Including students with visual impairment in technology-rich classrooms

How do professionals address accountability mandates that are derived from the No Child Left Behind Act and the overall educational needs of students who are visually impaired during the school day? Meeting state and federal mandates while maintaining the individuality of educational programs is challenging for all educators. Teachers of students who are visually impaired and certified orientation and mobility (O&M) specialists may be affected even more as they search for an approach that allows them to address the subject areas of both the general education curriculum and the expanded core curriculum (ECC) in both the classroom and students' Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). Professionals in the field of visual impairment know that the ECC is a critical component of students' education and development (Hatlen, 1996, 2003). We also know that it is important both to teach the skills required in each of these areas in isolation and to generalize them within other ECC areas and ultimately within the community. When teachers of students with visual impairments and classroom teachers collaborate on the ECC areas and aligning them with the state standards creates an opportunity to address not only the general curriculum, but also the educational needs that arise from the visual impairment itself during the school day and in IEPs. This collaborative approach does not exclude teaching the ECC areas in isolation, but provides an additional avenue through which the ECC could be integrated into a student's day. This report offers one perspective on how to create a more balanced curriculum for students who are visually impaired by demonstrating a systematic approach to aligning state standards with the ECC, thereby bridging concepts and promoting additional avenues for integration of the ECC into the school day, and using the aligned concepts to generate meaningful, applicable, and appropriate IEP goals. ALIGNING STATE STANDARDS AND THE ECC The core curriculum addresses skills that all students, sighted or visually impaired, are expected to achieve by the time they graduate from high school (Ahearn, 2005). In most states, the core curriculum consists of language arts, mathematics, health, science, fine arts, social studies, economics, business education, vocational education, and history. Students who are visually impaired receive the same curriculum that is available to their sighted peers. However, for students to acquire proficiency in these subject areas more equitably, teachers of students with visual impairments and certified O&M specialists must provide adaptations and instruction in developmental skills and concept areas that are impeded because of the students' disability. The ECC consists of instructional areas that address skills and concepts that are unique to visual impairment: compensatory or access skills, social skills, recreational and leisure skills, O&M skills, independent living skills, assistive technology and technology skills, career education, sensory efficiency skills, and self-determination (Hatlen, 1996, 2003). Aligning state standards with the ECC may ultimately provide a more supportive bridge between development of concepts and demonstration of proficiency for students who are visually impaired. Collaborating with general education teachers in public schools is always essential and could ultimately build a more productive partnership between these teachers and teachers of students with visual impairments. The process of aligning the standards with the ECC is as follows: First, the teacher of students with visual impairments or the certified O&M specialist determines which academic goal from the state standards he or she or the general education teacher will address in the classroom or resource room. Second, the teacher of students with visual impairments analyzes what the goal's true intent is by its key words. Third, the teacher of students with visual impairments or a related specialist determines which ECC areas and concepts the student needs to develop before he or she can address the intent or concept of the goal. …

Academic environments, such as general education classrooms, have increasingly become important learning environments for children with autism. The purpose of the study was to examine the attitudes of secondary general education and special education teachers toward inclusion of children with autism in general education classrooms. The research questions are as follow: Is there a statistically significant difference in the overall attitudes of secondary general education and special education teachers toward inclusion of children with autism in general education classrooms? Is there a statistically significant difference in the attitudes of secondary general education and special education teachers regarding professional issues, philosophical, and logistical concerns toward inclusion of children with autism in general education classrooms? Cochran (1997) created the STATIC instrument for the purpose of examining teachers’ attitudes toward students with special needs and to identify the relationship between teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and toward the disabled in general. The STATIC instrument was chosen for this study due to its multiple uses in the literature gathering data regarding teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of many special needs populations, such as specific learning disabilities (SLD) and Down syndrome students (Barco, 2007; Mastin, 2010). The modifications to the STATIC instrument included identifying the special needs population being studied and inserting the name of the population in the statements within the instrument. Cochran granted permission to use the STATIC instrument with modifications in this study with yet another special needs population--children with autism. In this study, the modified Scale of Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusive Classrooms (STATIC) was used to survey 50 secondary (grades 9-12) English, science, social studies, and mathematics general education and 32 special education teachers with experience in teaching children with autism selected from 13 high schools in a large school system. Data were analyzed using independent-samples t tests. The findings showed no statistically significant difference in the overall attitudes and logistical concerns toward inclusion of children with autism in general education classrooms and statistically significant differences in the attitudes of secondary general and secondary special education teachers pertaining to professional and philosophical issues. An important finding of this study revealed that secondary general education teachers had positive not negative attitudes toward inclusion of children with autism in general education classrooms. This represents an attitudinal swing not embodied in the related literature.

Purpose of the study: The purpose of this study is to explore communication between participating school districts and the Cooperative with regard to the allocation of para-educators in general education classrooms.
 Methodology: The study employed a comparative qualitative design. Since the goal of our research is to understand the communication channels and patterns between the Cooperative, general education teachers, and para-educators, we conducted focus group discussions with para-educators, the K-5 general education teachers who work in general education classrooms and the special education teachers.
 Main Findings: The cooperative, special education teachers, general education teachers, and para-educators often operated in isolation of one another. Teachers and para-educators work together in the same classrooms but had a clear idea about who was providing the training and information needed to meet the needs of students in special education.
 Applications of the study: Frequent communication and enhanced opportunities for planning and training would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of general and special education teachers along with para-educators.
 Novelty: The study addressed ways to improve communication between participating school districts and the Cooperative with regard to the allocation of para-educators in general education classrooms. This would provide information about necessary training future para-educators need and expectations for engagement with students.

