Hubbry Logo
Special needsSpecial needsMain
Open search
Special needs
Community hub
Special needs
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Special needs
Special needs
Special needs
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Disability
Theory and models
Education
Therapy
Societal implications
Personal assistance
Socioeconomic assistance
  • Groups
  • Organizations
Parasports
Culture

In clinical diagnostic and functional development, special needs (or additional needs) refers to individuals who require assistance for disabilities that may be medical, mental, or psychological. Guidelines for clinical diagnosis are given in both the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the International Classification of Diseases 9th edition. Special needs can range from people with autism, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, dyslexia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia, dysgraphia, blindness, deafness, ADHD, and cystic fibrosis. They can also include cleft lips and missing limbs. The types of special needs vary in severity, and a student with a special need is classified as being a severe case when the student's IQ is between 20 and 35.[1] These students typically need assistance in school, and have different services provided for them to succeed in a different setting.[2][3]

In parts of the United Kingdom, special needs usually refers to special needs within an educational context. This is also referred to as special educational needs (SEN) or special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), additional support needs in Scotland, and in Wales is referred to as additional learning needs (ALN, Welsh: Anghenion Dysgu Ychwanegol, ADY) since 2021.[4] In the United States, 19.4 percent of all children under the age of 18 (14,233,174 children) had special health care needs as of 2018.[5][6][7][8]

The term is seen as a dysphemism by many disability rights advocates and is deprecated by a number of style guides (e.g. APA style).[9]

U.S. special needs and adoption statistics

[edit]

In the United States "special needs" is a legal term applying in foster care, derived from the language in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. It is a diagnosis used to classify children as needing more services than those children without special needs who are in the foster care system. It is a diagnosis based on behavior, childhood and family history, and is usually made by a health care professional.

More than 150,000 children with special needs in the US have been waiting for permanent homes. Traditionally, children with special needs have been considered harder to place for adoption than other children, but experience has shown that many children with special needs can be placed successfully with families who want them. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105–89) has focused more attention on finding homes for children with special needs and making sure they receive the post-adoption services they need. Pre-adoption services are also of critical importance to ensure that adoptive parents are well prepared and equipped with the necessary resources for a successful adoption. The United States Congress enacted the law to ensure that children in foster care who cannot be reunited with their birth parents are freed for adoption and placed with permanent families as quickly as possible.

The disruption rate for special needs adoption is found to be somewhere between ten and sixteen percent. A 1989 study performed by Richard Barth and Marianne Berry found that of the adoptive parents that disrupted, 86% said they would likely or definitely adopt again. 50% said that they would adopt the same child, given a greater awareness of what the adoption of special needs children requires.[10] Also, within disrupted special needs adoption cases, parents often said that they were not aware of the child's history or the severity of the child's issues before the adoption.[10] There is also more care that goes into it when a child of special needs is in the process of getting adopted. Because of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 P.L. 96-272, the child's needs have to be met within the home before allowing adoption, including being able to financially support the child.[11]

Education

[edit]
Main article: Special education

The term special needs is a short form of special education needs[12][13] and is a way to refer to students with disabilities, in which their learning may be altered or delayed compared to other students.[14] The term special needs in the education setting comes into play whenever a child's education program is officially altered from what would normally be provided to students through an Individual Education Plan,[15] which is sometimes referred to as an Individual Program plan.[16] Special education aids the student's learning environment to create a uniform system for all children.[17]

In the past, individuals with disabilities were often shunned or kept in isolation in mental hospitals or institutions. In many countries, disabled people were seen as an embarrassment to society, often facing punishments of torture and even execution.[18] In the US, after the creation of the 1990 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and many other regulations, students with disabilities could not be excluded or discriminated against in the education system.[19][20]

Integrated learning environments

[edit]

In many cases, the integration of special needs students into general-learning classrooms has had many benefits. A study done by Douglas Marston tested the effects of an integrated learning environment on the academic success of students with special needs. He first gathered students in from three different categories: those in isolated learning environments, those in integrated learning environments, and those in a combination of both isolated and integrated learning environments. He calculated the average number of words read by each group in the fall and again in the spring, and compared the outcome. The findings showed that those in integrated learning environments or a combination of isolated and integrated environments experienced greater improvements in their reading skills than those in strictly isolated environments.[21]

Integrated classrooms can also have many social benefits on students with special needs. By surrounding special needs students with their fully functioning peers, they are exposed to diversity. Their close contact with other students will allow them to develop friendships and improve interpersonal skills.[22]

Special needs and education worldwide

[edit]

The integration of children with special needs into school systems is an issue that is being addressed worldwide. In Europe, the number of students with special needs in regular classrooms is rising, while the number of those in segregated exclusive special needs classrooms is declining. However, in other countries such as China, educational opportunities for those with disabilities have been a longstanding issue. Certain cultural beliefs and ideologies have prevented the integration of all students regardless of ability, yet in recent years, China has progressed significantly by allocating more funding to programs to support disabled people and striving to create more inclusive communities within schools.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Special needs

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Special needs, also termed special educational needs, encompass a range of developmental, cognitive, physical, sensory, emotional, or behavioral impairments that substantially hinder an individual's ability to learn, function independently, or participate in typical social and educational settings, often requiring specialized interventions grounded in empirical assessments of functioning deficits. These conditions are diagnosed through standardized criteria, such as those under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which categorizes eligibility into 13 or 14 domains including autism spectrum disorder, specific learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, speech-language impairments, and other health impairments, where the impairment must adversely affect educational performance and necessitate special services. Prevalence data indicate that approximately 15% of U.S. public school students receive special education services, with diagnosed developmental disabilities affecting 8.56% of children aged 3–17 years during 2019–2021, reflecting an upward trend potentially linked to improved detection and etiological factors like genetic predispositions or environmental influences. Common manifestations include autism, which has seen marked increases—reaching 1 in 31 U.S. children born in 2014—alongside attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and learning disorders characterized by persistent deficits in reading, math, or written expression despite adequate instruction. Educational responses historically shifted from segregated special schools to inclusion models integrating students with disabilities into mainstream classrooms, driven by policy mandates like IDEA's principle; however, empirical reviews of 50 years of research critique inclusion's evidence base as fundamentally flawed, showing inconsistent academic gains and potential harms such as diluted instruction for both disabled and nondisabled students due to mismatched needs. Overrepresentation of minority students in raises concerns of diagnostic bias, while causal analyses emphasize biological underpinnings—such as neurodevelopmental anomalies—over purely environmental or social explanations, underscoring the need for targeted, evidence-based supports rather than universal assumptions of equivalence in capability.

