PaperW4

Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2016, Vol. 3(1) 138 –145 © The Author(s) 2016 DOI: 10.1177/2372732215624217 bbs.sagepub.com

Equity

Tweet

Special education shares developmental science insights on students with disabilities to aid and understand their adapta- tion in context.

Key Points

•• Special education (SE) and developmental science both focus on individual adaptation, yet without much cross-talk. But SE illustrates applied developmental science.

•• Person-oriented analysis identifies subgroups of youth who share common characteristics (e.g., learning dis- abilities, emotional and behavioral disorders, intellec- tual disabilities) and determines differences in their educational needs.

•• A systems view of development is reflected in indi- vidualized educational plans that focus on the specific child and her or his ecology; the corresponding ser- vice provision that spans domains of functioning leverages these correlated constraints.

•• Special educators reflect systems reorganization when they recognize a student adapting in atypical ways, and they build on such adaptations to foster the stu- dent’s development.

•• Individualized approaches adapt interventions, strengthened by incorporating a correlated constraints perspective and identifying neurophysiological, cog- nitive, contextual, and ecological factors that may moderate or contribute to their effectiveness.

Introduction

Federal policy plays a critical role in the education and development of youth with disabilities. From the early years, the interplay between policy, research, and advances in ser- vices for students with disabilities has shaped special educa- tion (SE). Three policies are key to understanding the background of current SE practices: Public Law 88-164 (1963) initiated legislation to establish research on the devel- opment and treatment of disabilities and to create training programs for teachers to support the academic and social success of students with disabilities; the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142, 1975) established that all children are entitled to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive setting; and the 1997 reau- thorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (PL 105-17) included provisions to develop individualized education programs focused on (a) improving educational results through the general curriculum, (b) educating stu- dents with disabilities among non-SE peers, and (c) requiring schools to provide positive supports and individualized inter- ventions to promote students’ productive behavior and life skills.

624217BBSXXX10.1177/2372732215624217Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain SciencesFarmer et al. research-article2016

1Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA 2Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA 3University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

Corresponding Author: Thomas W. Farmer, School of Education, Virginia Commonwealth University, Oliver Hall, 1015 W. Main St., Richmond, VA 23284, USA. Email: [email protected]

Research and Policy on Disability: Linking Special Education to Developmental Science

Thomas W. Farmer1, Lisa M. Gatzke-Kopp2, David L. Lee2, Molly Dawes1, and Elizabeth Talbott3

Abstract Bridging special education (SE) and developmental science recognizes their shared focus on individual adaptation, growth, and outcomes. Adaptation continuously aligns the proclivities of students and the opportunities of their contexts. Considerations for the adaptation of students with disabilities include developmental malleability, problem behavior, intervention supports, and SE services. Policy implications center on the need to focus on the individual in context in both research and intervention, merge data from the implementation of intensive interventions and person-oriented analysis to establish comprehensive frameworks that include a focus on neurophysiological processes, and train the next generation of SE leaders in intensive interventions and applied developmental science.

Keywords special education, developmental science, policy, adaptation

Farmer et al. 139

Current priorities in SE can benefit from advances in developmental science. An integrated science of develop- ment and disability can build on the shared focus on human adaptation, common to SE and developmental science. We discuss key issues in SE from this perspective. To conclude, we consider policy implications and next steps.

The Need for an Integrated Science of Development and Disability

Disability, SE, and Adaptation

The concept of disability refers to an impairment that sub- stantially limits functioning in one or more major life activi- ties (Americans With Disabilities Act, 2008). For the purposes of SE research and services, the United States Department of Education stipulates in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (PL 108-446, 2004) that a student with disability (a) must have one or more spe- cific disabilities (i.e., intellectual disabilities, speech or lan- guage impairments, hearing impairments, visual impairments, autism, orthopedic impairments, serious emotional distur- bance, traumatic brain injury, specific learning disabilities, or other health impairments) and (b) must also require SE and related services.

