School-Based Practices for Asperger Syndrome

Abstract

French

Educators face increasing demands to provide quality education in their classrooms, particularly to students with exceptional needs. Students with Asperger syndrome (AS) represent a population experiencing significant nonacademic barriers to learning (e.g., social, emotional, and behavioural needs). However, educational policies that identify and recognize the needs of these students vary among Canadian provinces, resulting in discrepancies in service provision. Moreover, anticipated revisions to the diagnostic criteria have increased awareness of the need for improved support for students with AS within the classroom environment. This article outlines the current provincial education policies regarding support for students with AS, including identification and service delivery, and concludes with suggestions for improvement.

Keywords

Asperger syndrome education identification policy Canada

Canadian school psychologists face increasing challenges when addressing the exceptional learning needs of students (Jordan, Hindes, & Saklofske, 2009). As part of this struggle, school-based personnel are contending with rising numbers of individuals suspected of having or diagnosed with Asperger syndrome (AS). AS is a neurodevelopmental disorder currently categorized as one of the Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PDD), more commonly referred to as autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The purpose of this article is to discuss the school-based practices across Canadian provinces for students with AS. It will begin with both a description of the primary characteristics of AS and the framework for identification and intervention with this population, followed by information pertaining to provincial education guidelines, and will conclude with suggestions for improvement.

Characteristics of Asperger syndrome

Scientific accounts of AS originated with Hans Asperger who described children with “autistic psychopathology” who were verbally fluent but had peculiar language use and abnormal prosody. He also noted repetitive behaviours, a desire for sameness, a propensity toward rote memorization of facts, interest in unusual topics, and motor clumsiness (Asperger, 1944/1991). However, it was not until Lorna Wing’s (1981) seminal work that AS was introduced. This work has since been extended, and there are several excellent volumes describing the behavioural characteristics and challenges of the syndrome (e.g., Ozonoff, Dawson, & McPartland, 2002; Szatmari, 2004).

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10; World Health Organization, 1994) currently recognize AS as a distinct behaviourally based diagnostic disorder within the Pervasive Developmental Disorder category. The primary characteristics include qualitative impairments in social interaction and repetitive and/or restricted patterns of behaviour in the context of no significant delay in language, cognitive, or adaptive development. Additionally, the criteria for another PDD cannot be met. The prevalence of AS is conservatively reported to be 6 per 10,000 children (Fombonne, 2009).

It bears noting that revisions to the DSM diagnostic criteria are currently being considered for the publication of the fifth edition of the manual (DSM-5) which is tentatively due for May, 2013 (APA, 2012a). At the time of writing, the proposed criteria represent a dramatic change in the conceptualization of AS and related disorders, based primarily on empirical research on nosological considerations. Specifically, the DSM-5 Task Force indicates that, while differential diagnosis of ASD from typical development and other nonspectrum disorders is done reliably, appropriate differentiation of specific disorders within the ASD classification is less consistent. As such, rather than identifying separate disorders (e.g., Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, Pervasive Developmental Disorder—Not Otherwise Specified) within the Pervasive Developmental Disorder category, the new DSM-5 conceptualization will merge these individual disorders into a unified description entitled Autism Spectrum Disorder, subsumed under a new Neurodevelopmental Disorders diagnostic category (APA, 2012b). Furthermore, the specific diagnostic criteria have been modified, with the classic Triad of Impairment (qualitative impairment in social interaction; qualitative impairment in communication; and presence of restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behaviour) being replaced by a two-category system (persistent deficits in social communication; restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour). Moreover, the ICD-11 is due for release in 2015 and will likely contain modifications to the diagnostic criteria for AS (WHO, 2012). As such, AS will likely no longer be considered a distinct diagnostic category by users of either diagnostic manual.

Clinical Practices

Diagnosis is best conducted through a comprehensive assessment of many aspects of functioning for differential diagnosis and identification of comorbid conditions. Given the time requirements for such an assessment, initial screening is used to identify those children who would best be served by a full assessment.

Screening

Early identification of AS affords early access to intervention programs directed at the unique educational and mental health needs of this population (Toth & King, 2008). Children with AS are at risk of being teased, bullied, or isolated due to their social oddities (Carter, 2009) and may experience comorbid anxiety or depression (Ghaziuddin, Ghaziuddin, & Greden, 2002; White, Oswald, Ollendick, & Scahill, 2009). Schools are an ideal location for screening to occur as they provide a comparison sample for children’s behaviours (Sanford, Offord, Boyle, Peace, & Racine, 1992) wherein teachers may observe students’ social interactions on a daily basis.

Diagnostic process

Assessment and diagnostic practices can be inconsistent, likely due to the varying definitions of AS (Matson, Nebel-Schwalm, & Matson, 2007) and the unique clinical practices of different professionals. However, informed clinical judgement should always be used and assessment should incorporate multiple tools and various sources of information regarding developmental history, current symptomatology, cognitive and language functioning, sensory needs, and adaptive functioning (Klin & Volkmar, 2003).