Definition and Scope

Core Definition and Distinctions

Special needs, in the context of and , refers to a range of learning difficulties or disabilities that cause a to require additional or different support from that provided to typically developing peers to access the effectively. This encompasses impairments in cognitive, physical, sensory, emotional, or behavioral domains that hinder standard educational progress, such as , autism spectrum disorders, or physical mobility limitations necessitating adaptive equipment. The term originated in educational policy to denote requirements beyond ordinary provision, emphasizing individualized interventions rather than inherent deficits alone. A key distinction exists between special needs and disabilities: while disabilities broadly describe physical, intellectual, or sensory impairments with lifelong impacts across multiple life domains, special needs specifically highlight educational barriers arising from such conditions, where not every triggers special educational requirements. For instance, a with a mild might have a but manage in mainstream settings with minimal aids, whereas profound sensory impairments could classify as special needs demanding tailored instruction. Critics within advocacy argue that "special needs" euphemistically obscures the reality of , preferring direct like "disabled" to affirm legal and social realities without implying temporary or exceptional variance from norms. Special needs also differ from , which denotes the formalized system of services, including individualized education plans (IEPs) and specialized teaching methods, designed to address those needs within or outside mainstream classrooms. In the United States, under the (IDEA) of 2004, special education eligibility requires a verified impacting educational performance across 13 specified categories, such as specific learning disabilities or traumatic brain injuries, with services mandated free and appropriate to the child's circumstances. Jurisdictional variations persist; in the , the Children and Families Act 2014 defines special educational needs (SEN) as difficulties in making progress compared to peers, assessed via , and Care Plans (EHCPs) for severe cases, reflecting a broader inclusion of temporary factors like barriers alongside permanent disabilities. These distinctions underscore that special needs prioritize functional educational outcomes over diagnostic labels, informed by empirical assessments of learning gaps rather than categorical diagnoses alone.

Prevalence and Demographic Data

In the United States, approximately 15% of public school students, or 7.3 million children aged 3-21, received services under the (IDEA) during the 2021-22 school year. This figure has doubled since 1976-77, when about 3.6 million students were served, reflecting expanded eligibility criteria, improved identification practices, and heightened awareness of conditions like learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorder. Developmental disabilities more broadly affect about 1 in 6 U.S. children aged 3-17, with diagnosed prevalence rising from 7.4% in 2016-2018 to 8.6% in 2019-2021, encompassing issues such as intellectual disabilities, ADHD, and speech impairments. Globally, data on special educational needs is less uniform due to varying definitions and reporting standards, but developmental disabilities impact an estimated 10-13% of children and adolescents. The reported in 2023 that health conditions contributing to developmental disabilities affected 317 million children and young people in 2019, with prevalence rates of 7.5% for children under 5 and 12.6% for those aged 5-19. data indicates that students with special needs constitute a significant portion of out-of-school children, though exact global enrollment in special education programs remains inconsistent across regions, often ranging from 1-5% in low-resource countries due to underdiagnosis and limited services. Demographic patterns in the U.S. show marked disparities, with males comprising 65% of students receiving services in 2021-22, compared to 34% females, a ratio consistent across categories like specific learning disabilities and autism. By race and , identification rates exceed the national average for American Indian/Alaska Native students (17%) and students (approximately 16%), while Asian students have lower rates (around 9%), potentially influenced by socioeconomic factors, cultural diagnostic biases, and disparities in access to services. correlates strongly with prevalence, as children from low-income households are 1.5-2 times more likely to have developmental disabilities or special needs, linked to environmental risks, gaps, and nutritional deficiencies.
Demographic GroupPercentage of Public School Students with Disabilities (U.S., 2021-22)
65%
34%
American Indian/Alaska Native17%
~16%
~14%
~14%
Asian~9%
These disparities highlight potential over- or under-identification influenced by systemic factors, including referral biases in schools serving minority or low-income populations, though empirical data confirm higher objective needs in disadvantaged groups due to cumulative risk factors.

Historical Context

Pre-20th Century Approaches

In ancient Greece and Rome, infants born with apparent disabilities were frequently exposed to die, a practice endorsed by philosophers such as Plato, who in The Republic (c. 375 BCE) advocated for the disposal of deformed newborns to preserve societal strength, and Aristotle, who in Politics (c. 350 BCE) classified certain impairments as justifying infanticide due to perceived burdens on resources. This reflected a eugenic rationale prioritizing communal fitness over individual care, with children who were blind, deaf, or intellectually impaired often facing public scorn or persecution in Roman society. Exceptions existed, such as Hippocrates' empirical framing of epilepsy as a brain disorder rather than divine punishment in On the Sacred Disease (c. 400 BCE), marking an early naturalistic approach amid prevailing supernatural attributions. During the medieval period in (c. 500–1500 CE), disabilities were commonly interpreted through religious lenses as for , demonic influence, or tests of , leading to treatments like exorcisms or for cure. Intellectually impaired individuals were viewed as lacking reason, often termed "fools" or "idiots," and integrated into via family support, monastic care, or begging, with church-run almshouses and leprosariums providing rudimentary segregation for physical conditions like . Legal codes, such as those in Anglo-Saxon , sometimes protected the disabled from exploitation while restricting their , reflecting ambivalence: charity coexisted with exclusion, as seen in exclusions or inheritance laws deeming the impaired legally incompetent. Institutional care remained limited, with early hospitals like the Hôtel-Dieu in (c. 651 CE) offering palliative rather than targeted interventions. The 17th and 18th centuries initiated shifts toward humanitarianism and proto-scientific inquiry, influenced by Enlightenment , though approaches remained custodial. John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) emphasized environmental factors in , challenging innate deficiency views and paving the way for educability claims. Early specialized emerged for sensory impairments: established the first public school for the deaf in in 1760, using methods, while Valentin Haüy founded the Institution Nationale des Sourds-Muets à for the blind in 1785, introducing tactile reading. Mental asylums proliferated, such as London's Bethlem (founded 1247 but reformed in the ), but conditions were harsh until Philippe Pinel's 1793 unchaining of patients at Bicêtre and Salpêtrière hospitals in , advocating "" focused on environment over restraint. For intellectual disabilities, Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard's 1800–1806 experiments with the "Wild Boy of " tested sensory but yielded limited success, highlighting persistent skepticism about trainability. By the , institutionalization expanded, with over 10 private facilities in the U.S. by 1900 housing those with developmental disabilities, often under charitable or state auspices emphasizing segregation from society. Pioneers like opened the in 1817, adapting European models, and developed his tactile system in 1824 for the blind. Édouard Séguin's physiological methods in (1840s) and later in the U.S. promoted sensorimotor training for the intellectually impaired, influencing early "idiot asylums" like the Training School (1852). These efforts marked a transition from exclusion to tentative intervention, though most individuals received family-based or care, with pervasive stigma framing disabilities as moral failings or hereditary defects absent rigorous .