SE can be distinguished from general education in terms of scope and aims. General education focuses on academic instruction based on the learning needs of youth at a particu- lar grade level and is designed to promote a set of skills and knowledge thought to be common for a specific age. With the focus on the general curriculum in PL 105-17, SE includes an emphasis on the acquisition of skills and knowl- edge common to all youth. But SE law recognizes that stu- dents with disabilities differ from non-SE peers in one or more domains of human functioning and adaptation. The focus of SE is to go beyond common educational processes and meet the adaptive needs of students with disabilities. The concept of adaptation refers to the continuous alignment between the capacities and proclivities of the student and the opportunities, resources, and demands/expectations of the various ecologies in which he or she is embedded.

Since the passage of PL 88-164 and reflected in subsequent SE legislation, a focus on adaptation, in three distinct but related ways, distinguishes SE from general education. First, with the concept of individualized education programs, the law recognizes it is necessary to adapt instruction/contexts and provide supports to reduce the impact of the disability and ensure learning is accessible to the particular student. Second, with the focus on life skills and related services, legislation acknowledges that the purview of SE goes beyond academic learning and includes helping students develop adaptive behaviors and functional competencies related to the general activities of living that are impeded by the disability. Third, beginning with PL 88-164, there is a strong recognition that SE occurs at the intersection of learning and development.

This means that one responsibility of the field involves facili- tating the developmental opportunities of youth with disabili- ties in a manner that ameliorates the impact of their disabilities and promotes their adaptive functioning.

Developmental Science

Developmental science is a unified framework that tran- scends traditional disciplinary boundaries (e.g., psychology, sociology, neurobiology, genetics, education) to understand human development as the product of a system of influences (Magnusson & Cairns, 1996). From this view, development is a dynamic process that involves “on one hand, individual human beings as active, holistically functioning biopsycho- logical organisms and, on the other hand, the equally dynamic multi-level environmental systems in which they live their lives” (Bronfenbrenner, 1996, p. xvii). This means the devel- opment and functioning of youth involves a continual syn- thesis of biological, psychological, and social-ecological subsystems (Cairns & Cairns, 1994), which all impact the success of SE.

Three concepts of developmental science are particularly germane to crafting policy: correlated constraints, develop- mental adaptation, and person-oriented analyses. Building on development as a process of individuals and contexts adapting to each other, these three concepts usefully frame how the brain and behavior operate together to contribute to adaptation (Magnusson & Cairns, 1996). Furthermore, these concepts clarify how developmental processes can be lever- aged to support the school adjustment and adaptation of stu- dents with disabilities (Farmer, Sutherland, Talbott, Eber, & Norwalk, in press).

Correlated constraints. Because development reflects the interplay of human subsystems both internal (i.e., biological, psychological) and external (i.e., behavioral, ecological, sociological) to the individual, growth and adaptation come from a dynamic system (Magnusson & Cairns, 1996). As network components, developmental subsystems continually align, stabilize each other, and promote continuity in indi- viduals’ functioning. Yet, because these subsystems connect, major changes in one prompt changes in others (Cairns & Cairns, 1994). The term correlated constraints suggests that the same developmental processes that promote change can also foster conservation (Magnusson & Cairns, 1996). This means, for example, that educational interventions cannot be confined to just one aspect of the student.

Systems organization and developmental adaptation. Corre- lated constraints describe developmental subsystems as impacting each other. While these subsystems stabilize each other, they also continually align, with behavior operating as a leading edge in adaptation (Gariépy, 1996). Behavior changes rapidly in response to others subsystem changes, and momentary behavior change prompts adaptation in other

140 Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3(1)

subsystems and reorganization of the developmental system (Cairns & Cairns, 1994). In turn, systems reorganization may realign developmental trajectories. The concept of correlated constraints suggests that, although development tends to conserve existing adaptations, malleability remains open, so major shifts in functioning may occur across the life-course. The practical implication is that change is always possible, especially starting with behavior and spreading from there.

