF Version of This e-Journal
Table of Contents
- Special Education Legal Alert
- Buzz from the Hub
- Update from the U.S. Department of Education
- Effectiveness of Literacy Approaches for Students with Disabilities and Second Language Learners
- General Education Teachers in the Inclusive Classroom: How Prepared are they?
- Screen Time and ADHD: Implications For Families Raising Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
- Acknowledgements
Special Education Legal Alert
By Perry A. Zirkel
© December 2025
This month’s update identifies two recent court decisions that cumulatively revisit the recurring issues of child find, eligibility, substantive FAPE, tuition reimbursement, and IEEs at public expense, with the rising issues of attendance and after-school services. For related publications and special supplements, see perryzirkel.com
| On September 22, 2025, the federal district court in New York issued an unofficially published decision in R.F. v. New York City Department of Education. The child in this case is a 10-year-old with severe deficits in academics, communication, sensory processing, self-help skills, and behaviors. In June 2023, the child’s parents notified the IEP team that in the absence of an appropriate placement they would continue his placement in a private school and would seek reimbursement for his tuition and after-school services, which were applied behavior analysis, occupational therapy, and speech-language therapy. Soon thereafter they filed for a due process hearing seeking said reimbursement and funding for an independent educational evaluation (IEE) by a neuropsychologist. During the hearing, the district did not provide any evidence. Moreover, the district conceded that (a) it had failed to propose an appropriate placement for the child and (b) there were no equitable circumstances against tuition reimbursement. For the remaining issue for tuition reimbursement, the hearing officer ruled that the private school was appropriate. The resulting remedy was to reimburse the $132k tuition for 2023–24, but not the parents’ costs for either the after-school services or the IEE. The parents appealed the denied reimbursements. | |
| The parents argued that after-school services were warranted because the relevant equitable analysis was limited to the reasonableness of each side’s conduct for which they had been cooperative participants in the IEP process. | Disagreeing, the court ruled that the equitable factors extended to the reasonableness of the costs in relation to the requirements for FAPE and that the after-school services, which were designed for generalization and maximization, were not necessary under the Endrew F. standard based on the individual circumstances of this case. |
| The parents argued that the IEE reimbursement was warranted because the district had failed to provide the required triennial reevaluation and, thus, the general requirement to convey disagreement does not apply. | To the contrary, the court concluded that the disagreement prerequisite applies to IEE reimbursement, and if no (re)evaluation, the parents’ recourse is to request one and, if the district does not provide it, challenge the failure at the due process hearing. |
| This decision is specific to its limited jurisdiction in New York, but it presents two issues that are relatively novel and suggest a resolution for future iterations elsewhere that may be persuasive. Note that the IEE ruling represented a blanket approach, whereas the after-school services ruling was based on the individual circumstances. | |
On November 10, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, issued an officially published decision in A.P. v. Pearland Independent School District, addressing child find and eligibility under the IDEA. After generally satisfactory attendance and achievement in the district during the earlier grades, A.P. was homeschooled in sixth grade. For grade 7, she returned to the district, missed 10% of her classes, and failed the state proficiency exams. In grade 8, the district responded with targeted interventions, and she passed all of her classes, although her attendance issues remained until the COVID-19 pandemic hit toward the end of the school year. She struggled with attendance during distance learning, which ended in late November of grade 9. The parents rejected the school officials’ recommendation to move her from advanced to on-level classes. Upon completion of ninth grade, she had approximately 25 absences, for which the parents provided various excuses (e.g., family trips, indigestion, and menstrual cramps), and failed 5 of 7 classes. She attended summer school to make up for 3 of the 5 failed classes. For grade 10, the school again recommended, and the parents again rejected, switching to on-level classes. The absenteeism pattern continued, and the school suggested its special program for extra help. AP applied and was accepted for the extra-help program, but her parents did not permit her participation. Instead, in February of that school year, her parents withdrew her from the district for homeschooling. In the following September, they filed for a due process hearing and informed the district that they suspected that A.P. had dyslexia. During mediation, the district offered an evaluation for special education eligibility under the IDEA, but the parents refused consent. Instead, at their attorney’s suggestion, they arranged for an independent educational evaluation (IEE) by a neuropsychologist. The IEE report, which did not include teacher input or a classroom observation, concluded that A.P. had specific learning disabilities in reading and math, but not dyslexia or ADHD. Upon receiving the report, the district scheduled an IEP team meeting, which the parents did not attend. The team determined that the IEE did not provide sufficient information to determine eligibility due to the lack of in-class performance data. After a due process hearing, which revealed that the neuropsychologist was not aware of A.P.’s homeschooling in grade 6 and her subsequent continuing attendance problems, the hearing officer ruled that the parents did not meet their burden to prove a child find or eligibility violation under the IDEA. Upon appeal, the federal district court affirmed. Next, the parents filed an appeal with the Fifth Circuit. | |
| The parents claimed that A.P.’s chronic absenteeism, poor grades, and teachers’ concern combined to trigger the district’s child find duty well before the district’s initiation of an evaluation upon their filing for a hearing. | The Fifth Circuit was not persuaded. The court concluded that the absenteeism was not triggering factor in the absence of evidence of a suspected underlying disability linkage and that the poor grades were reasonably attributable to the absenteeism and parental refusals for the district’s responsive recommendations. |
| The parents claimed that the neuropsychologist’s IEE proved that the child was eligible under the IDEA in light of her chronic absenteeism and poor grades. | The Fifth Circuit reasoned that A.P.’s “consistent absences prevented her from receiving appropriate instruction” and that the IEE lacked evidence of the need for special education. |
| Both child find and eligibility continue to be individualized determinations based on multiple factors, with attendance continuing to be a difficult variable, but the parents’ actions in this case certainly did not augur well for a favorable adjudicative outcome. | |
Buzz from the Hub
https://www.parentcenterhub.org/buzz-november2025/
Holiday Overwhelm: Resources for Families and Providers
The holiday season is often filled with joy, but it can also bring added stress and overwhelm for many families. In this blog post, the California Training Institute (CalTrin) provides resources available to help parents and caregivers manage their stress as well as information on organizations that provide assistance to families.
Read the blogpost here.
Could Assistive Technology Help Your Child?
This article explains how assistive technology (AT) can be valuable for providing immediate support while other services or therapies are still being explored and implemented. AT can range from simple tools like picture schedules or stress balls to advanced text-to-speech software and can help children who struggle with communication, sensory regulation, learning, or social interaction, even before a formal diagnosis.
Read the article here.
U.S. Department of Education Announces Release of Record $500 Million for Charter Schools Programs
In case you missed the announcement, the U.S. Department of Education announced the release of 500 million dollars for charter school programs. The Department will award an additional $51.7 million in supplemental funding to existing State Entity grantees to support the creation or expansion of charter schools focused on civics education; career and technical education; and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, among other innovative charter school models.
Read the announcement here.
Resources for Your Teen, from 14 to 21 Years: Overview
The article from Informing Families outlines key resources and steps for supporting youth ages 14-21 as they prepare for adult life. It focuses on early transition planning, building independent living and employment skills, and leveraging school-based services before they end at age 21.
Read the article here.
Supported Decision Making
When a young person with a disability reaches the “age of majority,” their legal rights shift from their parents to them. This means they begin making their own decisions about things like school, health care, and finances. Many young adults benefit from support when making decisions, and there are options and resources available to help. This page provides resources to guide families and youth through this transition.
Explore the resources here.
Cultivating Leadership: Mentoring Youth with Disabilities
This page from the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) outlines how mentoring can play a vital role in supporting youth with disabilities by developing leadership, interpersonal, and career-readiness skills. It also highlights the research-backed benefits of mentoring (such as improved academic outcomes, self-confidence, and work-transition success) and identifies characteristics of effective mentoring relationships.
Access the page here.
From Intention to Impact: Implementing the Adult Ally Toolkit
Join Erin Black and Michael Scanlon for a practical walk-through of the Adult Ally Toolkit—a resource created to strengthen youth–adult partnerships and elevate youth voice in everyday practice. Learn how to launch the toolkit in your program and adapt its tools, stories, and podcasts to support meaningful youth engagement across your organization. This session includes a rapid tour of the final product and practical next steps for using the Adult Ally Toolkit as the powerful conversation starter and implementation tool it’s designed to be.
When: Monday, December 15th, 2025
Time: 2 pm ET
Update from the U.S. Department of Education
Birth to Grade 12 Education-Reources
https://www.ed.gov/birth-to-grade-12-education
Available Grants
https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/apply-grant/available-grants
December 3, 2025
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon participated in a roundtable discussion with university leaders, think tank professionals, and education advocates about the need for reforms to address the far-left ideological capture of American universities.
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon To Kick Off National “History Rocks!” Tour
December 2, 2025
Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon announced the U.S. Department of Education’s (the Department) History Rocks! Trail to Independence Tour.
December 1, 2025
Secretary Linda McMahon, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, and Acting Assistant Secretary for OSERS Kimberly Richey visited Winding Creek Elementary School in Stafford, VA to celebrate IDEA’s 50th anniversary.
December 1, 2025
Today, the U.S. Department of Education notified institutions of higher education of a new foreign funding reporting portal, set to launch on January 2, 2026.
Secretary McMahon Statement on Northwestern University Deal
November 28, 2025
A statement from U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon on the Trump Administration’s deal with Northwestern University.
November 25, 2025
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon appointed five new members to the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity.
November 25, 2025
Today, the U.S. Department of Education’s office of Federal Student Aid initiated a focused review of UC Berkeley in response to a violent protest that erupted at a November 10, 2025, Turning Point USA event on its campus.
Myth vs. Fact: The Definition of Professional Degrees
November 24, 2025
President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act placed commonsense limits on federal student loans for graduate degrees. This fact sheet sets the record straight regarding the proposed treatment of nursing programs under new lending limits.
November 19, 2025
Today, Secretary McMahon and Under Secretary Nicholas Kent participated in a roundtable discussion with university leaders, think tank professionals, and education advocates about the need for bold reforms to restore public confidence in higher education.
U.S. Department of Education Announces Six New Agency Partnerships to Break Up Federal Bureaucracy
November 18, 2025
ED announced six new interagency agreements to break up the federal education bureaucracy, ensure efficient delivery of funded programs, activities, and move closer to fulfilling the President Trump’s promise to return education to the states.
November 17, 2025
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon today announced the appointment of former Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant to the National Assessment Governing Board.
November 14, 2025
The U.S. Department of Education today announced that Richard Lucas will serve as the Acting Chief Operating Officer of Federal Student Aid. Mr. Lucas previously served as Chief Financial Officer of Federal Student Aid.
U.S. Department of Education Celebrates Senate Confirmations for Additional Education Leadership
November 13, 2025
On October 7, the U.S. Senate voted to confirm Kimberly Richey as Assistant Secretary for the OCR, Kirsten Baesler as Assistant Secretary for OESE, Dr. David Barker as Assistant Secretary for OPE, and Mary Christina Riley as Assistant Secretary for OLCA.
November 10, 2025
The U.S. Department of Education today unveiled seven priorities under the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education for the FY 2025 competition.
November 6, 2025
The Department concluded its negotiated rulemaking session, where the Reimagining and Improving Student Education Committee reached consensus on the entire package of federal student loan-related changes advanced by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Effectiveness of Literacy Approaches for Students with Disabilities and Second Language Learners
By Shannon Dix
The primary functions of a school-based team meeting are to analyze student progress, identify areas of weakness, and determine interventions to increase the student’s performance in a specific area. To do this, the team needs to understand the similarities and differences between language acquisition in second language learners and students with disabilities. Different methods to instruct both subsets of students must be discussed before an intervention can be implemented. This literature review aims to explore the effectiveness of different educational approaches used for teaching literacy skills to both second language learners and students with disabilities by discussing their implications for practice and research and identifying future directions for research.
Based on the various resources I consulted, I have made several observations. Tribushinina et al. (2023), focused on the effectiveness of cognates to enhance cross-linguistic awareness as part of an English as a Foreign Language curriculum. I have seen this strategy work at my school, particularly in the dual language Spanish program, however, one of the drawbacks is that students need to have a good grasp on vocabulary in their primary language. Many of my students with learning disabilities aren’t able to keep up with the rigor of the dual language program and are moved to a monolingual classroom. Without the additional instruction in Spanish, the effectiveness of the cognate instruction is lessened.
Hall et al. (2020), focused on nurturing inference generation to integrate information within or across texts to create new understandings. The researchers focused on English language learners at varying levels of English proficiency and below-average reading comprehension skills and used direct instruction including guided practice, modeling via think-aloud, inference-eliciting questions during reading, and graphic organizers in a gradual release model. All of these strategies work well with both second language learners and students with disabilities. The only flaw I find in their research, is that the control group worked independently with a computer program and did not receive any direct instruction. To determine its true effectiveness, I would like to see a future study comparing this inference generation strategy to another direct instruction method.
In research completed by Knaak et al. (2021), the effects of a multicomponent intervention consisting of storytelling, flashcards, and a reward procedure was evaluated. They combined visual, verbal, and gestural support to assist in learning along with group motivational components. This method uses a combination of established English Language Learner (ELL) and Students with Disabilities (SWD) instructional strategies. Merging visual, verbal, and gestural support allows learners the opportunity to absorb information in a variety of ways. The use of a graphic organizers provides students a more structured note taking approach. This multifaceted approach supports both types of students being discussed.
Sanabria et al. (2022) researched the effectiveness of a reading comprehension intervention called EMBRACE. Of all of the methods I researched, this one had the poorest results and the narrowest target audience. While the idea of the program would be a fun activity for students to practice retelling stories, it does not appear to be an adequate intervention for either ELLs or SWDs. Future research with this program might include a leveling component which would place students at their appropriate reading level and adjust instruction accordingly.
Bishara (2024) looked at the correlation between diglossic reading skills and reading comprehension in students with and without learning disabilities. Diglossia refers to a variation in languages which is used under different circumstances. In this study, it compared colloquial Arabic to literary Arabic. Arabic speakers learn that each language variety serves different communication purposes. The research aimed to prove that differences in reading levels (comprehension, accuracy, and fluency) are diglossia dependent. His conclusion included a statement that I feel is sometimes lacking in schools. After a team has meticulously researched to find an appropriate intervention, implemented the intervention, and tracked progress, we either move toward evaluation or discontinue the intervention. His conclusion recommends that students who have been discontinued need to have post-intervention monitoring. We do this at my school, but based on data coming in from other school sites, most schools do not.
The effectiveness of the TWA strategy was researched by Firat (2019). This strategy is based on Self-Regulation Strategy Development (SRSD) wherein students rehearse asking themselves questions as they read a text to monitor their own understanding. The goal is for the student to be able to use the strategy independently. The research was conducted on a very small sample of students (3) all of whom had diagnosed learning disabilities. This strategy is not as teacher friendly as some, as there is a heavy scaffolding process and a lot of teacher talk at the beginning of the process. However, this strategy works well with students who are willing to accept responsibility for their own learning and want to improve their reading abilities.
Okur and Aksoy (2025) delved into a cognitive intervention focusing on increasing students’ verbal working memory (VWM). In their efforts to strengthen cognitive capacity for linguistic processing, the researchers taught specific memory techniques with an increasing level of difficulty every week of the four week intervention. Many students with a specific learning disability have a deficit in VWM. The researchers wanted to target their intervention at the root of the problem. I like the idea of treating the “illness not the symptoms.” Often, as special educators, we see low scores on initial evaluations, but I have never thought to try and target those areas to improve student performance. I am curious about replicating this intervention at my school site.
In conclusion, the need to support second language learners and students with disabilities in the area of reading proficiency is widely known. There are many different methods and approaches to supporting these students. In this literature review, we looked at instructional methods with a focus on cognate instruction, inference generation through direct instruction, a multicomponent story telling method, a computer program (EMBRACE), the impact of diglossic learners, the effectiveness of the TWA strategy, and the effect of an intervention targeting verbal working memory. Each investigation revealed strengths and weaknesses within the literacy instructional approach. More research is required for each of these approaches, however, I believe that there are a few methods which show promise for both second language learners and students with disabilities. Among them are the inference generation through direct instruction approach and the multicomponent story telling method. Both of these methods use teacher modeling and prompting to guide students in their thinking. They also use multiple methods to share information including visual, verbal, and gestural. The use of graphic organizers and visual aids also support multiple levels of English acquisition and intellectual ability. I believe that both of these approaches would support the learning needs of second language learners and students with learning disabilities. Future research could combine these methods and compare them to a control group being provided a more classic, stand and deliver type instruction. I would also like to incorporate the cognitive strategy of strengthening students’ verbal working memory skills. Improving a core component of the cognitive process would support student learning across content areas.
References
Bishara, S. (2024). Predicting reading comprehension by reading level and diglossia: a comparison between diglossic first grade students with and without learning disabilities. Online Submission, 3(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.17613/6xgy-me56
Firat, T. (2019). Effects of the TWA strategy instruction on reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Educational Research Quarterly, 43(2), 24–54. http://erquarterly.org/
Hall, C., Vaughn, S., Barnes, M. A., Stewart, A. A., Austin, C. R., & Roberts, G. (2020). The effects of inference instruction on the reading comprehension of English learners with reading comprehension difficulties. Remedial and special education, 41(5), 259-270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518824983
Knaak, T., Grünke, M., & Barwasser, A. (2021). Enhancing vocabulary recognition in English foreign language learners with and without learning disabilities:effects of a multi component storytelling intervention approach. Learning disabilities: a contemporary journal, 19(1), 69-85. http://www.ldw-ldcj.org/
Okur, M., & Aksoy, V. (2025). The effect of verbal working memory intervention on the reading performance of students with specific learning disabilities. Behavioral Sciences, 15(3), 356. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15030356
Sanabria, A. A., Restrepo, M. A., Walker, E., & Glenberg, A. (2022). A reading comprehension intervention for dual language learners with weak language and reading skills. Journal of speech, language, and hearing research, 65( 2), 738-759. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00266
Tribushinina, E., Niemann, G., & Meuwissen, J. (2023). Explicit cognate instruction facilitates vocabulary learning by foreign language learners with developmental language disorder. Child language teaching and therapy, 39(3), 248-265. https://doi.org/10.1177/02656590231202177
General Education Teachers in the Inclusive Classroom: How Prepared are they?
By Benja Short-Lindros
Introduction:
Are teachers coming out of educational programs ready to teach in the inclusive classroom? Research has shown that general education teachers are often not prepared for the demands of teaching in an inclusive classroom setting. This may be due to their lack of prior training, or just the teacher’s perception that they are not prepared. Teachers who received training in a higher academic education program that includes practical experience in an internship center felt more prepared than those who received training in a university classroom (Garcia-Vallès et al., 2024). Training for the inclusive classroom has many ideas they need to instill in the new teachers, such as how to differentiate instruction, how to include all students in the classroom, and how to manage behavior. New teachers are unable to learn the previous skills mentioned in a classroom reading from a book, they need to have hands on training. Another problem general education teachers face is lack of adequate support in an inclusive classroom. This support can affect the learning environment and how teachers may include students with disabilities (SWD). What can be taught in higher education teacher programs to better prepare teachers for the needs of an inclusion classroom? How can the school community support the general education teacher? What is needed to have a successful inclusive setting?
Training in the Universities
Higher education institutions need to take the lead in training teachers who come prepared for teaching in the inclusive classroom. These training courses need to encompass the skills the new teacher will need to be successful in meeting the needs of all students. It has been shown that educational programs do not have adequate coursework in special education or the inclusion classroom. Often training to prepare teachers is woven into other coursework or taught in individual courses. Research has shown that educational programs should incorporate practicum experiences to help the student teacher explore and develop their beliefs while learning effective strategies to meet the diverse needs in the classroom (Jordan et al. 2009). Having teachers complete an extensive practicum is not only beneficial for the novice teacher, but also for the school where the practicum is being conducted. It helps teachers in developing classroom management skills, that aren’t effectively learned through lectures or textbooks. Student teachers also provide extra support in the classroom in which they complete their educational training. This practicum also provides the opportunity for the soon to be teacher to practice and learn about collaborating. It has been found that collaboration between a general education teacher and special education teacher is needed to have a successful inclusive classroom (Harvey et al. 2010). It seems the best way to ensure new teachers are prepared would be to concentrate on initial teacher education which will help schools implement inclusive policies and practices (Marin 2014). Ninety-one percent of teachers in the Marin (2014) study agree that a specific set of skills should be taught to create a classroom environment that respects the needs and diversity of every student. If teachers are required to provide SWD specialized instruction, then they should be provided the training to support and understand pedagogical methods to meet the learning objectives of the students. Natural views surfaced in the study conducted by Harvey et al. (2010) which suggested educational programs needed to include time to create collaborative initiatives and courses across different disciplines and majors. The educational programs also need to implement team teaching or co-teaching lessons into their trainings as the general education teacher and special education teacher will often have to work together in the same classroom.
Studies inquired if a teacher’s belief can affect what or how things are being taught in the inclusive classroom and if it would help to change how a teacher feels about their roles and responsibilities to raise the effectiveness of teaching practices (Jordan et al. 2009). Not only do we need to have effective training in higher education institutions, but training also needs to continue for the experienced teacher through professional development. This professional development needs to include up to date practices to ensure teachers are learning and improving how they teach and interact with all students in their classrooms, not just SWD.
Support in the classroom
Not only do new teachers need to have effective training to be successful in the inclusive classroom, but they also need support from the whole school community. Without extra assistance from support staff, administration, other teachers, and the parents, the inclusive classroom and the teacher at the front of the room will not be successful. The expectations which the principal sets regarding inclusion, along with individual teachers’ beliefs about their roles and responsibilities in including SWD, influence teaching methods and this in turn affects student outcomes (Jordan et al. 2009). Without this support the teacher feels unable to meet the needs of all the students in the classroom. Monsen et al. (2013) states that teachers who feel unsupported in their classrooms by support staff are most likely to have negative attitudes when it comes to including SWD. These negative attitudes leads to poor learning outcomes for the students. The school community, including parents, need to work together to ensure students have the best outcomes in an inclusive setting.
Conclusion
More research and questions need to be addressed before a perfect education program can be created to ensure teachers can be fully prepared to teach in the inclusive classroom. The studies all indicate the need for training that includes specific courses for special education alongside training in general education not just embedded in a curriculum (Harvey et al. 2010). To help teachers have a successful inclusive classroom where students perform well and feel safe, higher academic institutions need to ensure teachers are prepared to differentiate instruction and include all students in the classroom. Teachers also need a practicum to gain skills on how to manage behavior of all students.
References
Garcia-Vallès, X., Martín, M. B., Gavaldà, J. M.S., & Romero, A.P. (2024). Students’ perceptions of teacher training for inclusive and sustainable education: From university classrooms to school practices. Sustainability, 16(10), Article 4037. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104037
Harvey, M.W., Yssel, N., Bauserman, A.D., Merbler, J.B. (2010). Preservice teacher preparation for inclusion an exploration of higher education teacher-training institutions. Remedial and Special Education, 31(1), 24-33. http://rase.sagepub.com
Horne, P. E., & Timmons, V. (2009). Making it work: Teachers’ perspectives on inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(3), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701433964
Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms. Teacher and Teacher Education, 25, 535-542. https://doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.010
Marin, E., (2014). Are today’s general education teachers prepared to face inclusion in the classroom? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 142, 702 – 707. https://doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.601
Monsen, J. J., Ewing, D. L., & Kwoka, M. (2013). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, perceived adequacy of support and classroom learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 17(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-013-9144-8
Screen Time and ADHD: Implications For Families Raising Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
By Raena Lee Whittingham Thelwell Eccles
Introduction
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a commonly diagnosed neurodevelopmental disorder affecting children worldwide, with symptoms that include inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. As digital technology has become deeply integrated into modern family life, researchers have increasingly examined the relationship between screen exposure and ADHD symptoms and family functioning. Such screen exposure encompasses television, smartphones, tablets, gaming, and more. Screen time presents both opportunities and risks for children with ADHD, influencing not only behavior and attention but also parent–child relationships, routines, and the ways families navigate disability. For families raising children with ADHD, the management of screen time has become an emerging challenge that blends cultural, behavioral, and psychological considerations. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for developing evidence-based, family-centered interventions that promote healthy child development while maintaining realistic expectations in a digitally driven society.
Literature Review
Research consistently suggests a relationship between increased screen exposure and elevated ADHD-related symptoms, though causality remains complex. Screen exposure has proven to affect the brain. In an analysis of screen time and neurodevelopment, Shou et al. (2025) identified differences in children’s brain structures with high screen exposure, suggesting that specific patterns of media use may influence neural pathways underlying attentional regulation. Their findings support the hypothesis that screen time may exacerbate pre-existing vulnerabilities in children predisposed to ADHD.
Along with the brain itself, screen time affects the development of the child. Wu et al. (2025) examined screen habits among children ages 1–3 and found that both the amount and type of content were associated with ADHD risks. Children who viewed fast-paced or overstimulating content demonstrated significantly higher rates of inattention and impulsivity. These higher rates may indicate that screen quality may be as critical as quantity. Tamana et al. (2019) found that preschoolers who exceeded recommended daily screen limits showed an increased likelihood of inattention problems. Notably, the study emphasized that family routines (such as sleep schedules and co-viewing practices) moderated these effects, demonstrating the significance of family engagement and structure. In an extensive longitudinal study, Murray et al. (2025) found that greater daily hours of television and video viewing during early childhood were associated with higher ADHD symptoms later in development. The authors employed counterfactual modeling to mitigate confounding effects, thereby strengthening the finding that early screen exposure may play a significant role in attentional outcomes.
Past early childhood, excessive screen usage also impacts those encountering adolescence. Research has examined the social and educational implications for adolescents. Paulich et al. (2021) analyzed data from the U.S. Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, showing that increased recreational screen time in early adolescence was associated with lower academic performance, reduced social well-being, and raised mental health concerns. These outcomes suggest broader developmental impacts beyond symptom severity. Likewise, Wallace et al. (2023) demonstrated that excessive screen time predicted higher impulsivity and growth in ADHD symptoms from early to late adolescence. The authors argued that screen-induced overstimulation could reinforce rapid reward-seeking behaviors while complicating emotional regulation.
Family And Disability Framework
When considering ADHD within a family and disability framework, it becomes evident that the condition affects the entire family system. Parents, siblings, and caregivers must adapt daily routines, disciplinary practices, and communication strategies in relation to the child’s attentional and behavioral patterns. Families raising children with ADHD often navigate the dual challenge of supporting learning needs while managing behavioral regulation, thus causing tasks to become more complex in an environment saturated with digital distractions. Screen use can both ease and strain family interactions. It may provide short-term relief or shared entertainment, but prolonged or unregulated exposure can heighten dysregulation and reduce opportunities for social bonding.
Moreover, family responses to screen time may stem from cultural norms and access to resources. For instance, families from collectivist or high-expectation educational cultures may interpret screen use as either a developmental threat or an academic tool, influencing their management strategies. In contrast, families emphasizing independence may permit greater screen autonomy, unintentionally reinforcing ADHD-related impulsivity. Therefore, culturally responsive approaches must consider family beliefs about education, discipline, and technology while offering practical guidance tailored to their realities.
Personal Perspectives Grounded In Research
Grounded in the reviewed literature, my perspective aligns with the growing consensus that screen time does not cause ADHD but can exacerbate its manifestations and interfere with treatment and family cohesion. Excessive exposure to rapid, overstimulating media appears to amplify difficulties with attention and emotion regulation (which are core features of ADHD) while eroding consistent routines that are essential for symptom management. I also believe the research underscores the importance of balance rather than prohibition: structured, co-engaged screen use that integrates parental involvement can foster positive experiences and teach self-regulation.