20th Century Developments and Legislation

In the early , public education systems largely excluded children with disabilities, with compulsory schooling laws often applied selectively or not at all to those deemed uneducable. Institutionalization in asylums or state facilities was the predominant approach, affecting an estimated 200,000 children by the 1920s, while urban districts began establishing segregated special classes primarily for the deaf, blind, and those classified as mentally retarded through emerging IQ testing. These classes, first piloted in cities like in 1898 and Providence in 1908, focused on basic vocational training rather than academic integration, reflecting eugenics-influenced views that prioritized separation to protect mainstream students. Mid-century developments were spurred by World War II experiences, including the reintegration of disabled veterans, which highlighted societal capabilities and fueled parental advocacy groups like the National Association of Parents and Friends of Mentally Retarded Children, founded in 1950. Court challenges, such as Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth (1971) and Mills v. Board of Education (1972), established judicial precedents affirming the right to education without exclusion based on disability, influencing federal policy. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, particularly Section 504, prohibited discrimination against individuals with disabilities in programs receiving federal funds, extending protections to education for the first time on a national scale. The landmark Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142), enacted in 1975, mandated (FAPE) in the , individualized education programs (IEPs), and procedural safeguards like hearings, serving over 3.6 million children by the early 1980s. Reauthorized and renamed the (IDEA) in 1990 (Public Law 101-476), it shifted terminology from "handicapped" to "disabled" and emphasized transition services to adulthood. Complementing this, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336) provided broader anti-discrimination protections, indirectly bolstering educational access by requiring reasonable accommodations in public entities, including schools. These measures marked a transition from exclusionary practices to mandated inclusion, though varied due to shortfalls and local resistance.

Types and Etiologies

Major Categories of Conditions

The major categories of conditions associated with special needs, particularly those qualifying individuals for educational accommodations and services, are delineated in frameworks such as the in the United States, which specifies 13 disability categories based on impairments that adversely impact al performance. These categories, established through federal regulation, encompass neurodevelopmental, sensory, physical, -related, and emotional disturbances, serving as eligibility criteria for individualized programs (IEPs) for approximately 7.5 million U.S. public school students in the 2021–22 school year, representing about 15% of enrollment. While classifications vary internationally—such as under the World Organization's International Classification of Functioning, and (ICF)—IDEA's categories provide a standardized, empirically grounded basis for identifying needs rooted in observable functional deficits rather than solely diagnostic labels. Key categories include , defined as significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior manifested during the developmental period that adversely affects educational performance; specific learning disability, a disorder in one or more basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, potentially manifested in , thinking, reading, writing, , or mathematical , excluding learning problems resulting from visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, , emotional disturbance, or environmental influences; and autism, a significantly affecting verbal and and social interaction, generally evident before age three, often characterized by repetitive activities and resistance to environmental change. Sensory impairments cover , a hearing impairment so severe that processing linguistic information through hearing, with or without amplification, is severely limited, adversely affecting educational performance; , an impairment in hearing, whether permanent or fluctuating, adversely affecting educational performance but not included under ; and including blindness, an impairment in vision that, even with correction, adversely affects educational performance, encompassing partial sight and blindness. Physical and health-related categories encompass orthopedic impairment, a severe orthopedic impairment that adversely affects educational , such as , amputations, or fractures causing mobility limitations; other health impairment, having limited strength, vitality, or alertness due to chronic or acute health problems like , ADHD, , , or heart conditions, resulting in limited alertness including heightened alertness to environmental stimuli that adversely affects educational ; and , an acquired injury to the caused by an external physical resulting in total or partial functional or psychosocial impairment, excluding congenital or degenerative conditions or birth trauma. Communication and emotional categories include speech or impairment, a such as , impaired articulation, impairment, or voice impairment that adversely affects educational ; emotional disturbance, a condition exhibiting one or more characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects educational , including inability to learn unexplainable by , sensory, or health factors, inability to build or maintain relationships, inappropriate behaviors or feelings, general pervasive unhappiness or depression, or fears/phobias, encompassing but excluding socially maladjusted youth unless emotionally disturbed; and developmental delay for children aged 3 through 9, a delay in physical development, , communication development, social or emotional development, or adaptive development determined by diagnostic instruments and informed clinical opinion. Multiple and combined impairments are addressed under , concomitant impairments such as with blindness, the combination of which causes such severe educational needs that they cannot be accommodated in programs solely for one impairment, excluding deaf-blindness; and deaf-blindness, concomitant hearing and visual impairments, the combination of which causes such severe communication and other developmental and educational needs that they cannot be accommodated in programs solely for children with or children with blindness. Prevalence data from the indicate specific learning disabilities comprise the largest group at 32% of students served under IDEA in 2021–22, followed by speech or language impairments at 19%, other health impairments at 15%, and autism at 12%, with rarer categories like or each under 2%. These categories emphasize functional impact over , requiring evaluation through multidisciplinary assessments to confirm adverse effects on learning, though diagnostic overlap and evolving criteria—such as expansions in autism spectrum recognition—necessitate case-by-case determination.

Causal Factors and Genetic Influences

Special needs conditions, encompassing intellectual disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and other developmental disorders, arise from a complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors. Genetic influences predominate in many cases, with heritability estimates often exceeding 70% based on twin and family studies, indicating that inherited variations in DNA sequences substantially contribute to risk. Environmental factors, including prenatal exposures and perinatal complications, can interact with genetic predispositions to precipitate or exacerbate these conditions, though they account for a smaller proportion of variance in most population-level analyses. Intellectual disability (ID), affecting approximately 1-3% of the population, is predominantly genetic in etiology, with over 1,700 associated genes identified through genomic sequencing. Chromosomal abnormalities, such as trisomy 21 in (occurring in about 1 in 700 births), and copy number variations (CNVs) like those in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, account for 10-20% of cases, while single-gene mutations, including expansions in the gene causing (the most common inherited form of ID, with prevalence around 1 in 4,000 males), explain another significant subset. Polygenic risk scores, involving thousands of common variants, further contribute to milder forms, underscoring a continuum from monogenic to multifactorial inheritance patterns. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) demonstrates high of 64-91% from meta-analyses of twin studies, with monozygotic twin concordance rates ranging from 60-90%, far exceeding dizygotic rates of 0-30%, which minimizes shared environmental confounds. De novo mutations in genes like SHANK3 or CHD8, alongside rare CNVs, are implicated in 10-20% of cases, while polygenic factors overlap with those for ID and , highlighting shared neurodevelopmental pathways. Environmental modifiers, such as advanced parental age increasing de novo mutation risk, interact with this genetic liability but do not independently explain prevalence rises. ADHD exhibits estimates around 76-80% from twin studies and meta-analyses, with genome-wide association studies identifying polygenic contributions from variants in dopamine-related genes like DRD4 and DRD5. Genetic overlap with ASD and ID is substantial, as evidenced by shared risk loci in large-scale consortia, supporting a neurobiological basis over purely attributions. Beyond genetics, causal factors include prenatal insults like maternal infections (e.g., or exposure leading to microcephaly-associated disabilities), alcohol consumption causing fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (affecting up to 5% of U.S. schoolchildren), and toxin exposures such as lead, which impairs via disrupted . Perinatal hypoxia or prematurity elevates risk for and ID by 10-20 fold, while postnatal or can compound genetic vulnerabilities, though these are less deterministic without predisposing alleles. Empirical data from cohort studies emphasize gene-environment interactions, where, for instance, genetic variants in pathways amplify susceptibility to pollutants, rather than unidirectional environmental causation.