Person-oriented approaches. In developmental science, the person (rather than the isolated variable) reflects human growth (Bergman & Vargha, 2013). Variables coalesce within individuals, and “packages of variables” contribute to adaptation (Magnusson & Cairns, 1996). Person-oriented analyses identify youth who reflect coordinated academic, behavioral, and social-ecological patterns. Distinct adjust- ment configurations in elementary and secondary school pre- dict school engagement and achievement, high school completion, and postsecondary educational attainment (Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Roeser & Peck, 2003).

SE as Applied Developmental Science

SE and developmental science both focus on individual adaptation. Yet, these fields have had little cross-talk. Three aspects of SE illustrate applied developmental science. First, identifying subgroups of youth who share common learning, behavioral, and social characteristics (e.g., students with learning disabilities, students with emotional and behavioral disorders, students with intellectual disabilities), and deter- mining differences in their educational needs is, in effect, person-oriented analysis. Second, a systems view of devel- opment is reflected in individualized educational plans that focus on the specific characteristics, strengths, and needs of the child and her or his ecology; the corresponding provision of services that span multiple domains of functioning lever- ages correlated constraints in the intervention process. Third, special educators reflect systems reorganization when they recognize the natural propensity of a student to adapt in atyp- ical ways, and they build on such adaptations to foster the student’s development of new competencies, supports, and pathways to productive outcomes.

Key Issues in SE

Understanding Developmental Malleability in Terms of Brain and Behavior

Advances in studying brain and behavior development sug- gest that youth who experience school adjustment problems and learning difficulties tend to differ from non-SE peers on some neurophysiological structures and processes. Fully understanding these differences varies across disabilities, but neurophysiological researchers seek mechanisms that may remediate factors that contribute to disability.

Neurophysiological education science has extensively studied language and literacy. A range of brain regions relate to individual differences in the component skills that contrib- ute to reading ability (Noble & McCandliss, 2005). Differences in neural processing precede the manifestation of academic deficiencies. Much of this work points to the importance of early auditory processing, particularly pho- neme discrimination, as a foundation for learning to read (White-Schwoch et al., 2015). Differences in auditory pro- cessing as early as 5 months old, when language develop- ment begins, predict difficulties in writing in early elementary school (Schaadt et al., 2015). Although differences in brain function can appear before evident impairment in academic function, this does not necessarily indicate an immutable deficit. Brain functions change after participation in targeted interventions (e.g., Horowitz-Kraus et al., 2014; Shaywitz et al., 2004), with evidence of improved brain phoneme dis- crimination evident after as few as 3 hr of training (Lovio, Halttunen, Lyytinen, Naatanen, & Kujala, 2012).

In addition to informing treatments to remediate disabil- ity, identifying neural mechanisms related to school perfor- mance illustrates how disability arises from correlated constraints between a child’s developing brain and resources within the developmental environment (Noble, Wolmetz, Ochs, Farah, & McCandliss, 2006). Brain development is experience dependent, and deficits in neural function associ- ated with literacy skills may reflect early experiences. Socioeconomic factors link with ecological supports for lan- guage development, such as fewer enrichment resources, less exposure to books and reading, and greater exposure to background noise, which interfere with infants discriminat- ing speech phonemes. Exposure to low-resource environ- ments is associated with less efficient brain activation during basic auditory perception in adolescence (Skoe, Krizman, & Kraus, 2013). In contrast, pre-school-aged children who are read to more often at home show greater brain activation related to semantic processing when listening to a story (Hutton et al., 2015). Quality and consistency of early expo- sure to developmentally appropriate language experiences influences developing neural systems that support literacy once children reach school. Acquiring literacy itself further contributes to reorganizing brain structure and function (Dehaene, Cohen, Morais, & Kolinsky, 2015).