Families may need guidance in establishing predictable routines, clarifying screen limits, and sharing digital activities. Furthermore, educators and clinicians must acknowledge parental stress by offering strategies that are feasible and non-judgmental. Families with fewer resources or greater work demands should receive tailored recommendations, such as short and structured breaks rather than unrealistic screen bans.
Recommendations And Best Practices
Based on the collective findings from the reviewed literature, several evidence-based recommendations can emerge:
- Parental Co-Engagement: Parents should actively participate in their child(ren)’s screen activities, discussing content and modeling balanced technology use.
- Predictable Routines: Consistent schedules with designated screen times can help children with ADHD anticipate transitions and reduce behavioral outbursts.
- Behavioral Parent Training (BPT): Integrating BPT modules that include technology management can empower families to reinforce positive behaviors.
- Culturally Responsive Guidance: Interventions should respect diverse family values and access to technology while promoting healthy digital habits.
- Collaborative Support Systems: Schools, clinicians, and community organizations could partner with families to provide consistent expectations across settings.
Conclusion
The intersection of ADHD, family life, and screen exposure presents a multifaceted challenge that requires a systems-oriented, culturally sensitive approach. Families raising children with ADHD navigate unique pressures in regulating both behavior and technology, often balancing clinical recommendations with real-world demands. As research continues to evolve, one message remains clear: empowering families with practical, empathetic, and evidence-based guidance is essential for supporting the well-being of children in an increasingly digital age.
References
Murray, A., Casey, H., Wright, H., Zhu, X., Yang, Y., Li, X., Xiao, Z., King, J., Kostyrka-Allchorne, K., & Sonuga-Barke, E. (2025). The effects of tv/video viewing hours on later ADHD symptoms: a counterfactual analysis in longitudinal population-representative data. BMC Pediatrics, 25(1), 673. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-025-05973-2
Paulich, K. N., Ross, J. M., Lessem, J. M., & Hewitt, J. K. (2021). Screen time and early adolescent mental health, academic, and social outcomes in 9- and 10- year old children: Utilizing the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development ℠ (ABCD) Study. PLoS One, 16(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256591
Shou, Q., Yamashita, M., & Mizuno, Y. (2025). Association of screen time with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms and their development: the mediating role of brain structure. Translational Psychiatry, 15(1), 447. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-025-03672-1
Tamana, S. K., Ezeugwu, V., Chikuma, J., Lefebvre, D. L., Azad, M. B., Moraes, T. J., Subbarao, P., Becker, A. B., Turvey, S. E., Sears, M. R., Dick, B. D., Carson, V., Rasmussen, C., Pei, J., & Mandhane, P. J. (2019). Screen-time is associated with inattention problems in preschoolers: Results from the CHILD birth cohort study. PloS One, 14(4) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213995
Wallace, J., Boers, E., Ouellet, J., Afzali, M. H., & Conrod, P. (2023). Screen time, impulsivity, neuropsychological functions and their relationship to growth in adolescent attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 18108. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-44105-7
Wu, J., Yang, Y., Zhou, Q., Li, J., Yang, W., Yin, X., Qiu, S., Zhang, J., Meng, M., Guo, Y., Chen, J., & Chen, Z. (2025). The relationship between screen time, screen content for children aged 1-3, and the risk of ADHD in preschools. PloS One, 20(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312654
Latest Employment Opportunities Posted on NASET
K-12 ELA/Special Education Facilitator/Coach (New York, NY)
Teacher of Special Education @ Newark Board of Education (Newark, NJ)
Acknowledgements
Portions of this or previous month’s NASET’s Special Educator e-Journal were excerpted from:
- Center for Parent Information and Resources
- Committee on Education and the Workforce
- FirstGov.gov-The Official U.S. Government Web Portal
- Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals (JAASEP)
- National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth
- National Institute of Health
- National Organization on Disability
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
- U.S. Department of Education
- U.S. Department of Education-The Achiever
- U.S. Department of Education-The Education Innovator
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- U.S. Department of Labor
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration
- U.S. Office of Special Education
The National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET) thanks all of the above for the information provided for this or prior editions of the Special Educator e-Journal
Sarah S. Ayala, LSU | Associate Editor, NASET e-Journal
Download a PDF Version of This e-Journal
November 2025 – Special Educator e-Journal
Download a PDF Version of This e-Journal
Table of Contents
- Special Education Legal Alert
- Buzz from the Hub
- Update from the U.S. Department of Education
- Learning Disabilities
- Partnering for Student Success: How Special Educators Can Collaborate Effectively with Administrators
- Acknowledgements
Buzz from the Hub
https://www.parentcenterhub.org/buzz-october2025/
New Infographic from the National Consortium for Physical Education for Individuals with Disabilities (NCPEID)
The NCPEID’s infographic, How Do I Get Adapted Physical Education Services for My Child in Special Education?, explains how students with disabilities ages 3‑21 have a right to physical education, including Adapted Physical Education (APE) if needed, in their least restrictive environment. It also explains why it is important for students with disabilities to participate in physical education and how to request/receive APE services.
View the infographic here.
How to Engage Your Child in the Early Years
Experiences that occur during the earliest years of life strongly impact the abilities of infants and toddlers to learn, move, and interact with others. In recognition of this, especially for children who are deafblind, the National Center on Deafblindness (NCDB) has compiled some resources to help families understand the critical role they play in fostering the early development of their child.
Find the links to the resources here.
Education Choice: School Choice Guidance and Resources for Parents, Families, States, and Local Education Agencies (LEAs)
The Department of Education (ED) has created a page with education choice related guidance and resources for parents, families, states, and local education agencies (LEAs). This page includes information on private schools, charter schools, homeschooling, magnet schools, and other personalized learning options.
Access the page here.
How to Sharpen Executive Functions: Activities to Hone Brain Skills
This article published by ADDitude explains that executive functioning skills (EFs) range from working memory to cognitive flexibility to inhibitory control, and beyond. EFs power our daily functioning, future planning, and mental/physical health. It provides suggestions and ideas on how to improve core executive functioning skills through different activities, exercises, and games.
Read the article here.
RAISE Adult Ally Podcast
The Adult Ally Podcast Series amplifies the voices of dedicated advocates who are driving meaningful change. Created specifically for the adult ally toolkit, funded by the RAISE Center, the series highlights the lived experiences of adult allies who actively support and uplift young people, centering their needs, aspirations, and agency through in-depth conversations.
Listen to the podcast here.
How to Do a Document Review – Video Series
Parents can learn how to navigate and review special education documents through PACER’s 5-part video series. Each video is less than 5 minutes long and the series teaches parents how to do a solid special education document review. It also explains what to look for in the evaluation report, the IEP, and progress reports, and how they work together. Parts 3, 4, and 5 can also be viewed individually if a parent just wants a better understanding of each type of document.
Webinar Series: Powering Digital Accessibility Through Systemic Action
This free interactive webinar series will prepare state and local education teams to implement NCADEMI’s (National Center on Accessible Digital Educational Materials & Instruction) Quality Indicators for the Provision and Use of Accessible Materials in PreK-12 Systems and will serve as a foundation for those considering their optional year-long targeted technical assistance (TTA). Enrollment in the TTA begins in January 2026. The sessions will consist of six focused 50-minute sessions, tailored office hours, and practical tools. Office hours will be offered between sessions to answer questions and provide additional support. Office hours are optional, not recorded, and will have a separate registration link.
Participate individually or with others from your state or district to learn how the Quality Indicators can lead to systemic change.
Dates: Oct 9, 2025, Oct 23, 2025, Nov 6, 2025, Nov 20, 2025, Dec 4, 2025, Dec 18, 2025
Time: All sessions will begin at 2:00 PM ET. Register here.
Update from the U.S. Department of Education
Birth to Grade 12 Education-Reources
https://www.ed.gov/birth-to-grade-12-education
Available Grants
https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/apply-grant/available-grants
October 30, 2025
The U.S. Department of Education released its final rule to restore the taxpayer-funded Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program to its intended purpose of benefitting Americans working in public service.
September 30, 2025
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon named Tennessee Representative Mark White as Chair of the National Assessment Governing Board. Secretary McMahon also announced the appointment of two education leaders.
Special Education Legal Alert
By Perry A. Zirkel
© November 2025
This month’s update identifies two recent court decisions that respectively illustrate specialized ADA and IDEA issues. For related publications and special supplements, see perryzirkel.com
| On October 2, 2025, a federal district court in New Hampshire issued an unofficially published decision in National Education Association-New Hampshire v. N.H. Attorney General, addressing the enforceability of the state’s recently enacted laws that ban public schools and other public entities from engaging in activities related to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI). Violations, whether knowing or unknowing, require termination of all public funding. In two previous lawsuits, this court struck down as unconstitutional similar laws or executive actions targeting “divisive concepts” or “DEI.” Here, the plaintiffs, which included the state teachers’ association and four school districts, sought a preliminary injunction based not only on the federal and state constitutions, but also the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA. The criteria for such immediate court relief are likelihood of success, irreparable harm, and the balance of equities, including the public interest. | |
| The constitutional challenges included the void for vagueness doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. | Citing its previous decisions and similar rulings in the federal district courts in D.C. and Maryland, the court concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their vagueness claim based on these laws’ unfairly elastic prohibitions and their potentially arbitrary application, as exemplified by students with disabilities in relation to other student groups. |
| The IDEA challenge was based on the preemption doctrine, which provides that federal law supersedes conflicting state law. | Finding that these anti-DEI laws prohibit schools from doing what the IDEA requires, including classifying students based on disability to improve their educational outcomes, the court concluded that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the IDEA preemption claim. |
| The plaintiffs’ Section 504 and ADA claim was also based on preemption. | The court reached the same preemption conclusion based on the inescapable conflict between these federal disability anti-discrimination laws and the state’s anti-DEI laws. |
| The plaintiffs contended that they also met the irreparable harm requirement. | The court agreed based on not only the crippling financial consequences but also the hindrance to the schools’ core mission, “especially … for students with disabilities.” |
| The plaintiffs additionally argued that they met the final requirement for the injunction. | The court agreed, finding that the balance of equities, which merged with public interest in this case, was clearly in the plaintiffs’ favor. |
| The plaintiffs sought a universal injunction, whereas defendants asserted that such relief be limited specifically to the plaintiffs. | Finding a middle ground between these two positions, the court enjoined the defendants from enforcing the laws against public entities that employ or contract with plaintiffs or their members or serve students with disabilities. |
| Although the issue of anti-DEI laws is part of a much larger and ongoing political and judicial controversy, the reason for including it in our monthly update is the rather crucial role of students with disabilities, which was not only clear in the IDEA and Section 504/ADA bases of the decision but also notable in the court’s analysis of its void-for-vagueness constitutional claim. | |
On September 28, 2025, the federal district court in Nevada issued an unofficially published decision in C.W. v. Nevada Department of Education. The plaintiffs were parents of 12 students with disabilities and a national parental advocacy organization. The defendants were the Clark County School District, which is the fifth largest district in the country, and Nevada’s state education agency (SEA). The plaintiffs claimed various systemic deficiencies in the defendant-district’s policies and practices and in the defendant-state’s supervisory oversight allegedly in violation of the IDEA and Section 504/ADA. The identified district deficiencies included, for example, systemwide inadequacies in child find activities, special education staffing, professional development, dyslexia and autism services, and inclusion support. The defendants filed preliminary motions, such as dismissal, to dispose of this lawsuit or parts of it (e.g., its class action aspect) on various alternative grounds. | |
| The defendant district moved for dismissal or a more definite statement as to the plaintiff’s IDEA and Section 504/ADA claims. | Rejecting this motion, the court concluded that the plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficiently specific to give the defendants fair notice of a requisite basis for their claims under the IDEA and Section 504/ADA. |
| The defendant district also filed a motion to strike the allegations beyond the 12 named plaintiffs as failing to qualify as a class action. | The court delayed a ruling for this claim, concluding that it should await the plaintiff’s motion for class certification after the parties have had the opportunity to further develop the record for this purpose. |
| The defendant SEA filed a motion to dismiss the IDEA claims on the grounds that (a) the IDEA does not provide plaintiffs with a right to sue a SEA and (b) the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the available administrative adjudication procedure of a due process hearing under the IDEA. | Denying this motion, the court concluded that in the Ninth Circuit (a) plaintiffs have an implied, although not express, right of private action to bring systemic claims against an SEA, and (b) various specific allegations in this case qualify for the systemic exception to the exhaustion requirement. |
| The defendant SEA sought to eliminate the advocacy organization on the basis that it lacked “standing” to serve as a plaintiff in this case. | Disagreeing, the court concluded that some of the parents whose children were allegedly denied FAPE in this case provided the basis for organizational standing because they were members of the organization. |
| The defendant SEA also filed a motion to dismiss the Section 504/ADA claims for failure to show “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” | Also rejecting this argument, the court concluded that both the Ninth Circuit and, more recently, the Supreme Court have applied instead the “deliberate indifference” standard in the Section 504/ADA context. |
| This decision is only the first phase in what may be prolonged proceedings, which includes various subsequent hurdles for plaintiffs and which is more likely to end in an adverse decision or some sort of settlement than a conclusively precedential victory. Nevertheless, this case illustrates the increasing trend for plaintiff parents and their organizations to seek systemic reform and wider liability via lawsuits under the IDEA and Section 504/ADA against large school districts and, especially, SEAs. Thus far, as exemplified in my 2022 article, the reported outcomes of these lawsuits have varied widely depending on the specific factual contours and the particular jurisdictions in which they arise. | |
Learning Disabilities
By Dr. Faye J. Jones
AbstractLearning disabilities (LD) are neurodevelopmental conditions that can significantly affect how individuals process and retain new information (https://www.verywellmind.com/learning-disabilities-types-causes-symptoms-and-treatment). Despite these challenges, many people with LD possess average to above-average intelligence and frequently demonstrate exceptional strengths in areas such as mathematics, science, the arts, and other creative fields.
The key issue often lies in a gap between a person’s innate potential and the academic or functional expectations typically associated with their age or role. Recognizing and supporting these individuals’ unique strengths—while providing appropriate accommodations—can foster greater inclusion, innovation, and productivity in any work environment.
Types of Learning Disabilities: (Learning Disabilities: Types, Causes, Symptoms, and Treatment).
Dyslexia is the most prevalent form of learning disability, representing approximately 80% of all cases (mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/dyslexia/symptoms). It is a language-based processing disorder that affects an individual’s ability to speak, read, write, and comprehend verbal or written language.
These challenges may result in a slower rate of vocabulary development and difficulties with grammar, reading fluency, and overall comprehension. Understanding dyslexia is crucial for fostering inclusive environments where employees or team members with learning differences can thrive and contribute their strengths effectively.
Dysgraphia is a learning disability that affects written expression (wellwisp.com/what-does-dysgraphia-mean). Individuals with dysgraphia may experience challenges with spelling, grammar, vocabulary usage, memory retention, and organizing thoughts on paper. One of the key characteristics is impaired handwriting, which can appear messy or inconsistent.
This condition often makes it difficult to think and write at the same time, which can impact productivity, especially in environments that rely heavily on written communication. Awareness of dysgraphia and the provision of supportive tools—such as speech-to-text software or alternative formats for documenting ideas—can empower individuals to perform effectively and contribute fully in the workplace.
Dyscalculia, sometimes referred to as “math dyslexia,” is a learning disability that affects an individual’s ability to understand and work with numbers and mathematical concepts (my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23949-dyscalculia). This condition can impact core skills such as counting money, reading clocks, performing mental calculations, recognizing number patterns, and applying formulas.
In professional settings, individuals with dyscalculia may face challenges with tasks involving numerical reasoning or time management. By implementing supportive practices—like using visual aids, calculators, or timekeeping tools—organizations can empower team members with dyscalculia to thrive and contribute meaningfully.
Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) is a neurological condition in which the brain struggles to accurately interpret sounds, even though hearing ability is typically normal (Auditory processing disorder: kids & teens). Individuals with APD may experience difficulty distinguishing similar sounds, recognizing the order of spoken words, or filtering out background noise.
In work environments, this can affect verbal communication, especially in group discussions or noisy settings. Support strategies—such as providing written instructions, allowing extra processing time, or using assistive listening technologies—can significantly improve engagement and productivity for team members with APD.
Language Processing Disorder (LPD) is a subtype of Auditory Processing Disorder that specifically affects how spoken language is understood and interpreted (What Is Language Processing Disorder? The Complete Guide). Individuals with LPD may struggle to assign meaning to verbal information, such as distinguishing between similar-sounding words or understanding sentences and stories in real time.
In professional environments, this can lead to difficulties following verbal instructions, participating in fast-paced conversations, or comprehending meetings without visual or written support. Employing strategies like providing written follow-ups, visual aids, or breaking down complex information can enhance communication and ensure meaningful inclusion for individuals with LPD.
Nonverbal Learning Disabilities (NVLD) are neurological conditions that impact a person’s ability to interpret nonverbal forms of communication (Nonverbal Learning Disorder | Psychology Today). Individuals with NVLD may have difficulty understanding facial expressions, body language, tone of voice, spatial awareness, and other contextual cues that are essential for effective social interaction.
In the workplace, these challenges can influence team communication, interpersonal dynamics, or performance in unstructured situations. Providing clear, direct verbal communication and fostering a supportive, inclusive environment can greatly enhance the participation and success of team members with NVLD.
Visual Perceptual and Visual Motor Deficits are neurological conditions that can affect how individuals process visual information and coordinate physical responses (Visual Perceptual Motor Deficit). These challenges often impact hand-eye coordination, spatial awareness, and fine motor skills.
In a workplace setting, individuals with these deficits may experience difficulty tracking lines of text while reading, confuse visually similar letters or symbols, or struggle with tasks that involve manual dexterity—such as handling office tools, organizing materials, or navigating unfamiliar environments. Providing visual aids, clear signage, ergonomic tools, and alternative methods for completing tasks can help create a more accessible and productive work environment.
Common Symptoms of Learning Disabilities
Learning disabilities can present a wide range of cognitive, behavioral, and communication-related challenges (Learning Disabilities: Types, Causes, Symptoms, and Treatment). While the severity and combination of symptoms vary by individual, common signs may include:
Difficulty with reading, writing, or understanding written materials
Short attention span or frequent lapses in focus
Problems with memory retention and information recall
Trouble distinguishing between similar sounds, letters, or numbers
Challenges in sounding out unfamiliar words or sequencing letters and numbers correctly
Difficulty expressing thoughts, emotions, or organizing ideas verbally or in writing
Confusion between left and right or difficulty telling time
Reversal of letters or numbers when writing or reading
Limited understanding of abstract words or complex concepts
Poor hand-eye coordination and trouble with fine motor tasks
Delays in speech development or verbal processing
Disorganization or frequent loss of personal items and materials
Difficulty listening, following verbal instructions, or adapting to change
Inappropriate or impulsive responses in conversations or tasks
Behavioral signs such as restlessness, acting out, or resistance to discipline
Inconsistent performance despite demonstrated potential or effort
Awareness of these signs can help organizations identify when accommodations or support strategies might be needed. With inclusive practices in place, individuals with learning disabilities can contribute meaningfully and thrive in diverse professional environments.
Persistent Challenges and Emotional Impact of Learning Disabilities
While many children experience occasional difficulties with focus, reading, organization, or communication during their school years, individuals with learning disabilities typically exhibit a consistent cluster of these challenges that continue into adolescence and adulthood (How Learning Disabilities Affect Emotional Health – Searchbing.com). These patterns are not simply developmental delays but enduring traits that require strategic support and understanding.
According to the National Institute for Learning Development (NILD), frustration is a common emotional response among individuals with learning disabilities (nild.org/learning-disabilities). This often stems from a keen awareness of the contrast between their areas of strength and the tasks they find exceptionally difficult. Despite strong abilities in certain subjects or creative pursuits, they may struggle with foundational skills, which can lead to discouragement, reduced confidence, or anxiety in both academic and professional settings.
Recognizing this internal tension is key to creating a supportive work environment—one that values individual potential, embraces diverse learning styles, and provides resources that empower all team members to succeed.
Causes of Learning Disabilities
Learning disabilities arise from differences in the brain’s neurological functioning, which affect how individuals process information, learn new skills, and retain knowledge (verywellmind.com/learning-disabilities). These differences may originate before birth, during delivery, or in early childhood. Common contributing factors include:
Maternal illness or complications during pregnancy
Oxygen deprivation during birth
Genetic predispositions linked to learning disabilities
Early childhood injuries or illnesses, such as meningitis
Certain developmental conditions like cerebral palsy and Down syndrome, which may be associated with learning impairments
It’s important to distinguish learning disabilities from learning challenges caused by other factors. These may include:
Sensory impairments (e.g., vision, hearing, or motor difficulties)
Intellectual disabilities
Emotional or behavioral disturbances
Socioeconomic, cultural, or environmental disadvantages
Accurate identification and differentiation are critical to ensuring individuals receive the appropriate support, accommodations, and interventions that align with their specific needs.
Diagnosing Learning Disabilities
The diagnosis of learning disabilities is typically carried out by qualified healthcare or educational professionals through a comprehensive evaluation process (healthline.com/health/testing-for-learning-disability). This process often includes:
Academic Assessment: Standardized tests measure key skills in reading, writing, and mathematics, along with intelligence quotient (IQ) testing to identify potential learning gaps relative to cognitive ability.
Performance Review: A detailed analysis of the individual’s academic, professional, social, and developmental history helps build a full understanding of functional strengths and challenges.
Medical and Family History: Evaluators may gather information about health history to identify possible genetic, developmental, or environmental influences.
Physical and Neurological Examination: These exams help rule out or identify other conditions—such as neurological disorders or developmental delays—that may impact learning.
Every learning disability presents differently and each individual’s experience is unique. Some may have a single, clearly defined difficulty, while others experience overlapping challenges that can affect multiple areas of functioning.
Most learning disabilities emerge during early childhood and are often diagnosed during the school years. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, during the 2022–2023 academic year, specific learning disabilities accounted for 32% of all disability classifications under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (nces.ed.gov).
However, some individuals are not formally diagnosed until adulthood—often during college or upon entering the workforce. Others may go undiagnosed entirely, navigating life with persistent academic, occupational, or social difficulties without understanding the root cause.
Recognizing these conditions early and accurately is critical to creating effective support systems, both in academic and professional environments.
Treating Learning Disabilities
Learning disabilities are lifelong neurological conditions, not curable disorders (Learning Disabilities: Types, Causes, Symptoms, and Treatment). However, with timely identification, targeted intervention, and the right support systems, individuals with learning disabilities can succeed and thrive in academic, professional, and community environments.
Effective management strategies may include specialized instruction, assistive technologies, workplace accommodations, and coaching focused on individual strengths. When organizations foster inclusive practices and provide ongoing resources, employees with learning disabilities are better equipped to reach their full potential and contribute meaningfully.
Treatment Approaches for Learning Disabilities
Although learning disabilities are lifelong conditions, a range of support strategies and interventions can help individuals manage challenges and succeed across academic, professional, and social environments. Common treatment approaches include:
Specialized Instruction: Trained educators and specialists work with individuals—especially during school years—to evaluate learning profiles, build on strengths, and develop personalized strategies that address specific challenges.
Medication: In some cases, medication may be prescribed to support concentration, reduce hyperactivity, or manage co-occurring conditions such as ADHD, which can impact learning.
Therapy and Counseling: Psychotherapy or cognitive-behavioral therapy can assist individuals in managing emotional stress, building self-esteem, and developing effective coping skills.
Targeted Interventions: Speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, or academic coaching may be introduced to address specific skill deficits or developmental needs.
Support Networks: Peer groups and community-based support, whether for individuals or families, can provide encouragement, share strategies, and reduce the sense of isolation often associated with learning challenges.
When paired with workplace accommodations and inclusive practices, these treatments can significantly enhance confidence, engagement, and long-term success.
Every individual brings a unique set of strengths and challenges to the table. While certain tasks may come easily to some, others may require different approaches or support. Individuals with learning disabilities may face specific difficulties related to processing or acquiring information, but these challenges do not reflect a lack of intelligence or potential.
With access to appropriate support, such as specialized instruction, tailored treatment plans, and a compassionate, understanding environment, individuals with learning disabilities can thrive both personally and professionally. A workplace culture grounded in empathy, patience, and inclusion ensures that every team member has the opportunity to succeed and contribute their full potential.
References
Auditory processing disorder. Raising Children Network. (2025), June 28).
Dyscalculia: What It Is, Causes, Symptoms & Treatment. (2025, June 28).
Dysgraphia – https://wellwisp.com/what-does-dysgraphia-mean/. (2025, June 28).
How Learning Disabilities Affect Emotional Health – Hays Behavioral Health. Raising
Children Network. (2025, June 28).
https://nild.org/learning-disabilities. (2025, July 15).
https://www.healthline.com/health/testing-for-learning-disability. Raising Children Network.
(2025, July 15).
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/dyslexia/symptoms-causes/syc-2035355.
https://www.verywellmind.com/learning-disabilities-types-causes-symptoms-and-treatment-
638623#:text=TrendingVideos. Raising Children Network. (2025, July 15).
nces.ed.gov. Raising Children Network. (2025, July 15).
Nonverbal Learning Disorder. Psychology Today. Raising Children Network. (2025, July 15).
Visual Perceptual Motor Deficit – Integrated Learning Academy Boulder CO. Raising Children
Network. (2025, July 15).
What Is Language Processing Disorder? The Complete Guide – LDRFA. Raising Children Network. (2025, July 15).
Partnering for Student Success: How Special Educators Can Collaborate Effectively with Administrators
By Maria B. Peterson-Ahmad, PhD and Randa G. Keeley, PhD
In today’s schools, collaboration between special educators and administrators isn’t just helpful, it’s essential. Whether you’re a new teacher navigating your first IEP meetings or a veteran advocating for program improvements, strong partnerships with school leaders can make the difference between feeling isolated and feeling supported. When teachers and administrators work together, students with disabilities benefit from more consistent, inclusive, and high-quality instruction. This article offers practical strategies for special educators to build productive, trust-based relationships with administrators. Grounded in research on inclusive leadership, effective communication, and evidence-based practice, these ideas can help you strengthen your professional voice, advocate for your students, and collaborate more confidently with your leadership team.
1. Building a Partnership Mindset
The foundation of effective collaboration with administrators starts with perspective. While it can be easy to view administrators as decision-makers “above” the classroom, the most successful partnerships recognize that both roles share the same goal: student success.
Adopt a shared-leadership approach. Administrators rely on special educators to provide expertise about students with disabilities, IEP implementation, and inclusive practices. Rather than waiting for direction, bring that expertise to the table. Initiate conversations about what’s working in your classroom, share student progress data, and identify where support or resources could make a difference.
Communicate with clarity and context. Administrators often balance competing demands such as compliance, scheduling, staffing, and instructional quality. When bringing up an issue, frame it with context, as this approach shows initiative and partnership rather than problem dumping:
“Our students are making progress in reading with the new intervention, but small-group time has been challenging to schedule. Could we explore ways to adjust the master schedule to make that work?”
Build mutual trust through transparency. Share your instructional goals, the strategies you’re using, and what you need to make them effective. Administrators are more likely to advocate for you when they understand the “why” behind your requests.
2. Collaborating for Classroom and Program Support
Special education teachers often juggle instructional responsibilities, compliance paperwork, and cross-department collaboration. Working with your administrator proactively can reduce that load and create systemic improvements that benefit everyone.
