Abstract
The current issue of Exceptional Children (EC) includes a diverse array of informative empirical studies. These studies represent the work of scientists from different parts of the world and from different research traditions. These articles also examine issues related to various disabilities. Not only are we happy to present such different submissions to EC; it is wonderful to showcase their robust contributions. We are pleased to offer this preview of the contents.
In the current U.S. approach to providing special education, we think it is safe to assert that an individualized education program (IEP) is one of the central drivers for a free and appropriate public education. How are educators doing with IEPs? In an examination of that question, Slade, Eisenhower, Carter, and Blacher interviewed parents of preschool and primary-grade children with autism spectrum disorder about their satisfaction with aspects of their children’s IEPs. Overall, parents reported satisfaction with their children’s IEPs, but their satisfaction with their children’s IEPs emphasized related factors to which educators should attend. Special educators can learn about the important contributions of parent–school relationships to parents’ satisfaction and more by reading this study.
Policy issues about over- and underrepresentation have plagued special education for many years. Although most have focused on African American students, using best-evidence synthesis methods, Morgan, Farkas, Cook, Strassfeld, Hillemeier, Pun, Wang, and Schussler examined whether overrepresentation of students representing other groups (Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and English language learner or language-minority children) could be explained by systemic bias. In one area, they found that 50% of the estimates of effects indicated bias, but in other areas they reported lower estimates (0%–16.7%) of the likelihood of bias. The authors argue that children from these groups are largely underidentified for special education services.
Given high rates of bullying in general, special educators are understandably interested in how teasing and similar inappropriate behavior might affect students with disabilities. Warner-Czyz, Loy, Pourchot, White, and Cokely compared rates of bullying among youths with disabilities with hearing loss to rates reported in national databases. Readers will not be surprised that youths with hearing loss reported higher rates of bullying, but the details are informative. The authors provide suggestions about special educators’ efforts to protect individuals from untoward victimization.
Special educators often must determine whether students need assistance primarily in a specific domain or in multiple areas. Koponen, Aro, Poikkeus, Niemi, Lerkkanen, Ahonen, and Nurmi assessed whether unitary or co-occurring dysfluency in reading and math was similar during the early phases of skill development, when students were mastering more basic skills, as opposed to during later phases of development, when they are mastering more sophisticated skills. Following a sample of nearly 2,000 students across Grades 1 through 4, they found that children with more severe problems in either area were more likely to have problems in the other area and that the rates of comorbidity vary in important ways. These results underscore the importance of individualized assessment.
Not only is diversity an issue in identification, discipline, and related issues in practice, but it is also one of concern in research. Sinclair, Hansen, Machalicek, Knowles, Hirano, Dolata, Blakely, Seeley, and Murray analyzed data from 16 years of research on interventions across nearly 500 studies to assess whether students from diverse populations were represented in the research. Sinclair and colleagues report that diverse participants are included more often more recently, but not across groups. The authors provide suggestions about what their findings imply for future research.
Special educators and psychologists benefit from learning about how people, especially those who have disabilities, come to understand their environments. Papadopoulos, Barouti, and Koustriava provide insight into this issue by comparing blind people’s descriptions of their recollections of the features of various paths through cities depending on whether they had used different technological supports to learn about those paths. They found that providing an electronic aid that provided tactile or audio-tactile support was superior to practice walking a route. They found that providing an electronic aid that provided tactile support was superior to practice walking the routes. These results have implications for understanding how people form cognitive impressions of their environments.
We believe that this group of articles provides a valuable resource to the community of special educators and others interested in individuals with disabilities. The authors of these articles have worked diligently to hone their papers, based on advice from EC’s reviewers, so that they can communicate to the readers of Exceptional Children. We appreciate the contributions of both the authors and the reviewers (see the editorial board and the acknowledgement of ad hoc reviewers in this issue). We hope that readers will find this issue illuminating and valuable.