Given literacy as a defining academic skill, neuroscience research in education has focused on brain mechanisms related to language and learning. However, emotion regula- tion also influences children’s ability to succeed in school (Blair, 2002). Academic success is predicated on a child’s ability to meet basic behavioral expectations in the class- room, which include being able not only to focus attention and follow direction but also to engage in socially appropri- ate ways with peers and adults (Blair & Diamond, 2008). Although acquiring self-regulation skills is a developmental milestone for school success, basic neuroscience research on self-regulation integrating with school-based behavioral

Farmer et al. 141

support programs is just beginning. Programs to incorporate socio-emotional learning in the classroom indicate effective- ness on average (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). Yet, these programs do not focus on stu- dents who receive SE services, and they rarely incorporate neurobiological theory in the intervention evaluation, which could elucidate what contributes to treatment response. By examining how neural systems that contribute to affective arousal and inhibitory control differ between children with and without behavior problems, research can offer insight into which children are more or less likely to respond to uni- versal socio-emotional curricula, and which may need addi- tional intervention support.

Thus, research on brain processes may clarify problems, facilitate intervention development, and contribute to assess- ing treatment effectiveness. Synergy between basic-science inquiry into neural mechanisms of learning and clinical- science research in classroom applications may facilitate best practices in SE. SE researchers and practitioners should build on this knowledge to leverage understanding of what can and cannot change in students’ neurophysiological func- tioning and use this knowledge of developmental processes to support the adaptation of students who experience signifi- cant learning and adjustment problems in school (Pavlakis, Noble, Pavlakis, Ali, & Frank, 2015).

Problem Behavior and Intervention Supports for Students With Disabilities

The challenges students with disabilities experience in school are not limited to learning and instruction; they also center on social and behavioral development. Relative to non-SE peers, youth with disabilities tend to have higher rates of problem behavior, experience peer rejection, affiliate with classmates who support their social difficulties, and be involved in peer victimization (Chen, Hamm, Farmer, Lambert, & Mehtaji, 2015; Rose, Swearer, & Espelage, 2012). When students with disabilities have social difficulties, they also risk exclusionary discipline (i.e., suspension; Duran, Zhou, Frew, Kwok, & Benz, 2013). More experience with suspensions and expul- sions is in turn linked to increased criminality and incarcera- tion for students with disabilities (Nelson, 2014).

To address problem behavior and school discipline issues of students with disabilities, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA; PL 105-17) and subsequent reauthorizations require positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), as well as functional behavioral assessments (FBAs), to promote students’ productive engagement in school. In response to these requirements, the Office of Special Education Programs of the United States Department of Education established a Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports in 1998. As a result, a national network of PBIS programs builds from prin- ciples of applied behavior analysis, multi-tiered models of prevention, universal screening, and integrating behavioral

and education practices to create a framework and interven- tion approaches schools can use to promote positive behavior in all students (Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010). This approach involves primary (Tier 1) approaches to create sys- tematic rules and strategies to address the behavior supports needed of all children, secondary (Tier 2) approaches that involve small groups of youth who are not responsive to pri- mary strategies and who need more individualized supports, and tertiary (Tier 3) interventions that occur when students are not responsive to Tier 1 and Tier 2 strategies, and inten- sive interventions that are individualized to the student and his or her contexts.

FBAs are likely to be a part of Tier 3 interventions. FBA describes systematic procedures to determine antecedent variables that evoke and consequences that maintain prob- lem behavior (Farmer, Lane, Lee, Hamm, & Lambert, 2012; Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, & Sugai, 2005). The function of behavior breaks down into behaviors used to obtain desired stimuli (e.g., attention, tangibles) or escape undesirable events (e.g., non-preferred assignments, people). Having hypothesized a problem behavior’s function, an intervention is developed to replace the problem behavior with a func- tionally equivalent appropriate behavior. For example, if a student consistently hits others to gain teacher attention, that student could be taught a more appropriate (and efficient) way to gain teacher attention. Similarly, antecedent events that trigger problem behavior can be modified to promote positive-proactive behaviors. FBAs can make interventions more efficient (Ingram et al., 2005; Miller & Lee, 2013).