Start with shared priorities. Align your conversations with the school’s or district’s goals, for example, literacy growth, attendance improvement, or behavior support. When administrators see how special education initiatives contribute to broader school objectives, they are more likely to prioritize them.
Use data as a conversation tool. Administrators respond well to concrete evidence. Bring progress monitoring data, examples of student work, or summaries of IEP goal attainment to illustrate the impact of your work. Data shifts the conversation from personal advocacy (“I need more support”) to student-centered collaboration (“Our students could make even greater progress if…”).
Seek clarity and solutions collaboratively. When challenges arise, such as unclear service minutes, limited paraprofessional support, or scheduling barriers, invite administrators into the problem-solving process:
“Can we look at options together to make sure service minutes are delivered without disrupting core instruction?”
This approach emphasizes teamwork, not tension.
Stay visible and involved. Volunteer for leadership teams, serve on MTSS or campus improvement committees, or invite your administrator to observe a co-taught lesson. Visibility builds credibility and reinforces your role as an instructional leader.
3. Strengthening Practice Together: Using EBPs and HLPs
Administrators may not always have deep expertise in special education, but most want to learn how to support it better. You can be the bridge by sharing evidence-based practices (EBPs) and high-leverage practices (HLPs) that benefit all learners.
Use shared language. When discussing instruction, reference practices that administrators already know (such as differentiated instruction or formative assessment) and connect them to special education strategies, including explicit modeling, scaffolding, or frequent feedback.
Model and share success. Invite your administrator to observe EBPs and HLPs in action, such as a co-taught lesson that emphasizes student engagement or a small-group session demonstrating explicit instruction. When administrators observe these strategies firsthand, they’re more likely to invest in professional development or materials that sustain them.
Collaborate on professional learning. Suggest short, joint PD sessions or peer-learning communities focused on topics like progress monitoring, behavior supports, or inclusive lesson design. When you and your administrator learn together, it reinforces a shared commitment to continuous improvement.
4. Putting It into Practice: Strengthening Your Administrator Partnership
Here are a few actions you can take right now to deepen your collaboration with administrators:
- Schedule a short check-in (even 15 minutes) each month to share highlights, concerns, or quick wins from your classroom.
- Use positive data storytelling by pairing progress data with student anecdotes to make outcomes more meaningful.
- Frame advocacy as a partnership. Instead of “I need more support,” try “Here’s what would help our students make the next leap.”
- Invite your administrator to observe a successful lesson or IEP implementation activity. Seeing impact firsthand builds understanding.
- Provide quick summaries or visuals, as administrators appreciate concise updates that clearly connect your work to school goals.
- Keep a shared problem-solving mindset. Approach discussions with solutions and flexibility, rather than just making requests.
Conclusion
When special educators and administrators work as partners, schools become more inclusive, responsive, and supportive for all students. Collaboration isn’t about hierarchy, it’s about shared expertise and mutual learning. By approaching your administrator as a teammate in problem-solving, advocating with data and professionalism, and celebrating joint successes, you not only strengthen your own practice but also help build a culture where every student with a disability can thrive.
Maria Peterson-Ahmad, Ph.D. is the Associate Dean of Research and Innovation and an Associate Professor of Special Education at Texas Woman’s University in Denton, TX. Her research concentration focuses on teacher effectiveness, particularly for general and special education teachers of students with mild/moderate disabilities. She serves on the Executive Committee and the Board of Trustees for the Council for Learning Disabilities. She has also collaborated with the CEEDAR Center to create professional development materials on high leverage practices.
Randa G. Keeley, PhD is an Associate Professor of Special Education at Texas Woman’s University in Denton, TX with a research concentration in classroom interventions that promote inclusive learning environments for students with special educational needs and disabilities. Her research interests include the application of quantitative and qualitative measures to analyze the effects of inclusive practices, culturally responsive teaching, technology, and co-teaching as they relate to the teacher and student.
References
Bettini, E., Jones, N. D., Brownell, M. T., & Conroy, M. A. (2019). Confluence of stressors: Classroom management and special education teacher attrition. Exceptional Children, 85(4), 438–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918821187
Bettini, E., Gilmour, A. F., & Mason-Williams, L. (2020). Special education teacher shortages: Trends, research, and recommendations. Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 665–697. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320938128
Billingsley, B., McLeskey, J., & Crockett, J. B. (2017). Principal leadership: Moving toward inclusive and high-achieving schools for students with disabilities (Document No. IC-8). University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform Center. http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/
Luther, V.L. & Peterson-Ahmad, M.B. (2022). The need for multidimensional and longitudinal educator training. In. M. B. Peterson-Ahmad & V. Luther (Eds.) Collaborative Approaches to Recruiting, Preparing, and Retaining Teachers for the Field. IGI Global Publishing.
McCray, E., Kamman, M., Brownell, M., & Robinson, S. (2017). High-leverage practices and evidence-based practices: A promising pair. CEEDAR Center.
McLeskey, J. & Brownell, M. (2015). High-leverage practices and teacher preparation in special education (Document No. PR-1). http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/best- practice-review/
McLeskey, J., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M., Maheady, L., & Lewis, T. (2019). What are high-leverage practices for special education teachers and why are they so important? Remedial and Special Education, 40(6), 331-337. doi: 10.1177/0741932418773477
Pierce, S., Boren, M., Nadzam, J., (Eds.). (2025). New Teacher Pathways and Retention: Insights from Southern States. Southern Regional Education Board and the Tennessee Education Research Alliance at Vanderbilt University. https://www.sreb.org/publication/new-teacher-pathway
Latest Employment Opportunities Posted on NASET
Accessible Education Teacher @ Salem Academy Charter School (Salem, MA)
Acknowledgements
PPortions of this or previous month’s NASET’s Special Educator e-Journal were excerpted from:
- Center for Parent Information and Resources
- Committee on Education and the Workforce
- FirstGov.gov-The Official U.S. Government Web Portal
- Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals (JAASEP)
- National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth
- National Institute of Health
- National Organization on Disability
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
- U.S. Department of Education
- U.S. Department of Education-The Achiever
- U.S. Department of Education-The Education Innovator
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- U.S. Department of Labor
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration
- U.S. Office of Special Education
The National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET) thanks all of the above for the information provided for this or prior editions of the Special Educator e-Journal
Sarah S. Ayala, LSU | Associate Editor, NASET e-Journal
Download a PDF Version of This e-Journal
October 2025 – Special Educator e-Journal
Download a PDF Version of This e-Journal
Table of Contents
- Special Education Legal Alert
- Buzz from the Hub
- Update from the U.S. Department of Education
- The Power of Observation: Witnessing Inclusive Practices Drive Academic, Communication, and SEL Growth in Public and Special Schools
- Moving Beyond Learning Styles: Practical UDL Strategies That Work
- Acknowledgements
Buzz from the Hub
https://www.parentcenterhub.org/buzz-september2025/
Transforming Inclusive Education Through Inclusion Indicators
The Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (ECTA) partnered with Think Inclusive and the Maryland Coalition for Inclusive Education (MCIE) to bring a series of episodes on the inclusion of children with disabilities in early childhood settings.
Listen to their latest episode, Transforming Inclusive Education Through Inclusion Indicators, here.
New to Special Education? Start here!
This resource page from PEATC, the Parent Training and Information (PTI) center in Virginia, offers resources and support for families navigating the special education system. It includes guides, templates, fact sheets, and tools to help parents understand evaluations, IEPs, 504 Plans, and their rights under the law. Some of the resources and information are specific to state of Virginia.
Access all the resources here.
For your state specific information, contact the PTI that serves your state. Search for the PTI here.
Thriving Kids Podcast
The Thriving Kids Podcast by the Child Mind Institute and hosted by Dr. Dave Anderson, clinical psychologist and expert in children’s mental health, delivers practical tools, clear answers, and real talk for the toughest parenting questions. Every episode breaks down the challenges of raising kids today-whether its anxiety, behavior struggles, or big emotions—with evidence-based advice and zero judgment.
Listen to their latest podcast episode, How to Support Your Teen Through the Tough Years, here.
In My Shoes – Youth Point of View on Workplace Accommodations
This 2-page handout by PTI Nebraska shares young adults’ perspectives on workplace accommodations and why accommodations matter. It also shares how the young adults used the resources from the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) to help them explore different accommodations.
Supporting vs Enabling: How to tell what’s helping and what’s not when a child has emotional or learning challenges
Good parenting means being supportive without being enabling. But it can often be hard to tell the difference. This is especially true when a child is struggling with a mental health or learning issue. This article, from the Child Mind Institute, helps parents distinguish between supporting and enabling a child with learning or emotional challenges.
Update from the U.S. Department of Education
Birth to Grade 12 Education-Reources
https://www.ed.gov/birth-to-grade-12-education
Available Grants
https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/apply-grant/available-grants
September 30, 2025
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon named Tennessee Representative Mark White as Chair of the National Assessment Governing Board. Secretary McMahon also announced the appointment of two education leaders.
U.S. Department of Education Awards Over $153 Million in American History and Civics Seminars Grants
September 29, 2025
The U.S. Department of Education announced over $153 million in new grant awards through the American History and Civics Seminars Program.
U.S. Department of Education Announces 161 Students to be Honored as 2025 U.S. Presidential Scholars
September 26, 2025
Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon announced the 2025 U.S. Presidential Scholars, recognizing 161 high school seniors for their accomplishments in academics, the arts, and career and technical education fields.
September 25, 2025
Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon announced her sixth and seventh proposed supplemental priorities for the U.S. Department of Education’s discretionary grants: Meaningful Learning as well as Career Pathways and Workforce Readiness.
U.S. Department of Education Announces Release of Record $500 Million for Charter Schools Programs
September 24, 2025
The U.S. Department of Education today announced the release of $500 million to the Charter Schools Programs, marking the largest investment in the program ever.
U.S. Department of Education Announces Earliest FAFSA Form Launch in Program History
September 24, 2025
Today, the U.S. Department of Education announced that the 2026–27 Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) form is online and available, marking the earliest launch in the program’s history.
September 17, 2025
The U.S. Department of Education sent a letter to chief state school officers reminding them that they may apply for authority under the Ed-Flex Act to waive certain federal requirements that apply to districts and schools.
September 17, 2025
The U.S. Department of Education, alongside the America First Policy Institute, Turning Point USA, Hillsdale College, and more than 40 leading national and state-based organizations today announced the launch of the America 250 Civics Coalition.
U.S. Department of Education Releases Secretary McMahon’s Patriotic Education Supplemental Priority
September 17, 2025
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon announced her fifth proposed supplemental priority for the U.S. Department of Education discretionary grants: prioritizing patriotic education.
September 10, 2025
Today, the Department announced that it will end discretionary funding to several Minority-Serving Institutions grant programs that discriminate by conferring government benefits exclusively to institutions that meet racial or ethnic quotas.
Secretary McMahon Statement on New Nation’s Report Card Scores for Grades 8 and 12
September 9, 2025
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon released the following statement in response to the public release of the scores from the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for 8th grade science and 12th grade reading and mathematics.
September 8, 2025
ED and DOL announced they have taken historic steps to integrate the federal government’s workforce portfolio through its innovative partnership announced a few months ago.
September 5, 2025
ED’s Office of Federal Student Aid announced that it is expanding the mission and work of the Office of the Ombudsman to focus on providing information to students and families on the benefits and risks of federal student loan borrowing.
Special Education Legal Alert
By Perry A. Zirkel
© October 2025
This month’s update identifies two recent court decisions that respectively illustrate specialized ADA and IDEA issues. For related publications and special supplements, see perryzirkel.com
| On September 4, 2025, a federal district court in Michigan issued an unofficially published decision in J.A. v. Royal Oak Park School District, addressing various FAPE issues under the IDEA. The child in this case had several diagnoses, including fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), reactive attachment disorder, and sensory dysregulation disorder. During elementary school, he had a series of IEPs. His percentile scores in reading and math were very low, and his challenging behaviors included aggression, eloping, and yelling curse words in class. For 2022–23, the IEP team agreed to a mainstreamed placement at the district’s large middle school, as the least restrictive environment (LRE) before to resorting to the district members’ suggestion of a full-time, center-based special education program. At the annual IEP meeting in April 2023, the team proposed placement at the district’s full-time special education center. Disagreeing, the parents moved the matter to a due process hearing. In September 2023, the administrative law judge (ALJ) issued his decision, ruling in favor of the district for most issues. However, he concluded that the district engaged in predetermination of the child’s placement at the April IEP meeting. As relief, the ALJ ordered a new IEP meeting, including an independent IEP facilitator to assure meaningful parental participation in reaching the placement decision. Consequently, the ALJ found it unnecessary to address whether the center-based placement represented FAPE in the LRE. In October 2023, parties participated in the ALJ-ordered meeting but without agreement and without the district offering any other placement options. The parents unilaterally placed their child in a private placement and appealed the adverse rulings of the ALJ to the federal court. | |
| The parents contended that the IEP failed to appropriately provide for extracurricular activities—here for the weightlifting club, the soccer club, and school dances—and this failure amounted to denial of FAPE. | The court agreed that the IEP should have included provision for extracurricular activities, but this violation was only technical because the district (a) provided an aide, as needed, for the weightlifting club, (b) only denied him further participation in the soccer club when his conduct became dangerous, and (c) did not have the aide available for only one of the school dances, which was too limited for denial of FAPE. |
| The parents also argued that the IEP was insufficient in relation to his sensory issues. | The court deferred to the ALJ’s conclusion that the IEP’s provisions for a 1:1 aide, a multiply revised BIP, and access to the sensory room met the Endrew F. standard. |
| The parents’ various other substantive FAPE claims included insufficient FASD training. | Again, the court concluded that the parents did not meet their burden to show that the ALJ’s conclusion about the reasonable sufficiency of FASD training was wrong. |
| The parents sought the remedy of tuition reimbursement or delegating the placement choice to an independent evaluator. | Although sympathetic to the parents’ plight, the court concluded that the ALJ implicitly rejected the parents’ proposal for delegating the placement decision and, at the time of his decision, lacked the information to apply the standards for tuition reimbursement. |
| This case illustrates the problem of reaching an effective resolution of a thorny situation via the prolonged process of judicial appeal. | |
On September 11, 2025, a federal district court in Pennsylvania issued an unpublished decision in Mobley v. Laboratory Charter School, addressing the issues of FAPE and compensatory education. In late August 2022, upon first enrolling their child in the charter school in grade 3, the parents informed the school of his various diagnoses, including autism, ADHD, post-traumatic stress disorder, and oppositional defiant disorder. The school quickly responded with an individual safety plan for the child. After a month of behavioral issues, including aggression to peers, destruction of property, and eloping from class, the school held an intervention meeting with the parents. In October, the school obtained consent and conducted an initial evaluation under the IDEA. In early December, upon issuance of the evaluation report, the IEP team determined that the child was eligible for special education under the primary classification of emotional disturbance (ED) and secondary classification of other health impairment (OHI). In early January 2023, the school issued the initial draft of the IEP. The parents were dissatisfied with the failure to identify and address autism. Upon their request in February 2023, the school funded an independent educational evaluation (IEE). Completed in June 2023, the IEE identified autism as the primary classification, with ED as secondary and OHI as tertiary. On September 7, 2023, the parents filed for a due process hearing, and the IEP team met and agreed that the child needed a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and behavior intervention plan (BIP). The revisions in the draft IEP, which the parents received in early November, were limited to new academic goals, without revised present education levels and without the FBA-BIP or any change in the behavioral goals and services. During this entire period, the child’s elopements continued. After a prone-restraint incident in February 2024, the parents changed the child’s enrollment to the Philadelphia public schools. In March 2024, the hearing officer issued the decision, ruling that the charter school denied FAPE to the child but limiting the relief to four specified IEEs, including an FBA. Concluding that the parents did not meet their burden of proof, the hearing officer denied their request for compensatory education. Both sides appealed. | |
| The charter school contended that the hearing officer erred in finding various prejudicial (i.e., harmful to the child or parents) procedural violations. | The court identified various procedural violations, including insufficient evaluations and generic draft IEPs not tailored to the child’s behavioral-emotional needs, but found it unnecessary to determine the requisite harm due to independent denial of substantive FAPE. |
| The charter school also argued that the child made appropriate progress based on his report-card grades. | Observing that grades are not alone conclusive, the court ruled that the draft IEPs did not meet the applicable substantive standards in this jurisdiction, including but not limited to the lack of an FBA-BIP and meaningful progress. |
| While admitting that they did not meet their burden for the qualitative approach, the parents argued that the hearing officer erred by not ordering compensatory education. | Because Pennsylvania recognizes both the qualitative (i.e., “but for” the denial of FAPE) and the quantitative (i.e., hour-for-hour or day-for-day) approaches to compensatory education, the court sent the case back to the hearing officer to either reconsider or explain why the quantitative approach is not appropriate in this case. |
| Although its answers are not necessarily generalizable to other jurisdictions, this decision illustrates the not-clearly-settled issues under the IDEA of the boundary between procedural and substantive FAPE, the legal entitlement for FBAs-BIPs, and the applicable approach for calculating compensatory education. | |
The Power of Observation: Witnessing Inclusive Practices Drive Academic, Communication, and SEL Growth in Public and Special Schools
By Dr. Deborah Boldt
Abstract
This study examined inclusion in public and special education schools for ten years, focusing on placement settings such as full inclusion, partial inclusion, full segregation, and pull-out models aligned with individualized goals. Studying how these diverse educational environments influence student growth and support aims to give a nuanced understanding of how learners develop across different service delivery models. By examining educator practices and learner characteristics among these environments, the research identifies critical factors that address academic, communication, behavioral, and social-emotional learning (SEL) needs. The study highlights the critical need for collaborative professional development that unites general and special education teachers around a shared framework for understanding learner diversity. By fostering common ground through inclusive practices, educators can better align instruction to support the academic, behavioral, communication, and social-emotional needs of all students in all settings. This shared approach will result in systematic improvements that promote equitable opportunities, strengthen collaboration, and establish sustainable practices to enhance outcomes for diverse learners.
Keywords: Universal Design for Learning, inclusive education, professional development, cross-collaborative learning, special education, and TEACCH Model.
Introduction
In today’s educational landscape, the role of educators is rapidly expanding to address the complex, multidimensional needs of students. Academic instruction alone is no longer sufficient; educators must also foster students’ communication abilities, guide their behavioral development, and nurture their social and emotional learning (SEL). These areas are interconnected, forming the foundation for a supportive, equitable, and high-impact learning environment (Darling-Hammond et al., 2019).
Social and Emotional Learning is particularly vital, as it equips students with critical life skills such as emotional regulation, relationship building, and responsible decision-making. Evidence suggests that when SEL is embedded in daily instruction, students show improvements not only in behavior and emotional well-being but also in academic achievement (Durlak et al., 2011). At the same time, fostering communication and behavioral growth supports students in becoming more engaged, self-directed learners who can thrive within collaborative, inclusive classrooms (Zins et al., 2004).
To ensure all students succeed, schools must also adopt inclusive educational design approaches such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL), that remove barriers and promote access for every learner. UDL encourages flexible teaching methods, diverse learning materials, and personalized support that meet students where they are (Meyer et al., 2014). When SEL and UDL are integrated into teacher practice, the result is a comprehensive framework that empowers educators to support whole-child development across academic, behavioral, and interpersonal domains.
Equipping educators with the knowledge, tools, and mindset to implement inclusive and responsive practices is essential. Professional development that intentionally brings together special and general education teachers to co-construct approaches to social-emotional learning (SEL), communication, behavior, and inclusive instructional design is not an ancillary effort; it is foundational. This collaborative work fosters a unified educational approach that transforms classrooms into equitable, supportive environments where all learners are empowered to grow and thrive.
Aligning Theory with Inclusive Practice
Inclusive education requires understanding both the environments students learn in and how they develop within those settings. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory highlights how students are influenced by layered systems: family, school, community, and culture, which shape learning and behavior (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory adds that students also learn by observing others, developing self-efficacy, and regulating their actions (Bandura, 1986). Together, these theories explain how inclusive classrooms that offer strong environmental support and positive role models can foster engagement, communication, and responsible decision-making. They provide a strong foundation for creating learning environments where all students, especially those with special needs, can thrive.
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory provides a comprehensive framework for understanding how multiple layers of environmental influence shape student development and academic success. The theory emphasizes that a student’s behavior and learning outcomes are not isolated but rather embedded within interacting systems ranging from immediate settings such as family and school (microsystem), to broader cultural values and policies (macrosystem) (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). This model is particularly relevant to students with special needs, whose educational experiences are profoundly influenced by inclusive classroom practices, school policies, and family support systems. Inclusive environments that value diversity and adapt teaching strategies to meet varied needs enhance the microsystem, ultimately promoting a sense of belonging and academic engagement for all learners.
Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory complements Bronfenbrenner’s model by explaining the internal mechanisms through which students learn and adapt within their environments. Central to this theory are concepts such as observational learning, self-efficacy, and reciprocal determinism, where a student’s behavior, personal beliefs, and environment continuously influence each other (Bandura, 1986). That said, exposure to positive role models, supportive peers, and educators who reinforce adaptive strategies can help students with special needs develop stronger self-regulation, enhance communication skills, and build responsible decision-making. When inclusive classrooms prioritize modeling, scaffolding, and feedback, students with diverse learning profiles gain the tools and confidence needed to participate meaningfully in academic activities.
Inclusion is not only a matter of equity but a catalyst for academic and social development. Research has shown that inclusive settings benefit both students with and without disabilities by fostering empathy, collaboration, and respect for individual differences (Hehir et al., 2016). Through the combined lens of Ecological Systems Theory and Social Cognitive Theory, inclusion becomes a dynamic interplay of environmental support and personal development. Creating environments that support differentiated instruction, accessible materials, and social-emotional learning ensures that all students, especially those with special needs, can thrive academically and socially. These theories underscore the importance of designing systemic supports and intentional teaching practices that affirm every student’s right to learn and participate fully.
Educational Settings Examined
To better understand these variations in practice, this study includes systematic observations of instructional and support strategies across three distinct public and special school settings. Each school represents a different model of delivering services to students with diverse learning needs, ranging from full inclusion to more segregated or pull-out support structures. By focusing on how general and special education teams work within these models, the study seeks to uncover not only observable practices but also the underlying systems, routines, and professional relationships that contribute to inclusive and equitable education. The primary goal is to identify consistent patterns, highlight strengths, and recognize areas for improvement in how educators work together to support the academic, behavioral, communication, and social-emotional development of all students. The following section offers a detailed contextual overview of Schools A, B, and C, describing their organizational structures, inclusion models, and the specific settings in which observational data were collected.
School A. At multiple points of observation, a distinctive pattern emerged, shaped by the school’s composition as a specialized setting serving exclusively special education students. In this context, collaboration was not always imperative, as teachers frequently managed individualized instruction aligned with specific student needs. Although some collaborative efforts occurred, teachers generally worked independently, managing their own classrooms. Lesson design and strategy sharing were seldom collaborative across K–12, reinforcing a pattern in which professional practice remained largely isolated rather than team-based. To address this, staff were provided opportunities for microlearning, with the content determined through data, surveys, and the building leadership team, ensuring professional growth remains responsive to both teacher and student needs.
In School A, observations highlighted how structured approaches shaped instructional practices. Although the TEACCH model, structured routines, and visual aids were consistently implemented, instructional practices remained more individualized than collaborative. The TEACCH (Treatment and Education of Autistic and Communication Handicapped Children) program is a structured teaching approach designed to support individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). A core principle of structured teaching emphasizes the creation of predictable and organized environments that help students understand expectations and routines through visual schedules, clear instructions, and individualized work systems. By tailoring instruction to each student’s needs, TEACCH enhances communication, social skills, and independence, fostering a more inclusive and supportive educational setting. The observation documented how the framework supported the effective integration of accommodations into classroom instruction to address diverse learning needs, including task modifications, enhanced visual supports, and sensory-based strategies. These efforts reflected a strong commitment to supporting student success within a structured teaching environment. However, planning and implementation typically occurred independently, with limited evidence of collective input or coordinated decision-making among staff. Opportunities for shared problem-solving, alignment of instructional strategies, or joint lesson design were seldom observed. As a result, while students benefited from individualized support, the absence of systematic co-planning reduced the potential for a cohesive, team-based approach that could strengthen instructional consistency and integration among classrooms.
Behavior management, however, reflected greater consistency. Staff applied clear, predictable expectations across settings and reinforced positive behavior through verbal praise and visual symbols. This alignment, though, stemmed from individual practices rather than a deliberate, unified system. The adoption of the Zones of Regulation in 2024–2025 introduced a structured method for helping students manage their emotions; however, implementation appeared classroom-specific rather than coordinated through shared planning.
Observations revealed that collaboration among educators often lacked the depth needed to connect academic, behavioral, and communication supports into unified instructional practices. Each year, staff were assigned to collaborate for 36 hours and complete Teacher-to-Teacher reports. While these structures could have supported joint lesson planning, alignment of behavior strategies, data sharing, and modeling of augmentative communication tools across settings, collaboration most often addressed immediate needs. As a result, exchanges functioned as short-term problem solving rather than sustained instructional planning. Monthly team meetings offered another opportunity for collaboration, yet discussions primarily centered on individual student goals and progress monitoring instead of comprehensive lesson development.
Social-emotional learning was reinforced through ongoing professional development sessions that emphasized strategies for building emotional awareness and regulation. Teachers consistently incorporated emotion symbols and zone posters into daily instruction, using them as visual supports to help students identify and manage their feelings. They also modeled appropriate emotional responses during interactions, providing students with real-time examples of self-regulation and empathy. Despite these consistent efforts, the integration of SEL remained primarily confined to individual classrooms, with limited opportunities for cross-collaboration or shared planning among educators. Leadership at School A was supportive and visible, encouraging idea-sharing and allowing teachers flexibility to try new methods. In most cases, however, co-planning or co-teaching did not take place in a structured manner, and instructional efforts were often conducted independently. This lack of collaboration reduced opportunities to align strategies, share expertise, and build cohesive supports that could have enhanced student outcomes.
In sum, School A demonstrated strong, structured teaching practices, consistent behavior supports, and reliable SEL tools. Yet these strengths stemmed more from individual initiatives than coordinated collaboration. In a special school setting, the degree of collaboration often depended on staff culture and the quality of relationships among colleagues. Leadership and the building leadership team provided opportunities for collaboration through professional development and microlearning, but staff involvement remained minimal even when encouraged. The absence of structured co-planning time further contributed to instructional efforts occurring in isolation, weakening the potential for cohesive strategies across classrooms and grade levels. As a result, promising practices often remained fragmented rather than forming a unified, school-wide approach that could better support all learners.
School B. At School B, which served grades K-5, instructional practices were observed to provide evidence for research examining inclusive approaches implemented by general and special education teachers. K-5 planning sessions included both general and special education teachers, allowing level 1 special education teachers to co-teach and co-plan in general education classrooms. Despite this, two extended core teachers were unable to participate in full due to scheduling conflicts and coverage issues. When co-teaching occurred, differentiated instruction was evident, leveraging the expertise of special education teachers; yet, new teachers demonstrated less understanding of effective differentiation compared to veteran colleagues.
The research examined collaborative practices, accommodations, and modifications, emphasizing how inclusion among staff and students enabled general and special education teachers to work together to meet the needs of all learners. Accommodations and modifications were generally present in the general education setting, with special education teachers modeling and guiding implementation. Veteran teachers and those with special education experience were more adept at effectively incorporating accommodations, while general education teachers often relied on the expertise of special education staff. Classroom roles were clearly defined, with general and special education teachers collaboratively determining responsibilities, although staffing shortages and behavioral challenges sometimes limited full participation. By working together, staff built a culture of professional accountability and continuous improvement that extended beyond individual classrooms, contributing to a more cohesive and inclusive learning environment. Shared tools, routines, and visuals were adapted individually by teachers, with veteran staff more consistently utilizing these supports.
