Despite substantial advances in the development of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for students with disabilities, persistent challenges remain in translating these practices into routine, high-quality use in real-world special education settings. Implementation science provides a systematic approach for understanding and addressing the contextual, organizational, and system-level factors that influence the adoption, delivery, and sustainment of EBPs. This article positions implementation science as a critical lens for special education research and practice, emphasizing its relevance in light of legal mandates, equity considerations, and the complexity of service delivery across the lifespan. Key distinctions between intervention and implementation research are clarified, highlighting their complementary roles in improving student outcomes. Core components of implementation science, including frameworks, strategies, and implementation outcomes, are described and illustrated across early intervention, K-12, and transition contexts. The article concludes by outlining methodological, policy, and practice implications and presenting practical planning tools to support researchers and system leaders with the design of rigorous, contextually responsive implementation studies in special education.
In November of 2019, I delivered the Ross and Marianna Beach Distinguished Professor Inaugural Lecture at the University of Kansas. The focus of that lecture were ideas I discussed in a book published through Teachers College Press earlier in that year titled Strength-Based Approaches to Educating All Learners with Disabilities: Beyond Special Education (Wehmeyer, 2019). I talked about Tom Gilhool in that book and the revolutionary impact of PARC and the parent movement on the opportunity for children and youth with disabilities having access to a free, appropriate education. In the book and the lecture, I discussed the fact that the context in which Gilhool and his peers created federal legislation to education learners with disabilities was significantly different than today, and that forces were converging that created opportunities to create meaningful change in how we educate all learners, including students with disabilities; how we go beyond special education, as the subtitle of the book suggested. In transcribing my inaugural distinguished professor lecture into a paper for this issue of Focus on Exceptional Children, I have opted to try to capture the experience for which that lecture was designed. That is, in my lecture, before an audience that included many people who do not know the field, I wanted to tell a story in equal part through words and images. This article will, as such, rely on images and a narrative that emphasizes a broad treatment and interpretation of historical events and future prognostications.
Phil Ferguson commented on his article via video. See his Take. (Or click on the embedded video button on the left to see what he has to say.)
One of the positive effects of the learning disabilities movement has been the focus on "diagnostic/prescriptive teaching," a synergistic relationship between the assessment oflearning and treatment procedures. While this relationship is desirable, there is often a gap between the assessment of learning and the delivery of appropriate learning activities . Several explanations can be offered for the distance between psychoeducational assessment and instructional planning. These include:
Public Law 94-142 mandates the nationwide provision of special education and related services for all handicapped children, regardless of the severity of their handicap.More specifically, children must be assessed, and individualized education plans must be provided.Each plan must specify: (a) the child's present levels of educational performance; (b) annual goals, including short term objectives; (c) educational services to be provided; ( d) the dates for initiation and anticipated duration of services; and (e) appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures for determining whether instructional objectives are being achieved (Section 602 [ 4] [19]).Across the country, school systems are feeling the strain on available resources.Particularly alarming is the scarcity of trained manpower to meet the special educational needs of severely handicapped children.Sailor, Guess, and Lavis (1975) proclaimed "an immediate need to provide a cadre of competent, qualified teachers with allied personnel and resources to deliver an effective and functional educational program for severely handicapped" (p.201).During the past four years, attention has focused on the immediate shortage of trained teachers and the critical factors that constitute necessary teacher competencies for directing the educational program of severely and multiply handicapped children (Altman & Meyen, 1976;Brown & York, 1974;Meyen, 1975;Sailor, Guess, & Lavis,
Colleges and universities across the country are making efforts in teacher education reform in order to better the training of instructors and therefore the education of children. Our journey-to redesign our teacher education program in special education at the University of Cincinnati-began in 1985 with internal events (new faculty members, changes in department head) and external events ( changes in our profession) resulting in a critical period of self-examination. After we began this process, the College of Education at the University of Cincinnati accepted an invitation to become a member of the Holmes Group. 1 Membership in the Holmes Group committed all teacher education programs in the College of Education to a comprehensive reform agenda, with a central focus on urban education. In previous years the college's connections with schools and teachers, and among ourselves as teacher educators, depended primarily on personal relationships initiated and sustained by faculty, and not on institutional and programmatic agreements. We now had an opportunity to pursue program reform efforts within a wider context (the entire College of Education) and to have an impact on teacher education programs beyond special education. As we reviewed artifacts for this article ( documents prepared for college administration, state certification review, NCATE reviews, and minutes from program meetings), we observed several phenomena that were key to changes in our program: learning to talk with one another, leaving the safety of our own group, and developing a special education core. As we shifted the focus of our teacher education efforts, we were able to articulate our program more carefully and work with other teacher education programs within the college as well as develop new relationships with teachers in the Professional Practice Schools (also known as Professional Development Schools). These changes were facilitated and supported by a collegewide reform effort now referred to as the Cincinnati Initiative for Teacher Education. In this article then, we describe two aspects of interrelated changes in teacher education. We share various aspects of our journey through the reform process, while describing the influences of collegewide program reform and changes within teacher education on our thinking. Because the reform continues, we report on our work to date, the challenges we confronted, and our next steps.