Educational Approaches

Special Education Models and Interventions

Special education models encompass a continuum of service delivery approaches tailored to students' individualized education programs (IEPs), ranging from full inclusion in general classrooms to fully segregated settings. These models prioritize evidence-based practices (EBPs), defined as instructional strategies supported by rigorous demonstrating positive outcomes for students with disabilities. Key EBPs, identified through systematic reviews by organizations like the Council for Exceptional Children, include explicit instruction, peer-mediated strategies, and self-management techniques, with 27 practices validated for improving academic and behavioral skills across disabilities. Implementation fidelity—adhering closely to proven protocols—remains critical, as deviations correlate with diminished results in meta-analyses of interventions. The inclusion model integrates students with special needs into general classrooms for most or all of the day, often with support from special educators or aides, as mandated under frameworks like the (IDEA). Proponents cite social benefits, such as improved peer interactions, but meta-analyses of over 50 years of research reveal no strong evidence for academic advantages; outcomes show neutral or negligible effects on achievement for students with compared to segregated settings. For instance, a 2022 meta-analysis of 47 studies found inclusive placements neither significantly benefited nor harmed academic performance in students without , while specialized programs yielded superior gains for those with intellectual . Critiques highlight methodological flaws in inclusion studies, including small sample sizes and failure to control for severity, potentially overstating benefits amid ideological pressures in . In contrast, self-contained classrooms or models provide targeted, small-group instruction separate from , allowing for intensive remediation suited to specific needs like learning disabilities or autism. Evidence from project-based implementations, such as (DI) programs, demonstrates substantial reading gains; for example, students with low IQs in DI-exposed groups achieved annual progress rates comparable to higher-IQ peers, with sustained improvements over two years. These models emphasize scripted, explicit teaching sequences, which meta-reviews confirm accelerate skill acquisition in math and reading for special needs populations, outperforming discovery-based approaches in controlled trials. Response to Intervention (RTI), a multi-tiered model, delivers progressively intensive supports starting in general education to identify and remediate difficulties before referral. Tier 1 involves high-quality core instruction for all; Tier 2 adds small-group interventions; Tier 3 escalates to individualized plans. Efficacy data indicate RTI reduces identification by 11-15%, particularly for specific learning disabilities, with gains in reading scores for at-risk groups like Black students. A full-scale RTI implementation in improved reading skills across tiers, though long-term effects vary by fidelity and early screening accuracy. For behavioral and developmental disabilities, (ABA) stands as a cornerstone intervention, using data-driven techniques like to reinforce skills. Meta-analyses from 2023-2025 affirm ABA's effectiveness for autism, with over 89% of studies reporting significant enhancements in cognition, communication, and adaptive behaviors; naturalistic variants yield moderate to large effect sizes in social-emotional domains. Early intensive ABA, delivered 20-40 hours weekly, correlates with IQ gains of 15-20 points in longitudinal trials, though optimal dosing requires individualization to avoid burnout. Despite criticisms of intensity, evidence underscores ABA's superiority over eclectic therapies for measurable outcomes. Other targeted interventions include functional behavioral assessments paired with replacement behaviors for emotional disturbances and mnemonic strategies for memory deficits, both rated highly by the What Works Clearinghouse for single-subject designs. Peer-assisted learning, where trained classmates tutor, boosts math and reading in inclusive settings with moderate effects, per systematic reviews. Overall, model selection hinges on disability type and severity; empirical syntheses emphasize combining models—e.g., partial inclusion with pull-out DI—for optimal causal impact, as universal application ignores heterogeneous needs.

Inclusion Versus Segregated Settings

Inclusion in special education refers to the practice of educating students with alongside typically developing peers in general education classrooms, with supplementary aids and services as needed, to promote and access to the standard . Segregated settings, by contrast, involve separate classes or schools tailored to specific needs, often providing specialized instruction but potentially limiting peer interactions. The debate centers on whether inclusion maximizes outcomes or if segregation better addresses diverse , with revealing mixed results influenced by disability severity, implementation quality, and study design limitations. Meta-analyses of show no consistent sizeable positive or negative effects of inclusion compared to segregation; for instance, a 2023 review of multiple studies found neutral impacts on reading and math skills for students with disabilities. However, some indicates modest gains in inclusive settings for students with milder general learning difficulties, such as improved on standardized tests when support is adequate. For severe intellectual disabilities, evidence is weaker, with segregation often yielding comparable or better tailored academic progress due to focused interventions, though long-term longitudinal data remains sparse. Critics argue that pro-inclusion studies suffer from , where higher-functioning students are disproportionately placed inclusively, confounding results. Social and emotional outcomes favor inclusion in many cases, with meta-analyses reporting enhanced , peer relationships, and reduced isolation for included students versus those in segregated environments. A 2021 analysis of measures found small but positive effects on and , particularly for moderate disabilities. Yet, these benefits diminish for profound needs, where inclusive settings may increase frustration or behavioral issues without intensive resources, and segregation can foster targeted skill-building in supportive groups. Longitudinal studies suggest no elevated dropout risk for students transitioning from segregation to inclusion, but postsecondary outcomes like show no clear superiority for either model. Implementation challenges underscore the debate: inclusion demands substantial teacher training and aides, often under-resourced in practice, leading to suboptimal outcomes regardless of intent. Segregation risks stigmatization but allows customization, as evidenced by higher adaptive skill gains in specialized programs for autism spectrum disorders. Overall, evidence does not support a universal preference, with individualized assessment—factoring disability type and local capacity—determining efficacy over ideological mandates. Academic sources advancing inclusion may reflect institutional biases toward integration, yet rigorous reviews highlight evidentiary gaps, particularly for non-mild cases.

Healthcare and Therapeutic Supports

Medical and Behavioral Treatments

Medical treatments for special needs conditions primarily address symptomatic relief rather than underlying etiologies, with pharmacological interventions most established for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and challenging behaviors associated with intellectual disabilities (ID). Stimulant medications, such as and amphetamines, demonstrate moderate to large effect sizes in reducing core ADHD symptoms like inattention and hyperactivity in children and adults, based on network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials; for instance, is preferred for pediatric populations with short-term efficacy rates exceeding 70% in symptom improvement. Non-stimulants like provide alternatives for those intolerant to stimulants, yielding comparable executive function gains in chronic use per meta-analytic evidence. In ID, antipsychotics such as reduce irritability and aggression short-term (standardized mean difference -0.5 to -1.0), though long-term benefits are unclear and side effects like necessitate monitoring; these are not first-line due to risks outweighing benefits in non-acute cases. For , no core pharmacological treatments exist, but cholinesterase inhibitors like donepezil target associated in adults, with limited efficacy data from small trials. Behavioral treatments emphasize skill-building and symptom management through evidence-based protocols, with (ABA) showing medium effects on intellectual, adaptive, and language outcomes in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) across meta-analyses of comprehensive interventions involving 20-40 hours weekly. ABA-based approaches, including and early start model variants, improve social and communicative behaviors in young children with ASD, though gains may not generalize without sustained intensity and individualization. For ADHD, behavioral parent training yields small to moderate reductions in disruptive behaviors, comparable to low-dose medications in some trials, by reinforcing positive routines. In learning disabilities, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) adaptations reduce co-occurring anxiety in mild ID cases, with feasibility demonstrated in trials, but evidence for core academic deficits remains weaker than for multisensory interventions like , which lack robust randomized controls. Integration of medical and behavioral modalities often enhances outcomes; for example, combined stimulant therapy and behavioral interventions for ADHD produces additive effects on functioning per systematic reviews, outperforming either alone in 60-80% of cases. However, empirical critiques highlight over-reliance on without addressing environmental or genetic factors, with long-term data sparse—e.g., ADHD medication adherence drops 50% within a year, limiting sustained benefits. For ASD and ID, behavioral therapies like ABA face scrutiny for intensity demands and potential masking of autistic traits, yet meta-evidence supports their role in reducing challenging behaviors over no intervention. Treatment selection requires individualized assessment, prioritizing least invasive options with proven causal links to functional gains.