In the area of behavioral collaboration, staff held differing views on behavioral data collection and sensitivity to student behavior, often leading to inconsistent practices. Paras, trained by strategists, primarily handled behavioral data collection, and while some staff shared unified approaches and strategies, consensus was generally lacking, resulting in fragmented language and strategies among settings. Communication support practices also varied; augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices were inconsistently used, primarily supported by special education teachers and paras, with general education staff lacking in-depth training. A variety of factors affected collaboration between adults, with four of five staff members able to engage regularly, and one teacher restricted by time constraints. Classrooms were not consistently communication-rich environments, as staff knowledge of AAC was limited, and reliance on paras and strategists remained high.
In terms of social-emotional collaboration, details regarding explicit emotional support practices, adult modeling, and shared social-emotional learning (SEL) tools were less defined, suggesting an area for further development. Individual relationships, shared planning times, and grade-level pairings all played crucial roles in fostering a culture of collaboration within School B. While some teachers and teams set shared goals and utilized common planning structures, others did not engage at the same level. Administrative support was described as fluid and responsive, with leadership available and willing to offer guidance. However, the normalization of inclusive practices varied significantly among staff, largely depending on individual mindsets and comfort levels with inclusion. Overall, these observations highlight the complex dynamics of adult collaboration and system practices at School B, providing critical insights into areas of strength and growth in fostering inclusive and collaborative educational environments.
Training primarily focused on ensuring students’ IEP goals were met, while instruction on enhancing inclusive practices for integrating students with special needs into general education settings remained limited. Additionally, new teachers often had to hit the ground running, entering the classroom without a clear understanding of how special education services function within a public-school setting, which further highlighted the need for targeted professional development. Observations indicated a tendency to focus narrowly on fulfilling IEP minutes, with less emphasis on consistent classroom presence and instructional support. In some cases, special education staff were not readily available during moments when students seemed to need assistance, revealing a disconnect between service delivery and daily classroom engagement.
In summary, School B demonstrated a foundational framework for inclusive instruction, with some structures in place to promote shared teaching practices and student support. While planning opportunities were extended to include both general and special education teachers in grades K-5, challenges such as inconsistent participation from extended core staff and uneven levels of differentiation limited the full impact of these efforts. The presence of accommodations and modifications was acknowledged, yet their consistent and effective use varied based on teacher experience and follow-through. Although roles were more clearly defined than in other settings, instructional responsibilities were occasionally hindered by staffing limitations and behavioral disruptions. Behavioral and communication systems reflected a mix of coordinated and fragmented practices, with paraeducators and strategists often filling gaps left by inconsistent general education engagement. AAC tools and SEL strategies were inconsistently applied, suggesting the need for further integration and training. Leadership was generally accessible and supportive, yet inclusive practices were not uniformly embedded throughout the staff. Overall, School B presented both strengths and limitations in its implementation of inclusive education, offering valuable insights into how systemic support, teacher preparation, and collaborative consistency influence the effectiveness of inclusive learning environments.
School C. At School C, a K-6 setting where special education services were delivered primarily through a resource room model, instructional practices were observed to inform research on inclusive educational approaches. Co-planning was limited to special education staff, with no evidence of co-teaching or collaborative instructional planning between general and special education teachers. Differentiation of instruction was observed exclusively within special education classrooms; general education staff did not provide information on the frequency or application of differentiated strategies. At the start of each school year, general education teachers were given paper copies of students’ IEP goals, accommodations, and modifications, along with testing guidelines. While accommodations and modifications were addressed in greater detail during IEP meetings, there was limited follow-up from general education teachers regarding their implementation or effectiveness. Despite receiving a chart of accommodations, general education teachers did not provide feedback or suggest alternatives during IEP discussions. During the observation, accommodations and modifications were rarely seen in general education classrooms. When fidelity checks were proposed, leadership hesitated, often relying only on verbal affirmation rather than evidence.
In classroom roles, general education teachers did not assign defined roles to special education teachers, and inclusion efforts did not consistently align with students’ IEP goals. When present, special education staff were limited to a supporting role, functioning in a “one teaches, one assist” model rather than full instructional partners. General education teachers were provided with strategies, routines, visuals, and tools by their special education counterparts, yet these supports were not actively used or acknowledged. Receptiveness during collaboration sessions did not translate into observable practice. In one case, a student met a reading goal with the aid of assistive technology or adult prompting; however, inconsistent teacher-student rapport raised concerns about the student’s independent capabilities. Behavioral collaboration showed similar disconnects. Special education teachers managed behavior goals and data collection, frequently compensating for general education staff who failed to submit behavioral rubrics on time. General education teachers expressed verbal concern about future transitions but lacked documented input or early identification of behavioral needs. Joint reinforcement of behavior strategies was not evident, and differences in educational backgrounds appeared to impact consistency. Special education teachers created most behavior plans and shared strategies, but these were not widely adopted in general education settings.
Crisis response efforts further reflected a siloed approach. General education teachers often deferred entirely to special education staff or the principal when de-escalation was required, and paraeducator roles in these moments were unclear or ineffective. Communication supports were also fragmented. AAC devices were used primarily in special education settings, but were not embedded through subjects or consistently used in general education environments. Despite training provided by the Speech and Language Pathologist, there was no evidence of sustained implementation of AAC tools in inclusive classrooms. While special education teachers documented current practices weekly, general education teachers contributed little feedback and did not consistently participate in problem-solving or celebrations of progress. Meetings were scheduled around general education PLCs, limiting special education teachers’ availability due to their instructional obligations. Leadership support for special education teachers’ participation in collaborative time was minimal unless it was directly related to specially designed instruction or compensating for missed sessions.
A communication-rich environment was not evident. In the first year, collaboration occurred once monthly, and general education teachers received IEP progress updates but did not share classroom-based strategies to support students. In the subsequent year, special education teachers-maintained logs of collaboration efforts, but participation from general education teachers remained limited. Documentation showed that unless IEP goals were met, general education teachers rarely initiated communication with special education staff. In terms of social-emotional learning, no evidence was collected on formal emotional support practices. While special education staff provided occasional modeling and support, no common SEL language or tools were observed in various settings. Structural support for collaboration was largely absent. Co-planning and PLC time did not include special education staff, and shared goal setting was not documented. Although special education teachers expressed interest in participating in general collaboration efforts, such as child find meetings, leadership emphasized the need to make up missed instructional time instead. Support from the administration varied during the observation period: communication was generally good, but follow-up on specific issues was inconsistent due to time, even when assistance was available. This inconsistency sometimes left staff uncertain about next steps, limited collaborative problem solving, and reduced the effectiveness of instructional planning and implementation. As a result, practices were occasionally fragmented rather than fully integrated across classrooms and grade levels. Inclusive practices were not normalized across grade levels, and observations throughout the observation did not reflect a school-wide commitment to inclusion.
In conclusion, observations at School C revealed significant gaps in inclusive practices, collaborative planning, and shared instructional responsibility between general and ten special education staff. While special education teachers demonstrated consistent efforts to support students through differentiated instruction, behavioral strategies, and communication tools, these practices were not consistently adopted or reinforced within general education settings. Limited co-planning, minimal use of provided resources, and inconsistent implementation of accommodations and modifications hindered the effectiveness of inclusive education. Furthermore, a lack of structured collaboration time, uneven leadership support, and fragmented communication contributed to a siloed approach rather than a unified system of support. This study highlights the crucial need to strengthen systems, provide professional development, and ensure leadership-driven expectations for inclusion across all educational environments.
Findings
Across the three schools, observations revealed varied levels of collaboration, co-teaching, and inclusive practice, with notable contrasts in how general and special education staff engaged with one another. At School A, while structured teaching, behavior supports, and SEL tools were consistently implemented, they were largely driven by individual educators rather than through coordinated planning or co-teaching efforts. Similarly, School C exhibited a siloed model in which special education teachers were active in differentiated instruction and behavioral support, but their efforts were not meaningfully integrated into general education classrooms. In contrast, School B showed more deliberate efforts to foster inclusive practices through shared planning and clearer role definitions, particularly between general and special education teachers. However, these practices were inconsistent and heavily influenced by teacher experience, scheduling logistics, and the presence of supportive leadership. In all three settings, inclusive tools such as AAC, SEL strategies, and accommodations were present but unevenly implemented, often lacking systemic reinforcement. These findings underscore the importance of structured collaboration time, consistent leadership support, and professional development to bridge the gap between policy and practice in inclusive education.
Themes
Individualized vs. Collective Practice. Across the three schools, the structure of shared responsibility for instruction and support differed considerably, with each site demonstrating varying levels of consistency and coordination. At School A, teachers primarily worked in isolation, with one leading instruction while others provided support without coordinated planning. At School B, co-teaching roles were more clearly defined in K-5 classrooms, but scheduling conflicts and new staff’s limited experience with differentiation weakened consistency. At School C, general education teachers often deferred to special education staff, who assumed most responsibility for instructional support, behavior, and accommodations, reinforcing a “one teaches, one assist” dynamic rather than shared ownership. In reference to observations, Schools A, B, and C indicate that co-planning and co-teaching were generally limited and inconsistent. At School A, teachers were provided opportunities and flexibility in their lesson approaches, which supported individualized instruction and reflected the early stages of implementing the TEACCH approach, with potential for greater collaboration and growth over time. School B demonstrated some co-planning and co-teaching in K-5 classrooms, particularly with special education staff, but participation was inconsistent due to scheduling conflicts, and newer teachers were less adept at differentiation strategies. At School C, co-planning was restricted to special education staff, with no collaboration observed with general education teachers. Opportunities for joint instructional planning varied by each school’s system and level of least restrictive environment (LRE). In the inclusive setting, co-teaching allowed more collaboration, though practices differed across classrooms. The partial inclusion model offered some joint planning, but it was often informal and inconsistent. In the most restrictive setting, where intensive behavioral supports and the TEACCH model guided instruction, planning was structured yet individualized, with little cross-classroom collaboration.
Disconnect in Special and General Education. Observations revealed limited integration between general education and special education staff. At School A, a specialized school serving only students in special education, teachers leveraged their expertise to implement the TEACCH framework effectively while providing structured and individualized instruction. Teachers demonstrated expertise through effective implementation of specialized practices; at the same time, collaborative lesson design and co-teaching were infrequent, suggesting room for growth. At School B, planning sessions did include both groups of teachers, but inconsistent participation by extended core staff and uneven implementation of accommodations highlighted ongoing divides. At School C, the disconnect was more pronounced, with co-planning restricted to special education teachers and minimal uptake of accommodations, behavior strategies, or AAC tools by general education staff. Throughout three schools, accommodations and modifications were unevenly applied, often dependent on individual teacher experience. The teachers in School A incorporated accommodations within their instruction, specially designed instruction and the TEACCH framework, meeting each student’s individual needs, but they largely worked in isolation rather than collaboratively. School B demonstrated accommodations and modifications in general education classrooms, guided by special education staff; however, veteran teachers implemented them more effectively than newer or general education teachers. At School C, accommodations were rarely observed in general education settings, despite documentation and IEP guidance being provided to teachers, with limited follow-up or feedback on effectiveness. This evidence indicates that systemic supports for consistent implementation are lacking, leaving student access to accommodations variable.
Addressing this persistent disconnect between general and special education is essential to ensure consistent implementation of supports, foster cohesive instructional practices, and ultimately promote equitable access to learning opportunities for all students. Incorporating the expertise of special education teachers into collaborative planning and instruction not only strengthens inclusive practices but also enriches the overall educational environment by equipping all staff with specialized strategies that benefit diverse learners (Friend, 2007).
Differences in Data. Data use and accountability varied considerably across the three schools, with some settings demonstrating greater attentiveness to student progress than others, highlighting distinct challenges in the implementation of behavioral and communication supports. At School A, staff-maintained consistency in behavior management, but practices were largely individual-driven, with limited coordination among teachers. SEL strategies, including Zones of Regulation, were applied independently within classrooms, and academic instruction emphasized life skills such as functional literacy, money management, and daily living tasks. These lessons were often delivered in isolation, with minimal integration into broader classroom routines or cross-staff planning. As a result, opportunities to align behavioral supports, social-emotional learning, and academic skill development were limited, reducing the potential for students to generalize skills across settings. Observations highlighted that while individual staff members were attentive to student progress in discrete areas, the lack of coordinated systems prevented a fully cohesive approach to supporting both academic and social-emotional growth. School B exhibited fragmented practices due to disagreements over behavioral data collection, with paraprofessionals and strategists carrying the majority of the documentation responsibilities. Additionally, AAC data and communication supports were inconsistently implemented, particularly in general education classrooms, reflecting a lack of shared understanding and consensus among staff. At School C, special education staff oversaw behavior data and IEP progress monitoring, but general education teachers rarely contributed to rubrics or provided feedback, resulting in minimal collaboration and limited use of shared data to inform instruction. Across all three schools, behavioral and communication supports were applied inconsistently and often depended on individual staff members, highlighting the absence of systematic, coordinated approaches. These observations indicate that without clear protocols, collaborative structures, and shared accountability, data use for behavior and communication support remains fragmented, reducing its effectiveness in guiding instruction and promoting equitable student outcomes. In School C, behavior plans, crisis responses, and AAC use were primarily managed by special education staff, with general education teachers minimally engaged, resulting in siloed support systems. Findings suggest that coordinated approaches to behavior and communication support are limited, and reliance on individual initiative leaves gaps in student support.
Overall, the differences in data use and accountability across the three schools highlight a significant disadvantage for students who rely on consistent and coordinated support. When behavioral and communication data are fragmented or left primarily to special education staff, opportunities for shared problem-solving and aligned instructional responses are diminished. These inconsistencies create gaps in monitoring student progress, weaken the reliability of data-driven decision-making, and reinforce silos between general and special education staff. Research emphasizes that coordinated data systems and shared accountability improve instructional alignment, foster collaboration, and lead to stronger outcomes for students with disabilities (Cook & Odom, 2013; Hattie, 2012; Sailor, 2017). Establishing unified systems for collecting, sharing, and acting on data is therefore essential to strengthen collaboration, ensure accountability, and provide students with more cohesive and equitable support across all environments.
In summary, observations showed that the absence of clear district protocols for assessment, progress monitoring, and documentation frequently undermined fidelity and consistency in data collection. Consequently, teachers often lacked reliable information to guide instruction and, at times, provided responses that generated confusion rather than clarity. Collaborative practices among classroom teachers, special education staff, and administrators were limited, and centralized data systems were inconsistently utilized, resulting in gaps as students transitioned across grades. District-level oversight and review processes were minimal, further reducing consistency and accountability. These observations indicate that, without structured systems and coordinated practices, promising instructional strategies remained isolated rather than integrated, limiting the ability of data to reliably inform instruction, promote equitable learning, and enhance student outcomes at every stage.
Dependence on Individual Educator Initiative Over Systemic Practice: Across the three schools, inclusive practices and student support were largely dependent on individual teacher effort rather than embedded systemic processes. In School A, teachers implemented structured routines, behavior supports, and SEL strategies mostly independently. School B demonstrated that success in co-planning, differentiation, and the use of accommodations was influenced by teacher experience and initiative, with newer staff often relying on the guidance of veteran colleagues. School C showed the heaviest reliance on individual initiative, as special education staff-maintained student support while general education teachers engaged minimally. Collectively, these patterns underscore the critical need for systemic structures, professional development, and leadership-driven expectations to ensure consistent and collaborative implementation of inclusive practices.
Leadership support for inclusive practices varied across the schools, shaping the degree of systemic collaboration. Due to the nature and structure of a special school, School A’s administration encouraged collaboration among teachers, but few structured opportunities were available for joint planning. As a result, teachers often worked independently, limiting collaboration and the sharing of strategies across classrooms. This lack of coordinated planning reduced consistency in instructional practices and constrained the potential benefits of collective expertise, particularly for students with complex learning and behavioral needs. School B reflected responsive and accessible leadership; however, inclusive practices were inconsistently embedded and often depended on individual teacher mindsets. School C exhibited fluctuating leadership support, providing guidance but minimal structured collaboration and follow-through, particularly when inclusion efforts conflicted with instructional time. These observations suggest that although leadership may be supportive, the absence of formal structures and accountability limits the widespread adoption of inclusive practices.
The reliance on individual educator initiative rather than systemic practice presents a clear disadvantage across all three schools. When inclusive practices depend primarily on personal effort, they risk becoming inconsistent, unevenly applied, and unsustainable over time. Such variability not only limits the effectiveness of instructional strategies but also undermines equity for students who may experience different levels of support depending on the teacher. Structured systems, shared accountability, and leadership-driven expectations are essential; in their absence, promising practices remain isolated rather than integrated into a cohesive framework that benefits all learners.
Next Steps
This section conveys the next steps to strengthen instructional coherence and equity, highlighting how schools and districts can provide consistent, high-quality learning experiences for students with diverse needs. Embedding systematic differentiation, professional development, data-driven decision-making, and cross-collaboration allows educators to monitor progress, apply evidence-based practices, and leverage the expertise of special education teachers across settings. These coordinated efforts at the school, district, and state levels create inclusive, high-quality learning environments where all students can achieve academic, social, and functional success.
Strengthen alignment of accommodations, modifications, and instructional strategies across classrooms and districts. Strengthening the alignment of accommodations, modifications, and instructional strategies across classrooms and districts is essential for providing consistent and equitable learning experiences, particularly for students with complex learning and behavioral needs. Research emphasizes that aligning instructional practices with education quality standards enhances student engagement, motivation, and achievement (Meng, 2023). However, inconsistent implementation of accommodations or modifications fragments learning experiences and reduces the effectiveness of interventions, especially for students requiring specialized support. Furthermore, when students transition from one building to another, inconsistent practices disrupt skill development and slow progress. As a result, students may experience gaps in learning, inequitable access to instruction, and diminished academic and social outcomes. In contrast, special schools that target intensive behavior management and implement structured frameworks such as the TEACCH model demonstrate that a coordinated, school-wide approach provides both individualized support and systemic consistency. By implementing clear behavioral expectations, predictable routines, and structured visual supports, teachers create classroom environments that focus on students achieving academic and social growth across all classrooms (Gustafsson et al., 2023). Additionally, TEACCH’s structured teaching components, including visual schedules, work systems, and task organization, meet evidence-based criteria and contribute to a predictable, manageable learning framework (Kliemann, 2014; Reichow et al., 2007). Therefore, schools seeking to improve academic and behavioral outcomes should adopt a unified framework that integrates TEACCH principles with systematic instruction (Collins, 2022) and participate in regular cross-school professional learning communities to ensure fidelity of implementation. Ultimately, leadership must provide coaching and embed these elements systemically to reduce variability in student outcomes and foster a more inclusive, collaborative environment.
Beyond collaboration at the district level, states can further enhance consistency and equity in instruction for students with complex needs by promoting statewide alignment of practices. State education agencies can create professional learning networks, provide shared resources, and implement standardized frameworks for accommodations, behavioral supports, and alternative assessments to ensure schools apply evidence-based practices with fidelity. One example, states can offer unified training modules, coaching support, and accessible data-tracking systems, helping districts maintain continuity as students transition between schools and regions. By taking these steps, states can reduce variability in student outcomes, strengthen cross-district collaboration, and create inclusive learning environments that support all learners and teachers.
In summary, strengthening alignment across accommodations, modifications, and instructional strategies requires moving beyond isolated teacher practices toward intentional, system-wide coherence. When schools and districts embed structured frameworks, provide ongoing professional development, and establish accountability for consistent implementation, they create learning environments where all students, particularly those with complex needs, are supported equitably. In other words, alignment not only minimizes disparities in student outcomes but also bridges the gap between general and special education, ensuring that expertise is shared, practices are predictable, and students experience a cohesive, inclusive path to success.
Systemic Support for Equitable and Inclusive Learning. Ensuring differentiation is applied systematically across classrooms, rather than relying solely on individual teachers, is critical for consistent and equitable learning, particularly for students with diverse needs. Aligning accommodations, modifications, and instructional strategies with education quality standards strengthens student engagement, motivation, and achievement (Meng, 2023). When individual teachers implement differentiation without systemic support, practices become uneven, which fragments learning and reduces the effectiveness of instructional delivery, interventions, and specially designed instruction. Observations revealed that collaborative co-teaching and shared planning help bridge the gap between general and special education; effective co-teaching models improve access to the general curriculum, distribute instructional responsibility, and foster shared accountability among staff (Murawski & Lochner, 2011; Cook & Odom, 2013). Furthermore, systematic use of behavioral, communication, and academic data allows teams to monitor progress, adjust instruction, and maintain consistency (Brendle, Lock, & Piazza, 2017). By embedding differentiation, collaboration, and data-driven decision making into a cohesive framework, schools can support individualized student needs, reduce disconnects between special and general education, and promote equitable outcomes.
When differentiation is implemented consistently across grade levels and within a district, students gain more equitable access to instruction and smoother transitions between classrooms. Consistent application ensures that accommodations, modifications, and instructional strategies are embedded within a unified framework rather than dependent on the individual teacher. Systemic differentiation reduces variability in learning supports, increases engagement, and enhances both academic achievement and social development (Meng, 2023). At the district level, aligning differentiation across schools promotes equity by enabling all students, including those with specialized needs, to benefit from research-based practices, regardless of their classroom or grade. Schools that do not utilize the expertise of special education-focused programs miss opportunities to strengthen instruction, implement specialized strategies, and improve student outcomes. Ultimately, district-wide consistency in differentiation supports teacher development and student success, reinforcing inclusive education as a collective responsibility.
Professional development plays a pivotal role in equipping educators with the skills to implement inclusive practices, differentiation, and social-emotional learning (SEL) strategies. Research indicates that targeted training improves teachers’ ability to meet the diverse needs of students (Meng, 2023). Training in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) tools and SEL strategies is important for supporting students with communication challenges and fostering emotional well-being. High-quality professional development provides embedded opportunities for educators to apply these concepts in real classroom settings, ensuring that learning translates into practice.
Professional development should also emphasize the use of a full range of assessments, including traditional, formative, summative, and alternative measures, to evaluate student progress in meaningful ways beyond standard tests. Embedding these assessments allows all staff to see connections across instruction, student learning, and outcomes. Teachers learn to design, implement, and interpret assessments that capture growth in life skills, social-emotional competencies, and functional academics. Integrating alternative assessments within professional development aligns instruction with students’ individualized goals and promotes collaboration between general education teachers and special education teachers, allowing content-specific expertise to be shared across districts. By combining applied learning, alternative assessments, and cross-district collaboration, professional development strengthens educators’ capacity to create inclusive, supportive environments while ensuring continuity of instruction and access to specialized support for all students.
Research indicates that systematically implemented differentiated instruction significantly enhances student learning outcomes (Groenewald, Valle, Viscara, & Abendan, 2024). Observations from Schools A, B, and C revealed that, although accommodations and modifications were often present, their application largely depended on individual teachers rather than a coordinated, school-wide approach. At School A, teachers implemented the TEACCH framework and visual supports effectively, delivering highly individualized instruction to meet student needs; however, lesson planning and delivery occurred largely independently, limiting opportunities for collaboration among staff. School B applied differentiation mainly during co-teaching sessions, and new teachers demonstrated less understanding of these strategies. Evidence that accommodations and modifications were implemented at School C was minimal, reducing confidence that support services were delivered consistently. Although teachers reported implementing these supports, observable evidence did not confirm their use. Groenewald et al. (2024) emphasize that schools benefit from structured professional development, collaborative planning, and consistent monitoring of instructional strategies to maximize engagement, motivation, and achievement.
By embedding differentiated instruction into school-wide practices and fostering cross-collaboration among general and special education teachers, educators ensure students receive equitable and effective learning experiences across all classrooms. Over time, this systemic alignment strengthens instructional quality, supports diverse learning needs, and promotes sustained student growth and improved educational outcomes.
Foster cross-collaboration to integrate support into the general education environment. Cross-collaboration refers to structured, ongoing partnerships between general and special education teachers that involve shared planning, co-teaching, mutual learning, and shared responsibility for student outcomes. Unlike informal consultation, true collaboration means educators co-design instruction, share strategies for assessment and intervention, and jointly monitor student progress. Research consistently demonstrates that these practices benefit both students and teachers. The meta-analysis conducted by Meng (2023) found that students with disabilities who were co-taught frequently outperformed their peers in self-contained classrooms in terms of academic achievement. These findings highlight the benefits of inclusive practices, particularly when general and special education teachers collaborate to provide differentiated support. In spite of this, not all students with special needs can successfully integrate into full inclusion. This recognition reflects the reality that not all schools are able or equipped to deliver the full range of specialized services, and in such cases, placement in a special school may be considered as an alternative. Collaboration in these alternative settings can be especially valuable, as teachers bring expertise in specialized content areas that enrich instruction and better address diverse learning needs. The effectiveness of placement must be considered on a case-by-case basis, considering individual learning needs, social-emotional development, and the level of support available. This study demonstrates that inclusion varies depending on the setting, highlighting that a balanced approach does not follow a one-size-fits-all model. Instead, it considers each student’s unique strengths and challenges within three distinct environments: full inclusion in general education classrooms, hybrid or co-taught models, and specialized or separate placements. Research further indicates that co-teachers often experience increased professional growth and gain new instructional strategies as a direct outcome of working collaboratively (Scruggs et al., 2022).
Valuing the expertise of special education teachers is central to the success of cross-collaboration. Special educators bring specialized skills in differentiated instruction, accommodations, behavior management, and adaptive communication strategies that are essential for meeting the needs of students with diverse learning profiles. To leverage this expertise, districts and general education schools should actively seek partnerships with special schools and provide opportunities for special educators to serve as mentors, trainers, and collaborative partners. Shared professional development sessions, joint lesson planning, and model classrooms are ways in which general and special educators can learn from one another and ensure consistency in instructional quality across settings (Friend, 2007).
At the district level, intentional structures are needed to foster collaboration. This includes scheduling formal co-planning time, creating systems for shared lesson design, and promoting co-teaching models where both teachers assume responsibility for instruction. Research highlights that when special education teachers are given parity in planning, instruction, and assessment, collaboration is more sustainable and effective (Villa et al., 2013). These practices ensure that the knowledge of special educators is not only valued but fully integrated into general education environments.
Despite these benefits, barriers such as limited time for planning, insufficient training in co-teaching models, and a lack of clarity in roles often impede effective collaboration. Studies emphasize that structural support, administrative backing, and ongoing professional learning are critical for overcoming these challenges (Murawski & Lochner, 2011). Building a culture of mutual respect and shared responsibility further strengthens collaboration and maximizes its impact on student outcomes.
In conclusion, cross-collaboration is an evidence-based approach that improves student learning and professional practice. By valuing the expertise of special education teachers and creating opportunities for districts to partner with special schools, educational systems can move beyond isolated practices toward integrated and coordinated instruction. When supported with time, training, and leadership, cross-collaboration fosters equity and ensures that all students, regardless of learning needs, have access to high-quality education in inclusive environments.