IDEA addresses the educational support needs of students with a variety of disabilities, and as such, FBAs apply to all children who receive SE. Yet, potential difficulties challenge applying research, developed primarily from individuals with intellectual disabilities, across other disabilities (Sasso, Conroy, Peck Stichter, & Fox, 2001). Students with high- incidence disabilities experience more socially complex environments that contribute to their behavior problems (Shores & Wehby, 1999). Accurately identifying relevant variables and arranging associated interventions in class- room settings, with classroom personnel, can be difficult. Emerging work on the social functions of problem behavior (Farmer et al., 2012) and the management of classroom social dynamics (Farmer, Reinke, & Brooks, 2014) may help. However, going beyond classroom management and considering how other correlated constraints (e.g., family/ community factors, students’ social cognitions, neurophysi- ology, self-regulatory processes) sustain students’ problem behaviors is needed to inform coordinated strategies that span school, mental health, and related service agencies (Farmer et al., in press).

The Delivery of SE Services

Since the 1990s, situating SE within general education has been focal. In 1997, the reauthorization of IDEA (PL 105-17)

142 Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3(1)

mandated that students with disabilities have access to the general-education curriculum. Hence, students with disabili- ties are increasingly educated in general-education settings, and their instruction involves non-categorical approaches that do not link services to a disability classification (e.g., learning disability, intellectual disabilities, emotional/behav- ioral disorders), but to specific instructional and related learning support needs. Accordingly, a response-to-interven- tion (RTI) framework addresses the learning needs of strug- gling students using the same three-tiered model. The core feature of RTI is that intervention centers on students’ perfor- mance in response to specific instructional or behavioral strategies (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010). As the 2004 reau- thorization of IDEA states, “In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local education agency may use a process that determines if [he or she] responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evalua- tion process” (20 U.S.C. §1414[b][6]).

By definition, students who require Tier 3 interventions or who receive SE are not responsive to evidence-based prac- tices. Such students learn differently from their non-SE peers and need instructional or behavioral supports that cannot be adequately addressed solely by modifying universal or sec- ondary strategies (Farmer et al., in press; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2015). This does not mean abandoning data in the interven- tion process. It does mean that a general-education or a spe- cial-education teacher trained as generalist cannot simply pull an evidence-based practice off the shelf, to meet the needs of students who require Tier 3 interventions. Furthermore, special educators with relevant expertise should individualize and intensify interventions for students with disabilities (Danielson & Rosenquist, 2014). The emerging field of intensive intervention science addresses this need by developing strategies, delivery frameworks, and training to guide data-based intervention approaches respon- sive to individualized learning and support needs of students who have significant learning and behavioral difficulties (Farmer et al., in press; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2014; Kern & Wehby, 2014). Although this work centers on individual- ized approaches to adapt interventions, these efforts may be enhanced by incorporating a correlated constraints perspec- tive and identifying neurophysiological, cognitive, contex- tual, and ecological factors that may moderate or contribute to the effectiveness of the intensification process.

Policy Implications and Considerations for the Future

Many policy implications result from bridging SE and devel- opmental science and from leveraging current research in brain and behavior to address the growth and outcomes of youth with disabilities. Three implications come to the fore- front: (a) reinvesting in the original special-education emphasis on individual adaptation, by focusing on develop- mental pathways and realignment in the life-course; (b)

including both developmental and RTI data in the dynamic delivery of services to students with disabilities; and (c) bringing SE and developmental science together in training both practitioners and researchers to address the growth and adaptation of youth with disabilities.