The term children with special educational needs (SEN) refers to highly diverse populations of children with a wide range of physical, cognitive and socioemotional disabilities or difficulties as well as strengths and resources causing them to require varying degrees of special educational support and assistance (Squires, 2012; Vehmas, 2010; Wilson, 2002). Several studies document significant gender imbalances in the number of students who receive special educational support, and for most disability categories the prevalence is higher for boys (Skårbrevik, 2002). The reasons for these imbalances are likely complex, and it is beyond the scope of the present review to account for the hypotheses and findings associated with each disability category. However, a general hypothesis across different categories of special educational needs is the notion that special educational needs are more likely to remain undetected in girls as symptoms and problems in girls may be less visible to educators (Arms et al., 2008). Traditional special education consists of segregating students with special needs from mainstream students within separate and typically smaller classrooms or educational settings. However, as early as in the 1930s, a movement originally known as mainstreaming, and in more recent years as inclusion, has sought to bring an end to segregated placement as the preferred educational option for students with special needs (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980). In 1994, the idea of inclusive education became even more consolidated when the Salamanca Statement was adopted by representatives from 92 countries, resulting in an international shift in policy. This meant that far more students with special needs started entering general educational settings around the globe (Murawski & Lee Swanson, 2001; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). The terms inclusion, mainstreaming, integrated placement, and cross-categorical instruction all refer to educational settings with a group composition consisting of a mixture of students with and without special educational needs. In the present review, we have chosen to use the term inclusion to refer to general educational settings in which there is a mixture of students with and without special educational needs. Ideally, inclusion and inclusive education should be based on an educational approach in which the goal is to continuously address and respond to the diversity of needs of all learners through increasing participation and reducing exclusion within and from education. Inclusion thus may involve changes and modifications in content, approaches, structures and strategies, with a common vision which covers all children and a conviction that it is the responsibility of the regular system to educate all children. Inclusion emphasises the provision of opportunities for equal participation of children with disabilities (physical, social and/or emotional) whenever possible into general education, but leaves open the possibility of personal choice and options for special assistance and facilities for those who need it (UNESCO, 2005). Inclusion as an ideological and theoretical movement was built on a philosophical foundation but during the last 60 years, the number of empirical studies addressing inclusive education has grown tremendously. However, findings on the efficacy of inclusion on student outcomes are still far from unequivocal (Kavale & Forness, 2000; Lindsay, 2007; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). This is where the present review will contribute, as the aim of the review is to summarise contemporary evidence on the effects of inclusive education when compared to a traditional segregated approach on students' learning, socioemotional adjustment and well-being. It is important to consider the types of students who might benefit most from inclusive education. As stated earlier, it is possible that the effects of inclusive education may be different for girls and boys. Further, a child's cognitive and socioemotional skills and needs develop throughout childhood and adolescence (Lightfoot et al., 2009) and thus, it is possible that the potential benefits of inclusive education may vary depending on the age of the children. We plan to to explore the impact of these student characteristics on student outcomes. At the core of inclusion is the principle that students with special or additional learning needs or disabilities belong in mainstream education. The fundamental principle of inclusive education is that all children should learn together, regardless of any difficulties or differences (UNESCO, 2005; Winter & O'Raw, 2010). However, operationally within the present review, we define inclusion as an educational setting with a mixture of children with and without special educational needs. In the present review, the intervention termed inclusion may thus be defined as any given group composition within a general educational setting which contains at least one child with an identified special educational need. Based on the core principles of inclusion there are many ways in which inclusion may be practised and adjusted, and thus there are a large number of characteristics within the inclusive setting, which may vary across the included studies. We will review studies of all kinds of inclusive education meaning that placement in the inclusive setting may be full time or part time. Special education students are a diverse group, as outlined in Section 4.1.2, and we will review studies regardless of the type of special educational needs of the student population and regardless of the ratio of students with and without special needs within the inclusive setting. We will include studies in which the general education teachers are provided with support and continuing professional development aimed at helping the teachers accommodate the needs of special education students and studies of inclusive settings in which no such support is offered to the teachers. It is often referred to as coteaching when two or more professionals deliver substantive instruction to a diverse or blended group of students within the same physical space (Murawski & Lee Swanson, 2001). In the present review, we will include studies, in which special education teachers and/or teaching assistants are present within the general education setting (coteaching) and studies in which they are not. For physically disabled students there may be adjustments made to the inclusive educational setting in order to accommodate aids such as wheelchairs, and for dyslexic students a number of computer programmes may be available. We will review studies in which students with special needs are provided with any kind of aid and technological support. This list of possible variations in student and classroom characteristics is not exhaustive, and in summary, within the present review we will include studies of all kinds of inclusive education as long as the studies are aimed at exploring the effects of inclusion in comparison to segregated special educational settings. We plan to conduct moderator analyses to explore the impact of specific characteristics of the inclusive educational setting and the characteristics of special educational needs on student outcomes. Considering the rapid global development towards inclusive educational placement for students with special educational needs, there is a rather surprising lack of pedagogical, psychological, or didactic theories regarding the specific ways in which inclusive education may affect students with special needs' academic and socioemotional development. Group composition within the educational setting may play a significant role in determining the academic achievement, socioemotional development and overall wellbeing of special needs students. Theoretically and ideologically, scholars favouring mainstreaming or inclusion propose that segregated educational placement causes stigmatisation and social isolation which may have detrimental effects on the self-concept, social identity, and self-confidence of students with special educational needs (Dyssegaard & Larsen, 2013). Second, being placed in a general education classroom along with typically developing peers is proposed to benefit special needs students' academic growth through peer effects (Rea et al., 2002; Tremblay, 2013). Finally, it is hypothesised that social interaction with general education peers may provide developmental opportunities that are not present in smaller, specialised units (Fisher & Meyer, 2002). On the other hand, opponents of inclusive education for all special needs students suggest that placement in general education classrooms may have adverse effects for special needs children especially if the time and resources allocated for individualisation and differentiation are not aligned with student needs. In such cases, special needs students' learning opportunities and wellbeing may also suffer, resulting in damages to self-concept (Zeleke, 2004), social isolation or bullying (Monchy et al., 2004; Pijl et al., 2010), stress (Pitt & Curtin, 2004), negative self-perception, and lower self-confidence (Bakker et al., 2007; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). Hegarty (1993) provides a narrative review of the literature on inclusion and suggests that a number of factors are associated with positive student outcomes in inclusive settings. These are: (1) instruction based on student achievement needs, (2) materials and procedures that allow students to proceed at their own pace, (3) additional time for students who need it, (4) increased student responsibility for their own learning, (5) cooperation among students in achieving goals, (6) support teaching and (7) collaboration among special and general education teachers. In sum, the impact of inclusion on the academic achievement, socioemotional development, and wellbeing of students with special needs may be hypothesised to be both positive and negative, and the current knowledge base is rather unclear, leaving special educators and policymakers uncertain when making decisions on special education provision. Since the 1980s, a number of reviews on the impact of inclusion on students with special needs have been published (Madden & Slavin, 1983; Ottenbacher & Cooper, 1982; Wang & Baker, 1985; Hegarty, 1993). Results are equivocal, and several reviews point to a number of methodological challenges and weaknesses of the study designs within the included primary studies. In summary, most reviews suggest a neutral or small positive impact of inclusion on most outcomes. However, all reviews also point to the need to study the impact of potential moderators more thoroughly, as there may be several interaction effects between student and classroom characteristics, such as student disability category × proportion of students with disabilities within the classroom and disability category × presence of teaching assistants. Therefore, it is important to conduct the present review in order to explore the impact of potential moderators associated with student and classroom characteristics. In the following section we present the existing reviews and their main findings. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 50 primary studies exploring the effects of special versus regular class placement for children with special needs, Carlberg and Kavale (1980) concluded that for students with special needs consisting of below average IQs, special classes were significantly inferior to regular classes on all outcome measures (separate analyses were carried out for achievement, social/personal and other measures). However, for students with behavioural disorders, emotional disturbances and learning disabilities (LDs), special classes were superior to regular classes. Madden and Slavin (1983) conducted a narrative review of the effects of mainstreaming/inclusion on students with mild academic disabilities. The review does not include a description of the search strategy for identifying records or the criteria used to determine eligibility for inclusion in the review. The review concludes that among methodologically adequate studies, findings indicate few benefits on academic and social outcomes of placement in full-time special education compared with part-time placement with resource support or full time regular class placement for students with mild academic disabilities. Ottenbacher and Cooper (1982) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 43 primary studies exploring the effects of class placement (special class, regular class and resource class defined as placement in regular education classroom with resource support and the possibility for part time segregated education) on the social adjustment of students with mild cognitive disabilities. The overall results suggest a very small effect in favour of special class placement over regular class placement. However, when special class placement was compared with resource class placement, results were insignificant but favouring resource class placement. Wang and Baker (1985) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 11 primary studies exploring the effects of mainstreaming/inclusion on children with special educational needs. In order to be eligible for inclusion in this review, primary studies needed to provide information on the effects of mainstreaming on students with special needs placed in a regular education setting. The studies had to use a control group consisting of special needs students with comparable impairment classifications placed in a segregated learning environment. The final selection of studies included 11 studies published between 1975 and 1984. The included studies used a wide variety of outcomes, but within the meta-analysis, outcomes were synthesised into three categories: performance, attitudinal, and process effects, and separate analyses were carried out for each of the three outcome categories. The study found small-to-moderate beneficial effects of inclusion on all outcomes with an overall mean weighted effect size across all studies and all three categories of outcomes of 0.33. Hegarty (1993) provides a narrative review of the literature on integration (inclusion) of students with different disabilities. The narrative review is based on a literature review which was commissioned by the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and was conducted by researchers in five different countries. The review does not include a description of the search strategies for identifying records or the criteria used to determine eligibility for the selected primary studies. Within the review, a number of factors which are associated with effective integration programmes are identified. Baker et al. (1994/1995) describe a review and meta-analysis by Baker et al. (1994/1995), which included 13 primary studies exploring the effects of inclusive placement on academic and social outcomes for students with special needs. We have been unable to retrieve the original publication, but according to Baker et al. (1994/1995), this study found a very small effect in favour of inclusive placement on academic outcomes (0.08) and a small to moderate effect on social outcomes (0.28). Sebba and Sachdev (1997) provide a review as part of a research report on what works for whom in inclusive education. The review does not include a description of the search strategy or the criteria for inclusion/exclusion of studies for the review. Within the research report, the authors suggest an overall positive impact of inclusive education and list a number of potential moderators such as attitudes of teachers and parents as well as a number of recommendations for the implementation of inclusive education. McGregor and Vogelsberg (1998) provide a narrative review of studies of both the effects of inclusive schooling on student outcomes and studies focusing on issues related to the implementation of inclusion. The review includes both quantitative and qualitative studies including case studies. Results are difficult to synthesise, but suggest an overall positive impact of inclusion based on the main findings: (1) students with disabilities demonstrate high levels of social interaction in settings with typically developing peers, but placement alone does not guarantee positive social outcomes; (2) interactive small group contexts facilitate skill acquisition and social acceptance; (3) friendships develop between students with disabilities and typically developing peers. Freeman and Alkin (2000) conducted a systematic narrative review in which it was concluded that on measures of academic achievement and social competence, children with mental retardation placed in general education perform better than children with mental retardation placed in special education classrooms. This review was only about children with mental retardation and did not include meta-analyses. Murawski and Lee Swanson (2001) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis which included 6 studies exploring the effectiveness of coteaching on student outcomes of both general education students and students with special educational needs. Coteaching was defined as two or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to a diverse or blended group of students within a shared/common physical space, and thus in this review coteaching is a form of inclusion. The outcomes within the included studies were grades, achievement scores, social and attitudinal outcomes. The review found coteaching to be effective (average total effect size of 0.40). It is unclear what the control conditions within the included studies were and two of the included studies did not have a control group, but used a pre-test/post-test research design. Lindsay (2007) provides a narrative review of the effectiveness of inclusive education for students with special educational needs. The review provides a historical overview of the vast literature prior to 2000 and a search of studies published 2001–2005 in eight journals on special education. The search identified 1373 studies and points to the fact that only 1% of the identified papers were comparative outcome studies. The review concludes that there is a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of inclusion and argues that where evidence does exist, the balance is only marginally positive. Lindsay (2007) thus supports the need for an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of inclusion for students with special needs, with special attention to the potential impact of student and classroom moderators. In a systematic narrative review of the effects of inclusion on both learning and socioemotional outcomes of students with and without special needs, Ruijs and Peetsma (2009) point to mixed findings regarding the effects of inclusion on student outcomes and suggest a number of potential moderators. The authors conclude that there is a need for more research. This review has not been updated since publication and does not include meta-analyses. In 2009, a systematic review of evidence comparing the academic performance of students with special needs in different educational settings was carried out by the Canadian Council on Learning. The review included 30 primary studies. The search strategy for identifying studies was not described. The included studies examined students with LDs, intellectual disabilities, language impairments and mixed disabilities. The quality of each study was rated as either "high", "medium", or "low" based on criteria related to transparency and research design, and effect sizes were retrieved. No meta-analyses were carried out, but the authors provide tables illustrating the number of effect sizes for