Summary
Inclusive education requires more than individual teacher effort; it demands an understanding of how students develop within layered systems and how those systems interact to shape learning outcomes. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (1979) demonstrates that students’ growth is influenced not only by immediate environments such as classrooms and families but also by broader cultural values and policies. Specifically, students with special needs benefit from inclusive classrooms that align school practices, family supports, and district policies, thereby strengthening the microsystem and fostering belonging. Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (1986) highlights how students learn from role models, develop self-efficacy, and regulate their behavior. Intentional modeling, scaffolding, and feedback create conditions for engagement, communication, and responsible decision-making. Observations from this study revealed that some inclusive practices have persisted over time but lack systematic evolution, indicating that deliberate change is needed to ensure consistent progress across classrooms and schools. Findings from the three schools studied show that inconsistencies in collaboration, data use, and aligned supports can either hinder or promote inclusion. Schools that prioritize shared responsibility and structured collaboration between general and special education foster empathy, resilience, and equity for all students (Hehir et al., 2016). Grounded in ecological and social learning perspectives, inclusion becomes a systemic approach, requiring districts, schools, and educators to work collectively so every student can thrive academically and socially.
About the Author
Dr. Deborah Boldt is an Iowa-based researcher with 30+ years of experience in educational leadership, disability, and special education services. To support students with disabilities and promote their mental well-being, Dr. Boldt brings a strong background in autism, evidence-based instructional strategies, individualized supports, and social-emotional learning. She has published prior articles focusing on inclusion, least restrictive environments, and co-creation. Dr. Boldt earned her Ph.D. at Drake University in Des Moines and completed coursework in K-12 Educational Leadership in Cedar Falls, Iowa. Currently, Dr. Boldt is completing preliminary research into neurological disabilities that affect cognitive function and how each neurological disorder, depending on severity, impacts classroom learning. In addition to her research, Dr. Boldt writes educational grants to help schools obtain funding for their most pressing needs.
References
Autism Speaks. (n.d.). TEACCH. Retrieved from https://www.autismspeaks.org/teacch
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
Brendle, J., Lock, R., & Piazza, K. (2017). A study of co-teaching: Identifying effective implementation strategies. International Journal of Special Education, 32(3). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1184155.pdf
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
Collins, B. C. (2022). Systematic instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing.
Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900201.
Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2019). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta‐analysis of school‐based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Friend, M. (2007).The coteachingpartnership.EducationalLeadership. 64(5).48-52.
Groenewald, E. S., Valle, J. C., Viscara, C. P., & Abendan, C. F. K. (2024). Examining the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in enhancing student learning outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Research for Innovation, Sustainability, and Excellence, 1(2), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.56397/RISE.2024.02.03
Gustafsson, L., Johansson, M., & Lindqvist, H. (2023). Implementing the TEACCH model in special education settings: A systematic review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 53(4), 1452–1466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-022-05609-7
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.
Hehir, T., Schifter, L., Grindal, T., Eidelman, H., & Timmons, J. (2016). A summary of the evidence on inclusive education. Abt Associates.
Kliemann, K. (2014). A synthesis of literature examining the structured teaching components of the TEACCH model. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 3(2).
Meng, S. (2023). Aligning instructional practices with education quality standards. Research and Advances in Education, 2(7), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.56397/RAE.2023.07.04
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.
Murawski, W. W., & Lochner, W. W. (2011). Observing co-teaching: What to ask for, look for, and listen for. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216644825
Reichow, B., Volkmar, F., & Cicchetti, D. (2007). (Framework for evidence-based practices in autism).
Sailor, W. (2017). Equity as a basis for inclusive educational systems change. Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, 41(1), 12–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2017.3
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2022). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: Emerging evidence for effective practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 37(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12241
Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. I. (2013). A guide to co-teaching: Practical tips for facilitating student learning (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.
Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (2004). Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? Teachers College Press.
Observation Outline
Purpose:
Collecting data about general education and special education collaboration across settings, emphasizing systems, practices, and adult collaboration, not outcomes.
School
• Date & Time:
• Grade Level(s):
• Setting (Gen ed, resource room, inclusion, self-contained, etc.):
I. Academic Collaboration
• Instructional Planning & Delivery:
– Evidence of co-planning or co-teaching?
– Differentiated instruction?
– Accommodations/modifications in general ed?
• Roles in the Classroom:
– What are the roles of each educator?
– Are both actively engaged?
• Shared Tools & Strategies:
– Use of routines, visuals, or tools?
II. Behavioral Collaboration
• Behavior Expectations & Supports:
– Consistency across staff?
– Joint reinforcement?
• Behavior Management Strategies:
– Unified approach?
– Shared strategies/language?
• Crisis or Behavior Response:
– Coordinated vs. siloed response?
III. Communication Support
• Language and Interaction Practices:
– AAC/tools used?
– Equal support from both teams?
• Collaboration Between Adults:
– Evidence of staff collaboration during support?
• Inclusive Communication Environment:
– Classroom is communication-rich?
IV. Social-Emotional Collaboration
• Emotional Support Practices:
• Adult Modeling & Support:
• Shared SEL Programs or Tools:
– Common SEL language/tools?
V. Collaboration Culture Across Schools
• Structures That Support Collaboration:
– Co-planning/PLC time?
– Shared goal setting?
– Common tools?
• Admin Support and Expectations:
– Leadership visible/supportive?
– Inclusive practices normalized?
Moving Beyond Learning Styles: Practical UDL Strategies That Work
By Melissa Beck Wells, Ed.D., BCASE, BCISE, CRCM
Many teachers who completed their certification years ago were introduced to Howard Gardner’s (1983) Multiple Intelligences framework. Pre-service programs often encouraged future educators to design lessons that aligned with “intelligence types”—bodily-kinesthetic, musical, or interpersonal, for example. This approach helped teachers value diversity, but later research showed that tailoring instruction to a preferred “style” does not improve learning outcomes (Pashler et al., 2009; Willingham et al., 2015).
Today, instead of designing around “types,” we can draw on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and cognitive science to plan strategies that work for all learners. Below are three evidence-based strategies I use in my teaching, research, and faculty development—strategies that any educator can apply right away.
1. Scaffolding for Access and Equity
In practice: Break tasks into smaller steps, model the process with think-alouds, and gradually release responsibility. Provide guided notes, checklists, or sentence starters that fade as students gain independence.
Why it works: In my research on digital accessibility (Wells, 2024b), students reported that scaffolds such as worked examples or structured templates made challenging material manageable. Similarly, students with ADHD benefited from structured steps that reduced cognitive load and improved persistence (Wells, 2024a).
Try this tomorrow: When assigning an essay, provide a guided outline and sample introduction paragraph. As students practice, reduce the scaffolds until they can produce work independently.
2. Retrieval Practice to Strengthen Memory
In practice: Build in frequent, low-stakes opportunities for recall—exit tickets, quick write-and-share exercises, or “teach it back” activities.
Why it works: Cognitive science shows retrieval strengthens long-term retention more than re-reading or highlighting (Roediger & Butler, 2011). In my study on inclusive use of polls (Wells, 2024c), students shared that short retrieval activities made learning active and reduced anxiety because they were low-stakes.
Try this tomorrow: End class with a two-question poll asking students to recall key points. Use the results to clarify misconceptions at the start of the next lesson.
3. Metacognitive Reflection to Build Agency
In practice: After an activity, ask students to reflect: What strategy helped you learn today? What will you try differently next time? Allow them to respond in different formats—written, verbal, or digital.
Why it works: My research on students with anxiety in digital courses (Wells, 2022b) showed that reflection activities increased confidence by helping learners recognize strategies that worked for them. UDL emphasizes multiple means of action and expression, so providing options for reflection supports agency without lowering expectations.
Try this tomorrow: Ask students to write one “learning strategy note” at the end of class, then revisit those notes before the next lesson.
Putting It All Together
Each of these strategies—scaffolding, retrieval practice, and metacognitive reflection—honors student diversity without relying on “styles.” Instead, they strengthen interconnected brain networks and align with UDL’s call for multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression. In my forthcoming Journal of Multidisciplinary Research article (Wells, forthcoming), I extend this approach by showing how UDL principles and cognitive science together can transform both teacher preparation and classroom practice.
Educators who were trained under the MI era had the right instinct: respect learners’ differences. Today, we can update that instinct with approaches that are both inclusive and effective. By embedding scaffolds, encouraging retrieval, and prompting reflection, we design classrooms where every student has the tools to succeed.
References
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003
Wells, M. B. (2022). Student perspectives on the prevalence of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) techniques in virtual higher education formats. Smart Learning Environments, 9(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00197-9
Wells, M. B. (2022b). Strategies to support higher-education students with anxiety in digital formats. Academia Letters, 5973, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL5973
Wells, M. B. (2024a). Supporting higher education students with ADHD through UDL. College Teaching. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2024.2366580
Wells, M. B. (2024b). Utilizing UDL in digital formats to enhance accessibility and student outcomes. Journal Plus Education, 34(1), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.24205/2833-4463.2024.0001
Wells, M. B. (2024c). Supporting higher-education students through polls in inclusive digital formats. Social Education Research. https://doi.org/10.37256/ser.4220244229
Wells, M. B. (2025). Disability services in higher education: Statistical disparities and the role of AI in supporting equity. PLOS ONE, 20(6), e0306398. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306398
Wells, M. B. (Forthcoming, December 2025). [Title TBD]. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research.
Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315589505
Latest Employment Opportunities Posted on NASET
Accessible Education Teacher @ Salem Academy Charter School (Salem, MA)
Acknowledgements
Portions of this or previous month’s NASET’s Special Educator e-Journal were excerpted from:
- Center for Parent Information and Resources
- Committee on Education and the Workforce
- FirstGov.gov-The Official U.S. Government Web Portal
- Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals (JAASEP)
- National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth
- National Institute of Health
- National Organization on Disability
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
- U.S. Department of Education
- U.S. Department of Education-The Achiever
- U.S. Department of Education-The Education Innovator
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- U.S. Department of Labor
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration
- U.S. Office of Special Education
The National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET) thanks all of the above for the information provided for this or prior editions of the Special Educator e-Journal
Sarah S. Ayala, LSU | Associate Editor, NASET e-Journal
Download a PDF Version of This e-Journal
Diagnosis of Students with Disabilities and Disorders Series
Some students with disabilities are faced with additional hurdles in the classroom due to learning disorders, which inhibits their ability to process and retain information. Because numerous mental processes affect a student’s abilities, learning disorders can vary widely as well as the treatment options, and special educators must be equipped to navigate these challenges.
Why Special Education Teachers Need Knowledge of Diagnoses and Treatments
Special education teachers should have knowledge of different diagnoses and treatments of students with disabilities for several key reasons:
- Individualized Instruction: Students with disabilities have unique needs, and understanding their diagnoses helps teachers tailor instruction to meet those needs. Different disabilities, such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, or learning disabilities, affect students in distinct ways, so a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work.
- Effective Classroom Management: Knowledge of various diagnoses equips teachers with strategies for managing behavior and creating an inclusive classroom environment. Understanding a student’s challenges—whether sensory, cognitive, or emotional—helps prevent misinterpretation of behaviors and promotes effective strategies for engagement.
- Collaboration with Other Professionals: Special education teachers often work as part of a team, including speech therapists, psychologists, and counselors. Having an understanding of the diagnoses allows them to effectively collaborate with these professionals, ensuring that all aspects of the student’s development are addressed.
- Fostering Student Growth: Teachers who understand specific diagnoses can implement interventions and support strategies that promote students’ growth, helping them reach their potential. They can also adjust their teaching methods to accommodate different learning styles.
- Building Trust with Families: Parents and caregivers are often experts on their child’s condition. When a teacher has a strong understanding of the student’s disability and treatment, it can help foster a positive relationship with families, leading to better communication and a more supportive educational environment.
- Legal and Ethical Responsibility: Teachers are required to follow laws like the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), which mandates that students with disabilities receive a free, appropriate education. Understanding diagnoses and treatments ensures they can fulfill these legal requirements and advocate for their students’ rights.
- Empathy and Support: Having knowledge of various disabilities helps teachers develop empathy, recognizing the challenges their students face. This understanding also enables them to provide emotional support to students, helping to create a positive, encouraging classroom atmosphere.
In essence, the more informed a special education teacher is about the different diagnoses and treatments, the better equipped they are to provide an environment where students with disabilities can succeed academically, socially, and emotionally.
NASET‘s has now developed two new series, Diagnosis of Students with Disabilities and Disorders and Treatment Options for Students with Disabilities and Disorders. The latest series on Treatment Options provides teachers professionally based treatment options for a variety of disorders and disabilities involved with students with disabilities.
Also, for children already receiving special education services, teachers may be interested in knowing how the specific disorder or disability is treated (**Note: It is very important to remember that any diagnosis or treatment of a disability or disorder must only be done by a trained and qualified professional or a team of professionals.
It is never your role to make a specific diagnosis on any child). Each article in this series describes the treatment options used to treat a disability or disorder.
LATEST ISSUE of NASET’s Diagnosis of Students with Disabilities and Disorders Series
Down Syndrome
Introduction
Down syndrome is a condition in which a person has an extra chromosome. Chromosomes are small “packages” of genes in the body. They determine how a baby’s body forms and functions as it grows during pregnancy and after birth. Typically, a baby is born with 46 chromosomes. Babies with Down syndrome have an extra copy of one of these chromosomes, chromosome 21. A medical term for having an extra copy of a chromosome is ‘trisomy.’ Down syndrome is also referred to as Trisomy 21. This extra copy changes how the baby’s body and brain develop, which can cause both mental and physical challenges for the baby.
Even though people with Down syndrome might act and look similar, each person has different abilities. People with Down syndrome usually have an IQ (a measure of intelligence) in the mildly-to-moderately low range and are slower to speak than other children.
To Access this article – Click Here
PAST ISSUE OF DIAGNOSIS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
…
Diagnosis of Students with Disabilities and Disorders SeriesRead More »
Treatment and Support for IEP Students with Disabilities
Students with disabilities often face added challenges in the classroom, especially when learning disorders affect how they process or retain information. Every diagnosis is different, and because of that, the treatment of disabilities in special education requires teachers to understand a wide range of conditions and strategies.
With the right knowledge, you can better support IEP students, collaborate with other professionals, and create a classroom where learning feels possible for everyone. We have a few pages related to each disorder, and we’ll give more information about each here.
Are Special Education Teachers Required to Treat Disabilities?
Special education teachers aren’t medical professionals, so they’re not required (or even allowed) to diagnose or provide medical treatment for disabilities.
That part is always handled by doctors, psychologists, or other licensed specialists. What teachers are responsible for is supporting students through instruction, accommodations, and classroom strategies outlined in the IEP.
Think of it this way: the treatment plan explains what the student needs, and the teacher focuses on how to make learning accessible. Knowing the basics of treatment helps, but direct medical care is never part of the job.
Treatment Options in Special Education
Teachers aren’t doctors (and shouldn’t try to be), but it’s useful to know what kinds of treatments exist for students with disabilities. That awareness makes it easier to line up your classroom support with what other professionals are doing. In special education, treatment options usually fall into a few main buckets.
First, there are behavioral and academic interventions. These are the day-to-day adjustments you make. For instance, breaking tasks into smaller steps or using visual cues. Sometimes even something as simple as giving extra processing time can completely change how a student engages with a lesson.
Then there’s therapy and related services. You’ll probably work with speech therapists, occupational therapists, or school psychologists at some point. If you know what their role is, you can reinforce those strategies in your own teaching.
Medication is another treatment path, though that’s handled entirely by medical professionals. Your job isn’t to prescribe or suggest, but knowing that a student is on ADHD or anti-anxiety medication can help you understand why their focus or energy levels change throughout the day.
And finally, there’s assistive technology. This part is underrated. A simple text-to-speech tool or an iPad app for organization can open doors for students who otherwise struggle to keep up.
Common Disabilities and Disorders in IEP Students
IEP students represent a wide mix of needs, but some conditions show up more often than others. Autism Spectrum Disorder can affect communication, social skills, or sensory processing. Some kids do well with visual schedules, while others need a quiet space.
ADHD is another common one. Students struggle to sit still or stay focused unless lessons are broken into smaller steps. Dyslexia and other learning disabilities can make reading or math tough, but tools like audiobooks or speech-to-text software help.
Mental health challenges like anxiety and depression also play a role, even if they’re harder to spot. The key is remembering behavior isn’t always “bad”. Unfortunately, it’s often tied to the disability.
Why Treatment Knowledge Matters in Special Education
Special education teachers should have knowledge of different diagnoses and treatments of students with disabilities for several key reasons:
Individualized Instruction
Students with disabilities have unique needs, and understanding their diagnoses helps teachers tailor instruction to meet those needs. Different disabilities, such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, or learning disabilities, affect students in distinct ways, so a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work.
Effective Classroom Management
Knowledge of various diagnoses equips teachers with strategies for managing behavior and creating an inclusive classroom environment. Understanding a student’s challenges, whether sensory, cognitive, or emotional, helps prevent misinterpretation of behaviors and promotes effective strategies for engagement.
Collaboration with Other Professionals
Special education teachers often work as part of a team, including speech therapists, psychologists, and counselors. Having an understanding of the diagnoses allows them to effectively collaborate with these professionals, ensuring that all aspects of the student’s development are addressed.
Fostering Student Growth
Teachers who understand specific diagnoses can implement interventions and support strategies that promote students’ growth, helping them reach their potential. They can also adjust their teaching methods to accommodate different learning styles.
Building Trust with Families
Parents and caregivers are often experts on their child’s condition. When a teacher has a strong understanding of the student’s disability and treatment, it can help foster a positive relationship with families, leading to better communication and a more supportive educational environment.
Legal and Ethical Responsibility
Teachers are required to follow laws like the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), which mandates that students with disabilities receive a free, appropriate education. Understanding diagnoses and treatments ensures they can fulfill these legal requirements and advocate for their students’ rights.
Empathy and Support
Having knowledge of various disabilities helps teachers develop empathy, recognizing the challenges their students face. This understanding also enables them to provide emotional support to students, helping to create a positive, encouraging classroom atmosphere.
In essence, the more informed a special education teacher is about the different diagnoses and treatments, the better equipped they are to provide an environment where students with disabilities can succeed academically, socially, and emotionally.
NASET’s Diagnosis and Treatment Series
NASET has now developed two new series, Diagnosis of Students with Disabilities and Disorders and Treatment Options for Students with Disabilities and Disorders. The latest series on Treatment Options provides teachers professionally based treatment options for a variety of disorders and disabilities involved with students with disabilities.
Further, for children already receiving special education services, teachers may be interested in knowing how the specific disorder or disability is treated (**Note: It is very important to remember that any diagnosis or treatment of a disability or disorder must only be done by a trained and qualified professional or a team of professionals; it is never your role to make a specific diagnosis on any child).
Each article in this series describes the treatment options used to treat a disability or disorder.
LATEST ISSUE of NASET’s Treatment of Disabilities and Disorders for Students Receiving Special Education and Related Services
Treatment of Depression
How is depression treated?
Depression, even the most severe cases, can be treated. The earlier treatment begins, the more effective it is. Depression is usually treated with medication, psychotherapy, or a combination of the two.
Some people may experience treatment-resistant depression, which occurs when a person does not get better after trying at least two antidepressant medications. If treatments like medication and psychotherapy do not reduce depressive symptoms or the need for rapid relief from symptoms is urgent, brain stimulation therapy may be an option to explore.
To Access this article – Click Here
PAST ISSUE OF DIAGNOSIS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
NASET Press Releases
NASET is proud to share the latest news, updates, and insights shaping the world of special education. Explore our featured press coverage and announcements below:
December 2025
November 2025
September 2025
July 2025
September 2020
September 2025 – Special Educator e-Journal
Download a PDF Version of This e-Journal
Table of Contents
● Special Education Legal Alert. By Perry A. Zirkel
● Buzz from the Hub
● Update from the US Department of Education
● Article: Enhancing Equity in Special Education By Dr. Sadia Warsi and Dr. Seema Imam
● Acknowledgements
Buzz from the Hub
https://www.parentcenterhub.org/buzz-august2025/
OSEP Fast Facts: Part B Exiting School
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has released a new OSEP Fast Fact: Students Served under IDEA Part B Exiting School. This is the first OSEP Fast Fact to focus specifically on how students with disabilities, ages 14-21, exit school—through graduation, dropout, reaching maximum age, and other exit reasons. This new OSEP Fast Fact uses data from the IDEA Section 618 Part B Exiting Data Collection to provide a national snapshot of the educational outcomes for students with disabilities as they transition out of school. Students who exited special education via moving and continuing special education or transferring to regular education are not considered in this Fast Fact.
Read the latest Fast Fact here.
An Age-By-Age Guide to Helping Kids Manage Emotions
When we teach kids to identify their emotions, we give them a framework that helps explain how they feel, which makes it easier for them to deal with those emotions in a socially appropriate way. This free printable from Quality Start LA shares simple tips to help young children, from infancy to preschool-age, manage their emotions.
IRIS Modules on FBAs and BIPs
IRIS has released brand-new modules on functional behavioral assessments (FBAs) and Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs)! These new IRIS Modules explore the importance of discovering the reasons that students engage in challenging behavior and outline steps for conducting an FBA and developing a BIP.
Check out the new modules on the IRIS website.
Adulting Shorts: Let’s Talk About Getting Your Teen Ready for a Job
This comic from UMass Chan’s Transitions to Adulthood Center highlights how the
Pre-employment Transition Services (Pre-ETS) help youth with disabilities ages 14–22 explore careers, build job-readiness skills, and prepare for life after school.
Read the comic here. Employment Connections
CPIR’s Employment Connections page guides families and educators through the steps of planning employment for youth with disabilities. It highlights the importance of identifying personal interests, leveraging supports like job coaches, and exploring opportunities for supported employment through networks like Vocational Rehabilitation.
Find all the resources on the Employment Connections page here.
The Power of Validation to Improve Meetings
“Validation doesn’t mean agreement—it means showing that you’re listening and that their experience makes sense from their point of view.” In this short, but insightful resource from CADRE, validation as a strategy to defuse tension and foster respect during emotionally charged conversations is discussed.
Update from the U.S. Department of Education
(https://www.ed.gov/) Birth to Grade 12 Education-Reources
https://www.ed.gov/birth-to-grade-12-education
Available Grants
https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/apply-grant/available-grants
U.S. Department of Education Encourages States to Maximize Opportunity to Improve Academic Achievement
The Department of Education sent a letter to all chief state school officers inviting them to implement existing statutory flexibilities and seek waivers from burdensome statutory and regulatory provisions by using the authority outlined in the ESEA.
U.S. Department of Education Approves Missouri to Pilot Innovative Statewide Assessment Program
Today, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon approved the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education request to pilot an innovative statewide assessment program focused on improving the existing statewide assessments.
Nicholas Kent Sworn in as 15th Under Secretary of Education
Nicholas Kent was sworn in after the United States Senate voted to confirm him as the 15th Under Secretary of Education.
U.S. Department of Education Initiates Title VI Investigation into Baltimore City Public Schools for Alleged Anti-Semitic Harassment
Today, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened an investigation into Baltimore City Public Schools in Baltimore, Maryland (BCPS) for allegedly violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI).
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Directs National Center for Education Statistics to Collect Universities’ Data on Race Discrimination in Admissions
Today, to fulfill President Trump’s memorandum directing the Department to promote transparency in higher education, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon directed NCES to collect universities’ data on race discrimination in admissions.
Secretary McMahon Announces “Returning Education to the States” 50-State Tour
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon today announced the “Returning Education to the States” Tour.
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Joins Florida Education Leaders and Families for FAFSA Testing Event
Yesterday, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon attended a successful 2026-27 Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) beta testing event, marking the earliest successful test launch of the FAFSA form in history.
U.S. Department of Education Launches Investigations into Four Kansas School Districts For Alleged Title IX, FERPA Violations
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights and Student Privacy Policy Office initiated investigations into four Kansas school districts.
U.S. Department of Education Issues Proposed Public Service Program Rules to Protect American Taxpayers
The Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would prevent benefits under the taxpayer-funded Public Service Loan Forgiveness program from being improperly provided to borrowers whose employers are are engaged in illegal activities.
U.S. Department of Education Prohibits Federal Funds from Supporting Political Activism on College Campuses
The U.S. Department of Education rescinded Biden-era guidance that allowed Federal Work Study (FWS) programs to pay students to engage in certain partisan and nonpartisan political activities.
U.S. Department of Education Places Five Northern Virginia School Districts on High-Risk Status and Reimbursement Payment Status for Violating Title IX
The U.S. Department of Education announced it is placing five Northern Virginia School Divisions on high-risk status with the condition that all federal funding flowing to these districts is done by reimbursement only due to their violations of Title IX.
U.S. Department of Education Initiates Title VI Investigation into Haverford College for Allegedly Tolerating Anti-Semitic Harassment
U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights opened a directed investigation into Haverford College (Haverford) for allegedly violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
U.S. Department of Education Issues Equitable Service School Choice Guidance
ED issued a Dear Colleague Letter to State and Local Education Agencies with additional guidance on how they might provide equitable services for students enrolled in private schools in more efficient and effective ways to best meet students’ needs.
U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Finds George Mason University Has Violated Title VI
Today, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced its finding that George Mason University (GMU) violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI).
U.S. Department of Education Initiates Investigation into Burlington Public Schools for Allegedly Violating Parental Rights
The Department’s SPPO initiated an investigation into Burlington Public Schools in Massachusetts for allegedly failing to comply with parents’ requests to opt their children out of a survey that asked students questions about many sensitive topics.
U.S. Department of Education, Federal Partners Issue Guidance to Help Colleges and Universities Mitigate Foreign Threats to Research
Today, the U.S. Department of Education, alongside the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s (ODNI) National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) and other federal partners issued new guidance in its Safeguarding Academia bulletin.
U.S. Secretary of Education Confirms On Time Launch of the 2026–27 FAFSA Form
Yesterday, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon sent a letter to Congress certifying that the 2026–2027 Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) form will be available on time this fall for students and families across the country.
U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Finds Denver Public Schools Violated Title IX
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found that Denver Public Schools violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and its implementing regulations.