The current gold standard process for diagnosing ASD involves the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS; Lord et al., 2000) and Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised (ADI-R; Lord, Rutter, & Le Couteur, 1994) as part of a comprehensive assessment (Goldstein, Naglieri, & Ozonoff, 2009). Several diagnostic tools have been developed specifically for AS, such as the Krug Asperger’s Disorder Index (KADI; Krug & Arick, 2003), Gilliam Asperger’s Disorder Scale (GADS; Gilliam, 2001), and Asperger Syndrome Diagnostic Scale (ASDS; Smith-Myles, Jones-Bock, & Simpson, 2001).

School-based interventions

Once a child has undergone a comprehensive assessment and received a diagnosis, the focus of school-based professionals necessarily switches to intervention. Intervention research for ASD has primarily focused on classical autism and has largely ignored the unique constellation of strengths and weaknesses presented by children with AS. This lack of research is likely due to the masking of these individual’s specific challenges as a result of their well-developed verbal skills and strong cognitive abilities (Stichter et al., 2010; Tsatsanis, Foley, & Donehower, 2004). However, the importance of effective school-based interventions for this population is increasing as empirical evidence suggests that the prevalence rate of higher functioning children with ASD is on the rise (Sanosti & Powell-Smith, 2006) and that many teachers’ knowledge of AS is limited (Nicol, 2008). Therefore, empowering school psychologists and educators with effective intervention strategies for the school setting is paramount.

Educators may encounter substantial resources for individuals with a lower functioning ASD (e.g., classic autism), but feel unable to address the unique challenges of students with AS. However, as no single treatment approach has been identified as the most suitable for children with AS, and there is no comprehensive program targeting all areas of functioning available (Tsatsanis et al., 2004), educators are encouraged to select techniques and approaches that cater to each student’s specific needs and strengths (Klin & Volkmar, 2000).

Provincial Policies

Although comprehensive and effective screening, assessment, and intervention practices are ideal, the activities of school psychologists are often determined by guidelines established by the governing educational system. As such, practices can vary widely from province to province. The purpose of the following descriptions of provincial policies pertaining to AS is to provide Canadian school psychologists with an enhanced understanding of policies in other provinces, with the potential of improving services for this specific and unique population. It should be noted that each province provides a differing amount of information pertaining to these specific policies and practices, resulting in discrepancies in detail.

British Columbia

BC’s Ministry of Education fosters an inclusive educational environment by providing equal access to learning across educational programs. They emphasize that this environment may occur outside of the child’s neighbourhood classroom, such as in resource rooms, specialized settings, or community-based settings, after reasonable effort has been put forth to integrate the student along with age and grade peers (BC Ministry of Education, 2011).

Exceptional learning needs are categorized and identified by level of severity. Moderate to profound intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities, chronic health impairments, visual impairment, deafness or hearing impairment, and ASD fall into Level 2 (BC Ministry of Education, 2011). In addition, the Teaching Students with Autism: A Resource Guide for Schools (BC Ministry of Education, 2000) document recommends that students with AS be categorized into “Moderate Behaviour Disorders,” “Severe Learning Disabilities,” or, in extreme cases “Severe Behaviour” categories. Level 2 supplementary funding provides $18,300 to the school district per full-time student meeting these criteria (BC Ministry of Education, 2002). There are no specific guidelines as to how the funding should be spent to support students with AS. However, it is recommended that staff working with students with ASD have competencies in behavioural techniques.

Assessment standards for ASD in BC are determined and published by the BC Autism Assessment Network (BCAAN), and a child’s diagnosis must conform to these standards to be considered eligible for funding from the BC Ministry of Education (BC Ministry of Education, 2011). In accordance with BCAAN standards, clinical assessment must be conducted by a psychiatrist, paediatrician, or registered psychologist with extensive experience in diagnosing ASD and related disabilities. Assessments must include information regarding historical information, standardized assessments of cognitive level, and document the negative impact of the child’s disorder on their educational performance. Once a diagnosis is established, a child is categorized under special needs code E.11 and is provided an Individual Education Plan (IEP) in collaboration with parents, school staff, and their principal (BC Ministry of Education, 2011).

Alberta

Alberta Education utilizes a framework of inclusive education, dictating that all children should be placed in regular classrooms in their local school unless the best educational interests of the child run counter to that policy (Alberta Education, 2011a; Alberta Learning, 2003a).

Alberta Education’s Standards for Special Education (Alberta Learning, 2004) specifies policies pertaining to establishing and implementing procedures for early identification and assessment of students with exceptional learning needs as well as service delivery to such children. Currently, Alberta Education utilizes a coding system to identify and recognize students with an exceptional learning need (Alberta Education, 2011b). Codes 51 to 59 denote mild/moderate disabilities, whereas codes 41 to 47 denote severe disabilities. Funding is provided to schools that house children with exceptional learning needs, and the school allocates the funding to supportive programs and practices within its jurisdiction. Individualized Program Plans (IPPs) are developed for children identified as having an exceptional learning need. These documents must be developed in collaboration with families and student progress must be monitored.