Family and Community Resources

Families of children with special needs often rely on nonprofit organizations for , training, and tailored to developmental, , and physical disabilities. The Federation for Children with Special Needs provides individual assistance, leadership development, and resources for families from birth through adulthood, emphasizing family-centered approaches. Similarly, Parent to Parent USA connects caregivers through emotional and informational matching programs, enabling families to share experiences with peers facing comparable challenges. These networks address isolation by facilitating virtual and in-person groups, with evidence from participant feedback indicating reduced stress levels among users. Respite care services offer temporary caregiving relief to prevent burnout, typically covering short-term in-home, community-based, or overnight options. The ARCH National Respite Network maintains a national directory of providers and promotes program quality standards, serving families of children up to age 18 with special needs enrolled in relevant services. Federally, the Administration for Community Living's Lifespan Program, updated as of January 2025, funds state grants for respite across disabilities and age groups, prioritizing underserved rural and low-income areas. Eligibility often ties to waivers, which reimburse costs for approved families, though availability varies by state with waitlists reported in high-demand regions. Financial assistance programs mitigate economic strains from medical and therapeutic costs. (SSI) delivers monthly cash benefits to low-income children with disabilities that substantially limit daily activities, administered by the with 2024 eligibility thresholds set at family incomes below approximately $3,000 monthly for a of three. (TANF) supplements this with state-varying cash aid and job training for eligible low-income families. Home and community-based services waivers under further cover therapies, equipment, and non-medical supports, with over 700,000 children enrolled nationwide as of recent federal data. Local community resources include subsidized childcare and early intervention referrals. ChildCare.gov directories link families to disability-inclusive programs, often funded through federal block grants, helping cover extra costs for specialized care. Parent Training and Information Centers, numbering over 100 across the U.S., assist with navigating education rights and services for children birth to 26 with disabilities. These supports, while effective in expanding access per program evaluations, face challenges like funding shortfalls and geographic disparities, with rural families reporting longer wait times for services.

United States Legislation

The primary federal legislation addressing special needs in the focuses on ensuring access to education and prohibiting discrimination for individuals with disabilities. The (IDEA), Section 504 of the , and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 form the core framework, mandating (FAPE), reasonable accommodations, and nondiscrimination in educational settings receiving federal funds or operating as public entities. IDEA, enacted as Public Law 94-142 on November 29, 1975, under the title Education for All Handicapped Children Act and renamed in 1990, requires states receiving federal funding to provide FAPE to children aged 3 through 21 with specific disabilities, including intellectual disabilities, speech impairments, and autism spectrum disorders, through specially designed instruction and related services. Key provisions include the development of an (IEP) for each eligible child, outlining measurable goals, services, and placement in the ; parental involvement in decision-making; and protections for , such as impartial hearings for disputes. IDEA's Part B governs school-aged children, serving approximately 7.5 million students as of the 2022-2023 school year, while Part C addresses early intervention for infants and toddlers. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, signed into law on September 26, 1973, prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, including public schools and universities. In , it mandates reasonable accommodations—such as auxiliary aids, modifications to policies, or 504 plans—to ensure equal access to educational opportunities for students who may not qualify under IDEA's stricter eligibility criteria but have physical or mental impairments substantially limiting major life activities. Unlike IDEA, Section 504 does not require specialized instruction but focuses on preventing exclusion and providing comparable benefits, applying to a broader range of conditions like ADHD or chronic illnesses. The ADA, enacted on July 26, 1990, extends civil rights protections by prohibiting discrimination in public services, including education, and requires public entities to make reasonable modifications to avoid unnecessary barriers for qualified individuals with disabilities. Title II of the ADA applies to public schools, mandating accessible facilities, communications, and programs, while Title III covers private schools; in higher education, it ensures accommodations like extended test time or note-taking services. The ADA overlaps with Section 504 but applies to non-federally funded entities and was amended in 2008 to broaden the definition of disability, rejecting narrow interpretations that limited coverage. These laws are implemented through state education agencies with federal oversight and funding, though compliance varies due to resource constraints and interpretive disputes resolved via administrative complaints or litigation. No major federal reauthorizations of IDEA have occurred since , despite ongoing debates over funding shortfalls—IDEA receives about 14% of its authorized funding—and implementation challenges amid rising enrollment.

Global Policies and Variations

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), adopted in 2006 and ratified by 182 countries as of 2023, establishes a global framework for disability policies, with Article 24 mandating inclusive education systems that accommodate students with disabilities in mainstream settings while eliminating and ensuring support services. This has prompted shifts toward inclusion in national policies, though implementation varies widely due to resource constraints and differing interpretations, with some countries maintaining segregated special schools for severe cases. In , policies increasingly emphasize inclusion following directives and CRPD ratification; for instance, Germany's 2010 reforms and Portugal's adjustments post-2009 ratification prioritize mainstream placement with individualized support, though the retains hybrid models blending special and inclusive classes. Across countries, about 60-80% of students with special needs are educated in regular schools, but segregation persists for intellectual disabilities, with achieving near-full inclusion by 2020 via resource allocation reforms. Asian policies show greater variation; and mandate inclusive education under CRPD-influenced laws since 2016 and 2008 respectively, with resource rooms supplementing mainstream classes, yet relies heavily on segregated special schools serving only 0.4% of school-age children with disabilities as of 2020 due to urban-rural disparities and limited teacher training. In , CRPD adoption has led to constitutional guarantees in 94% of countries for access, but practical enforcement lags; South Africa's 1996 policy framework promotes inclusion, while Nigeria's 2018 often defaults to special institutions amid shortages, resulting in out-of-school rates exceeding 90% for disabled children in low-resource areas. Latin American and Oceanic nations exhibit mixed approaches; Brazil's 1988 constitution and 2015 inclusion statute require mainstreaming with auxiliary services, achieving 90% placement by 2022, whereas Australia's since 2013 funds personalized supports in inclusive settings but allows opt-outs for specialized programs. These variations reflect not only CRPD compliance but also economic factors, with high-income countries investing 2-5% of education budgets in special needs versus under 1% in low-income ones, often prioritizing segregation where evidence for inclusion's academic outcomes remains contested.