Special Education Legal Alert
By Perry A. Zirkel
© September 2025
This month’s update identifies two recent court decisions that respectively illustrate specialized ADA and IDEA issues. For related
publications and special supplements, see perryzirkel.com
| On August 19, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unofficially published decision in D.M. v. Oregon School Activities Association, addressing the disability-discrimination challenge of a high school athlete’s challenge to the state’s interscholastic athletic association eligibility rule. The student in this case, who was starting his senior year, had a 504 plan for diagnoses that included ADHD, oppositional defiance disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. He was on the football team, which served for him as a motivational force for academic and behavioral advancement in school. Having attended a residential program, where he repeated tenth grade and played football, he had used his four years of eligibility upon enrolling in the district and completing his eleventh grade. As a result, he sought a waiver of the association’s “eight-semester rule,” which included an express exemption for students with IEPs (but not for those with 504 plans). The association denied his fifth-year hardship appeal. He quickly filed in federal court for an emergency temporary restraining order under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming that the requested waiver was a reasonable accommodation. The federal judge ruled against him, concluding that he failed to show the requisite likelihood of success on the merits of his claim. Two months later, the judge also denied his motion for a preliminary injunction. Although the football season was over, the student persisted in his lawsuit to seek the remaining potential remedy of money damages. Two years later the same judge issued a summary judgment for the athletic association. Undaunted, the student appealed the court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit. As is customary, a panel of three members of the appellate court made the decision. | |
| First, the legal counsel on behalf of the plaintiff-student argued that the determination whether the requested waiver was a reasonable accommodation (in contrast with a fundamental alteration) requires a fact-specific individualized inquiry, thus reversing the summary judgment and moving to the trial stage. | The majority agreed, concluding that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether in these specific circumstances the requested waiver was a reasonable accommodation and whether his disabilities were the “but-for” cause of his athletic ineligibility status, thus preserving the matter for a trial. The dissent disagreed on the alternative ground of the plaintiff’s failure to show deliberate indifference, which is required for money damages under the ADA. |
| Second, the plaintiff argued for reassignment to a different judge for the sought-for trial. | The three appellate judges unanimously ruled that in the absence here of proof of personal bias, the requested reassignment was not warranted. |
| Unless resulting in a settlement, this case is far from over, with the immediate alternatives being a decision either on reconsideration by the full Ninth Circuit or, more likely, via trial on remand to the lower court. Moreover, the issue more generally is unsettled, with two other circuits previously upholding the eight-semester rule without exemptions and a lower court in the Ninth Circuit establishing this interscholastic athletic association’s exemption for students with IEPs. | |
On April 21, 2025, a federal district court in Tennessee issued an unpublished decision in William A. v. Clarksville/ Montgomery County School District, addressing implementation of the remedy that it ordered in its decision summarized in the June 2024 update. In that earlier decision, the court upheld a hearing officer’s compensatory education award of 888 hours of dyslexia tutoring in the Wilson system, except that it removed the requirement for the tutor to be a “reading interventionist.” Next, the plaintiff-parent filed a motion with the court, seeking to modify the hearing officer’s order by specifically requiring the tutoring to be provided by the Dyslexia Center of Clarksville, which had previously served the student. The court denied the motion, reasoning that it could not conclude “at this stage” that the defendant-district was not capable of providing the specified Wilson-reading remedy. The court added this proviso: “If [the district] does prove to be wholly incapable of providing Wilson Reading and Language System instruction with its own personnel in a timely manner, then it will … have to look to an outside vendor.” The court also clarified that the tutoring should be 5 hourly sessions per week insofar as reasonably possible. The Sixth Circuit affirmed this decision. Next, the parents filed another motion with the lower court, contending that the district had failed to provide the ordered instruction “competently or expeditiously” and seeking an order to either convert the 888 hours into a compensatory education fund or have the defendant-district pay a private tutor directly. | |
| The first reason that the parent gave for their latest request was that the district delayed the start of the instruction until a year after the hearing officer’s order and two months after the court’s affirmance. | Rejecting this basis and avoiding the finger-pointing as to which side was not sufficiently cooperative, the court concluded that “even if that gap caused the [student] harm and violated this Court’s order, the plaintiff has not argued that such harm would be remedied by the specific relief he seeks.” |
| The second reason is that the district’s tutor was merely trained, not certified, in the Wilson system. | In rejection, the court concluded that neither its order nor the hearing officer’s original award required certification, and no new evidence requires it. |
| Third, the parent contended that the district’s tutor failed to follow the Wilson System and otherwise lacks foundational literacy-teaching knowledge. | The court found the third contention insufficient to justify the requested revision, because even if the tutor’s instruction were deficient, “the district could cure this deficiency with a replacement tutor.” |
| The fourth basis was that the student had regressed in his reading skills during the tutoring. | Again, finding the basis insufficient, the court found that evidence showed initial regression but then significant progress during the 133 tutoring hours to date. |
| The final reason was that the tutoring had averaged 6.5 hours per month compared to 5 hours per week. | Without determining who was responsible for this lack of consistency and frequency, the court decided to order 5 hours per week on a set schedule. |
| This latest decision in the case of a student who graduated from high school with a 3.4 GPA and the inability to read illustrates the difficulty of the writing enforceable remedial orders that resolve the matter without becoming the subject of further costly litigation disputes between the parties. Given the congested schedule and generalist nature of federal courts, it also suggests that the state complaint process may have been a more effective alternative to address enforcement issues of the hearing officer’s remedial orders. | |
Enhancing Equity in Special Education: Integrating Cultural Responsiveness Through Universal Design for Learning
Dr. Sadia Warsi
National Louis University
Dr. Seema Imam
National Louis University
This practical guide translates research on integrating culturally responsive pedagogy with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) into actionable strategies for special education professors. Drawing from a course transformation that enhanced graduate students’ awareness of systemic barriers and improved their capacity for equitable practice, this article provides concrete tools including course activities, assignment templates, discussion facilitation strategies, and assessment rubrics. The guide addresses the urgent need for special education teacher preparation programs to address persistent disproportionality while maintaining focus on evidence-based practices. Professors will find immediately implementable resources designed to transform traditional special education coursework into more inclusive and equity-focused learning experiences.
Keywords: teacher preparation, culturally responsive pedagogy, Universal Design for Learning, special education, course design, practical implementation
The persistent overrepresentation of students of color in special education continues to represent one of the most pressing equity issues facing our field today. Black students are 1.4 times more likely to be identified for special education services than their peers and more than twice as likely to be labeled with emotional disturbance or intellectual disability according to recent
federal data (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). Yet despite decades of attention to this issue, the patterns persist, and perhaps more troubling, only 27% of special education teachers report feeling “very well prepared” to serve culturally and linguistically diverse learners with disabilities (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2019). This preparation gap represents both a challenge and an opportunity for those of us working in special education teacher preparation programs. We have the responsibility and the power to prepare educators who not only understand evidence-based practices but also possess the cultural competence and critical consciousness necessary to serve all students equitably. What we’re sharing here comes from our own wrestling with these issues in our online asynchronous graduate course on differentiated instruction and curricular adaptations, where we found ourselves increasingly uncomfortable with the traditional approaches we were teaching while knowing we needed to do something different.
The integration of culturally responsive pedagogy with Universal Design for Learning principles offers what we’ve come to see as a promising framework for addressing these preparation needs while maintaining the scientific rigor that characterizes effective special education practice (Gay, 2018; CAST, 2018). This approach recognizes that effective special education must address both individual learning differences and systemic inequities that disproportionately affect students from marginalized communities (Annamma et al., 2013). What we didn’t anticipate when we began this work was how much it would challenge our own assumptions about teaching and learning, and how much we would need to confront our own biases and limitations as educators. This article emerges from the transformation of our graduate-level special education course over the course of one semester, where we observed changes in students’ awareness of systemic barriers, their comfort in discussing issues of race and equity, and their practical skills in
developing culturally responsive educational programs. We should note that this was not a smooth or linear process, and there were definitely moments when we questioned whether we were doing more harm than good.
The work we’re describing here goes beyond simply adding cultural content to existing courses, though we’ll admit that’s where we started before realizing how inadequate that approach was. As Fritzgerald (2020) reminds us, “antiracism must be active, not passive. Universal Design for Learning has to be intentionally implemented not just intended” (p. 8). It requires a fundamental examination of whose voices are centered in our curriculum, what perspectives are valued in our discussions, and how power operates within the educational systems we are preparing teachers to enter. This integration challenges us to move beyond color-blind approaches that ignore the reality of racial dynamics in education while maintaining the commitment to evidence-based practice that defines our field (DiAngelo, 2018). Most importantly, it requires sustained commitment to our own growth as culturally competent educators who can model the practices we expect from our students. We’re still very much in the process of this growth ourselves, and we’ve learned that admitting what we don’t know has been as important as sharing what we think we’ve figured out.
Theoretical Foundation and Course Design
The integration of UDL and culturally responsive pedagogy creates what we’ve begun to understand as synergies that address both individual learning differences and systemic inequities, though we didn’t see these connections clearly at first (Waitoller & King Thorius, 2016). UDL’s three principles of multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression align naturally with culturally responsive pedagogy’s emphasis on honoring diverse ways of
knowing and being (Meyer et al., 2014; Gay, 2018). When UDL’s focus on removing barriers combines with culturally responsive efforts to challenge systemic inequities, the result is a comprehensive framework that can serve all learners more effectively. However, we’ve learned that successful integration requires careful attention to how these frameworks complement and enhance each other rather than simply coexisting, and this took us longer to understand than we’d like to admit.
Traditional UDL implementation sometimes fails to address systemic inequities or the cultural factors that influence how students engage with learning environments (Kozleski & Waitoller, 2010). Similarly, culturally responsive approaches may lack the systematic framework for accessibility that UDL provides. When thoughtfully integrated, these frameworks address both limitations while maintaining the strengths of each approach (Fritzgerald, 2020), though we found that achieving this integration was messier and more challenging than the literature suggested it would be. The course design framework that emerged from our work follows a four-phase structure that allows students to build competence gradually while maintaining intellectual and emotional safety. We say “emerged” because honestly, we didn’t plan this structure from the beginning. It evolved as we watched students struggle with certain concepts and realized we needed to scaffold the learning more carefully than we originally thought.
The foundation-building phase establishes classroom community and introduces both frameworks side by side, helping students see connections from the beginning rather than treating them as separate concepts. During this phase, we begin the cultural autobiography work that helps students examine their own identities and assumptions while starting the literature component that provides emotional connection to the lived experiences of people with
disabilities. What surprised us was how difficult this phase was for many students, particularly those who had never been asked to examine their own cultural identities or consider how these might influence their professional practice. The critical analysis phase moves students into examining systemic inequities through data analysis, case study review, and discussions about the historical context of special education. This turned out to be the most challenging phase emotionally, as students confronted uncomfortable truths about disproportionality and their own potential complicity in maintaining inequitable systems. We learned that this phase requires especially careful facilitation to help students move through their discomfort toward productive action rather than becoming defensive or overwhelmed, and we’re still working to perfect this balance.
The practical application phase allows students to translate their growing understanding into concrete strategies for their professional practice. During this phase, they redesign existing curricula, develop culturally responsive IEPs, and create assessment alternatives that honor diverse ways of demonstrating competence. The final integration phase synthesizes learning through comprehensive projects and helps students develop action plans for continued growth beyond the course. Looking back, we realize that we were probably too ambitious with what we expected students to accomplish in a single semester, and we’ve been adjusting these expectations as we continue to refine the course.
Course Activities That Transform Understanding
One of the activities we’ve developed involves cultural identity mapping combined with professional reflection, though we should mention that the first time we tried this, it fell completely flat because we hadn’t prepared students adequately for the vulnerability it required.
This work begins with recognizing, as Fritzgerald (2020) notes, that “the teacher cannot be the only expert in the classroom. To deny students their own expert knowledge is to disempower them” (p. 5). Students begin by completing a cultural identity wheel that includes not only race and ethnicity but also language, religion, socioeconomic background, family structure, geographic region, and educational experiences. The reflection process that follows asks them to examine how these factors influenced their own learning experiences and how they might influence their expectations for students and families. This activity requires careful facilitation because it involves personal vulnerability, and we’ve learned that we need to model this vulnerability ourselves if we expect students to engage authentically.
We’ve found that the sharing process is as important as the individual reflection, though getting this right took several attempts and some awkward class sessions where students were clearly uncomfortable. Students work in pairs to share one significant insight from their mapping, then move to small groups to discuss how their cultural backgrounds might influence their professional practice. The whole group debrief focuses specifically on implications for special education, helping students make connections between personal experience and professional responsibility. What emerges from these discussions often surprises students who have never considered how their own cultural lenses influence their work with children and families. We’re consistently amazed by the insights that come from these conversations, even though we sometimes worry that we’re not facilitating them as skillfully as we should be.
The literature component has proven to be an important element of the course, though we initially underestimated how much time and discussion these books would require. We use novels featuring characters with disabilities from diverse backgrounds, with Out of My Mind by
Sharon Draper serving as the primary text. This novel centers on Melody Brooks, an eleven-year-old African American girl with cerebral palsy who cannot speak but possesses
exceptional intelligence. The first-person narration provides direct access to Melody’s thoughts and experiences, challenging common assumptions about intellectual ability and communication while highlighting how educational environments can either support or constrain student potential. What we didn’t expect was how emotionally challenging many students would find these readings, and we’ve had to build in more processing time than we originally planned.
To supplement this literature work, we developed a comprehensive Padlet resource titled “Building Equity in Teacher Preparation Programs” that curates picture books about social justice, childhood trauma, and refugee experiences, providing students with accessible texts that address complex equity issues across diverse populations .
Students often struggle initially with implementing these concepts in practice, particularly in content areas that seem more rigid, and we’ll admit that some of our early attempts to help them with this were less successful than we hoped. One mathematics teacher reflected, “This all sounds great, but putting it into practice seems more than challenging to me right now. Math is very concrete, there is a right answer and a wrong answer. There are also standards that have to be taught and graded along with the curriculum. I am not sure how to implement these strategies in my classroom yet.” However, as the course progresses, students begin to discover practical applications, often in ways that surprise us: “I have had students verbalize how to do a problem (because they had trouble putting it on paper) and they are 100% correct and they get full points of course. That is one way to incorporate these methods. I have also created hands-on labs for the
kids to ‘discover’ a theorem without me teaching it.” These moments of discovery remind us why this work is worth the struggle, even when it doesn’t go as smoothly as we’d like.
The importance of building trust and relationships as foundational to culturally responsive UDL emerges consistently in student reflections, though we’re still learning how to help students understand this in practice rather than just theory. As Fritzgerald (2020) notes, “trust is essential in all learning environments but particularly in urban classrooms. Reducing stress with trust is the foundational building block to a dynamic learning environment” (p. 36). Students begin to understand this principle in practice, with one noting, “I have always felt strongly that building connections with each student is the best way to build trust with them as well. If trust is not present, I don’t believe true learning can happen.” What we’ve learned is that modeling this trust-building in our graduate classroom is essential, and we continue to work on creating the kind of environment we want our students to create for their own students.
The discussions reveal assumptions and biases that students bring to their work, and facilitating these conversations continues to challenge us as instructors. Many students initially focus on Melody’s disability without recognizing how her race and cultural background also influence her educational experiences. Through guided discussion, they begin to see how multiple identity factors interact to shape individual experiences in ways that cannot be understood by examining any single characteristic in isolation. These insights prove helpful for later work on assessment practices and IEP development. As one student reflection noted in our course, “reading Out of My Mind completely changed how I think about non-verbal students. It has made me reconsider how I approach communication in my adaptations and IEPs. I am now much more focused on
finding ways to give these students a voice.” Moments like these make us feel like we’re onto something important, even when we’re not sure we’re doing everything right.
The transformative potential of this integrated approach becomes evident in students’ evolving understanding of their professional identity, though we’ve noticed that this transformation happens at different rates and in different ways for different students. One student wrote, “I used to think teaching was ‘teacher knows best’ and my classroom was structured in a way that was very rigid. I prepared each lesson, presented it, students took notes, completed homework, and repeated it all the next day. Fast forward 16 years, I aim to make my classroom interactive; it is student-centered instead of teacher-directed, at least as often as I can. When I show a student that they can teach me or that they can teach their classmate, it empowers them and makes them want to learn as well as teach others.” This shift from teacher-centered to student-centered approaches reflects the deeper understanding of how UDL and culturally responsive pedagogy can work together to honor student expertise and cultural knowledge. We find ourselves constantly inspired by these reflections, even as we recognize that not all students reach this level of insight, and we’re still trying to figure out how to support those who struggle with these concepts.
Another essential activity involves systematic analysis of disproportionality data combined with case study examination, and we’ll be honest that this is one of the most difficult parts of the course for us to facilitate well. Students begin by exploring local and state data on special education identification patterns by race and ethnicity, noting disparities and discussing potential contributing factors. We then provide carefully selected case studies representing diverse student populations at various stages of the referral and identification process. Working in small groups, students identify potential bias points in assessment and decision-making while considering how
culturally responsive practices might change student outcomes. This assignment often produces emotional responses from students as they confront the reality of systemic inequities in their own professional contexts, and we’re still learning how to support them through these reactions.
White students frequently experience what DiAngelo (2018) describes as “White fragility” when confronting concepts of privilege and systemic racism, while students of color may feel validated in their previous observations but also frustrated about the persistence of these patterns. As one student reflected, “I have been teaching for 20 years, and I thought I knew everything about adapting curriculum for students with disabilities. But this course has opened my eyes to how race intersects with disability in ways I never considered before. It is humbling and motivating at the same time.” We’ve learned to anticipate these reactions and provide structured opportunities for processing emotions while maintaining focus on productive action, though we don’t always get the balance right and sometimes worry that we’re pushing too hard or not hard enough.
The Padlet resource became particularly valuable for helping students understand the intersections between different forms of marginalization. The resource includes teacher candidate reflections on antiracism and Universal Design for Learning, which serve as models for the kind of critical thinking we expect from our students. One reflection featured on the Padlet noted how UDL “supports antiracism because it is student centered and it does not use assignments as oppressive tools that tell students they’re not good enough,” helping our students see concrete connections between the frameworks. The Padlet also addresses structural inequities in early childhood and elementary education, providing data and perspectives that students reference in their own analysis work. The IEP redesign workshop provides hands-on practice in applying integrated frameworks to practical special education tasks, and this has become one of our
favorite activities even though it took several iterations to get it working well. Working with partners, they redesign goals and services to incorporate both frameworks, paying particular attention to how cultural factors might influence goal relevance and measurement strategies. This practice embodies Fritzgerald’s (2020) principle that “we have to make room for learners to struggle and use resources that they know to figure out problems that they don’t know the answer to yet” (p. 19-20), applying this not only to K-12 students but to the adult learners in our teacher preparation programs.
The workshop includes a family perspective component where students role-play IEP meetings, with some taking on family member perspectives based on provided cultural background information. This role-playing consistently produces important insights about power dynamics in IEP meetings and the importance of truly listening to family perspectives rather than simply seeking their agreement with predetermined recommendations. Students often report that this experience fundamentally changes how they approach family engagement in their professional practice, though we’ve also learned that some students find this role-playing uncomfortable and we’re still working on ways to make it more accessible while maintaining its power to generate insight.
Discussion Facilitation Strategies
Facilitating discussions about race, culture, and disability requires skills that many of us in special education were never explicitly taught, and we continue to feel like we’re learning as we go. The concept of “brave spaces” rather than “safe spaces” has proven helpful in framing our approach, though we borrowed this idea from colleagues in other fields who were more experienced with this work than we were. We acknowledge that meaningful learning often
involves discomfort while emphasizing our collective responsibility to support each other through difficult conversations. This framing helps students understand that their discomfort is normal and productive rather than something to be avoided, though we sometimes struggle with knowing when discomfort is productive and when it’s becoming harmful. The asynchronous online format of our course initially concerned us when it came to these discussions, but we found that adding weekly synchronous Zoom sessions specifically for what we called “brave conversations” created the space students needed to process challenging concepts and engage with each other around difficult topics.
We’ve adopted Glenn Singleton’s Courageous Conversations protocol as our primary structure for discussing race and equity (Singleton, 2021), though we had to practice using this approach several times before we felt competent with it. The four agreements include staying engaged morally, emotionally, intellectually, and socially; speaking your truth by sharing authentic thoughts and feelings; experiencing discomfort as a natural part of growth; and expecting and accepting non-closure since some conversations will remain unresolved. This protocol provides safety through structure while encouraging authentic engagement with challenging topics. We’ve found that referring back to these agreements throughout difficult conversations helps keep us grounded, though there have definitely been times when we’ve had to remind ourselves of them as much as our students. The weekly Zoom sessions became crucial spaces where students could practice these brave conversations in real time, building the skills they would need to facilitate similar discussions in their own professional contexts.
Our discussion prompts are carefully scaffolded to build complexity over time, though we learned this through trial and error rather than careful planning initially. During the foundation
phase, we might ask students to describe a time when their cultural background influenced their learning experience and consider how this might inform their approach to teaching students with disabilities. Students also engage with our curated Padlet resource, which includes definitions of equity that emphasize how “equitable outcomes often require differential treatment and resource redistribution so as to achieve a level playing field among all individuals and communities,” helping them understand the theoretical foundations before moving into more challenging applications. In the critical analysis phase, prompts become more challenging: “Given what we know about disproportionality, how might we explain the overrepresentation of Black students in certain disability categories?” By the application phase, students are ready to tackle questions like “How would you explain the importance of culturally responsive IEP development to a colleague who says ‘disability is disability, culture doesn’t matter’?” We’ve learned that rushing this progression or skipping steps usually leads to unproductive conversations or student resistance. The synchronous Zoom sessions proved particularly valuable for these more challenging discussions, as students could read facial expressions and body language that helped them navigate the emotional complexity of these conversations in ways that weren’t possible through discussion boards alone.
Managing resistance requires patience and skill that we’re still developing, and we’ve made mistakes along the way that taught us important lessons. Common sources of resistance include fear of making mistakes or saying something offensive, belief that focusing on culture diminishes focus on disability, discomfort with discussions about privilege and systemic inequity, and concern about “lowering standards” or being “too political.” As Fritzgerald (2020) challenges us to consider, “are you willing to reconsider your own power, privilege, and practice to truly honor the students you serve?” (p. 8). We’ve learned to acknowledge these fears and
concerns without dismissing them, connecting cultural responsiveness to improved student outcomes through research and examples (Ford, 2012; Harry & Klingner, 2014). When resistance becomes more pronounced, we provide opportunities for private reflection and processing while using small group discussions before moving to large group sharing, though we’re still refining our ability to read when students need more support versus when they need gentle challenging. The brave conversations in our weekly Zoom sessions often became the places where the most resistant students began to open up, perhaps because the real-time nature of the discussion allowed for immediate clarification and support that wasn’t possible in asynchronous formats.
When difficult moments arise, and they inevitably do, we address problematic comments directly but respectfully, redirecting toward learning rather than blame (hooks, 1994). We follow up privately with students as needed and use mistakes as learning opportunities for the entire class. We’ve found that our own vulnerability and willingness to share our learning processes helps create an environment where students feel safer taking risks and making mistakes, though we continue to work on the balance between sharing our own experience and centering the learning that needs to happen for students. The online format actually proved beneficial for some of these follow-up conversations, as students who might have been embarrassed to discuss their mistakes in front of the whole class were more willing to engage in private video calls or email exchanges where they could process their learning without the pressure of public scrutiny.
Practical Assignments and Assessment Strategies
Cultural Autobiography and Professional Identity Development
The cultural autobiography and professional reflection assignment serves as the foundation for all other course work, though we underestimated how challenging this would be for some students when we first developed it. Students write a comprehensive reflective essay examining their cultural identity and its influence on their approach to special education. The assignment includes three distinct components, each building on the previous one. The personal reflection section requires students to complete a detailed cultural identity wheel encompassing race, ethnicity, language, religion, socioeconomic background, family structure, geographic region, educational experiences, and ability status. Students then write 3-4 pages analyzing how these intersecting identities shaped their worldview, learning preferences, and educational experiences. This section also asks them to examine significant experiences that influenced their understanding of difference and diversity, including any messages they received about disability, learning, and academic success from family, school, and community contexts.
The professional implications section asks students to connect their cultural identity analysis to their teaching practice in 2-3 pages, examining how their background might influence their expectations for students and families, their communication styles with diverse populations, and their comfort level with various cultural practices and family structures. Students must identify at least three potential biases they bring to their work and explain how these might impact their professional decision-making. This section often produces the most resistance, as many students have never been asked to critically examine their own assumptions or consider how their privilege might influence their work with marginalized communities.
This assignment often produces insights that students report as fundamental to their professional growth, though the quality varies significantly and we’re still working on how to support
struggling students. Many students note that they had never systematically examined their cultural identity or considered its influence on their professional practice (Sleeter, 2017). The action planning component requires students to develop specific strategies for ongoing cultural competence development in a detailed 2-page plan that includes concrete areas for growth, specific approaches for learning about different cultures represented in their school communities, resources for continued learning beyond the course, and accountability measures for ensuring continued progress. Students must identify at least five specific actions they will take in the next year, with timelines and measurable outcomes. We assess this assignment using a detailed rubric that evaluates depth of self-reflection, honest examination of biases, clear connections between personal experience and professional practice, specificity of growth plans, and evidence of genuine commitment to ongoing development. The assignment typically ranges from 7-9 pages total and requires students to cite at least three scholarly sources on cultural competence in special education.
Curricular Transformation Project
The curricular adaptation redesign project asks students to transform an existing curriculum unit using both UDL principles and culturally responsive pedagogy frameworks, and this assignment has evolved significantly since we first developed it. Students begin by selecting a curriculum unit from their current teaching context or student teaching placement, typically representing 2-3 weeks of instruction in any subject area. They conduct a comprehensive analysis using provided frameworks, examining how the current curriculum addresses or fails to address diverse learning needs, whose perspectives are represented or marginalized in the content, what cultural assumptions underlie the instructional approaches, and where barriers exist for students with
disabilities or from non-dominant cultural backgrounds. This analysis, typically 4-5 pages, must be supported by specific examples from the curriculum materials and connections to course readings on cultural responsiveness and UDL.
The redesign process requires students to fundamentally reconceptualize their unit while maintaining academic rigor and ensuring accessibility. Students must demonstrate how they will incorporate diverse perspectives throughout rather than as add-ons, provide multiple options for engagement that connect to various cultural ways of knowing and being, offer representation through multiple formats that accommodate diverse perceptual abilities and languages, and create expression opportunities that honor different cultural communication styles and abilities. The redesigned unit includes daily lesson plans with explicit UDL and cultural responsiveness indicators, modified materials that reflect diverse perspectives, and assessment alternatives that maintain high expectations while providing culturally responsive options. The implementation and reflection component asks students to pilot at least one lesson from their redesigned unit (when possible), gather feedback from students, colleagues, or families, document challenges and successes, and develop strategies for ongoing refinement. Students submit a final portfolio including their original unit analysis, complete redesigned unit with lesson plans and materials, implementation reflection, and a presentation for sharing with peers. We’ve found that providing examples of successful redesigns helps, though we worry sometimes that this constrains student creativity rather than inspiring it. This assignment challenges students to move beyond
surface-level modifications to fundamental reconceptualization of how curriculum can be designed to serve all learners, and many students initially struggle with this level of transformation.
Many students initially struggle with this assignment because it requires them to examine not only what they are teaching but also how they are teaching and whose perspectives are being centered, which can be overwhelming for those new to this work. The work reflects Fritzgerald’s (2020) insight that “UDL helps us create learning environments that not only prepare us for students’ differences but welcomes them” (p. 11).
Culturally Responsive IEP Development Workshop
The culturally responsive IEP development assignment demonstrates students’ ability to integrate both frameworks into one of the most important practical tasks they will perform as special educators, and this has become a signature assignment that we’re particularly proud of even though it took several iterations to get right. Students work with carefully constructed case studies representing diverse cultural backgrounds, disability categories, and age ranges from elementary through transition-age youth. Each case study includes comprehensive information about student demographics, detailed cultural background including family immigration history or community connections, current academic and functional performance data, family perspectives gathered through culturally responsive interviewing techniques, previous educational experiences including any trauma or discrimination, and community resources and cultural assets. We provide 4-5 case studies per semester, allowing students to choose one that challenges them to work outside their comfort zone or cultural familiarity.
The IEP components students develop must demonstrate sophisticated integration of both frameworks. The present levels of performance section must incorporate family perspectives and cultural factors using strength-based language that acknowledges cultural assets, identify how cultural factors may influence current performance without deficit-based assumptions, address
the intersection of disability and cultural identity, and include information about cultural communication styles, learning preferences, and family values. Students must write goals and objectives that address identified needs while building on cultural strengths, incorporate UDL principles in structure and measurement allowing for multiple demonstration methods, include opportunities for cultural expression and connection to community knowledge, specify accommodations that honor cultural communication styles rather than viewing difference as deficit, and ensure that progress monitoring respects cultural ways of demonstrating knowledge. The service specifications require detailed descriptions of special education and related services with explicit cultural considerations, supplementary aids and services using UDL frameworks that accommodate diverse learning and communication styles, assessment accommodations that honor cultural communication patterns and avoid cultural bias, transition services that connect to cultural values and community resources rather than imposing dominant culture expectations, and family engagement strategies that respect cultural hierarchy, communication patterns, and decision-making processes. Students must also develop a cultural responsiveness plan that outlines how they will continue learning about the student’s cultural background, build relationships with cultural community resources, and ensure ongoing family engagement throughout IEP implementation. This assignment challenges students to think beyond traditional special education approaches while maintaining focus on meaningful outcomes, though we’ve learned that some students need more scaffolding than others to be successful with this level of integration. We assess this work using a comprehensive rubric that evaluates cultural responsiveness, UDL implementation, family-centeredness, strength-based language, and practical feasibility.