Among the many factors that contribute to staff development needs for experienced teachers are IDEA compliance, curriculum standards, faculty turnover, high-stakes testing, and increased expectations among policymakers and school patrons.As teachers pursue personalized staff development plans, they seek opportunities to enhance their skills and expand their knowledge.Typically, if they are engaged in a graduate-degree program, they are likely to depend on their home institution of higher education (IHE) as the source for their professional growth experiences.If they are not pursuing a degree program, they may look to their employer to provide staff development opportunities or, on their own, seek opportunities that best fit their needs and aspirations.With the emergence of the Internet access to professional development opportunities is increasing at an unprecedented rate.Offerings by IHEs on the Internet are increasing, professional associations are developing web sites to offer staff development, and e-leaming in the commercial sector is evolving as a source for staff development.Thus, the Internet has dramatically changed the potential for accessing staff development anytime, anywhere.The need for staff development among teachers to fully implement the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is exacerbated by the growing shortage of trained personnel and the tendency for states to allow emergency waivers• for noncertified teachers to enter the field when the supply of certified teachers does not meet the demand.In particular, educators trained to work with students with disabilities continue to be in short supply (Brownell & Smith, 1993, Brownell, Smith, McNellis, & Miller, 1997); Lauritzen & Freidman, 1993), a shortage that is expected to become even more acute in coming years, for several reasons.
Since the No Child Left Behind Act (
Teachers employ certain techniques and delivery systems in the classroom to provide appropriate curricula to gifted learners.Most instructional strategies have some value in working with the gifted, but those strategies that allow for more open-ended, interactive, and generative learning behavior are probably most beneficial.How do we know what strategies work?One way is to examine the strategies used in exemplary programs that reflect positive growth gains for gifted learners.Four programs that meet this criterion are the William and Mary language arts and science curriculum, Junior Great Books, Philosophy for Children, and Man: A Course of Study (MACOS).Stu- dents exposed to these programs have demonstrated growth gains in critical thinking and interpretation of written material (Lipman, 1988;Norris, 1985;Sternberg & Bhana, 1986;VanTassel-Baska, Zuo, Avery, & Little, 2002), and scientific research skills (VanTassel-Baska, Bass, Ries, Poland, & Avery, 1998).The common instructional strategy across these programs is inquiry, the use of questions to stimulate and expand thinking about what has been read, experienced, or seen.Thus, gifted educators typically promote inquiry and question asking as key elements in gifted programs.Another way to ascertain effective strategies is to observe what exemplary teachers of the gifted do to facilitate growth in their students.Martinson ( 197 4) developed an observational rating scale for recording the behaviors of gifted teachers.Subsequent adaptations to that scale have sought to extend our understanding of teacher behaviors based on general teacher education research as well as our understanding of what works with the gifted (VanTassel-Baska, 1995).The behaviors evaluated in teachers of the gifted in the Saturday and summer programs at the College of William and Mary consist of the following:1. Plans curriculum experiences well.2. Demonstrates understanding of the educational implications of giftedness.3. Uses various teaching strategies effectively.4. Selects questions that stimulate higher-level thinking.5. Stimulates and models critical thinking skills in appropriate contexts.6. Stimulates and models creative thinking techniques.7. Stimulates and models problem-solving techniques.8. Conducts group discussions well.9. Encourages independent thinking and open inquiry.10.Understands and encourages student ideas and student-directed work.
