Students with mathematics difficulty (i.e., those who perform at or below a designated cut score on a mathematics screening assessment) frequently demonstrate limited mathematics-vocabulary knowledge. Challenges with mathematics vocabulary can impact students’ ability to comprehend and solve mathematics word problems. This study focused on the effects of a combined mathematics-vocabulary and word-problem intervention on mathematics-vocabulary knowledge and word-problem performance. Grade 4 students with mathematics difficulty were randomly assigned to the intervention condition ( n = 26) or the business-as-usual control condition ( n = 24). At posttest, participants in the intervention condition significantly outperformed those in the control condition on a proximal measure of mathematics vocabulary ( p < .001, g = 0.96). Those in the intervention condition also outperformed those in the control condition on an application measure of mathematics vocabulary; however, differences between the two groups were not significant ( p = .450, g = 0.10). Results demonstrated significant effects on word-problem solving in favor of the intervention condition ( p < .001, g = 1.66). Areas for future research include (a) support of mathematics-vocabulary application and (b) analysis of isolated intervention components.
Self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) instruction for writing is an evidence-based practice in inclusive classrooms. Writing based on source text, however, is a growing research focus. In this experimental study, we investigated the effects of SRSD instruction for close reading of source text and writing to persuade among fifth- and sixth-grade resource room students with high-incidence disabilities. Participants included 30 students in cluster-randomized instructional groups across five Title I elementary schools. Fourteen students first received Tier 2 SRSD instruction for writing persuasive essays and then learned a close reading strategy to extract relevant information from source text to write to persuade. The 16 control participants received business as usual (BAU) writing instruction in their resource classrooms. SRSD instruction, as compared to BAU, resulted in statistically significant and meaningful improvements in writing quality, planning, persuasive structural elements included in essays, use of source text, and procedural knowledge. Significant results were not found for the number of words written, reading comprehension, genre knowledge, student attitudes toward writing, and student writing self-efficacy. Structured student interviews indicated high social validity for SRSD instruction. While we found SRSD instruction effective for using source text to write to persuade, more research is needed, particularly research involving special education teachers delivering SRSD instruction and the use of multiple source texts.
In special education, the complexity of serving individuals with disabilities and their families necessitates sustained interdisciplinary collaboration. However, little is known about how the principles of team science are valued and enacted within higher education programs that prepare the field's future scholars and practitioners. In this study, we examined the extent to which special education researchers value and engage in team science. Doctoral students, postdoctoral scholars, and faculty in special education completed a questionnaire that included both quantitative and qualitative data types. Data from 104 respondents were analyzed using descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations, and thematic analysis. More than 90% of survey respondents indicated that they valued team science (i.e., interdisciplinary research collaboration), and many reported engaging in it to some extent. Faculty, postdoctoral scholars, and students did not differ in their value for or engagement in such collaborations. Thematic analysis showed that respondents perceived benefits of team science for themselves and the field. Respondents also described barriers to team science and successful strategies for overcoming them.
This article critiques Fuchs et al. (2023) , arguing that their conclusions about time in general education classrooms for students with disabilities rest on a narrow conception of inclusive education and on evidence that does not support the practice claims they advance. We address three issues surfaced in their article: (a) what contemporary research on learning outcomes for students with disabilities in general education settings actually shows; (b) whether the evidence Fuchs et al. marshal is adequate to support broad claims about school practice; and (c) how the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) should be understood in relation to federal policy leadership focused on educational outcomes for students with disabilities. Together, these issues matter because research reviews do not merely summarize knowledge—they shape which questions appear legitimate, which forms of evidence appear authoritative, and which educational possibilities are treated as viable. When inclusive education is reduced to unsupported placement and when federal institutional roles are mischaracterized, the result is a narrowed account of what democratic public education can and should require. Because federal leadership remains central to special education policy, accurate characterization of OSERS's role matters. This is a critical time for researchers, practitioners, and the general public to engage. For 46 years, federally funded research and technical assistance infrastructure has shaped special education policy and practice. The DOE's influence and leadership on education has built a legacy of educational services in local, state, and national contexts.
Despite disparities in outcomes, few studies have focused on understanding the experiences of Black autistic youth or their caregivers during the transition to adulthood. This descriptive qualitative study sought insight into how parents of Black youth with autism (a) defined “success” during the transition to adulthood and (b) described facilitators and barriers to this success. Using community cultural wealth theory to guide the study, semistructured interviews were conducted with seven parents of Black autistic youth. Data were analyzed inductively through thematic analysis. One overarching theme, “I just want him to live, basically,” captured how parents described success. This theme focused on their children communicating effectively and being understood, growing in their independence, and having fulfilling relationships. Findings also included four additional themes, which captured the challenges (barriers) that Black youth and families encountered and the corresponding supports (facilitators) that could make a difference in their experiences: (a) difficulty adjusting (barrier): support from the family (facilitator), (b) challenging school experiences (barrier): family advocacy (facilitator), (c) confusing and inadequate adult services (barrier): connection to and expansion of resources (facilitator), and (d) stigma and misunderstanding (barrier): changed societal perceptions (facilitator). Implications for practice and policy are provided to support success for Black autistic youth and their families during the transition to adulthood.