There is a lack of clarification within Alberta Education regarding the code that children with AS are eligible to receive. The Special Education Coding Criteria (2011/2012) document (Alberta Education, 2011b) indicates that code 44, which denotes a severe physical or medical disability, is to be applied when a student has a diagnosis of severe autism; however, this document does not address AS specifically. As such, there is no explicit policy outlining the effective method of identification of such students at the school level. However, Alberta Education does have a document pertaining directly to Teaching Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (Alberta Learning, 2003b) that includes AS. Thus, there is confusion within Alberta Education policy regarding the appropriate designation of children with AS. Consequently, children with AS may experience different practices across school boards, or even schools.

It is important to note that Alberta Education is currently in the process of modifying the procedure by which students with exceptional learning needs are identified and educated. This process, called Action on Inclusion, will likely result in the elimination of the current coding structure (Alberta Education, 2011c). However, the impact of a change in the policies on the existing day-to-day practices of school-based professionals is unknown.

Saskatchewan

The Government of Saskatchewan’s Ministry of Health has a framework and action plan in place for individuals with ASD that includes funding as well as the appointment of autism consultants throughout the province to provide assessment, diagnosis, and intervention services to families who require them (Government of Saskatchewan, 2008). However, Saskatchewan Education does not provide a specific curriculum for students diagnosed with AS. Therefore, programs may need to be individualized to promote successful development through utilization of a Personal Program Plan (PPP) that addresses the unique needs of the student (Government of Saskatchewan, 1999). Before a PPP is developed, teachers are asked to attempt changes in the Adaptive Dimension, including changes to instructional practices, the learning environment, topics in the curriculum, or the materials used to teach students (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, 2008).

Manitoba

Manitoba Education utilizes a framework of inclusive education in its classroom policies (Manitoba Education, 2011). All students, including those with ASD, have the right to proper educational programming (Manitoba Education, Citizenship, and Youth, 2005). Manitoba Education’s Standards for Student Services specifies that school divisions are responsible for establishing and implementing procedures for early identification and assessment of students with exceptional learning needs (Manitoba Education, Citizenship, and Youth, 2006). Services and supports for children with disabilities are the responsibility of three ministries in Manitoba: Manitoba Family Services and Housing, Manitoba Health, and Manitoba Education, Training, and Youth. In Winnipeg, children suspected of having an ASD may also be referred to The St. Boniface Child and Adolescent Mental Health Program or The Manitoba Adolescent Treatment Centre (MATC) for assessment and diagnosis. Funding is available for students with Moderate ASD ($8,955 per student), and is determined on a student-by-student basis by the Manitoba Education’s funding review team (Manitoba Education, n.d.).

The development of an IEP is a collaborative effort between parents, educators, and other professionals (e.g., physicians, psychologists, speech-language pathologists, and occupational therapists) who are often consulted when expert opinion and input are required (Manitoba Education, Citizenship, and Youth, 2005). There are a number of programs (e.g., Special Needs and At-Risk Students) that offer support to schools in accommodating children with special needs (Kohen, Uppal, Khan, & Visentin, 2010).

Ontario

Ontario Boards of Education define an exceptional student as “a pupil whose behavioural, communicational, intellectual, physical or multiple exceptionalities are such that he or she is considered to need placement in a special education program” (Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011a). All schools receive Foundation Grants based upon enrolment, as well as Special Education Grants through the Ontario Ministry of Education to ensure adequate funding for unique needs of exceptional students (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2009). Although wait times and specific procedures vary between school board districts, major decisions regarding student placement in special education in Ontario are made through the Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC). The referral process begins either by parental request to the principal of their child’s school, or through the principal and teacher’s initiation with written notice to the parent. The IPRC can then begin the process of facilitating the assessment of exceptionality or the use of a previous diagnosis to determine placement (Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011a).

School boards in Ontario are required to establish procedures to identify a student’s level of developmental and learning needs so that educational programs can accommodate them (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2000). After identification of exceptionality, including AS, a collaborative team of teachers, parents, and other professionals involved with the child design an IEP. Students with AS are provided resources and goals based on their personal strengths and weaknesses. The IEP is monitored for successful outcomes, and responsibility rests on the school principal to ensure that parents are aware of any changes or modifications to the student’s IEP (Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011b).

More recently, the Ontario Ministry of Education has released a document entitled Learning for All, which outlines a framework for supporting the social-emotional needs of students to better enhance academic outcome (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2011).

Quebec

Quebec’s Adapting Our Schools to the Needs of All Students policy emphasizes that the integration of all students into the regular classroom, particularly those at-risk for social maladjustments or learning difficulties, should be favoured whenever possible (Ministère de l’Education, du Loisir et du Sport (MELS), 2007). Students are identified and provided additional funding based on a coding system used to represent the various impairments or disabilities experienced by these students. These codes apply to students who have received a diagnosis by a qualified professional and whose disabilities and limitations impede their educational progress and learning. Specific codes denote differing exceptional needs, with PDD (including AS specifically) identified as code 50.