Controversies and Empirical Critiques

Overdiagnosis and Diagnostic Expansion

The prevalence of special needs diagnoses, encompassing conditions such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and specific learning disabilities, has risen substantially in the United States over recent decades. For instance, the number of students aged 3–21 served under the increased from 6.4 million in the 2012–13 school year to 7.5 million in 2022–23, representing about 15% of public school enrollment. Similarly, overall enrollment doubled from 3.6 million in 1976–77 to 7.3 million in 2021–22. ASD diagnoses specifically surged from 1 in 150 children in 2000 to 1 in 31 by 2022, per health and education records. Diagnostic expansion has contributed to these trends through broadened criteria in classification systems like the DSM. For ASD, revisions from DSM-III (1980) to (2013) merged subtypes such as Asperger's syndrome into a single spectrum, lowering thresholds and enabling inclusion of milder cases previously classified under other labels like —a process termed diagnostic substitution. ADHD criteria have similarly evolved, with allowing diagnosis based on six symptoms persisting for at least six months, facilitating identification across age groups but raising concerns over capturing normative behaviors like childhood . These changes correlate with estimates for ASD ranging from 0.07% to 1.8%, with experts attributing much of the increase to reclassification rather than solely environmental or genetic shifts. Empirical evidence supports overdiagnosis in several domains. A systematic scoping review identified convincing indications of ADHD overdiagnosis and overtreatment in children and adolescents, linked to non-adherence to DSM criteria, suboptimal diagnostic practices, and factors like . Relative age effects exacerbate this, with children born in the youngest months of school entry cohorts over twice as likely to receive ADHD diagnoses compared to older peers, suggesting maturation mismatches misattributed to . For learning disabilities, critiques highlight mislabeling of academic struggles or behavioral issues as disorders, often without rigorous assessment, leading to unnecessary psychiatric categorization. While improved awareness may explain some rises, studies indicate overdiagnosis risks unnecessary labeling, interventions, and costs, potentially stigmatizing normal variation. Critics argue that systemic incentives, including access to educational accommodations and medications, drive expansion beyond empirical justification. In ASD, global increases are shaped by diagnostic shifts alongside potential true rises, but debates persist due to subjective elements in assessment. Peer-reviewed analyses emphasize the need for stringent, multi-informant evaluations to distinguish genuine impairment from expanded boundaries, as overtreatment contributes to toward validated cases.

Outcomes of Interventions and Inclusion Policies

Empirical evaluations of special education interventions reveal modest average effects on academic outcomes, with effect sizes typically ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 standard deviations in meta-analyses of explicit instruction and intensive behavioral programs, though results vary by disability type and implementation fidelity. For students with learning disabilities, targeted writing interventions have demonstrated larger gains, with meta-analytic effect sizes up to 0.8 in some reviews spanning 1980 to 2020, but these benefits often diminish without sustained support post-intervention. Response to Intervention (RTI) models, involving tiered academic supports, show positive short-term reading and math improvements in randomized trials, yet long-term follow-ups indicate persistent achievement gaps, with special education participants scoring 0.5 to 1.0 standard deviations below non-disabled peers by . Critiques highlight methodological flaws in many studies, including small sample sizes and lack of controls for comorbid factors like , leading to overestimation of efficacy in less rigorous syntheses. Inclusion policies, mandating placement of students with disabilities in general settings, yield mixed academic outcomes, with no consistent evidence favoring inclusion over segregated special classes across 50 years of . While some observational studies report higher for included students (effect sizes around 0.3), these findings are confounded by , as higher-functioning students are more likely placed inclusively, and causal analyses adjusting for baselines show neutral or negligible gains. For students with disabilities, reviews conclude equivalent or inferior academic progress in inclusive versus specialized settings, with inclusion often failing to close attainment gaps—disabled students in inclusive environments lag 1.5 to 2.0 grade levels behind peers by . Non-disabled students experience minimal academic disruption (effect sizes near zero), but social outcomes like reduced disruptive behaviors in inclusive classes come at the cost of diluted instructional time, per time-on-task studies. Long-term outcomes of both interventions and inclusion remain understudied, with evidence suggesting limited transfer to adult metrics like employment or independence; for instance, only 20-30% of alumni achieve competitive employment by age 25, unchanged despite decades of policy emphasis on inclusion. Behavioral interventions show short-term reductions in challenging behaviors (effect sizes 0.4-0.6), but eight-year longitudinal cases indicate relapse without ongoing supports, underscoring dependency on continuous resourcing rather than durable skill acquisition. Academic biases in institutions, favoring ideologically driven inclusion narratives, contribute to selective reporting, as evidenced by the scarcity of null or negative findings in peer-reviewed outlets despite indicating persistent disparities. Overall, while targeted interventions outperform unstructured supports, broad inclusion policies lack robust causal support for superior outcomes, prompting calls for placement decisions guided by individual aptitude rather than universal mandates.

Economic Costs and Resource Allocation

In the United States, expenditures represent a substantial portion of K-12 public school budgets, with districts collectively spending approximately $38.8 billion annually on services for students with disabilities, equating to an per-student of $13,127. These costs are typically 1.9 times higher than those for general students, driven by requirements for individualized plans, specialized personnel, smaller class sizes, and related therapies under laws like the (IDEA). Federal funding through IDEA grants covers only about 14.7% of the total excess costs, leaving states and local districts to finance the remaining $24 billion shortfall, which strains budgets and contributes to disparities in across regions. Enrollment in has risen to nearly 8 million students aged 3-21 as of recent counts, amplifying these fiscal pressures amid projections of further increases. Globally, the economic burden of disabilities and special needs extends beyond direct education costs to include lost productivity, healthcare expenditures, and foregone earnings, with childhood disability imposing annual costs ranging from $450 to $69,500 per case depending on severity and setting. Organizations like the World Health Organization and World Bank estimate that disabilities exacerbate poverty through reduced educational attainment and employment opportunities, leading to broader societal losses such as lower GDP contributions and higher welfare dependencies. In low- and middle-income countries, exclusion from education alone can result in millions in unrecovered human capital, as families divert resources to caregiving rather than workforce participation. Resource allocation in special education often reveals inefficiencies, with empirical studies indicating that decentralized district-level decisions fail to optimize spending for student outcomes, sometimes prioritizing compliance over evidence-based interventions. Socioeconomic disparities further complicate distribution, as lower-income areas receive disproportionately fewer specialized resources despite higher identification rates, potentially reflecting both need variations and systemic underfunding. Opportunity costs arise from diverting funds to special education at the expense of general classroom improvements; for instance, the premium costs per special needs student—often exceeding $20,000 in high-expenditure states like —reduce per-pupil investments elsewhere, raising questions about overall system efficiency without corresponding gains in aggregate achievement. These dynamics underscore tensions in balancing mandated supports with fiscal sustainability, particularly as diagnostic expansions increase caseloads without proportional funding adjustments.