Focusing on the Individual in Developmental Context

The strength of SE and what makes it special is the individu- alized education plan. Starting with PL 88-164 (1963) and elaborated in PL 94-142 (1975), the core of SE identifies the strengths, resources, and needs of the individual and adapts both interventions and relevant contexts to support the devel- opment of specific skills and capacities. As policy has moved forward with the Americans with Disabilities Act and subse- quent amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, awareness has grown that adaptation is not simply what is happening in the present. Rather, as increas- ingly understood, SE should also provide youth with devel- opmental opportunities that prepare them for the future.

With universal programs, evidence-based practices, and tiered models of support, current efforts in SE seem to be shifting away from the individual and increasingly center on standardized interventions. Establishing a comprehensive collection of intervention strategies grounded in evidence from rigorous research advances the field and increases our capacity to support a broader range of students (Vaughn & Swanson, 2015). We must be careful this is not done at the cost of individualized interventions that promote the long- term growth and adaptation of the student. We cannot expect any teacher to haphazardly select an evidence-based practice and produce desired, sustainable student outcomes just by implementing the intervention with fidelity. We must also question whether short-term, politically valued markers of student success, such as standardized test scores or reduc- tions in discipline referrals, should be intervention targets, if they do not link to key developmental processes and long- term outcomes. The field of SE cannot afford to let educa- tional practices and indicators based on general population statistics guide the education of individual students with dis- abilities, if such practices and indicators do not align with the student’s adaptive needs or long-term goals and desired outcomes.

This is not an either/or proposition. Efforts to create a sci- ence of the intensification and individualization of interven- tions will enhance our capacity to modify evidence-based practices to meet the needs of specific students with disabili- ties (Danielson & Rosenquist, 2014; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2015). As these efforts move forward, the focus must not only be simply the adaptation of interventions but also the develop- mental adaptation of students. To support more tailored and effective interventions, policies need to support basic per- son-oriented research to identify developmental factors, including brain and behavior malleability, which can be

Farmer et al. 143

leveraged in interventions for distinct subtypes of students with disabilities.

Merging Intensive Intervention and Developmental Assessment Data

Accordingly, bringing together distinct types of data will help guide the intervention process. Special educators should understand how data on students’ performance on specific evidence-based interventions can generate modifications to the intervention, guide a different intervention, or promote additional data collection or a series of intervention and data collection to tailor specific approaches (Danielson & Rosenquist, 2014; Fuchs et al., 2014). This emerging area of inquiry and policies needs to support more research on implementing evidence-based practices, adapting such prac- tices, and collecting data to drive in-stream modifications of specific strategies (The Council for Exceptional Children’s Interdivisional Research Group, 2014; Kern & Wehby, 2014).

Beyond how to tailor evidence-based practices for stu- dents who are unresponsive to specific interventions, another series of questions remain: What works for whom? When it is likely to have a sustained effect? When do we need to shift interventions? And how do we know whether intervention impacts are related to desired long-term outcomes? Person- oriented information about students who reflect specific con- figurations of a range of school adjustment and developmental variables comes into play. Information from person-oriented research can combine with RTI data to provide greater preci- sion in the individualization and intensification of interven- tions. By merging data-based individualization with person-oriented data on potential pathways and leverage points for systems reorganization, a comprehensive assess- ment and individualized intervention framework can pin- point the positive realignment of developmental trajectories and corresponding productive outcomes of youth subtypes at high risk for chronic educational failure. New policies need to directly support research to integrate person-oriented and intensive intervention perspectives in both the assessment and intervention delivery processes.

Focusing on Applied Developmental Science in SE Training

About six and a half million (13%) public school students receive services under IDEA across 13 SE classifications (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). The charac- teristics, development, educational, and service support needs vary both across and within different SE classifica- tions depending on the severity of the disability. Generating a one-size-fits-all approach to meeting the needs of students within a particular disability category—much less across the entire field of SE—is not feasible or productive.