Funding amounts are allocated to school boards at the start of each school year based on the number of students housed by its schools having each code (MELS, 2007). Elementary and secondary schools are allotted $7,535 and $6,893 respectively for each student identified as Code 50 (MELS, 2011). School boards are allowed to allocate this funding among their schools to best serve student need (e.g., teaching supports, professional development, complementary educational services, etc.; MELS, 2007).

Additionally, Quebec’s Education Act mandates that an IEP be designed for students with disabilities in collaboration with the student, his or her parents, the principal, and school staff (MELS, 2007). This document is used to plan for services, accommodations, and to describe decisions made regarding the student’s education (MELS, 2011). Moreover, the IEP must be reviewed regularly and modified based on student progress.

Newfoundland and Labrador

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador follows a model of inclusive education recognizing that all students are afforded equal right for optimal learning, even if not placed in a regular classroom (Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education, 2012a). Teachers are encouraged to become aware of the signs and symptoms of ASD, including AS. Additionally, teachers are directed to collaborate with parents to refer the student to student support services at the district level if an assessment is desired (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2003).

Codes describing the exceptional learning needs of specified children are provided as well as the “Pathway” their education will follow. Each Pathway describes the nature of a student’s educational placement from standard curriculum to full modification of curriculum (Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education, 2012b). The majority of children with AS enter the Pathways program with a code of 57 (Pathway 2) while some enter with a code of 58 (multiple Pathways; Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2011a). Children receiving Pathway 3, 4, or 5 supports are required to have an IEP designed by a program planning team that may involve teachers, support staff, professionals, and the student themselves (Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education, n.d.). The development of the IEP and monitoring of goals is the teacher’s responsibility, and possibly that of other professionals involved in the child’s assessment in collaboration with parents at meetings throughout the year (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2009).

Prince Edward Island

The government of Prince Edward Island specifies that the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development is committed to a philosophy of inclusion (Government of Prince Edward Island, 2011). Directives are in place to ensure appropriate assessment and intervention practices for all students in the PEI Education system (Government of Prince Edward Island, 2009). Teachers are encouraged to begin assessment through in-depth classroom observation and informal assessment should they or a student’s parents believe that a student may benefit from special education. Formal assessment is accessed through consultation with the student, parents, school-based support services personnel, the principal, and other qualified professionals (Prince Edward Island Department of Education, 2004).

The Government of PEI employs Autism Consultants who aid in the identification of ASD as well as collaborate with teachers and parents to design an IEP best suited to the student. Autism Consultants are overseen by the Special Education Autism Coordinator, who reports directly to the Department of Education in PEI (Government of Prince Edward Island, 2005).

The development of an IEP occurs with the collaboration of individuals working with the student and the parents (Government of Prince Edward Island, 2009). IEP objectives consist of concrete and measurable goals that are continually monitored to ensure student success (Prince Edward Island Department of Education, 2005). An IEP designed for students with AS addresses educational status, the required human resources, their communication skills, and personal care needs, and can be modified as needed (Government of Prince Edward Island, 2005).

Funding is provided to all schools such that both the general and special education needs of the school’s student population may be met with adequate resources and support personnel (Government of Prince Edward Island, 2012). This funding is primarily allocated for intensive behavioural intervention services in the preschool years and for academic tutoring, social skills training, and any one-to-one support needed to participate in community-based activities in the school-aged years (PEI Autism Funding Draft, 2011).

Nova Scotia

The Nova Scotia Department of Education supports the right of all students to equal and full participation in an inclusive education environment within their neighbourhood school, grade level, and subject area classrooms. This right may include modifying the curriculum through an IPP based on a child’s unique learning profile. However, teachers are encouraged to employ existing materials and human resources to explore effective instructional strategies within the existing curriculum before developing an IPP (Government of Nova Scotia, 2008).

Screening and identification of students with special needs may be initiated by teachers, parents, or other individuals (Province of Nova Scotia Department of Education, 2008). Alternatively, children entering the school system with a previous diagnosis of AS will have a plan developed with the teacher and other health staff who have previously worked with the child to assist with the transition to the school system (Government of Nova Scotia, 2010). Furthermore, a provincial autism consultant supports the public school autism strategy. This autism strategy includes autism specialists as part of school board staff to help identify and support children with ASD (Government of Nova Scotia, 2011). As with other exceptionalities, an IPP for students with AS would be developed through collaboration with the teacher, parents, autism consultant, and other involved professionals (Government of Nova Scotia, 2008; Province of Nova Scotia Department of Education, 2009).

The Government of Nova Scotia has allotted special education funding for each school board based on a formula that takes into account the expected enrolment and resources that are needed (Government of Nova Scotia, 2008). Funding is provided to each District Health Authority to provide diagnostic assessments for school-aged children, including access to a large range of health professionals (Government of Nova Scotia, 2011).