each disability category favouring either inclusive or segregated settings along with the quality ratings of the studies from which they were retrieved. The authors point to mixed findings but conclude that the balance of evidence shows favourable academic outcomes for students with special educational needs educated in inclusive settings, however they also note that results are not homogenous and that effects are generally small in magnitude.11 The review was retrieved 2.10.2019 from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519296.pdf. Dyssegaard and Larsen (2013) provide a systematic review and narrative synthesis on the effects of including children with special needs in mainstream teaching in primary and lower secondary school, and on which of the applied educational methods have proven to have a positive effect. The narrative synthesis is based on 43 studies of which 16 studies were deemed to have a "high level of evidence". The included studies consist of randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, cohort studies, longitudinal studies, and studies using a pre-test/post-test design. The systematic review included studies focusing on outcomes for both mainstream and special needs students and does not include a meta-analysis. The conclusion points to mixed findings regarding the overall effectiveness of inclusion on the academic achievement and psychosocial adjustment of special needs students and suggests that the effects may vary depending on the age of the child and the overall school and teacher attitudes towards inclusion. Furthermore, the review suggests that the effectiveness of coteaching may depend on the educational background and continuous professional development of both special and general education teachers and of teaching assistants. Carroll et al. (2017) provide a rapid evidence assessment of studies focused on approaches, strategies, and interventions supporting children and young people with special educational needs in mainstream schools. The rapid evidence assessment is based on a systematic search in a single database (ERIC) as well as a strategy of consulting experts within the relevant fields. The initial search identified 1046 papers of which 505 were later excluded due to low quality of evidence. The rapid evidence assessment points to a number of implementation strategies, pedagogical and didactic approaches which have shown positive results. Furthermore, the study points to evidence gaps and suggests the need for further research. The rapid evidence assessment does not include a meta-analysis. In the present review, besides being up to date, we will conduct an extensive risk of bias assessment of all included studies, and we will provide separate meta-analyses for each conceptual outcome (academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing). Furthermore, we hope to be able to conduct moderator analyses based on the children's specific disability categories and the specific type of inclusion setting. This may shed further light on the initial differential findings from existing reviews. Traditional segregated special education is costly and in a time of increased interaction between special and general education systems and constraints on education spending, policymakers must consider the cost-efficiency of different special needs provisions. As more students with special educational needs enter general education settings, educators and policymakers must consider how the needs of these students are met in different settings and on what grounds placement in general or special educational settings should be determined. As previously noted, the current knowledge base is ambiguous with many findings suggesting a complex interplay between student and classroom characteristics (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980; Mesibov & Shea, 1996; Peetsma et al., 2001), leaving special educators and policymakers uncertain when making decisions on special education provision and highlighting the need for a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of inclusion on student outcomes. The objective of this systematic review is firstly: To uncover and synthesise data from studies to assess the effects of inclusion on measures of academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing of children with special needs when compared to children with special needs who receive special education in a segregated setting. A secondary objective is to explore how potential moderators (gender, age, type of special need, part or full time inclusive education, and coteaching) affect the outcomes. The moderator analysis will be performed as outlined in Section 4.3.11. In order to summarise what is known about the causal effects of inclusion on student's academic achievement, socioemotional outcomes, and wellbeing in special education, we will include all studies with a well-defined control group. Thus, the study designs eligible for inclusion are: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (allocated at either the individual level or cluster level, e.g., class/school/geographical area etc.). Non-randomised studies (inclusion has occurred in the course of usual decisions, the allocation to inclusive and segregated special educational placement is not controlled by the and there is a comparison of two or more of at least a group and a control using a single group research will not be eligible for inclusion in the review. Non-randomised studies using an approach will not be the of exclusion of studies using an for for studies of these In order to the risk of bias in cluster randomised studies, we will study designs in which only one was to the intervention or control group. there must be at least two units in the intervention group and two units in the control group, as there is a risk of effects with effects this likely be In order to the of findings from the present review to current and we will search to studies published The for studies is as a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses have synthesised the effects of inclusion based on studies published prior to Second, educational settings, pedagogical approaches and the development and of technological to support the educational needs of special needs children have changes throughout the two & and in order for the findings from the present review to be to the current within educational settings, we will review to the more recent findings. The review will include special needs children in to the in in special education in the defined as the countries. The reasons for focusing on the are we that the in which children with disabilities are within is which fundamental differences in the for children with disabilities around the globe et al., 2010; & 2013). Second, special education is costly and thus the resources for special educational support for children with special needs are often different between in the and the developing regarding the of what a special educational need Wilson, 2002). A used be found in the with in which special needs are into 13 different disability categories under which children are eligible for For more information on the disability of with These categories are: challenges related to a child's to or e.g., or impairment conditions a child's or e.g., e.g., and or language impairment difficulties with or e.g., language problems a child's to or impairment including and where a child most or all even with a impairment to a not by the of children from both and vision impairment when a child has problems with or as in the case of disability intellectual by or other kinds of physical disabilities with more than one by the However, the criteria are not to be as or as of what special educational needs but are rather as in the search for and of relevant studies. We that existing to define special educational needs, as in and are by a lack of which to be

As the number of students diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) present in general education (GE) classrooms has increased in the past few decades, GE teachers must adapt to meet the needs of these students. Laws and regulations require students with ASD to be educated in the least restrictive environment, as well as that they be instructed by the teachers who were qualified to teach them. Unfortunately, GE teachers face the challenges supporting students with ASD in GE settings. This qualitative research investigates the barriers that prevent teachers from successfully implementing an inclusive environment in the GE classroom. In total, four elementary school teachers at a school in the northeast of the United States were interviewed and observed. The data were analyzed to identify emerging themes. The findings showed that GE teachers lack training in how to work with students with ASD in their GE classrooms, lack collaboration opportunities with their special education colleagues to better support their students with ASD, and are not provided sufficient resources by their schools and programs to create an appropriate inclusive environment in their GE classrooms. Based on these findings, certain improvements in professional development offerings for in-service general educators on how to teach students with ASD are recommended, such as providing broader training programs that give teachers the opportunity to practice interventions and teaching plans for inclusive classrooms and receive feedback from the training instructor(s). Furthermore, certain additions to the curriculum of pre-service university education programs for GE teachers are suggested. In addition, the research found that schools must make certain resources, including technology, available to GE teachers to meet the requirements of United States law regarding educating students with disabilities, including ASD, in the least restrictive environment, which is the GE classroom.