Recent Policy Shifts

Developments in the 2020s

The caused substantial disruptions to services, with identifications of students with disabilities dropping significantly during the 2019-20 to 2021-22 school years due to school closures and limited access to evaluations. Specifically, K-5 identifications and discontinuations decreased markedly, exacerbating learning losses for this population, as remote learning proved inadequate for providing (FAPE) under the (IDEA). By the 2022-23 school year, however, enrollment recovered to a record 7.5 million students ages 3-21 served under IDEA, representing about 15% of public school enrollment, with projections indicating further growth toward 8 million by 2025 if trends persist. Empirical reviews in the early 2020s increasingly questioned the evidence base for full inclusion policies, highlighting methodological weaknesses in studies claiming academic advantages from general placements. A 2023 meta-analysis found inconsistent results for students with disabilities in inclusive settings, while a 2025 examination of 50 years of argued that causal claims favoring inclusion over specialized settings lack rigor, often relying on non-randomized designs prone to . These critiques, drawn from peer-reviewed syntheses, underscore that while social benefits may accrue in some cases, academic outcomes do not consistently improve, prompting calls for more targeted, evidence-based placements rather than universal inclusion mandates driven by rather than data. Following the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the incoming Trump administration enacted policy shifts in 2025, including slashes to federal grant funding, termination of research contracts, and deep staff reductions at the Office of Special Education Programs, reducing oversight capacity. These measures aligned with recommendations to consolidate IDEA funding into block grants, devolve more authority to states, and promote mechanisms like vouchers and charters to better tailor services, though critics from advocacy groups contended they risked equity by diminishing federal enforcement of protections. Concurrently, states began implementing updated federal rules on disproportionality in identifications, aiming to address racial disparities in special education placements through data-driven monitoring.

Emerging Technologies and Challenges

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications in have advanced rapidly, enabling platforms that adapt to individual student needs, such as adjusting difficulty levels in real-time for those with learning disabilities. A 2025 of AI-based interventions found unanimous positive effects on academic outcomes, including improved and math skills among students with and , based on randomized controlled trials involving over 500 participants. Adaptive software like text-to-speech and tools has also proliferated, with tools such as graphic organizers and virtual manipulatives supporting content mastery in K-12 settings for students with cognitive impairments. Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) represent a frontier for severe disabilities, allowing users with motor impairments to control devices via neural signals, potentially aiding communication for those with or profound intellectual disabilities. Noninvasive EEG-based BCIs have demonstrated feasibility in augmentative communication, with studies showing users achieving up to 70% accuracy in selecting symbols for basic needs expression after minimal training. Wearable sensors and intuitive BCIs are integrating with the to enhance mobility and environmental interaction, as evidenced by prototypes tested in 2024-2025 trials for children with . Despite these advances, efficacy remains uneven, with empirical data indicating that AI tools improve short-term engagement but show limited long-term retention gains without human oversight, per a 2024 of special education deployments. Challenges include algorithmic biases that may exacerbate disparities, as AI trained on non-diverse datasets underperforms for minority students with disabilities. Equity and access pose systemic barriers, with high costs—often exceeding $1,000 per device for advanced prosthetics or BCIs—limiting in low-income districts, where only 40% of special needs students had reliable tech access in 2023 surveys. Technological complexity demands specialized training, yet teacher preparedness lags, with 60% of special educators reporting inadequate support for integrating emerging tools during remote learning shifts. risks from data-heavy AI systems, including unauthorized neural signal collection in BCIs, further complicate deployment, as unregulated apps have exposed sensitive student in multiple 2024 incidents. Over-reliance on tech risks diminishing foundational skills, with first-principles critiques noting that unproven interventions like AI tutoring may substitute for evidence-based behavioral therapies, yielding no superior outcomes in longitudinal studies of autism spectrum interventions. debates intensify, as funding prioritizes flashy innovations over scalable basics, potentially inflating costs without proportional benefits—U.S. special tech expenditures rose 25% from 2020-2024, yet rates stagnated at 21%. Addressing these requires rigorous, independent efficacy trials and policies mandating open-source alternatives to counter lock-in.