New Brunswick

Decisions regarding individualized education delivery are based on an educational (rather than medical) and inclusive (rather than special education) framework in the New Brunswick Board of Education (Government of New Brunswick, 2006). Students may be identified as exceptional through consultation with qualified persons who may include teachers, members of the school-based services team, or district staff such as psychologists, physicians, speech language pathologists, and occupational therapists (Government of New Brunswick, 1997). Students who exhibit academic difficulties over an extended period of time during regular instruction may receive a Special Education Plan (SEP). The purpose of the SEP is to adjust educational goals and supports as necessary to help the student with any exceptionality, including AS, to learn and achieve as much as possible (Government of New Brunswick, 2002). Teachers must collaborate with parents, the school psychologist, principal, and other professionals who have worked with the child to develop SEP goals. This plan is developed using informal and formal assessment information to produce a document outlining concrete goals and specific interventions for the student to experience success in the inclusive school system (New Brunswick Department of Education, 2002).

School-based staff in New Brunswick also often utilize a behavioural planning framework that emphasizes positive behaviour intervention and support and a scaling up on intervention intensity akin to an Response to Intervention approach (New Brunswick Department of Education, 2004)

As preset plans for students with AS are not described, parents and teachers are encouraged to monitor student success with the curriculum, peer interactions, and ability to cope with the academic and social demands of the classroom (Government of New Brunswick, 2005). An SEP may be developed if a student experiences difficulty over an extended period of time despite additional supports from the teacher.

Summary

Students with AS experience significant social, emotional, and behavioural challenges in the school environment. Appropriate and effective school-based identification and support is often necessary to assist them in meeting educational goals. However, it is the case that each Canadian province differs with regard to policies and practices pertaining to delivery of services to children with exceptional learning needs. This is particularly the case for AS, which is often not specifically identified in education policy, resulting in inconsistencies in identification and service provision across Canadian provinces. However, several areas of possible improvement are noted to enhance outcome for Canadian students with AS.

Future Directions/Suggestions for Improvement

Increasing teachers’ awareness

Many teachers remain unaware, or have limited knowledge, of AS (Safran & Safran, 2001). Indeed, the well-developed cognitive abilities of this population often mask social challenges in younger children, and teachers are often puzzled as to the nature of social awkwardness of older individuals (Williams, 1995). Indeed, preservice teachers should receive more detailed information on this topic in their training program. More specifically, teacher knowledge of the clinical characteristics and best practices for intervention and support for children with higher-functioning forms of ASD is lacking and educators often struggle to provide adequate support to students with AS. Information regarding the nature of AS is of primary importance to teachers so that they can better prepare their inclusive classroom to support these students. There are numerous resources available to educators, and some provinces employ ASD/Autism Specialists who consult with teachers regarding knowledge and effective classroom supports. These professionals provide an integral support to students, teachers, classrooms, schools, and school districts. Increased use of these specialized consultants may enhance service delivery and outcome for students with AS.

Diagnostic recognition

Reliance on formal diagnosis for provision of student support, rather than on identification of individual student need, may become problematic for students with AS should the currently proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria become formalized and published (McPartland, Reichow, & Volkmar, 2012). Although the rationale behind the modification of the diagnostic criteria is based on empirical research, the changes will eliminate the AS diagnosis. This revision carries significant ramifications for students with AS, who may no longer be formally recognized as demonstrating with clinical challenges. As such, educational systems that rely on formal diagnosis for identification within schools may no longer appropriately recognize students with AS. Although some provinces espouse policies pertaining to identification of student need not based on formal diagnosis, others rely on a diagnosis for provision of special education services. Given that AS is not the only clinical disorder that will be undergoing modification with the publication of the DSM-5, meaning that other students’ diagnoses may be modified in the future, Canadian educational systems are strongly encouraged to adopt novel approaches to identification of student need that do not rely solely on formal diagnosis.

Specified diagnostic/identification practices

Although all provincial policies indicate a method of identification of students with exceptional learning needs within their systems (typically a formal diagnosis), only B.C. specifies formal requirements for assessment. Given that assessment is typically the foundation for school-based recognition of exceptionality, it is surprising that more educational systems do not have requirements pertaining to the nature of acceptable or appropriate assessment practices. To ensure that recognition of student need is appropriate and comparable across provinces, consideration should be given to the development of specific guidelines for screening and identification processes that are based on a best practice approach using empirically supported methodology. These approaches do not have to necessarily be diagnostic in nature, but rather should result in effective methods for identification of student need, be it in the academic, cognitive, social, or behavioural realm.

Enhanced screening practices

Comprehensive assessment and diagnosis is often a time consuming and intensive process. Given the limited time and increasing demand for school psychology services, formal assessment is often conducted outside of the educational system. However, even in such circumstances, initial recognition of symptoms can occur within the school environment. As such, teachers, both pre- and in-service, must be educated on the characteristic symptoms of AS and related disorders so that appropriate referrals for assessment can be made. Screening plays an important role in this process, and universal screening of students for social, emotional, or behavioural concerns (including AS) may be the most effective method by which to ensure that students’ non-academic needs are recognized and addressed. Moreover, social, emotional, and behavioural needs should be routinely monitored after diagnosis so that mental health concerns can be identified and addressed in a timely manner.