Students identified with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) benefit from the implementation of evidence‐based practices (EBPs) in all educational settings, including general education classrooms. Research indicates that EBPs are not consistently implemented across educational placements, nor are they always implemented with fidelity. One contextual factor that can influence successful EBP implementation is teacher attitudes toward an EBP. This study examined and compared the attitudes of general education and special education teachers toward EBPs. Study results suggest that special education teachers have more positive attitudes toward EBPs, while general education teachers are more likely to diverge from EBPs to support students with ASD. These findings have implications for improving the implementation of EBPs in both general and special education classrooms for students with disabilities, particularly students with ASD.

One of the long-term consequences of many genetic and acquired disorders in early brain development is the need for special education support in elementary school and beyond. In the United States, federal law ‘requires public schools to make available to all eligible children with disabilities a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their individual needs' (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]).1 This is implemented in the form of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) which is established and updated yearly for each student in one of 14 federal disability categories. The National Education Association [NEA] (which represents teachers and other educational professionals) supports the IDEA, recognizing that a ‘full continuum of placement options and services’ should be considered for each student’.2 One of the important components of the IDEA is the determination as to whether or not students with special needs should spend most or all of their time in educational classrooms with non-disabled students. The IDEA mandates placement in the least restrictive environment in which the child's needs can be met. The term ‘inclusion’ (a word which does not actually appear in the law itself) is what the IDEA is designed to accomplish, that is the provision of support and resources that enable children with disabilities to belong to and be recognized as members of their educational communities. It is important to keep in mind that the IDEA states a preference for placement in general education and for attendance at the neighborhood school. The IEP team must justify any time the child spends outside of general education, and a child can be removed from general education only if he or she cannot be educated satisfactorily there, even with the provision of supplementary aids/services and programmatic modifications/support. Currently in the United States 75% of children with disabilities spend part or all of their school day in a general education classroom. While this is a remarkable achievement in the drive to optimize opportunities for all children, it may create a number of challenges in the individual classroom. Laws and initiatives are formulated at the national and state levels, while policy decisions are implemented in local school districts and schools, often by superintendents and principals who may differ on interpretation and focus. Therefore, the specifics of inclusion (‘inclusive classroom’) may vary across school districts and schools. More than 6 million children in the United States receive educational services based on the IDEA.2 In an era of diminished financial resources, funding is a reality which cannot be ignored.3 Available funding affects the quality and quantity of educational services for typically developing children as well as those with special needs. Providing services in an inclusive classroom may require less funding than in a special education environment, and with the variability in state and local resources, any opportunity to save money may be embraced. However, inclusive education should not be based on financial considerations. For many teachers who serve as the regular education component of the inclusive classroom there is a no more controversial topic than what the inclusive classroom should look like: who should be included and for what extent of the academic day.4 Parents, teachers, and administrators who ardently support full inclusion believe that it is the best educational model to prepare all children for the real world. On the other side are those who believe that inclusion of children with special needs in a regular education classroom should be made on a student-by-student basis. As both positions are held passionately, at times final decisions in regard to educational placement may not easily be reached. These decisions have important implications for the individual child, his or her classmates, teachers and other school professionals, and those interested in the broader implications for a well-educated society and adult workplace. Current research supports the concept that peer interaction between students with special needs and regular education students is an advantage of inclusion for both populations, and that best teaching practices of differentiation and modification of instruction meet all students' needs more effectively.5 Those who express concerns about inclusion often argue that the extra time required to meet the needs of the disabled students impedes the learning progress of the non-disabled students. Decision-making in regard to inclusion is confounded by the requirements of federal laws such as No Child Left Behind6 and initiatives such as Common Core State Standards,7 a set of national educational benchmarks in language arts and mathematics from kindergarten through 12th grade which most states have adopted. For example, providing the least restrictive environment for children and meeting the achievement requirements of No Child Left Behind can be at odds with each other.8 For example, a child with autism might be placed in a grade school inclusive classroom, with both academic and social goals on the IEP, given recognized abilities at a higher level than students in a classroom solely for children with autism. An autism specialist assigns an instructional assistant to give this student a chip every 3 to 5 minutes for appropriate behavior. As a reward when five chips have been earned, the autism specialist requests that the student be allowed to play with Play-Doh during classroom teaching time. This might be unacceptable to the general education teacher and the special education co-teacher because of the impact on other students and the demands of a stringent academic curriculum dictated by the required standards of learning. In this situation, time given to this playtime is an important social development goal for the child with autism, but can mean time extracted from academic learning. This example highlights the importance of establishing an appropriate reward system in these situations. What I (DWW) have learned, as a regular education teacher who also teaches children with varying and sometimes multiple disabilities, is that the recommendations for inclusion made by the NEA, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) are not always taken into consideration in school models. In conversations with numerous regular education teachers in a well regarded school district, I discovered that few had received any formal professional development training before being assigned to the inclusive classroom; most had the same number of students as the general education classrooms at their grade levels; and very few received extra planning time to coordinate with specialists. Here is an example of an inclusive first grade classroom in a suburban Northern Virginia school district. Of the 21 students in the classroom, three students have an autism spectrum disorder (one of whom also has severe language and emotional delays); one student has emotional disabilities; one has cerebral palsy; one has visual motor integration problems; one student has identified attention-deficit–hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) without medication; and 14 regular education students. All seven of the students with IEPs require speech and language support as well as intervention from special education specialists. Three receive occupational therapy support; and one physical therapy and adaptive physical education support. (By the end of the school year, of the 14 without IEPs, two students were diagnosed on the autism spectrum scale and one student with severe ADHD, bringing the total of special needs students to 10.) While the ideal for the inclusive classroom would be a natural balance of students with and without disabilities, as in this ‘real-world’ situation, this was not the case. In this classroom the students variably read from beginning first grade to ready-for-third-grade levels. There were children adept at working with numbers in the thousands and students who could not count beyond the number 10. Some could work independently or in small groups at learning stations, while others fell on the floor in tantrums or wandered aimlessly without adult guidance. The daunting challenge for the teacher(s) in this classroom was to successfully meet the educational, social, emotional, and