References

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499857/
  2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29763032/
  3. https://www.understood.org/en/articles/conditions-covered-under-idea
  4. https://www.research.chop.edu/car-autism-roadmap/medical-diagnosis-vs-educational-eligibility-for-special-services-important-distinctions-for-those
  5. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/24/what-federal-education-data-shows-about-students-with-disabilities-in-the-us/
  6. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db473.htm
  7. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/autism-epidemic-runs-rampant-new-data-shows-grants.html
  8. https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/specific-learning-disorder/what-is-specific-learning-disorder
  9. https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-readers-react-special-education-inclusion/
  10. https://theeducatorsroom.com/top-scholar-says-evidence-for-special-education-inclusion-is-fundamentally-flawed/
  11. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00224669241256959
  12. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED610548.pdf
  13. https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/children-special-educational-needs
  14. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/special-education-needs.html
  15. https://policytoolbox.iiep.unesco.org/glossary/special-educational-needs/
  16. https://www.thenigelprosserfoundation.org/blog/difference-between-sen-disabilities/
  17. https://www.meriahnichols.com/difference-special-needs-disability/
  18. https://washingtonautismalliance.org/why-we-say-disability-not-special-needs/
  19. https://ldaamerica.org/special-education-terms-to-know/
  20. https://www.ipsea.org.uk/faqs/special-educational-needs-sen
  21. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=64
  22. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/the-number-of-students-in-special-education-has-doubled-in-the-past-45-years/2023/07
  23. https://www.cdc.gov/environmental-health-tracking/php/data-research/developmental-disabilities.html
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9554924/
  25. https://www.who.int/news/item/15-09-2023-new-reports-highlights-neglected-health-needs-of-children-with-developmental-disabilities
  26. https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/publication/inclusion-and-education
  27. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_rbd.asp
  28. https://www.kidsdata.org/topic/77/cshcn-race/pie
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5055843/
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4133990/
  31. https://ldaamerica.org/core-principle-disproportionality-in-identification-for-special-education/
  32. https://accessibility.sdsu.edu/news/disability-timeline
  33. https://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels/1.html
  34. https://www.nps.gov/articles/disabilityhistoryearlytreatment.htm
  35. https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/disability-history/1050-1485/
  36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt19cc23p
  37. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09687599.2013.856677
  38. https://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels/three/1.html
  39. https://www.umassp.edu/inclusive-by-design/who-before-how/history-disability-rights-united-states
  40. https://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels/4d.html
  41. https://www.deronschool.org/blog/the-history-of-special-education-how-far-weve-come/
  42. https://primaryresearch.org/the-history-of-special-education-in-the-late-1800s-to-mid-1900s-a-look-through-beverly-schools/
  43. https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/art/history.spec.ed.law.htm
  44. https://www.fortelawgroup.com/history-special-education-important-landmark-cases/
  45. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History
  46. https://www.advocacyinstitute.org/resources/SpedLegHistory.shtml
  47. https://educationonline.ku.edu/community/idea-timeline
  48. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/a/300.8
  49. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg/students-with-disabilities
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9953898/
  51. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26709141/
  52. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/idds/conditioninfo/causes
  53. https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-021-08227-4
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6966773/
  55. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/15/9/1118
  56. https://www.research.chop.edu/car-autism-roadmap/the-genetics-of-asd
  57. https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.12499
  58. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.751041/full
  59. https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.13854
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3168222/
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8564717/
  62. https://cecdr.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/Thinking_and_Communicating_Clearly_About_Evidence-based_Practices_in_Special_Education_0.pdf
  63. https://behavioruniversity.com/blog/9/The-27-Evidence-Based-Practices-%28and-What-They-Mean%29
  64. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00400599251382310
  65. https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-special-education-inclusion-research-flawed/
  66. https://hechingerreport.org/proof-ponts-new-research-review-questions-the-evidence-for-special-education-inclusion/
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10889469/
  68. https://www.ocecd.org/Downloads/Redesign_Literature_Review_July_2013.pdf
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8458515/
  70. https://www.mheducation.com/unitas/school/program/reading-mastery-signature-edition-2008/research/special-education-direct-instruction.pdf
  71. https://www.nifdi.org/research/recent-research/technical-reports/1278-2011-1-research-syntheses-of-direct-instruction-outcomes-a-tertiary-review/file.html
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3137487/
  73. https://edworkingpapers.com/ai24-1010
  74. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11145-021-10237-3
  75. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40489-025-00506-0
  76. https://www.advancedautism.com/post/success-rates-of-aba-therapy
  77. https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/nt_docs/1115-applied-behavioral-analysis-topic-brief.pdf
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12411346/
  79. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc
  80. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0034654321998072
  81. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36908836/
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12088443/
  83. https://worksupport.com/research/documents/pdf/taylor.pdf
  84. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cl2.1291
  85. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30097390/
  86. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366%2824%2900360-2/fulltext
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763424001726
  88. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37839961/
  89. https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-015-0688-2
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5310973/
  91. https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-022-04412-1
  92. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7265021/
  93. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-024-02890-3
  94. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37291991/
  95. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38523592/
  96. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14656566.2023.2169604
  97. https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj-2023-076733
  98. https://fcsn.org/
  99. https://www.p2pusa.org/
  100. https://childmind.org/article/how-parent-support-groups-can-help/
  101. https://archrespite.org/caregiver-resources/respitelocator/
  102. http://acl.gov/programs/support-caregivers/lifespan-respite-care-program
  103. https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/respite-care.html
  104. https://www.specialneedsalliance.org/blog/government-programs-for-children-with-disabilities/
  105. https://www.incharge.org/debt-relief/financial-assistance-special-needs-children/
  106. https://childcare.gov/consumer-education/services-for-children-with-disabilities
  107. https://www.parentcenterhub.org/find-your-center/
  108. https://familyvoices.org/
  109. http://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/individuals-disabilities/idea
  110. https://www.ada.gov/resources/disability-rights-guide/
  111. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr/civilrights/resources/factsheets/504.pdf
  112. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41833
  113. https://ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/240502-Learn-the-Law-Individuals-with-Disabilities-Education-Act.pdf
  114. http://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/individuals-disabilities/section-504
  115. https://ncld.org/understand-the-issues/learn-the-law/section-504-of-the-rehabilitation-act/
  116. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48068
  117. https://adata.org/factsheet/disability-rights-laws-public-primary-and-secondary-education-how-do-they-relate
  118. https://www.k12dive.com/news/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-federal-idea-special-education-progr/751970/
  119. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities
  120. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2022/inclusive-education-for-students-with-disabilities-analysis
  121. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4937523/
  122. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338634746_The_Impact_of_Article_24_of_the_CRPD_on_Special_and_Inclusive_Education_in_Germany_Portugal_the_Russian_Federation_and_Netherlands
  123. https://gpseducation.oecd.org/revieweducationpolicies/#!node=41752&filter=all
  124. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1218057.pdf
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9788696/
  126. https://www.worldpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/Dismantling%2520barriers%2520and%2520advancing%2520disability-inclusive%2520education%2520%2520an%2520examination%2520of%2520national%2520laws%2520and%2520policies%2520across%2520193%2520countries.pdf
  127. https://hiroshima.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/2021578/files/JICE_16-2_21.pdf
  128. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1392458.pdf
  129. https://pubs.lib.umn.edu/index.php/reconsidering/article/download/573/567/743
  130. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250509-why-autism-diagnoses-are-on-the-rise
  131. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2800781/
  132. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4045304/
  133. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4500182/
  134. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8042533/
  135. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2023/0300/lown-right-care-adhd-overdiagnosis.html
  136. https://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/ldmisdiagnoses.pdf
  137. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00222194221099675
  138. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021755725001299
  139. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10426255/
  140. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/11/e032327
  141. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/07419325211063491
  142. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1747938X24000010
  143. https://www.mecsj.com/uplode/images/photo/META_ANALYSIS_OF_THE_EFFECTIVNESS_OF_RESPONSE_TO_INTERVENTION_MODELS.pdf
  144. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234573806_The_Efficacy_of_Special_Education_Interventions_and_Practices_A_Compendium_of_Meta-Analysis_Findings
  145. https://nemtss.unl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/23-The-Evidence-for-Inclusive-Education.pdf
  146. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1283082.pdf
  147. https://marioeducation.com/evidence-on-the-long-run-benefits-of-special-education/
  148. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11128085/
  149. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00222194251315196
  150. https://bellwether.org/publications/who-pays-for-special-education/
  151. https://oxfordre.com/education/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-1025
  152. https://edsource.org/2025/idea-future-students-disabilities/741821
  153. https://www.k12dive.com/news/number-of-special-education-students-climbs-to-near-8-million/740413/
  154. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8036354/
  155. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241564182
  156. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/disability
  157. https://www.unicef.org/media/120461/file/Combatting_the_Cost_of_Exclusion_for_Children_with_Disabilities_and_Their_Families.pdf
  158. https://edunomicslab.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/A-False-Dilemma-.pdf
  159. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08856257.2025.2478336
  160. http://newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/cutting-the-us-department-of-education-harms-millions-of-students-with-disabilities/
  161. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/01623737241274799
  162. https://crpe.org/wp-content/uploads/Special-Education-Impact-Brief_v3.pdf
  163. https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/60754/new-research-review-questions-the-evidence-for-special-education-inclusion
  164. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/how-trumps-policies-are-already-upending-special-education/2025/05
  165. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-administration-weighs-future-of-special-education-oversight-and-funding/
  166. https://www.casecec.org/case-legislative-priorities
  167. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12385150/
  168. https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Technolgy-Content-IC-2.24.25.pdf
  169. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6525622/
  170. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10400435.2025.2485854
  171. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417424010339
  172. https://www.edweek.org/technology/the-pros-and-cons-of-ai-in-special-education/2024/05
  173. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17483107.2025.2508390?src=
  174. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131522002366
  175. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1388&context=jbtl
  176. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/00346543241293424
  177. https://www.nsf.gov/tip/updates/nsf-advances-technologies-improve-quality-life
  178. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1527851/full
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.