Narrow focus of intervention/support

The majority of Canadian educational systems advocate for inclusive education to support the attainment of educational goals by students. However, academic goals are typically curricular in nature (e.g., attainment of specific knowledge) while other pivotal aspects of functioning are underrecognized. Regarding AS specifically, affected individuals are capable of adequate or high achievement; however, they experience significant adversity from nonacademic barriers to learning such as social, emotional, and behavioural issues. Although some emphasis is placed on social and emotional development, school-based professionals must remain mindful of the important role that social and mental health plays in academic achievement and ensure that the development of these abilities are supported in addition to academic skills. Indeed, many students without formal diagnosis or an identified need may benefit from “universal” intervention programs designed to enhance social competencies, emotional awareness, self-advocacy, self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship skills among others. Implementation of such programs can have a wide-reaching impact on entire classrooms or school environments and should be considered of primary importance to the well-being of all students (not just those with AS).

Conclusion

Students with AS present challenges in social and behavioural functioning. Current Canadian provincial policies and practices provide some guidance for provision of support; however, there is significant discrepancy among provinces regarding how students with AS are identified and supported. Given the forthcoming change in diagnostic criteria and the ongoing need to provide all students with an appropriate and effective education, provincial education systems should strive to identify and support the individual needs of each student in a fashion that adheres to their educational model (e.g., inclusive education) while still improving outcome. Educating teachers, moving to a needs-based identification model (as opposed to a diagnostic model), defining assessment requirement, universal screening initiatives, and a broader scope of intervention practices may enhance service delivery to students with AS (as well as those from other populations). It is hoped that such measures will be considered in an effort to improve outcome for the AS population.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bios

Adam W. McCrimmon is an assistant professor in educational studies in school psychology, Faculty of Education, at the University of Calgary where he currently directs the Autism Spectrum Education, Research, & Training (ASERT) lab. He has worked clinically and conducted research with individuals with autism spectrum disorder, including Asperger syndrome, for 15 years.

Alyssa A. Altomare is a graduate student in the school and applied child psychology program at the University of Calgary. She will begin her doctoral studies there this fall. Her research focuses on children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders, with an emphasis on resilience and mental health.

Ryan L. Matchullis is a graduate student in the school and applied child psychology program at the University of Calgary. He will begin his doctoral studies there this fall. His research interests center on executive functions, specifically inhibition in children and adolescents with ASD.

Katia Jitlina is a master’s student in the school and applied child psychology program at the University of Calgary. She will begin her doctoral studies at the University of British Columbia this fall. She received her BSc in psychology from the University of British Columbia. Her current research interests include investigating autism spectrum disorders and executive functioning.

References

Alberta Education. (2011a). About an inclusive education system. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/department/ipr/inclusion/about.aspx

Alberta Education. (2011b). Special education coding criteria 2011/2012. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/media/825847/spedcodingcriteria.pdf

Alberta Education. (2011c). Action on inclusion. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/department/ipr/inclusion/about.aspx

Alberta Learning. (2003a). Education programs and services: Educational placement of students with special needs. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/media/248692/1.6.1.pdf

Alberta Learning (2003b). Teaching students with autism spectrum disorders. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/media/511995/autism.pdf

Alberta Learning. (2004). Standards for special education. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/media/511387/specialed_stds2004.pdf

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revised). Washington, DC: Author. doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890423349

American Psychiatric Association. (2012a). DSM-5 development. Retrieved from http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

American Psychiatric Association. (2012b). A 05: Autism spectrum disorder. Retrieved from http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=94#

10.

Asperger

(1991). Autistic psychopathologies in childhood. In Frith

(Ed. & Trans.), Autism and Asperger syndrome (p. 90). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

11.

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2000). Teaching students with autism: a resource guide for schools. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/specialed/docs/autism.pdf

12.

BC Ministry of Education (2002). K-12 Funding—Special needs. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/policy/policies/funding_special_needs.htm

13.

BC Ministry of Education. (2011). Special education services: A manual of policies, procedures and guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/specialed/ppandg.htm

14.

Carter

(2009). Bullying of students with Asperger syndrome. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 32, 145-154. doi:10.1080/01460860903062782

15.

Fombonne

(2009). Epidemiology of pervasive developmental disorders. Pediatric Research, 65, 591-598. doi:10.1203/PDR.0b013e31819e7203

16.

Frazier

J. A.

Doyle

Chiu

Coyle

J. T.

(2002). Treating a child with Asperger’s disorder and comorbid bipolar disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159(1), 13-21. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.159.1.13

17.

Ghaziuddin

Greden

(2002). Depression in persons with autism: Implications for research and clinical care. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 32, 299-306. doi:10.1023/A:1016330802348

18.

Gilliam

J.E.

(2001). Gilliam Asperger’s Disorder Scale—examiner’s manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

19.