physical needs of such a varied group of students while maintaining the intrinsic motivations and rewards of teaching which are the joy and satisfaction of seeing students succeed. From a teacher's perspective, this is when it is imperative to follow the recommendations of educational researchers to ‘remember, with responsible inclusion the responsibility is first and foremost to the student.’9 That means to each student in the classroom – special education and regular education students. All should be making appropriate academic progress for an inclusive classroom to be considered a successful learning environment. Socialization should not be the only consideration for placement. A special education teacher and/or instructional assistants are usually present in the inclusive classroom in order to fulfill the IEP goals of the special needs students. Ideally, the special education teacher and regular education teacher share the responsibility for planning, instruction, and assessment. In order for the inclusive classroom to be successful the class size should be smaller than a regular education class; extra time for planning between all the professionals servicing students should be provided; and regular education teachers in inclusive classrooms should be given extra training. Students with severe disabilities may not be best served in the inclusive classroom because of their high level of need and the impact of this on other students' learning. Guidelines for responsible inclusion programs should examine the following components: students, human and material resources, continuum of services and most effective models, program evaluation, professional development, school philosophy, curriculum, and role definition for general and special education teachers. In the first grade classroom described above, the teacher was not given extra training, was not provided with extra planning time, did not have a smaller class load, and was not consulted when the students were assigned to her class. Several months into the school year and 2 days before this first grade teacher was to receive her student with cerebral palsy, she was told that the child was in a wheelchair and would have a fulltime assistant (nursing-trained but not instructionally trained). The plan was that the physical therapist, occupational therapist, and adaptive Physical Education teacher would meet with the teacher and make recommendations after they had time to work with the child and determine her levels of ability. The teacher immediately began searching the internet for information about cerebral palsy and the consequences it has on children. That was the extent of the teacher training provided to a teacher who would be responsible for her first student with cerebral palsy. The entire classroom had to be rearranged to accommodate a wheelchair and to give this new student access to every learning station, the morning meeting corner, and the classroom library. For this teacher, involving the students in adapting the environment was a very effective way of preparing them for the child's needs. The students followed the lead of the teacher and welcomed the new student with enthusiasm and warmth. As this teacher recognized, ‘It is not what a kid is, but what a kid needs’10 that is most critical to the education process – acknowledging the needs of all children in an inclusive classroom. Every child, with or without an IEP, requires special attention at some point in a school day. In this regard what is learned is more important than where it is learned. As advocates for children, pediatricians are in an excellent position to provide advice and recommendations in regard to inclusion, given their understanding of child/family dynamics as well as biological factors in brain development. Parents often ask whether an inclusive classroom is the right choice for their children. To provide guidance and recommendations, pediatricians need to understand the varied perspectives of students, families, teachers, school personnel, and the local community as well as the specific requirements of underlying legislative and administrative mandates as implemented in individual schools.11 From the pediatric perspective, establishing a family-centered medical home is an important component of care. ‘In a family-centered medical home, the pediatric care team works in partnership with a child and a child's family to ensure that all of the medical and non-medical needs of the patient are met. Through this partnership the pediatric care team can help the family/patient access, coordinate, and understand specialty care, educational services, out-of-home care, family support, and other public and private community services that are important for the overall health of the child and family.’12 Providing advice and recommendations in regard to possible inclusion should be an integral part of the medical home as it is envisioned. When all these factors are considered, pediatricians can play an important role in the placement of their patients in classrooms. They can discuss with parents the importance of the NEA,13 AFT,14 and ASCD15 recommendations for smaller class size, specific teacher training, additional planning time, and the continuum of services that should be available. They can recommend that parents visit schools (specifically the inclusive classroom at their child's grade level) and provide information that can be shared with teachers to further their understanding of the underlying causes of motor, cognitive, and behavioral impairments. Well-informed parents make effective advocates for their children.16 Parents are informed when an IEP is written with mutually defined goals and the child's attainment of each goal is reevaluated at the end of 1 year. Pediatricians can assure parents that any portion of the IEP can be readdressed at any time within that year. Parents may share their child's IEP goals with their pediatrician to determine if they are realistic goals. For example, the above mentioned first grade student with cerebral palsy had an IEP goal, added by the parent, that she learn to write her name using a pencil. The classroom teachers were uncertain that this was a realistic goal. Consultation with the child's pediatrician would have been helpful to provide an opinion in this regard. Pediatricians can also serve both as advocates for children as well as bridges when conflicts arise between school recommendations and parental wishes. Pediatricians can ensure that the parents are well informed about best practices in effective classrooms with inclusion. They can prepare parents to ask such questions as, ‘How will my child be safely removed from the school during fire drills and in case of emergencies?’ ‘How will my child be provided the special bathroom and hygiene requirements dictated by the needs of a child with cerebral palsy?’ ‘Is there playground equipment provided that adapts to the physical needs of my child and allows him to participate with peers at recess?’ For some children the inclusive classroom may not meet their needs effectively. Special education needs classrooms offer a reduced pupil to teacher ratio and teachers with specific training for special needs students. In these situations after all the facts are known, pediatricians should not be afraid to speak up and recommend alternative placement. Finally, there may be differences between the legal mandates of IDEA and the reality ‘on the ground’ in individual schools and classrooms. It should be remembered that it is illegal under the IDEA to make decisions based on the nature or severity of the child's disability, on administrative convenience, or on the configuration of the service delivery system. Parents need to be aware that they have legal recourse if they are not satisfied with their child's educational placement. In conclusion, this opinion is meant to highlight the complexity of this issue, and not to provide a ‘solution’. All stakeholders – parents, teachers, and administrators – should be included in the decision-making of the educational placement of a child with special needs. What all children learn from exposure together must be balanced carefully with the needs of each individual student, to promote long-term success in school in the workplace and more broadly in society. Well-informed pediatricians can have an active voice in promoting educational goals for their patients. We appreciate a number of Kennedy Krieger Institute professionals and others outside the Institute who provided input into this opinion, including Bridget Buttram, Marge Fessler, W. Ben Jackson III, Mark Mahone, Leslie Margolis, Elaine Stashinko, Melissa Tochterman, Fran Tolley, and Steve Wilcox. Denise Wilcox's experience as an educator spans four decades, preceding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975, and encompasses the transition from self-contained special education classes through mainstreaming, pull out programs, and inclusion. Her post graduate degree is in Counseling and Development, with concentrations in special education and reading. All of her experience as an educator has been in mostly affluent suburban Washington, DC school systems. She has taught all elementary grades from kindergarten through sixth and has served as the grade level inclusion teacher for 5 years.