Collaborative Unit Design Capstone Project
The final integrated unit design project requires students to synthesize their learning by creating comprehensive interdisciplinary units suitable for inclusive classrooms serving students with diverse abilities and cultural backgrounds, and this is where we see the most growth in student thinking though also the most variation in quality. Working in teams of 3-4 students with diverse backgrounds and teaching contexts, students design comprehensive 2-3 week interdisciplinary units that demonstrate seamless integration of UDL and culturally responsive principles across all components. The collaborative nature of this assignment intentionally brings together students from different cultural backgrounds, grade levels, and subject areas to mirror the collaborative work they will need to do in inclusive school settings. Teams must demonstrate shared
decision-making processes that honor different cultural perspectives and teaching philosophies while maintaining academic rigor and accessibility.
The units must connect meaningfully to academic standards while addressing diverse learning needs, demonstrate clear theoretical frameworks explaining the integration of both approaches with explicit citations to course readings, include 10-15 detailed lesson plans showing daily implementation with cultural responsiveness woven throughout content selection, instructional methods, and assessment approaches, and incorporate technology tools and community resources that reflect and support diverse cultural perspectives. Each unit must include a cultural responsiveness map showing how different cultural perspectives are integrated throughout rather than isolated in specific lessons, and a UDL implementation guide demonstrating multiple means of engagement, representation, and action/expression across all lessons. Assessment strategies must align with UDL principles while maintaining cultural responsiveness in design and implementation, providing multiple assessment options that honor different cultural communication styles while including accommodations and modifications that maintain rigor.
Teams must develop both formative and summative assessments that allow students to demonstrate knowledge through various modalities including visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and technology-enhanced methods. The assessment plan must include options for individual, partner, and group demonstrations of learning, with explicit attention to how cultural factors might influence student performance and engagement with different assessment formats.
The culminating requirement involves teams presenting their units to the class in a 20-minute presentation that includes a brief teaching demonstration, explanation of their integration approach, discussion of challenges and solutions, and facilitation of peer feedback. Teams must also submit a detailed implementation guide for other educators, including materials lists, technology requirements, community resource contacts, and troubleshooting suggestions for common challenges. This capstone project synthesizes all course learning while providing practical resources that students can immediately implement in their professional contexts.
Assessment and Evaluation Tools
We’ve developed assessment approaches that measure both individual framework implementation and the quality of integration between UDL and culturally responsive approaches, though we should acknowledge that creating these rubrics was an iterative process and they continue to evolve. Our cultural responsiveness assessment examines how curricula integrate multiple cultural perspectives throughout content, with attention to whether diverse voices are centered rather than marginalized and whether cultural representation goes beyond surface-level examples to meaningful integration. We also assess how curricula build on students’ cultural knowledge and experiences as resources for learning, connecting academic content to community wisdom and practices. The critical consciousness development component
of our rubric evaluates whether curricula encourage students to think critically about social issues, examine multiple perspectives, and consider their role in creating positive change. This criterion has proven essential because it distinguishes between approaches that simply include diverse content and those that actually challenge students to think critically about equity and justice.
UDL Implementation Assessment Rubric
| Criteria | Beginning (1) | Developing (2) | Proficient (3) | Exemplary (4) |
| Multiple Means of Engagement | Limited engagement options with minimal attention to learner variability. Activities lack connection to student interests or cultural backgrounds. | Sometimes provides engagement variety but inconsistently addresses diverse motivational needs. Occasional connections to student interests or cultural backgrounds. | Usually provides multiple engagement options with clear attention to diverse interests and cultural backgrounds. Most activities offer appropriate challenge levels. | Consistently provides varied ways to motivate learners that authentically connect to diverse individual interests and cultural backgrounds. Offers appropriately challenging |
| content that sustains motivation. | ||||
| Multiple Means of Representation | Information presented primarily in single format with minimal accommodatio n for diverse learners. No consideration of cultural ways of knowing. | Some variety in information presentation but inconsistent attention to diverse learning needs. Limited consideration of cultural contexts. | Information presented in multiple formats with attention to diverse learning needs and some cultural considerations. Background knowledge often activated appropriately. | Information consistently presented in multiple formats accommodatin g diverse perceptual abilities, languages, and cultural ways of knowing. Background knowledge explicitly activated and cultural references meaningfully integrated. |
| Multiple Means of Action/Expressio n | Students have minimal options for demonstrating learning, primarily through traditional formats. No accommodatio n for diverse communication styles. | Students have some choice in demonstration methods but options limited. Minimal attention to cultural communication styles or diverse abilities. | Students have several meaningful options for demonstrating learning with attention to cultural and ability differences. Some authentic assessment approaches used. | Students have multiple authentic options for demonstrating knowledge that honor different cultural communication styles and abilities. Assessment is culturally responsive and provides ongoing feedback. |
| Cultural Asset Integration | Curriculum content reflects dominant cultural perspectives only. Student | Occasional acknowledgment of diverse cultural perspectives. Limited efforts | Regular integration of diverse cultural perspectives into curriculum content. Clear | Curriculum consistently builds on students’ cultural knowledge and |
| cultural knowledge viewed as irrelevant or not addressed. | to connect academic content to student cultural experiences. | efforts to build on student cultural knowledge and experiences. | experiences as resources for learning. Academic content authentically connected to community wisdom and practices. | |
| Critical Consciousness Development | Curriculum focuses solely on academic content without addressing social contexts or multiple perspectives. | Limited opportunities for critical thinking about social issues. Minimal attention to multiple perspectives or social justice themes. | Regular opportunities for critical thinking about social issues and examination of multiple perspectives. Some attention to equity and justice themes. | Curriculum consistently encourages students to think critically about social issues, examine multiple perspectives, and consider their role in creating |
| positive change. | ||||
| Accessibility and Inclusion | Learning environment assumes one way of learning and being. Barriers present for students with disabilities or from non-dominant cultural backgrounds. | Some efforts to remove barriers and provide accommodations . Inconsistent attention to diverse learning needs and cultural differences. | Learning environment designed to accommodate diverse learners with appropriate supports and accommodations . Regular attention to accessibility and inclusion. | Learning environment proactively designed for diverse learners from the outset. Barriers systematically identified and removed. Universal accessibility principles embedded throughout. |
Our UDL implementation rubric examines the quality of implementation across all three principles, though we’re still refining the criteria as we learn more about what effective implementation looks like in practice. For engagement, we look for consistent provision of varied ways to motivate learners that connect to individual interests and cultural backgrounds, offer appropriate challenge levels, and sustain motivation throughout learning. The representation criterion examines whether information is presented in multiple formats that
accommodate diverse perceptual abilities, languages, and cultural ways of knowing, with particular attention to how background knowledge is activated and connected. For action and expression, we assess whether students have multiple meaningful options for demonstrating knowledge that honor different cultural communication styles and abilities, with emphasis on authentic and culturally responsive assessment.
The integration and synthesis assessment measures how seamlessly students integrate UDL and culturally responsive principles throughout all aspects of their work, with attention to clear understanding of how the frameworks complement each other rather than treating them as separate requirements. We also assess practical application by examining whether designs are immediately implementable with clear, specific strategies that teachers can adapt for their contexts, showing deep understanding of classroom realities. We continue to learn that assessing this kind of integration is more complex than we initially realized, and we’re working to develop more nuanced ways of recognizing and supporting student growth in this area.
Moving Forward
The work we’ve described in this article represents just the beginning of what is possible when we commit to transforming special education teacher preparation through the integration of culturally responsive pedagogy and UDL, though we want to be clear that this is an ongoing process rather than a finished product. The activities, assignments, assessment strategies, and curated resources like our Padlet on “Building Equity in Teacher Preparation Programs” presented here have been implemented in one context with one group of students, and we believe they can be adapted for various institutional settings and student populations, though we also
recognize that what works in our context may not work in others without significant modification.
The most important insight from our experience is that this work requires sustained commitment to our own growth as culturally competent educators, and we continue to learn just how much we don’t know. We cannot prepare teachers to engage in culturally responsive practice if we are not doing that work ourselves, and this means examining our own biases and assumptions, developing relationships with communities different from our own, and continuously learning about the cultural backgrounds of our students and the families they will serve. We also recognize that individual course transformation, while necessary, is insufficient for addressing the systemic nature of the challenges we face. Teacher preparation programs must commit to integration across courses rather than isolating cultural responsiveness to standalone diversity requirements, and field experience placements must provide opportunities for students to implement these approaches in authentic settings with ongoing support and mentorship.
The responses we’ve encountered, both from students and from institutional systems, remind us that this work involves challenging systems and structures that have operated in particular ways for decades, and change can create discomfort that not everyone is ready to embrace. Our role as teacher educators includes preparing students to navigate various environments while maintaining their commitment to equitable practice, though we’re still learning how to do this effectively ourselves. Perhaps most importantly, we must center the voices and experiences of the communities most affected by special education practices. Our work must be accountable to students with disabilities from diverse backgrounds and their families, not just to academic standards or institutional requirements (Yosso, 2005). This means creating ongoing opportunities
for community input, regularly examining our practices for unintended consequences, and maintaining humility about what we do not know.
As Fritzgerald (2020) reminds us, “when a learning environment is truly antiracist, then all learners will be empowered beyond bias to make decisions about their learning and leading because the environment is welcoming and safe” (p. 5). The changes we’ve observed in our students offer hope for the future of special education, though we recognize that not all students reach the same level of transformation and we continue to struggle with how to support those who find this work more challenging. When teachers leave our programs with both the technical skills and the critical consciousness necessary for equitable practice, they have the potential to disrupt patterns of inequity that have persisted for far too long. As one student reflected, “this course has not just changed how I teach. It has changed how I see the world and my role in it. I understand now that being a special educator means being an advocate for equity and justice, not just providing accommodations.” The tools provided in this article represent one contribution to that larger project, offered with the hope that others will adapt, improve, and extend this work in their own contexts, while recognizing that we all have much more to learn.
About the Authors:
First Author: Dr. Sadia Warsi
Dr. Sadia Warsi is a tenured Associate Professor in the Special Education Program at National Louis University who teaches Special Education courses including SPE 508 Literacy across the Curriculum for Students with Disabilities, SPE 509 Literacy Instruction for Diverse Learners, and SPE 527 Curriculum Adaptations in the Least Restrictive Environment. Her research centers on early childhood development in diverse environments, emergent literacy in multicultural
settings, experiences of children in homeless shelters, and minority parent involvement in special education, with expertise in qualitative methodology. She has a forthcoming book “Beyond labels: Understanding refugee students with disabilities in educational contexts” (2025).
Second Author: Dr. Seema Imam
Dr. Seema Imam is a tenured Professor in the School of Teacher Preparation at National Louis University who teaches in the Elementary, Special Education and Middle level Master of Arts in Teaching Programs. Her teaching focuses on preparing teachers to use educational technology in their practice and preparing teachers to meet the needs of multicultural students focusing on belonging and inclusion. She has developed expertise in teacher preparation through supervision of teacher candidates’ lesson preparation and in curriculum design through her work with Islamic school professionals, having taught an international online course titled “Integrating, Infusing, Initiating: Designing Curriculum for Islamic School” to educators worldwide. Her research and teaching interests center on inclusive teacher preparation that addresses the diverse needs of all students, informed by her extensive background in both traditional public school and Islamic school settings.
References
Annamma, S. A., Connor, D., & Ferri, B. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511
CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. https://udlguidelines.cast.org
DiAngelo, R. (2018). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for white people to talk about racism. Beacon Press.
Draper, S. M. (2010). Out of my mind. Atheneum Books for Young Readers.
Ford, D. Y. (2012). Culturally different students in special education: Looking backward to move forward. Exceptional Children, 78(4), 391-405.
Fritzgerald, A. (2020). Antiracism and universal design for learning: Building expressways to success. CAST Professional Publishing.
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2014). Why are so many minority students in special education?: Understanding race and disability in schools (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.
Hunt, L. M. (2015). Fish in a tree. Nancy Paulsen Books.
Kozleski, E. B., & Waitoller, F. R. (2010). Teacher learning for inclusive education: Understanding teaching as a cultural and political practice. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(7), 655-666.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2019). Forward together: Helping educators unlock the power of students who learn differently. https://www.ncld.org/research/forward-together/
Palacio, R. J. (2012). Wonder. Alfred A. Knopf.
Singleton, G. E. (2021). Courageous conversations about race: A field guide for achieving equity in schools and beyond (3rd ed.). Corwin.
Sleeter, C. E. (2017). Critical race theory and the whiteness of teacher education. Urban Education, 52(2), 155-169.
U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Civil rights data collection. Office for Civil Rights. https://ocrdata.ed.gov/
Waitoller, F. R., & King Thorius, K. A. (2016). Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and universal design for learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for dis/ability.
Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 366-389.
Warsi, S. (2022). Building equity in teacher preparation programs [Online collaborative board]. Padlet.
https://padlet.com/swarsiphd/building-equity-in-teacher-preparation-programs-ze3ikxncqd84miw k
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.
Latest Employment Opportunities Posted on NASET
Accessible Education Teacher @ Salem Academy Charter School (Salem, MA)
Acknowledgements
Portions of this or previous month’s NASET’s Special Educator e-Journal were excerpted from:
- Center for Parent Information and Resources
- Committee on Education and the Workforce
- FirstGov.gov-The Official U.S. Government Web Portal
- Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals (JAASEP)
- National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth
- National Institute of Health
- National Organization on Disability
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
- U.S. Department of Education
- U.S. Department of Education-The Achiever
- U.S. Department of Education-The Education Innovator
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- U.S. Department of Labor
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration
- U.S. Office of Special Education
The National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET) thanks all contributors for their information and support in this and prior editions of the Special Educator e-Journal.
Sarah S. Ayala, LSU | Associate Editor, NASET e-Journal
Download a PDF Version of This e-Journal
Issue #50 – “How To” Series
How To Create Effective Data-Driven IEP Goals
Introduction
Creating meaningful, measurable IEP goals is one of the most important responsibilities of special education professionals. Yet too often, these goals are vague, lack baseline data, or don’t include clear criteria for measurement. This guide provides a step-by-step process for developing legally compliant, educationally relevant, and truly data-driven IEP goals. By following this approach, you’ll write goals that meet federal requirements and, more importantly, create a clear, actionable roadmap for student success.
Understanding the Components of a Well-Written IEP Goal
Every effective IEP goal must include four critical components:
- Baseline Data / Present Level of Performance – Where the student is starting
- Measurable Annual Goal – Where we expect the student to be in one year
- Method of Measurement – How progress will be measured
- Progress Monitoring Schedule – When and how often progress will be assessed
Omitting any of these components makes the goal harder to implement and less likely to meet legal standards.
Step 1: Collecting and Analyzing Baseline Data
Baseline data is the foundation of every strong IEP goal. Without it, meaningful measurement is impossible.
Types of Baseline Data:
- Academic – Use CBMs, assessment scores, work samples, and class data. Examples: reading fluency (WCPM), math computation accuracy.
- Behavioral – Track frequency, duration, intensity, and latency using observation sheets, ABC data, or FBA results.
- Social-Emotional – Gather data via rating scales, checklists, teacher/parent input, and peer observations.
Best Practices:
- Use at least 3 data points over 2 weeks
- Collect data across multiple settings and times
- Use consistent tools and note environmental factors
Step 2: Writing SMART Goals
SMART = Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound.
Examples:
- Specific: “Johnny will read grade-level texts with 95% accuracy” (not “improve reading”).
- Measurable: “80% accuracy on 4 out of 5 weekly assessments.”
- Achievable: Based on student history and current level.
- Relevant: Tied to identified needs and grade-level standards.
- Time-bound: Define achievement within one year, with quarterly benchmarks if needed.
Step 3: Incorporating Conditions and Criteria
Every IEP goal should include:
- Condition: The circumstances under which the skill is performed
(“Given a 3rd-grade passage…”) - Behavior: What the student will do
(“…will identify the main idea…”) - Criteria: What success looks like
(“…with 80% accuracy on 4 of 5 trials.”)
Example:
“Given a 4th-grade informational text, Sarah will identify the main idea and three supporting details with 80% accuracy on 4 out of 5 weekly assessments by the end of the IEP year.”
Step 4: Aligning Goals with State Standards
Federal law requires alignment with grade-level academic standards.
Process:
- Identify the relevant grade-level standard
- Analyze the performance gap
- Scaffold toward the standard
- Document the alignment in the IEP
Example:
“Given a graphic organizer and sentence starters, Michael will write a 3-paragraph opinion essay scoring 3 or higher on the district writing rubric on 3 of 4 quarterly assessments.”
Step 5: Establishing Progress Monitoring Procedures
Regular monitoring enables data-based decisions.
Tools:
- Use tools that directly measure the targeted skill
- Choose efficient, sensitive tools (e.g., 5-minute CBMs)
- Consider feasibility for teachers
Schedule:
- Weekly or bi-weekly for academic goals
- Daily or weekly for behavioral goals
- Assign data collection responsibility
- Set clear decision rules for adjusting instruction
Step 6: Writing Benchmarks and Short-Term Objectives
Not required for all students, but helpful.
- Benchmarks: Divide the annual goal into quarterly milestones
- Short-term objectives: Break complex skills into sequential steps
Example Benchmarks (Goal: 90% accuracy by year’s end):
- Q1: 70%
- Q2: 75%
- Q3: 80%
- Q4: 90%
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
- Vague Language: Replace “improve behavior” with “remain seated for 45 out of 50 minutes.”
- Unrealistic Goals: Use baseline data to determine achievable growth.
- No Baseline Data: “Emily struggles with math” is not a baseline.
- Missing Supports/Conditions: “Marcus will write essays” lacks context; include tools/supports.
- No Generalization Plan: Specify if skill must be shown across settings/people/materials.
Sample Data-Driven IEP Goals
Reading Comprehension
Baseline:
Tommy answers literal questions with 45% and inferential with 20%.
Goal:
“Given 4th-grade texts, Tommy will answer literal and inferential questions with 80% accuracy on 4 of 5 weekly assessments by May 2025.”
Progress Monitoring:
Weekly 5-question probes, alternating text types.
Mathematics Calculation
Baseline:
Aisha solves 2-digit × 1-digit problems with 35% accuracy, 3 minutes/problem.
Goal:
“Given 10 two-digit × two-digit problems, Aisha will solve with 85% accuracy within 15 minutes on 4 of 5 weekly assessments by May 2025.”
Progress Monitoring:
Weekly probes; accuracy and time tracked bi-weekly.
Behavioral
Baseline:
Carlos is on-task 3 minutes before redirection (10 sessions).
Goal:
“During 20-minute independent work periods, Carlos will remain on-task for at least 15 minutes without redirection on 4 of 5 consecutive school days by May 2025.”
Progress Monitoring:
Daily time-sampling, 30-second intervals.
Social Skills
Baseline:
Maya initiates peer interaction 0.5x per 30 mins during unstructured time.
Goal:
“During 30-minute unstructured periods, Maya will initiate/maintain peer interaction at least 3 times per period on 4 of 5 days by May 2025.”
Progress Monitoring:
Twice-weekly structured observations at lunch/recess.
Conclusion
Effective IEP goals don’t just satisfy legal requirements – they drive real, measurable student growth. By collecting strong baseline data, writing SMART goals with clear criteria and conditions, aligning with standards, and setting up ongoing progress monitoring, you can create a strong framework for student success.
Write it right the first time – and you’ll save time, improve services, and most importantly, change outcomes.
To return to the main page for NASET’s “How To” Series – Click Here
Advance Your Career With Applied Behavior Analysis
This content is sponsored by Drexel University.
Discover Drexel’s online Applied Behavior Analysis programs – master’s and certificates. Tailored for busy professionals, including educators and social workers – these programs empower you to help others succeed, while forging new career trails of your own, using well-established, evidence-based ABA principles, practices, and tools.
This program is designed to meet the needs of individuals passionate about providing quality evidence-based services to make a difference in the lives of individuals and their families.
August 2025 – Special Educator e-Journal
Download a PDF Version of This e-Journal
A Word from Our Sponsor
The Tourette Association of America has compiled a comprehensive list of resources to assist educators and school personnel in in developing effective support plans to allow children with TS and other Tic Disorders to thrive, both socially and academically.
Download Free Tourette Syndrome Resources For Your Students Today →
Table of Contents
Special Education Legal Alert. By Perry A. Zirkel
A look into the AI explosion and its Place on the AT Continuum: A Firsthand Account of AI in a Special Education Classroom By Matthew Tucker, EdD
Social Adjustment of Children with Special Needs : Case Studies from Indian Classrooms By Dr.Faiza Altaf & Dr.Nida Shahab
Latest Employment Opportunities Posted on NASET
Acknowledgements
Buzz from the Hub
https://www.parentcenterhub.org/buzz-july2025/
Disability Advocacy Videos for Families
The PACER Center has created a set of short videos in multiple languages that address parent’s common questions and concerns about advocating for their child with a disability at school and beyond. Tip sheets are also available in English and Spanish and can be found in the video’s description.Watch the videos here in English, Spanish, Somali, and other languages.
Support Early Language Development in a Digitally-Saturated World
Does digital media help or hinder language development in infancy and early childhood? How can parents and caregivers know what truly supports early learning? Children and Screens’ newest tip sheet, Early Childhood Language Development in a Digital World provides research-backed insights on the interplay between digital media and early language skills. It also offers actionable tips for parents to maximize the benefits–and avoid the pitfalls–of new technologies. Read the tip sheet here.
Children and Trauma: What Can You Do?
In today’s world, whether it is due to natural disasters, global conflicts, sudden acts of violence, or bullying in school, childhood trauma is a serious and valid concern. This 1-page fact sheet by Formed Families Forward, the CPRC serving foster, kinship, and adoptive families of children and youth with disabilities and other special needs in Northern Virginia, provides information to understand the types of trauma, potential responses to the trauma, and ways to support a child who has experienced trauma. Access the fact sheet here.
Youth Collaboration Toolkit
Developed as a partnership between the National Youth Forum on Homelessness (NYFH) and True Colors United, this toolkit was initiated by NYFH and the content was shaped by their voices. The ideas and concepts included in this toolkit will help ensure that young people are authentically engaged while collaborating with the affirming adults in their lives. Access the toolkit here (available in English and Spanish).
Finding a Fulfilling Employment Match: Tips for Parents Preparing for a Child’s Future
Although, many states have made progress on finding competitive, integrated employment for young adults with disabilities, many still face significant challenges finding jobs that are a good match for their talents, abilities and interests. In this article, Arturo Cazares, gives tips for parents as they plan for their children’s futures. Read the article here.
How to Plan the Best Summer Schedule for Special Needs Kids
Children have now been home for a few weeks and you didn’t plan ahead for these summer months! You realize that not having a schedule and letting the kids sleep in for as long they want is not really working out. Is it too late? No, it is always better late than never and there is still an opportunity to set a schedule that will work for your family. In this article you’ll find helpful tips on how to create a summer schedule.Read the article here.
Special Education Legal Alert
By Perry A. Zirkel
© August 2025
This month’s update identifies two recent court decisions that illustrate the continuing evolution of IDEA claims for FAPE and corollary remedies. For related publications and special supplements, see perryzirkel.com
| On July 21, 2025, a federal district court in New York issued an unpublished decision in Ogunleye v. Banks, addressing various FAPE claims on behalf of a student with multiple disabilities. The student in this case was non-verbal and non-ambulatory based on seizure disorder, cerebral palsy, cortical visual impairment, and other diagnoses. The student attended a specialized private school in 2020–21 and 2021–22 under IEPs that included a small well-staffed class and 60-minute sessions of various related services including music therapy. In March 2022, the New York City school district convened an IEP meeting for 2022–23 that the parents and private school staff attended. The resulting IEP included intensive interventions in a highly structured classroom, a paraprofessional, a 12-month school year, and 60-minute sessions of occupational, physical, and speech/language therapy totaling 19 hours per week. In May, the district sent the parents a prior written notice of the recommended placement in one of its public schools. The parents responded with disagreement for the proposed placement and notification of their unilateral decision to continue the private placement and to seek tuition reimbursement. They filed for a due process hearing. After several sessions, the hearing officer ruled in favor of granting tuition reimbursement. Inasmuch as New York is one of the approximately seven states that provide for a second tier, the district filed an appeal with the state review officer (SRO). The SRO reversed the hearing officer’s decision, concluding that the district’s proposed IEP for 2022–23 provided the student with FAPE. The parents appealed to the federal district. | |
| As a threshold matter, the parents argued that the SRO’s decision was not entitled to judicial deference. | The court disagreed, citing precedents that even when not agreeing with the hearing officer, the SRO decision is entitled to judicial deference when, as in this case, it is well-reasoned, thorough, and well supported by the record of the case. |
| Next, the parents claimed that the assigned school was incapable of implementing the proposed IEP, including the purported impossibility of including all 19 hours of related services in its school week. | The court disagreed, relying on (a) the SRO’s factual findings that credited the testimony of the school’s principal about the feasibility of doing so within the school’s 45-minute periods and 30-hour week and (b) Second Circuit precedent against speculation about capability to implement IEPs. |
| The parents’ second FAPE claim was based on the proposed IEP’s omission of music therapy as compared to its inclusion in the previous, private-school IEPs. | Finding it unnecessary to address whether the student needed this service for appropriate progress, the court relied on (a) the SRO’s finding that the assigned school provided access to music therapy and (b) precedents supporting FAPE irrespective of such preferred services. |
| The parents’ final claim was that the district engaged in predetermination of the IEP. | Again disagreeing, the court concluded that the parents actively and meaningfully participated in the IEP. |
| This case is representative of the trend to date of judicial rulings regarding judicial deference and FAPE claims based on capability to implement the IEP, the substantive standard for appropriateness, and predetermination. Yet, it also illustrates the fuzzy or fluid outer boundaries of deference, speculation, Endrew F.’s substantive standard for FAPE, predetermination, and “placement” in comparison to either the IEP or location. Finally, it reflects the push-and-pull of the tuition reimbursement issue in the nation’s largest school district. | |
A look into the AI explosion and its Place on the AT Continuum: A Firsthand Account of AI in a Special Education Classroom
Matthew Tucker, EdD
School Of Education-Department of Special Education
Manhattanville UniversitySophia Esteves, Master’s Degree Candidate
School of Education
Manhattanville University
Author Note
Dr. Matthew Tucker is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Special Education at Manhattanville University.
Sophia Esteves is a graduate student in the School of Education and served as a classroom-based practitioner and co-author during this review.
Abstract
This paper is grounded in the firsthand experience of a graduate student and practitioner who worked with students with disabilities during the 2024-2025 school year in a special education classroom, servicing students with various learning disabilities. The lead author, in collaboration with the practitioner and graduate student co-author, this paper explores how Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly becoming a bookend of the high-tech component of the Assistive Technology (AT) continuum. The practitioner collaborated with teachers and related service providers to integrate AI tools such as ChatGPT, Magic School AI, Goblin tools, and School AI into instructional activities designed to support students with diverse learning needs. Observations highlight both the benefits, such as increased accessibility, engagement, and self-confidence. Challenges, including concerns regarding academic integrity and the need for clear school policies are discussed as well. Although the use of AI in this setting remains in its early stages, this paper asserts that, when implemented responsibly, AI can serve as a valuable supplement to evidence-based instructional strategies and instruction, creating learning experiences more specific to the needs of students with disabilities. This paper offers a practitioner’s perspective on the evolving role of AI in a special education classroom and it highlights the importance of training, policy development, and ethical guidance in its continued adoption as a part of the AT continuum.