Goldstein

Naglieri

J. A.

Ozonoff

(2009). Assessment of autism spectrum disorders. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

20.

Government of New Brunswick (1997). Education Act. Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada: Queen’s Printer for New Brunswick.

21.

Government of New Brunswick (2002). Guidelines and standards: Education planning for students with exceptionalities. Department of Education, Educational Programs and Services Branch. ISBN: 1552368807

22.

Government of New Brunswick (2005). Teaching students with autism spectrum disorders: Inclusive programming for ASD students in New Brunswick schools. Department of Education. ISBN: 1553963261

23.

Government of New Brunswick (2006). Supporting the SEP process: A teacher’s guide. Department of Education, Student Services Unit. Retrieved from http://www.gnb.ca/0000/publications/ss/SupportingtheSEPProcess.pdf

24.

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (2003). Programming for Individual Needs: Teaching Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/studentsupportservices/publications/TeachingStudentsAutism.pdf

25.

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (2009). Pathway 2—Questions and Answers for Schools. Department of Education, Division of Student Support Services.

26.

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (2011a). Description of Pathways. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/studentsupportservices/pathwaysdesc.html

27.

Government of Nova Scotia (2008). Special Education Policy. Department of Education: Student Services. ISBN: 1554571057

28.

Government of Nova Scotia. (2010). Autism Management Advisory Team Report on Lifespan Needs for Persons with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Nova Scotia Department of Education. ISBN: 9781554573578

29.

Government of Nova Scotia (2011). Autism Spectrum Disorder Action Plan. Retrieved from http://www.ednet.ns.ca/pdfdocs/autism/autism_report_en.pdf

30.

Government of Prince Edward Island (2005). Individualized Education Planning, Standards and Guidelines. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.gov.pe.ca/photos/original/ed_ieplanning.pdf

31.

Government of Prince Edward Island (2009). Minister’s Directive No. MD 2001-08 Special Education. Prince Edward Island, Canada: Department of Education and Early Child Development. Retrieved from http://www.gov.pe.ca/eecd/index.php3?number=1027961

32.

Government of Prince Edward Island (2011). Special Education Needs. Prince Edward Island, Canada: Department of Education and Early Child Development. Retrieved from http://www.gov.pe.ca/eecd/SpecialEducationalNeeds

33.

Government of Prince Edward Island. (2012). Minister’s Directive No. MD 2011-04. School Board Staffing and Funding Program for the 2011-2012 School Board Fiscal Year. Prince Edward Island, Canada: Department of Education and Early Child Development. Retrieved from http://www.gov.pe.ca/eecd/index.php3?number=1041040&lang=E

34.

Government of Saskatchewan (2008). Framework and Action Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorders Services in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan, Canada: Ministry of Health. Retrieved from http://www.health.gov.sk.ca/autism-action-plan-2008

35.

Government of Saskatchewan (1999). Teaching Students with Autism: A Guide for Educators Saskatchewan Education. Retrieved from http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/branches/curr/special_ed/docs/autism/Teaching%20Students%20with%20Autism%20Document.pdf

36.

Jordan

J. J.

Hindes

Y. L.

Saklofsk

D. H.

(2009). School psychology in Canada. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24, 245-264. doi:10.1177/0829573509338614

37.

Klin

Volkmar

(2003). Asperger Syndrome: Diagnosis and external validity. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 12(1), 1-13. doi:10.1016/S1056-4993(02)00052-4

38.

Klin

Volkmar

(2000). Treatment and intervention guidelines for individuals with Asperger syndrome. In Klin

Volkmar

Sparrow

(Eds.), Asperger Syndrome (pp. 340-366). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

39.

Kohen

Uppal

Khan

Visentin

(2010). Access and Barriers to Education for Canadian Children with Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.ccl-cca.ca/ccl/Reports/OtherReports/201009KohenUppalKhanVisentinAccessBarriers.html

40.

Krug

D. A.

Arick

J. R.

(2003). Krug Asperger’s Disorder Index—Examiner’s manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

41.

Lord

Rutter

Le Couteur

(1994). Autism Diagnostic Interview—Revised. A revised version of a diagnostic interview for caregivers of individuals with possible pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental disorders, 24, 659-685. doi:10.1007/BF02172145

42.

Lord

Risi

Lambrecht

Cook

E. H.

Leventhal

B. L.

DiLavore

P. C.

Pickles

Rutter

(2000). The autism diagnostic observation schedule-generic: A standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 205-223.

43.

Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth (2005). Supporting Inclusive Schools: A Handbook for Developing and Implementing Programming for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/specedu/aut/index.html#doc

44.

Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth (2006). Appropriate Educational Planning In Manitoba: Standards for Student Services. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/specedu/aep/pdf/Standards_for_Student_Services.pdf

45.

Manitoba Education (2011). Towards Inclusion: Supporting Positive Behaviour in Manitoba Classrooms. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/specedu/behaviour/behaviour_document.pdf

46.

Manitoba Education (n.d.). Special Needs Categorical Funding. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/specedu/funding/index.html

47.