Whether teachers in general education classrooms and in gifted programs differ in their cognitive and motivational characteristics was examined in 182 elementary school teachers. The teacher characteristics examined were epistemological beliefs (beliefs about the nature of knowledge and beliefs about the nature of learning), metacognition (planning, monitoring, and strategy selection), and motivation (self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and goal orientation). Teachers in gifted programs reported more sophisticated epistemological beliefs, higher learning-goal orientation, and lower performance-goal orientation than did teachers in general education classrooms. However, perceived use of metacognitive strategies, self-efficacy, and intrinsic motivation were not different between the two groups. Teachers in general reported epistemological sophistication more in the nature of learning than in the nature of knowledge, that they use cognitive strategies more so than planning and monitoring of their activities, and that they are more learning-goal oriented than performance-goal oriented. It is suggested that more courses and trainings are needed for preservice and in-service teachers so they have opportunities to learn and self-reflect on their own characteristics. Putting the Research to Use This study compared trait-level cognitive and motivational characteristics between teachers in gifted programs and teachers in general education classrooms. The findings provide some evidence that teachers in gifted programs and teachers in general education classrooms have characteristic differences and that gifted students in pullout programs seem to be more likely to have teachers with certain favorable characteristics. The reality is that the majority of gifted children spend most of their hours in general education classrooms. Therefore, the focus should be whether teacher training can provide opportunities for preservice and in-service teachers in general education as well as in gifted education programs, to become aware of these characteristics evidenced as having strong relationships with student learning. Beyond teacher knowledge and skills, teacher attributes and beliefs about student learning are underscored as important areas in teacher preparation for differentiating instruction for gifted children in the general education classroom. Preservice and in-service teacher trainings should provide teachers with opportunities to learn and self-reflect on their own cognitive and motivational characteristics as they develop into effective teachers.

National Education Policy-2020 emphasis on inclusive education and give the directions to deal with ASDs in general education classrooms and also similar as a nationwide emphasis on the inclusion of students with special or diverse needs in general education classrooms; general education mentors & teachers are more likely than ever to be faced with the task of including students with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) in their classroom setups.Teach to students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) requires the use of effective and specific methods, strategies and approaches with which general education teachers are not familiar.The behavioral, cognitive, communication and social challenges may be affected to performance of students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs).These can be major barriers to successful inclusion if general education teachers do not have information and support from special educators to meet the needs of their students.No doubt, general teachers faced with the challenges of including students with ASDs, and they have reported that the techniques found most useful are those that help support the social integration of a child with ASD into the classroom.If general education teachers' are trained in various teaching strategies which assist to learning of autistic children; no doubt ASDs children could learn successfully.In this manner, this chapter discusses with the effective strategies and techniques related to social integration, as well as academic engagement, improved communication, and enhanced positive behaviors of autistic children. Alexis' StoryAlexis Wineman is the first woman with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to participate in the Miss America competition.Alexis was in middle school when officially diagnosed with PDD-NOS (Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified), but felt "different" from an early age.As she got older, she struggled with some of the challenges of having ASD, such as a speech impediment, communication difficulties, being sensitive to loud sounds, and other sensory-related issues.Alexis also had to deal with bullying that occurred because of her differences.Fortunately, her family has always been a source of strength and inspiration for her.Before being diagnosed with autism, my family nor I had an explanation for my meltdowns and other issues.After the diagnosis, it was incredible how my siblings reacted.They were superheroes.They took me everywhere and pushed me into activities.They helped me with homework.It was amazing how they sprang into action after years of not knowing what was happening.My advice for other individuals with autism would be to have patience for your siblings just like they have patience for you.It is good to try and figure out what is going on from their perspective rather than focusing on yourself.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) is a U.S. federal law that promotes an inclusive model of classroom participation. In this model, the goal is that all children, regardless of disability status, learn together while receiving high quality instruction and developing positive social relationships with peers. With the rise of inclusive education, more and more students with disabilities are receiving instruction in the general education classroom. Thus, it is pertinent that general educators feel confident in their abilities to effectively teach students with disabilities. Unfortunately, research has demonstrated that general education teachers have a low sense of teacher efficacy for teaching students with disabilities, in part due to a lack of education, experience, and support. Acknowledging the importance of teacher efficacy and the role it plays in children’s academic success, this study attempted to analyze elementary teacher efficacy in multiple domains. First, teachers in my sample reported relatively high efficacy related to students with disabilities, but general educators reported lower efficacy than special educators. In addition, this study found that general educators reported higher overall efficacy scores in teaching students with disabilities than teaching students in general. Lastly, this study attempted to better understand the construct of teacher efficacy and found that special educators reported higher levels of efficacy-related details such as education, experience, and support. Implications for the field of education are discussed.

Collaboration between general and special education teachers is essential for students with disabilities to have access to general education curriculum and instruction, and improved outcomes in school. The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), and No Child Left Behind Legislation, include mandates that increase demands for collaboration. However, many general and special education teachers report not feeling prepared to step outside traditional roles to collaborate to meet the needs of this population. Collaboration is also a strong element of teaching and special education standards for teacher preparation. Yet, research shows many teacher education programs lack coursework and field experiences that focus on collaboration. The purpose of this study was to explore experiences special education teacher candidates had in collaboration with general education teachers during student teacher field placements. The research questions include: (a) To what extent are special education student teachers expected to collaborate with general education teachers during field placements; and (b) How are perspectives on collaboration with general education teachers different between special education student teachers and their mentor teachers? The study used qualitative multiple-case study design and content analysis. Data were collected across three different school contexts (elementary, middle school, and high school) in which special education candidates were placed for student teaching. Participants included special education student teachers and their mentor teachers from each setting. Data sources included interviews, a survey of collaborative practices, text analysis of teacher work samples, and field-placement evaluations. Results of the study show many collaborative practices occur across different special education settings to various extents, and special education candidates have opportunities to learn about perspectives on collaboration and collaborative practices with general education teachers from mentor teachers. However, the standards-based student teaching performance measures did not guide or document the learning and experiences of special education student teachers in relation to collaboration with general education teachers. Recommendations are made for adding guidelines and performance measures in teacher education programs that prepare special education teacher candidates for collaborative roles in schools.