With the focus on inclusion and social acceptance of human differences, disability has sometimes been reduced to a diversity topic and, with RTI, the special educator’s role has become that of a generalist. Students with disabilities dif- fer markedly from non-SE peers in their learning and devel- opment, and generalists implementing standard evidence-based practices cannot easily address their needs (Farmer et al., in press; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2015). If these dif- ferential needs are not effectively addressed and supported during childhood and adolescence, youth with disabilities are not likely to experience adaptive pathways and develop the functional skills necessary to achieve their developmental potential. To promote their adaptation and productive adult outcomes, students with disabilities, by law, have the right to receive the services of specialists who understand their spe- cific learning and developmental needs and who have the knowledge, skills, and resources to address them.

Recent advances in brain and behavior research, develop- mental science, RTI, and intervention intensification con- verge to put SE in a position to prepare professionals who can provide students with disabilities the cutting-edge inter- ventions individualized to their specific developmental needs. The Office of Special Education Programs has taken an important step forward by establishing the National Center on Leadership in Intensive Interventions—a consor- tium of seven universities preparing doctoral candidates to be the next generation of SE researchers developing new approaches in data-based individualization. Moreover, these graduate students are learning how to train the next genera- tion of special educators—intervention specialists who can adapt interventions to the specific needs of students and their developmental contexts.

Complementary research in developmental science can merge with work on intensifying interventions. Person- oriented research on the developmental pathways of subtypes of students with disabilities can identify developmental con- straints and leverage points specific to these subtypes, and establish assessment and intervention approaches utilizing this information in the education and treatment process. To do this, policies should establish research in applied developmental science specifically designed to address SE. Correspondingly, knowledge about developmental science should infuse the training of special-education researchers, and training pro- grams in developmental science should be established for spe- cial educators. As we learn more about how brain and behavior processes operate together to contribute to the adaptation of students with disabilities, we need policies to support the advanced training of highly experienced special educators to serve as intervention specialists who understand these devel- opmental processes and can use this knowledge to individual- ize instructional and behavioral support practices that meet students’ immediate and long-term adaptive developmental needs. Furthermore, we need to understand that such individu- als are highly trained professionals, and they should receive

144 Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3(1)

commensurate levels of pay and resources to support them in the performance of their jobs.

In conclusion, the half century since the passage of PL 88-164 (1963) has seen tremendous advances in SE that reflect the interplay between policy, research, and training to establish new models of service delivery and supports to address the learning and developmental needs of youth with disabilities. Merging intensive interventions and develop- mental science will create service delivery frameworks that focus on what works for whom, when, and under what cir- cumstances. Linking the fields of SE and developmental sci- ence should identify services and intervention support pathways that not only promote the productive development and positive outcomes of students with disabilities but also provide insights into human learning and adaptation that can benefit all children.

Authors’ Note

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the views of the granting agencies.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by grants from the Institute of Education Sciences (R305A120812; R305A140434) and the National Science Foundation (SES-1150844).

References

Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, § 3406, 122 Stat. 3553.

Bergman, L. R., & Vargha, A. (2013). Matching method to prob- lem: A developmental science perspective. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 9-28.

Blair, C. (2002). School readiness. Integrating cognition and emo- tion in a neurobiological conceptualization of children’s func- tioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57, 111-127.

Blair, C., & Diamond, A. (2008). Biological processes in pre- vention and intervention: The promotion of self-regulation as a means of preventing school failure. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 899-911.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1996). Foreward. In R. B. Cairns, G. H. Elder, & E. J. Costello (Eds.), Developmental Science (pp. ix-xvii). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Chen, C.-C., Hamm, J. V., Farmer, T. W., Lambert, K., & Mehtaji, M. (2015). Exceptionality and peer victimization involvement in late childhood: Subtypes, stability, and social marginaliza- tion. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 312-324.

Community Mental Health Centers Act of 1963, Pub. L. No. 88-164, §1576, 77 Stat. 282.

The Council for Exceptional Children’s Interdivisional Research Group. (2014). Evidence-based special education in the con- text of scare evidence-based practices. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47, 81-84.