Matson

J. L.

Nebel-Schwalm

Matson

M. L.

(2007). A review of methodological issues in the differential diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders in children. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1, 38-54. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2006.07.004

48.

McPartland

J. C.

Reichow

Volkmar

F. R.

(2012). Sensitivity and specificity of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 51, 368-383. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2012.01.007

49.

Ministère de L’Education, du sport et du loisir. (2007). Organization of educational services for at-risk students and students with handicaps, social maladjustments or learning difficulties. Retrieved from http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/dgfj/das/orientations/pdf/19-7065-A.pdf

50.

Ministère de L’Education, du sport et du loisir. (2011). Règles budgétaires pour l’année scolaire 2011-2012 [Fiscal rules for the school year 2011-2012]. Retrieved from http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/dgfe/Regles/reg_cs/pdf/Compl2011-2012.pdf

51.

National Autism Centre. (2009). Evidence-based practice and autism in the schools. Randolph, MA, USA. Retrieved from http://www.nationalautismcenter.org/pdf/NAC%20Ed%20Manual_FINAL.pdf

52.

New Brunswick Department of Education. (2004). Meeting Behavioural Challenges: Creating Safe and Caring Learning Environments. Retrieved from http://www.gnb.ca/0000/publications/ss/StaffPDResource.pdf

53.

Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education. (2012a). Inclusive School Culture. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/inclusion.html

54.

Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education. (2012b). Description of Pathways. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/studentsupportservices/pathwaysdesc.html

55.

Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education. (n.d.). Individual Education Plan Questions and Answers. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/studentsupportservices/IEP.pdf

56.

Nicol

S. M.

(2008). Teachers’ knowledge of Asperger’s disorder: what every educator should know about Asperger’s syndrome. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI Number: 3296768)

57.

Ontario Ministry of Education (2000). Standards for School Boards’ Special Education Plans. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. ISBN: 0779400976

58.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2009). Funding for Special Education. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/funding.html

59.

Ontario Ministry of Education (2011). Learning for All: A Guide to Effective Assessment and instruction for all Students, Kindergarten to Grade 12. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/LearningforAll2011.pdf

60.

Ozonoff

Dawson

McPartland

(2002). A Parent’s Guide to Asperger Syndrome and High-Functioning Autism: How to Meet the Challenges and Help Your Child Thrive. New York: The Guilford Press.

61.

Queen’s Printer for Ontario. (2011a). Highlights of Regulation 181/98. Ontario Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/hilites.html.

62.

Queen’s Printer for Ontario. (2011b). Questions and Answers: Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Ontario Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/autism.html.

63.

Safran

J. S.

Safran

S. P.

(2001). The consultant’s corner: School-based consultation for Asperger syndrome. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 385-395. doi:10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1204_05

64.

Sanford

M. N.

Offord

D. R.

Boyle

M. H.

Peace

Racine

Y. A.

(1992). Ontario child health study: Social and school impairments in children aged 6 to 16 years. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 60-67. doi:10.1097/00004583-199201000-00010

65.

Sanosti

F. J.

Powell-Smith

K. A.

(2006). Using Social Stories to improve the social behaviour of children with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 43-57.

66.

Saskatchewan Ministry of Education (2008). Personal Program Plans (PPP): SMART Outcomes And Student Outcome Rubrics. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.sk.ca/adx/aspx/adxGetMedia.aspx?DocID=2005,7206,211,107,81,1,Documents&MediaID=3808&Filename=Personal+Program+Plans+%26+

67.

Smith-Myles

Jones-Bock

Simpson

R.L.

(2001). Asperger Syndrome Diagnostic Scale—examiners manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

68.

Stichter

J. P.

Herzog

M. J.

Visovsky

Schmidt

Randolph

Schultz

Gage

(2010). Social competence intervention for youth with Asperger syndrome and high-functioning autism: An initial investigation. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 1067-1079. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-0959-1

69.

Szatmari

(2004). A Mind Apart: Understanding Children with Autism and Asperger Syndrome. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

70.

Toth

King

B. H.

(2008). Asperger’s syndrome: Diagnosis and treatment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 958-963. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08020272

71.

Tsatsanis

K. D.

Foley

Donehower

(2004). Contemporary outcome research and programming guidelines for Asperger syndrome and high-functioning autism. Topics in Language Disorders, 24, 249-259. doi:10.1097/00011363-200410000-00003

72.

White

S.W.

Oswald

Ollendick

&Scahill

(2009). Anxiety in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Clinical Psychology Review. 29, 216-229. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.01.003

73.

Williams

(1995). Understanding the student with Asperger’s Syndrome: Guidelines for teachers. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 10, 9-16.

74.

Wing

(1981). Asperger’s Syndrome: A clinical account. Psychological Medicine, 11(1), 115-129. doi:10.1017/S0033291700053332

75.

World Health Organization. (1994). International Classification of Diseases (10th ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

76.

World Health Organization. (2012). Classifications—ICD-11. Retrieved from http://www.who/classifications/icd/revision/en/index.html