Introduction to Assistive Technology (AT)
AT is “ any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially “off the shelf,” modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of students with a disability (NYSED, 2025).” Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), AT must be considered by multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), to ensure the provision of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). AT exists along a continuum from low-tech to high-tech solutions:
Low-tech tools-may include pencil grips, picture exchange communication systems (PECS), and communication boards.
Mid-tech tools-may involve calculators, audiobooks, and word processors.
High-tech tools-could feature text-to-speech and speech-to-text software, iPads, augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices, and now this paper asserts that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is taking its place as a high tech tool on the AT continuum.
AI as a High-Tech Assistive Technology Tool
AI tools are becoming the bookend of the high-tech AT category. Current research suggests that the integration of AI into assistive technologies is an emerging field with transformative potential (Giansanti & Pirrera, 2025). AI can analyze data and learn from user interactions to create more personalized AT devices for individual users. This personalization can lead to more adaptive and accurate solutions (How AI Is Supporting Assistive Technology, 2024). For students with disabilities, these tools can reduce barriers to access and learning, improving outcomes. Used by the practitioner, examples of practical applications include:
Text Simplification Tools: Platforms like ChatGPT and Magic School AI can adjust reading levels, summarize text, and simplify complex material. For students with dyslexia or reading comprehension challenges, this customization takes just minutes of teacher time but significantly improves accessibility.
Executive Functioning Supports: Tools like Goblin tools help students with executive functioning difficulties by generating step-by-step to-do lists. These tools break down complex tasks and allow students to request more detailed steps as needed. Teachers can also use these features to create personalized task plans and checklists for students.
AI Feedback Systems: School AI enables students to interact with teacher-designed AI bots. By pasting their writing into a chat, students receive specific feedback aligned with assignment rubrics and directions. The AI offers suggestions and explanations, and students can ask for simplified clarification without fear of peer judgment, reducing anxiety
Classroom Integration and Observations
AI has quickly become a visible presence in schools. Early on, during the 2023- 2024 school year, its use was novel and sometimes controversial, with schools lacking policies around AI-generated student work. A report by Ed Week in early 2024 confirmed that many teachers were hesitant due to a lack of knowledge, institutional support, and concerns about plagiarism or loss of critical thinking (Langreo, Artifical Intelligence, 2024). Today, its integration is more widespread, and many teachers have adapted to its presence in classrooms.
Still, challenges persist. Students sometimes conceal AI use, suggesting ongoing issues around academic honesty. According to Copy Leaks, “63.0% of high school students admitted to unethical AI usage (Copy Leaks, 2024). However, these same tools hold enormous promise, particularly for students with disabilities.
The practitioner integrated AI into two major projects; here we discuss one of those projects. Collaborating with the school’s technology teacher, staff designed School AI bots using project guidelines and rubrics. For a social studies unit, students studied Greek myths and created theatrical adaptations. The AI asked structured questions:
1. What myth are you working with?
2. What theme did you select?
3. What’s your main adaptation idea?
The AI then generated a script for a 3-5-minute play and responded to student feedback (e.g., “Make it funnier,” “Make it longer,” “Try a different idea”). Students quickly developed confidence, enjoyed the AI’s accessibility, and especially valued the ability to ask clarifying questions without social anxiety.
Additionally, the practitioner reported that the AI dashboard displayed each group’s progress in real time, helping monitor students productivity and engagement, especially valuable during group work when individual attention is limited.
Conclusions and Next Steps
Artificial Intelligence is a powerful and evolving tool on the Assistive Technology continuum. As AI becomes more common in the classroom, it is critical that teachers explore tools that enhance learning for all students, particularly those with disabilities.
However, several cautions must be kept in mind. For example, AI should not replace traditional differentiated instruction. Furthermore, teachers and students must be explicitly taught how to use AI safely and ethically. Schools need clear policies and training for effective implementation. Notably, over 70% of K-12 teachers report to have received no professional development on using AI tools in education (Langreo, Artificial Intelligence, 2024). Successful integration will require collaboration among administrators, teachers, families, related service providers and support staff.
With its rapid explosion, we can assume that in the near future, AI will expand across K12 settings, and many schools will begin to utilize tools such as, ChatGPT and Magic School for planning, behavior tracking, and student support, especially in special education, where tools like Goblin tools will offer immediate benefits discussed above. AI’s potential to personalize instruction, enhance accessibility, and build student confidence is immense, especially when used thoughtfully and in conjunction with evidence-based teaching strategies. Its presence is here to stay and school personnel must work toward responsible and ethical integration.
References
Copy Leaks. (2024). Press Release Distrubution. Retrieved from Globenewswire: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/10/02/2957101/0/en/STUDY-Majority-of-Students-Admit-to-Using-AI-Against-School-Policy.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Education., U. D. (n.d.). Free appropriate public education (FAPE). Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/b/300.17
Giansanti, D., & Pirrera, A. (2025). Integrating AI and Assistive Technologies in Healthcare: Insights from a Narrative Review of Reviews. (M.-P. Gagnon, Ed.) Retrieved from National Library of Medicine: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11898476/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
How AI Is Supporting Assistive Technology. (2024). Retrieved from Special Needs Answers: https://specialneedsanswers.com/how-ai-is-supporting-assistive-technology-20454?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2. U. (2004). Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33/subchapter-II/1400
Langreo, L. (2024). Artifical Intelligence: Most Teachers Are Not Using AI. Here’s Why. Retrieved from Education Week: https://www.edweek.org/technology/most-teachers-are-not-using-ai-heres-why/2024/01?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Langreo, L. (2024). Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from Ed Week: https://www.edweek.org/technology/teachers-desperately-need-ai-training-how-many-are-getting-it/2024/03?utm_source=chatgpt.com
NYSED. (2025). New York State Education Department (NYSED). Retrieved from Educational Design and Technology: https://www.nysed.gov/edtech/assistive-technology-1
Social Adjustment of Children with Special Needs : Case Studies from Indian Classrooms
Dr.Faiza Altaf1 & Dr.Nida Shahab2
Assistant Professors
Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Hyderabad
College of Teacher Education, Asansol
faizaaltaf1214@gmail.com & nidashahab3@gmail.com
Abstract
Children with special needs (CWSN) experiences adjustment problems within a social group. Also, the parents of children with special needs have additional concerns related to their children’s special needs in child-rearing and education. In the light of above concerns researchers planned to conducted case studies about the social adjustment of children with special needs within society. Understanding the concerns and perspectives of their parents is also essential to working with them effectively. For this purpose, researchers designed case studies on children with special needs to know about the social adjustment of children with special needs in social groups, who were studying in inclusive classroom at elementary and secondary level. BEL adjustment inventory was used to check the social adjustment of CWSN, an observation schedule for social adjustment also prepared by the researchers, an open-ended interview schedule for parents was also prepare by the researchers. Case study method adopted for the present study. Exploration of these results will help for schoolteachers to be more effective in their work, and will be helpful for the parents of CWSN, and for the broader school community as well. Parents of children with special needs also shared their concerns about child-rearing, education and concerns related to their child’s special needs.
Key Points-Case Study, Adjustment, Social Adjustment, CWSN, Parents
Social Adjustment of Children with Special Needs: Case Studies from Indian Classrooms
Introduction
Children with special needs (CWSN) are those individuals whose physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics may differentiate them from their peers. These children possess one or more disabilities that render learning or other tasks challenging. The term “special needs” encompasses children who experience mental retardation, speech and language impairments, physical disabilities, learning disabilities, emotional disabilities, visual impairments, among others. Nevertheless, these children are afforded the opportunity to receive an education within an inclusive environment. Inclusive education is extended to all students, irrespective of the challenges they face, allowing them to be placed in age-appropriate general education classes within their community schools. This arrangement facilitates access to high-quality instruction, interventions, and support systems, thereby enabling them to succeed in the core curriculum (Bui et al., 2010; Alquraini & Gut, 2012). Participation in inclusive education has been shown to result in children attending traditional schools having more friends who reside closer to them compared to students with special needs who are placed in specialized institutions (Vyrastekova, 2021). Consequently, it is imperative to prioritize inclusion for CWSN. An inclusive education program permits individuals with disabilities to acquire an education (Farid & Mostari, 2020). Throughout their schooling and beyond, these children may encounter challenges in social adjustment among their peers and within social groupings. Learning difficulties serve as a significant predictor of social adjustment (Khanam, Naureen, and Mushtaq, 2018). Social adjustment is defined as an individual’s endeavors to align with societal standards, values, and norms to attain acceptance. The socio-emotional climate within a school environment, particularly for a child with special needs, profoundly affects various psychological components of their personality, including self-concept, adaptability, motivation, creativity, and social maturity (Rana, 2012). Vaughn, Elbaum, and Boardman (2001) identified four dimensions of social functioning: social skills, self-concept, friendships, and social networks. Students with learning disabilities often experience social challenges, which may hinder their participation in standard courses. In light of these concerns, the researchers endeavored to conduct case studies focusing on the social adjustment of children with special needs within social groups. It is also vital to comprehend the concerns and perspectives of their parents to foster effective collaboration. Case studies were designed due to their efficacy in presenting real-life examples within actual situations, thus enabling readers to grasp fundamental concepts alongside their applications more distinctly, as opposed to merely presenting abstract theories or principles. A case study constitutes a research method that entails an in-depth and meticulous analysis of the subject related to the research problem. Case studies can elucidate circumstances that may not be readily accessible to numerical analysis. They can illustrate causal relationships; one of their strengths is the investigation of effects within real-world contexts, acknowledging that context significantly influences both causes and effects (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000). Case studies report on the intricate dynamics and evolving interconnections of events, human relationships, and other variables within a singular occurrence.
Objective of present study– Purpose of the present study is to find out the social adjustment of children with special needs and concerns of their families about them.
Methodology -Researchers want to do an in-depth analysis of the social adjustment of children with special needs, so the case study method was employed for the present study.
Sample of the study- The study included four cases (four children with special needs) studying at the elementary and secondary levels in inclusive classrooms in India.
Tools and Techniques – BEL Adjustment Inventory (only for social adjustment) used for the children with special needs, along with an observation schedule for children and an unstructured interview schedule for parents, developed by researchers themselves.
Collections & Analysis of data- Researchers individually observed each child for two months and observed all his/her activities as per the observation schedule designed by researchers. The BEL Adjustment Inventory, along with necessary oral instructions given to each child by the researchers individually. Along with it, researchers recorded an unstructured interview with their parents. After collection of data information collected through observation and interview coded by the researchers.
Results and Analysis-
Four cases (four children with special needs) were included in the study. Researchers collected data from teachers and themselves.
Case- I
The first student chosen for the case study was an eighth-grade student. He was an orthopedically handicapped student with legs. He was not able to walk on his legs also not able to work properly with the help of his hands. He was having a problem with his spinal cord. He was orthopedically handicapped, so he used a wheelchair to come to school. Researchers chose him because he was a child with special needs. He was a shy boy in nature. He became nervous in front of unknown people, and also when people asked him about his discrepancy. He never completed his homework on time. Even in the classroom, he did his work very slowly. His handwriting was very poor, but he understood things easily and gave oral responses very quickly. He liked to watch television at home because there was no one at home to play with him. Sometimes he became extremely argumentative and short-tempered with other students. His academic achievement was below average.
Researchers observed above mention things in him and after that gave him Bell Adjustment Inventory to check his social adjustment. The answers to questions of inventory included the following:
- Case I is an elementary school male student his average mean score is 17 in social adjustment, which indicates his social adjustment is satisfactory. He takes interest in public gatherings. He also wants to meet with chief guest in public gatherings. He is always interested in social events, but never led any party. He always lives on backside in social events. He always enjoys in fairs and public gatherings. He fells hesitation in leaving any group. He hesitates to introduce him with others. He fells hesitation in answering in unknown groups. He feels hard during talking with unknown people. He usually talks with people when travel in bus and train but irritated by answering their questions. To avoid people’s questions, he tries to ignore them.
- He feels comfortable in own classroom for answering questions. He can debate in classroom but do not have any experience of debating in public gathering. He never initiates talks in groups. He never has leadership qualities. He never led a group. He feels uncomfortable in taking help of others. He always feels sick due to shy nature.
- He does not feel self -respectable in talking with unknown people. He does not confident in taking things from unknown persons directly. He feels comfortable in friendship with different gender, but he does not easily able to make their friends. He is having only few friends.
Concerns of case I family-
An unstructured interview schedule was used to find out about his family about him. He had a younger brother who was a normal boy. The younger brother was studying in a hostel. His father was also working outside the city. He lived alone with her mother. His parents revealed that he was a normal boy, once upon a time, he suffered from fever after that, he was not able to walk with his legs. They consulted with many doctors, but he did not get well. They have a prejudice that he will die at the age of fifteen. They were too much pampered for him. They did not have any kind of future perspective on him. Even the whole family pampered him. They loved him very much. His younger brother was also very caring about him. He and her mother were living happily. At that time, he was not under any kind of medication.
Case-II
Case II was a girl who was not able to walk on her legs she walks with the help of her hands. She was suffering with polio in her legs. She cannot stand and walk on legs. Even she was not having a wheelchair or tricycle. She was studying in class tenth. She was having a big family with two elder brothers, one elder sister and one younger sister. Her one brother and one sister were married. She belongs to a farmer family. She was not having very good relations with her sister-in-law. She used to do household chores normally, but her family expected more from her including her parents. She was a social girl in nature. Her educational achievements were not satisfactory. She understood thing easily and gave oral responses very quickly. Sometimes she loved to watch television. She was very much mingled with her relatives. She was a very helping girl in nature.
Researchers observed her and gave her Bell Adjustment Inventory to check her social adjustment. The answers to questions of inventory included the following:
- Case II is a secondary school female student her average mean score is 19 in social adjustment. This means that his social adjustment is satisfactory. She takes interest in social gathering. In social events she is very much interested in meeting with chief guest. She is very much active in introducing herself in social events. In any public gathering she likes to do work of others. She takes interest in social dances. She always participated in social festivals and social crowds.
- She is not comfortable taking the help of others. She is very comfortable introducing herself at social events. She never feels hesitation in entering a group. Always interested in initiating talks with the general public. Sometimes she feels hesitant in talking with newly introduced people.
- She dares to ask for something for herself. She feels proud when she spends time with her role model, but sometimes she becomes uncomfortable when left a group. She is uncomfortable talking with unknown people. She does not like to interfere between two people. She can lead a group. She can also do debates in her class as well as in social gatherings. She can make plans and also direct others at work.
- She is also a leader of social groups. She also feels proud when delivering a speech in a group on a particular subject. She never hesitated to answer in her class. Sometimes she gets disturbed when the teacher calls her into the classroom for an instant activity. She can easily make friends. She is comfortable making friends with people of different genders and has many friends.
Concerns of case-II family-
An unstructured interview schedule was used to find out the opinion of her family about him. Her mother was a housewife. Her father was a farmer. Her parents revealed that she was a healthy girl at birth. She was suffering from polio. Parents were not pampering about her. They did not have any kind of future perspective about her. She was very confident in her endeavors. They loved him very much. His younger sister was also cared for by her. She was the backbone of her family. At those times, she was not under any kind of medication.
Case-III
The III student researcher chosen for the case study was a tenth-grade student. He was having problems with his eyes. He was not able to see properly. Images were not formed properly. He was born with albinism. He was having difficulty seeing in sunlight. Researchers had chosen him because he was a child with special needs. He was a shy boy in nature. He became nervous in front of unknown people, and when people asked him about his problem. His educational achievements were satisfactory. He was not able to read properly, but his listening ability was very good. Even in the classroom, he used to work very slowly. His handwriting was also not settled due to eyesight, but he understood things easily and gave oral response very quickly. Sometimes he became extremely negative thinker and short tempered.
Researcher has given him Bell Adjustment Inventory to check his social adjustment. The answers to questions of inventory included the following:
- Case three is a secondary school male student his average mean score is 12 in social adjustment. This means that his social adjustment is satisfactory. He is very much unsocial in social activities. He does not take interest in public gatherings. He never wants to meet with chief guest in public gatherings. He is always interested in social events, but never led any party. He always lives on backside in social events. He always enjoyed in fait and public gatherings. He felt hesitated in leaving any group. He hesitates to introduce himself with others. He felt hesitated in answering in unknown groups.
- He feels hard during talking with unknown people. He usually talked with people when travel in bus and train but irritated by answer their questions. He feels comfortable in own classroom for answering any question. He cannot debate in classroom as well as do not have any experience of debating in public gathering. He never initiates talks in groups. He never has leadership qualities. He never led a group. He felt hesitated in leaving any group.
- He feels uncomfortable in taking help of others. He always feels sick due to shy nature. He does not feel self- respectable in talking with unknown people. He did not confident in taking things from unknown persons directly. He feels uncomfortable in friendship with different gender. He does not easily able to make their friends. He is having only few friends.
Concerns of case III family-
His mother was a housewife. His father was a businessman. He was having a younger brother who was a normal boy. Younger brother was studying in class sixth. He was also having a younger sister. His parents revealed that he was suffer with albinism from birth. Parents were concerned about him. They have future perspectives for him. They expect a good carrier for him. They loved him very much. His younger sister was also very much caring for him. Family revealed that he is short tempered boy. He is also very much concerned for his family. He wants to do many things in his life to support his family. At those times he was not under any kind of medication.
Case -IV
Case IV was a girl having problem in vision. Her eyesight was very week, she used lens and lamps for reading purpose. From birth she was having week eyesight because of poor eye muscles. She was studying in class X. She was a single child of her parents. She was an average student. Her physical development and mental development were satisfactory. She was a very shy girl. Her father drops her to school. Initially she can walk properly at new places, but she needs a guidance. Her parents are over pampered for her. She is friendly in nature, but she used to speak very less in her family and friends. Her educational achievements are good. She wants to complete her higher studies. Her father arranged books in larger fonts for her. She was an over protected girl. She was having lack of confidence in doing many works.
Researchers gave her Bell Adjustment Inventory to check his social adjustment. The answers to questions of inventory included the following:
- Case IV is a secondary school female student her average mean score is 14 in social adjustment. This means that her social adjustment is unsatisfactory. She takes an interest in social gatherings, but in social events, she is not interested in meeting with chief guest. She is not active in introducing herself at social events. In any public gathering, she does not like to do the work of others. She takes an interest in social dances. She avoids participating in social festivals and social crowds. She is not comfortable taking the help of others.
- She is not comfortable introducing herself at social events. She feels hesitant about entering a group. She was never interested in initiating a talk with the general public. She feels hesitant about talking with newly introduced people. She dares to ask for something for herself. She feels proud when she spends time with her role model. She became uncomfortable when she left the group. She is uncomfortable in talking with unknown persons. She does not like to interfere between two people.
- She cannot lead a group. She cannot debate in her class as well at social gatherings. She can make plans but cannot direct others at work. She is not a leader of a social group also feels proud when delivering a speech in a group on a particular subject. Even she hesitated in answering in her class. Sometimes gets disturbed when the teacher calls her into the classroom. She can easily make friends. She is comfortable making friends with people of different genders, but has only a few friends.
Concerns of the case IV family-
Her mother was a homemaker, and her father was employed in the government sector. At the time of her birth, her parents described her as a typical girl. However, she experienced complications with weakened eye muscles attributed to elevated temperatures. Her parents consulted numerous physicians; nonetheless, due to the compromised muscle function, an eye transplantation was deemed unfeasible. Her parents were exceedingly attentive to her needs. Her father procured books printed in larger fonts to facilitate her reading. She exhibited a nurturing disposition. Her parents did not possess any professional aspirations for her future and expressed a lack of confidence in her endeavors. Nevertheless, they had a profound affection for her and contemplated marriage as the only foreseeable plan. Consequently, they did not strategize for her higher education during that period, and she was not undergoing any medical treatment at the time.
Discussion:
Children with special needs often encounter challenges in communication and social interaction with others, which significantly impacts their process of socialization in daily life (Jameel, Nabeel & Batool, 2019). The social adjustment of Case I is deemed satisfactory as he shows interest in social gatherings; however, he often remains in the background during social events due to his shyness. He feels uncomfortable among unfamiliar individuals but is at ease with his classmates, family, and friends. He frequently experiences irritation when prompted to discuss his differences, leading him to disregard such inquiries. To preserve his self-respect, he refrains from seeking assistance from others and exhibits a lack of confidence. His shy demeanor inhibits his ability to form friendships, resulting in a limited social circle. His family cares for him deeply, yet they harbor prejudices regarding his longevity, believing he will not survive beyond the age of fifteen. These biases create a lack of future prospects for him within the family. Analysis of the results indicates the necessity for boosting his confidence through motivational strategies. Furthermore, reducing his shyness through active participation in public gatherings is essential. A shift in his family’s mindset is also required; he is capable of achieving greater things in life. Case II, a female, demonstrates good social adjustment and is a sociable individual who exhibits confidence. She aspires to attain self-sufficiency and is quite talkative, although she feels uneasy engaging with unfamiliar individuals. She possesses leadership qualities and a friendly nature. Nonetheless, her family appears unconcerned about her well-being, and it has been observed that her home environment is less than ideal. The analysis suggests that she is a very confident and socially adept individual, possessing the courage to undertake numerous tasks. She requires only support for her development and can effectively lead social gatherings. Engaging her in group-leading activities is recommended, as such involvement would foster her success and motivate her endeavors. Juvonen & Bear (1992) revealed that the social adjustment of children with learning difficulties (LD) is comparable to that of their non-LD peers. Among learners with disabilities, two-thirds had at least one reciprocal friend, and over half shared a friendship with a non-LD classmate. However, girls with learning disabilities received fewer nominations in class and were less favored by peers. Case III concerns a secondary school male student whose social adjustment is unsatisfactory; his participation in social activities is notably limited. He lacks group leadership skills and participates minimally in social events due to low confidence levels. Recommendations include enhancing his social adjustment through motivational techniques and encouraging involvement in co-curricular activities. His social integration can be improved through participation in group-leading roles. He is an excellent listener and speaker, thus his engagement in activities such as speeches and debates could enhance his social involvement. Pearl et al. (1998) examined the social integration of students with mild disabilities and their behaviors regarding peer group memberships. They found that a majority of students with moderate disabilities were included in their classroom peer groups. Conversely, students with minor disabilities were disproportionately represented among social isolates. Those with mild disabilities exhibited different behavioral traits compared to general education and academically gifted students, showing underrepresentation in prosocial peer groups and overrepresentation in antisocial peer groups. Students with mild disabilities displaying high levels of prosocial behavior tended to belong to high-prosocial peer groups, while those engaging in significant antisocial behavior were often found in high-antisocial peer groups. Case IV is a secondary school female student whose social adjustment is also unsatisfactory. The results indicate she is overly pampered within her family, suggesting a need for greater independence to facilitate her socialization. It is vital to enhance her social adjustment by encouraging participation in extracurricular activities. As she expresses a desire to pursue higher education, it is crucial to provide her with the necessary support and guidance to achieve this goal. Involvement in leadership activities is likewise necessary. Engaging her in initiatives that bolster her confidence, such as debates and community involvement programs, is recommended. The examination of sex differences reveals that they influence psychological aspects of personality, while residential settings do not appear to make a significant impact (Rana, 2012).
Conclusion:
A comprehensive analysis of these cases concludes that the social adjustment of children with special needs is often inadequate in social contexts. Improving their engagement in social gatherings is essential. Additionally, there is a pressing need to foster a more positive societal mindset towards these children, enabling them to participate in activities like their peers. They require attention and support in areas related to their disabilities to enhance their involvement in co-curricular programs and social events. With the right assistance, it is anticipated that these individuals will develop greater social adaptability and confidence in their life pursuits.
References:
- Alquraini, T., & Dianne Gut, D. (2012). Critical Components of Successful Inclusion of Students with Severe Disabilities: Literature Review. International Journal of Special Education, 27, 42-59.
- Best, J.W. & Kahn, J.V. (2011). Research in Education. (10th Ed.).Pearson Education, Inc., Pearson Prentice Hall.
- Bui, X. Quirk, C., Almazan, S., & Valenti, M. (2010). Inclusive education research and practice: Inclusion works. Hanover, MD: Coalition for Inclusive Education. Retrieved from https://www.mcie.org/usermedia/application/11/inclusion-works-(2010).pdf.
- Cohen,L.,Manion.L.,&Morrison.K.,(2000).Research methods in education(5th edition),New York :Taylor and Francis group.
- Eller, M., Fisher, E.S., Gilchrist, A., Rozman, A., & Shockney, S. (2016). Is Inclusion the Only Option for Students with Learning Disabilities and Emotional Behavioral Disorders, Law &Disorder,issue,5,79-86.
- Farid, S., & Mostari, M. (2020). Inclusive Approach to Education for Children With Disabilities. International Journal of Teacher Education and Professional Development.
- Hafiz,T,Nabeela,T&Batool,H.(2019). A comparative study of social adjustment among special needs children, Research Journal of Education AWKUM Volume No. III Issue No. II,22-31.
- https://www.jamdeaf.org.jm/articles/who-are-the-children-with-special-needs.
- Juvonen, J., & Bear, G.G. (1992). Social Adjustment of Children with and without Learning Disabilities in Integrated Classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 322-330.
- Khanum, F., Noureen, F., & Mushtaq, A. (2018). Self-concept and social adjustment of children with learning disabilities, International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 9, Issue 12,1548-1558.
- Pearl, R.A., Farmer, T.W., Van Acker, R.M., Rodkin, P.C., Bost, K.K., Coe, M.G., & Henley, W. (1998). The Social Integration of Students with Mild Disabilities in General Education Classrooms: Peer Group Membership and Peer-Assessed Social Behavior. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 167 – 185.
- Rana, N. (2012). Perceptions of children with special needs towards their socio-emotional school climate in inclusive setting. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 2, 107-119.
- Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B., & Boardman, A.G. (2001). The Social Functioning of Students with Learning Disabilities: Implications for Inclusion. Exceptionality, 9, 47 – 65.
- Vyrastekova,J.(2021).Social inclusion of students with special educational needs assessed by the Inclusion of Other in the Self scale. PLoS ONE 16(4): e0250070. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250070.
A Word from Our Sponsor
Discover Drexel’s online Applied Behavior Analysis programs – master’s and certificates. Tailored for busy professionals, including educators and social workers – these programs empower you to help others succeed, while forging new career trails of your own, using well-established, evidence-based ABA principles, practices, and tools.
Take the First Step With The Drexel Advantage →
Latest Employment Opportunities Posted on NASET
Special Education Teacher @ La Cheim (El Sobrante, CA)
Acknowledgements
Portions of this or previous month’s NASET’s Special Educator e-Journal were excerpted from:
- Center for Parent Information and Resources
- Committee on Education and the Workforce
- FirstGov.gov-The Official U.S. Government Web Portal
- Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals (JAASEP)
- National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth
- National Institute of Health
- National Organization on Disability
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
- U.S. Department of Education
- U.S. Department of Education-The Achiever
- U.S. Department of Education-The Education Innovator
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- U.S. Department of Labor
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration
- U.S. Office of Special Education
The National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET) thanks all of the above for the information provided for this or prior editions of the Special Educator e-Journal