Policy makers, university teacher education faculty, school leaders, and government officials are asking the same question: How do we recruit, prepare, and retain effective teachers who will produce desired student outcomes in every classroom? This complex question garners distinct opinions depending on the queried stakeholder, but most agree that significant improvement is needed in the processes of teacher preparation and induction (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Greer & Meyen, 2009; Sykes, Bird, & Kennedy, 2010; Wang, Odell, Klecka, Spalding, & Lin, 2010). An argument can be made that the need for improvement is most urgent within the field of special education teacher preparation (Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, & Danielson, 2010; Piper, 2007; Pugach, Blanton, & Correa, 2011; Simonsen et al., 2010; Sindelar, Brownell, & Billingsley, 2010) . To illustrate, recent achievement data for students with disabilities provides striking evidence of the critical need for improvement in areas of literacy, graduation rates, and other postsecondary outcomes (e.g. National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2009; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, & Garza, 2006). There is substantial variability in the numerous factors that contribute to the struggles of students with exceptionalities on measures of academic and social success (see Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Simmons, Feggins-Azziz, & Chung, 2005; Wagner et al., 2006). Many complex factors influence a teacher's impact on student achievement, which leads to the need for us to continue to examine and reform our current models of teacher preparation. Thus, teacher educators and practitioners must continue to investigate and evaluate the effects of new and existing policies, programmatic structures, and individual practices on outcomes of interest and disseminate those findings. Although calls to reform teacher education and P-12 instruction for children with exceptionalities are not new (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003), it is clear that new thinking is needed to overcome traditional barriers to academic and social success for individuals with exceptionalities. However, despite the critical need for improvement, teacher preparation models within special and general education largely remain fixed to traditional methods that reflect the status quo as opposed to evidence-based practice (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wycoff, 2009; Brownell, Griffin, Leko, & Stephens, 2011; Sykes et al., 2010).
Children start elementary school with variable mathematics ski11s. Some childrenunderstand the fundamentals of numbers and mathematics, while others struggle with basic counting, number recognition, understanding of symbols, quantity discrimination, and concepts of addition and subtraction. Often, this set of early numerical competencies is referred to as number sense or early numeracy competencies. Students need to establish and understand these competencies before moving on to more complex mathematical tasks. This article describes important early num erical competencies and provides a description of how these competencies can be taught to students who struggle with mathematics.
The documentary Bully was released nationwide in theaters in March 2012. Originally titled The Bully Project, the filmmakers followed five families whose lives had been turned upside down by bullying. Two of the families in the movie lost their sons, Tyler and Ty, to suicide, and three of the youth in the movie,Alex, Kelby, and Ja'Meya, were bullied in school and on the school bus. The movie shows the devastating consequences of bullying and the depressingly poor response on the part of adults. What the movie does not address is the mental health history of one of the boys, who commits suicide, as well as the developmental disabilities affecting another boy in the movie, who was born prematurely (Bazelon, 2012). Understandably, this is a difficult narrative. The filmmakers did not want to delve into the complexity of mental health issues and bullying for fear of creating a story line that those who are bullied are obvious victims. However, by not addressing the issues of ADHD, bipolar disorder,Asperger syndrome, and developmental disabilities, an important narrative was missed. Bullying is a complex phenomenon, and both mental health and physical health difficulties play into involvement in bullying. While there is no narrative that those who are bullied somehow deserve such egregious treatment, we shirk our professional responsibilities if we do not shed light on the compelling evidence that youth with disabilities are at great risk for involvement in bullying-both for bullying others and for being bullied (AbilityPath.org, 2011; Rose, Monda-Amaya, & Espelage, 2011). The purpose of this article is to review the research on bullying and students with disabilities and to propose an inclusive narrative: when differences are celebrated rather than used as fuel for maltreatment, a world will be created where bullying is not tolerated. This will be a better world for everyone.
was eager to start her first year of teaching.Last spring, she student taught in a special education resource classroom and was able to work with students with a range of disabilities in a variety of settings.Her mentor teacher Mrs. Jones was quite experienced and made everything look so easy.Mrs. Jones showed Ms. Simmons how she managed student schedules, provided individualized and group instruction, and supported students in the general education setting.Ms. Simmons was even able to work with Ms. Tully, the classroom paraeducator who had worked with Mrs. Jones for 5 years.Overall, Ms. Simmons felt thorough ly prepared fo r her new role as a special educator working with a caseload of 20 students with disabilities ranging from moderate learning and behavioral disabilities to autism and multiple disabilities; that is, until she learned that she would also have to supervise and manage three paraeducators, one who had vastly more experience working with students than she and two who were brand new to the position.She didn 't know where to begin and asked herself, "How can 1, a new teacher, guide and support my paraeducators?" Paraeducators, also known as teacher aides, paraprofessionals, and educational or instructional assistants, have become increasingly vital participants in school communiti es.They provide support in many capacities in schools.Their roles may include working one-on-one with students in the classroom and supporting teachers and students throughout the day in varying activities.Some common activities are delivering lessons, supporting self-care, creating materials, collecting data, managing behavior, supervi sing the lunchroom, helping out in the library, or even riding the bus with students (Ashbaker & Morgan, 2006;May & Marozas, 1981 ).Although paraeducators are expected to complete these various tasks, they receive little or no training prior to starting their positions.In addition, the teachers who supervise paraeducators are often unprepared or untrained to work with or provide paraeducators needed training once they begin their work in the school setting.