The increasing practice of inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms has created a new context for general education teachers. As teachers are required to teach students with special needs in their classrooms, many do not feel confident in their professional preparation or ability to effectively meet these responsibilities. The purpose of this article is to share the results of a study that explored the perceptions of practicing general education teachers related to their needs to successfully teach students with disabilities. A survey was distributed to 71 general elementary education teachers. The survey included the question, “What information do you feel you need to more effectively teach children with special needs “? The teachers reported their primary needs focused around two broad categories of 1) information, and 2) administrative support. The results of this study may provide specific content and implications for restructuring teacher education and staff development programs to meet the needs of general education teachers.

The wide range of learning needs in elementary and secondary general education classrooms presents both a challenge and an opportunity for general and special education teachers. It is critical for teacher self-efficacy and student success that teachers believe they are equipped with the knowledge and instructional strategies to plan and implement instruction that meets the needs of all students. Co-teaching is an instructional method that consists of a general education and special education teacher working collaboratively in the general education classroom to meet the needs of all students. The daily experience of co-teaching can be a form of ongoing professional learning and can allow both teachers in the partnership the opportunity to learn with and from each other in reciprocal cycles of learning. This interpretative phenomenological analysis aimed to delve further into this particular concept of professional learning, growth, and support to explain how general education and special education teachers who practice co-teaching experience ongoing professional learning and support through the process and daily practice of co-teaching. Interviews were analyzed and coded from six semi-structured interviews of elementary and secondary educators who identified as general or special education teachers, and findings were interpreted through the lens of Vygotsky's (1978) sociocultural theory. Findings suggest that co-teachers can engage in ongoing learning through a process of feedback, reflection, and refinement of instructional practices, and these learning opportunities are enhanced when co-teachers have the ability to plan and collaborate together on a regular basis. Implications for practice for teachers and administrators and recommendations for future research related to co-teaching and teacher professional learning are also discussed.--Author's abstract

WHAT IS INCLUSION? While definitions vary, inclusion (sometimes referred to as full inclusion) usually refers to the placement of students with disabilities in a regular (general education) classroom, with all or most special services provided in that classroom. Here are some other aspects of the definition that you may encounter: Home school Students with disabilities attend the school that they would attend if they did not have a disability. Natural proportions Students with disabilities are present in the same proportions that are found in the general population; large numbers of students with disabilities should not be 'clumped' into one classroom. Age-appropriate Students with disabilities are placed in classes with other students of about the same age, not the same developmental level. Supports and services Students receive special educational services, and have access to appropriate supports, in the general education classroom; students are not 'dumped' into a regular classroom without appropriate help. Supports may also be necessary for the classroom teacher, including staff development time for training and planning, team teaching with the special educator, and collaborative consultation with special education staff, behavioral consultants, school psychologists, or other specialists. HOW DOES INCLUSION DIFFER FROM MAINSTREAMING? Mainstreaming implies that the student should be ready for the general education classroom before being placed there. For example, a student with a disability might attend a special class until his/her skills are advanced enough to allow success in the general education classroom. Inclusion implies that the student has a right to be in the general education classroom, and that the classroom should be modified and made ready for the student. Does the law mandate inclusion? What IDEA (the 'special education' law) actually says is that students with disabilities must be educated in the regular classroom with supplementary aids and services to the maximum extent appropriate. Supplementary services may include resource room and itinerant instruction. However, a full continuum of services, including special classes, separate schools, and residential programs, must be available if education in regular classes cannot be achieved satisfactorily. The courts have interpreted satisfactory performance as making more than minimal progress. In addition, education is broadly defined as including social as well as academic outcomes. What services and supports are associated with inclusion? Each student identified as having a disability will have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) that will spell out what services they will receive, what their goals are, and how their progress will be evaluated. The IEP is written by a team that includes the parent, the general education teacher, the student if appropriate, and the special education staff, administration, and other specialists. During the IEP meeting, you will discuss whether the student will receive all services within the general education classroom, or if any services are needed that require the student to be removed from the classroom. The goals for the student will be developed and the techniques for teaching and evaluating progress will be outlined. Goals should include social and behavioral outcomes as well as academic ones. It is important to remember that the goals and services depend on the student's individual needs, not their disability label. In addition, any student, regardless of label, who demonstrates behaviors that interfere with their own learning or the learning of peers, should have a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) and a Behavior Improvement Plan (BIP) developed and implemented. Positive behavioral interventions may be implemented by the teacher with consultative support or may require a paraprofessional in the classroom. …

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether there are differences in the teaching of self-determination between general and special education teachers in Taiwan. The participants were 380 teachers recruited from elementary schools nationwide in Taiwan. Among them, 128 were general education teachers, while the others were special educators providing services in either resource rooms (n = 125) or self-contained classrooms (n = 127). The Teaching Self-Determination Scale (TSDS) was used to collect data. Descriptive statistics, t tests, analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were employed to analyze data. Findings showed that both general and special education teachers’ level of teaching self-determination was in the range of “sometimes to often”. Nevertheless, general education teachers’ level in teaching psychological empowerment, self-regulation, and autonomous skills was higher than that of their special education counterparts. Additionally, general educators tended to focus the most on instructing psychological empowerment abilities, while the self-contained classroom teachers paid intense attention to the teaching of autonomous skills. Resource room teachers demonstrated a relatively balanced instruction of various skills. Findings of this study enabled us to further understand elementary school teachers’ level of teaching self-determination and its characteristics as well. Suggestion and implications are provided.