Danielson, L., & Rosenquist, C. (2014). Introduction to the TEC special issue on data-based individualization. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46, 6-12.

Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Morais, J., & Kolinsky, R. (2015). Illiterate to literate: Behavioral and cerebral changes induced by reading acquisition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16, 234-244.

Duran, J. B., Zhou, Q., Frew, L. A., Kwok, O. M., & Benz, M. R. (2013). Disciplinary exclusion and students with disabilities: The mediating role of social skills. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 24, 15-26.

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405-432.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-142, 20 U.S.C. § 1401, 89 Stat. 773.

Farmer, T. W., Lane, K. L., Lee, D. L., Hamm, J. V., & Lambert, K. (2012). The social functions of antisocial behavior: Considerations for school violence prevention strategies for students with disabilities. Behavioral Disorders, 37, 149-162.

Farmer, T. W., Reinke, W., & Brooks, D. S. (2014). Managing classrooms and challenging behavior: Theoretical consider- ations and critical issues. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 22, 67-73.

Farmer, T. W., Sutherland, K. S., Talbott, E., Eber, L., & Norwalk, K. (in press). Special educators as intervention specialists: Dynamic systems, developmental science, and the diffusion of intensive social, emotional, and behavioral interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2015). Rethinking service delivery for students with significant learning problems: Developing and implementing intensive interventions. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 105-111.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301-323.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2014). What is intensive instruction and why is it important. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46, 3-18.

Gariépy, J. L. (1996). The question of continuity and change in development. In R. B. Cairns, G. H. Elder, & E. J. Costello (Eds.), Developmental science (pp. 78-96). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42, 1-14.

Horowitz-Kraus, T., Vannest, J. J., Kadis, D., Cicchino, N., Wang, Y. Y., & Holland, S. K. (2014). Reading acceleration training changes brain circuitry in children with reading difficulties. Brain and Behavior, 4, 886-902.

Hutton, J. S., Horowitz-Kraus, T., Mendelsohn, A. L., DeWitt, T., Holand, S. K., & C-MIND Authorship Consortium. (2015). Home reading environment and brain activation in preschool children listening to stories. Pediatrics, 136, 466-478.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-17, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, 111 Stat. 37.

Farmer et al. 145

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, 118 Stat. 2647.

Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-based intervention planning: Comparing the effectiveness of FBA indicated and contra-indicated intervention plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 224-236.

Kern, L., & Wehby, J. H. (2014). Using data to intensify behavioral interventions for individual students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46, 45-53.

Lovio, R., Halttunen, A., Lyytinen, H., Naatanen, R., & Kujala, T. (2012). Reading skill and neural processing accuracy improve- ment after a 3-hour intervention in preschoolers with difficul- ties in reading-related skills. Brain Research, 1448, 42-55.

Magnusson, D. M., & Cairns, R. B. (1996). Developmental science: Toward a unified framework. In R. B. Cairns, G. H. Elder, & E. J. Costello (Eds.), Developmental science (pp. 7-30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Miller, F. G., & Lee, D. L. (2013). Do functional behavioral assess- ments improve intervention effectiveness for students diag- nosed with ADHD? A single-subject meta analysis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 22, 253-282.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The condition of edu- cation 2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Nelson, C. M. (2014). Students with learning and behavioral dis- abilities and the school-to-prison pipeline: How we go here, and we might do about it. In B. G. Cook, M. Tankersley, & T. J. Landrum (Eds.), Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities: Vol. 27. Special education past, present, and future: Perspectives from the field (pp. 89-115). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

Noble, K. G., & McCandliss, B. D. (2005). Reading development and impairment: Behavioral, social, and neurobiological fac- tors. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 26, 370-378.

Noble, K. G., Wolmetz, M. E., Ochs, L. G., Farah, M. J., & McCandliss, B. D. (2006). Brain-behavior relationships in reading acquisition are modulated by socioeconomic factors. Developmental Science, 9, 642-654.

Pavlakis, A. E., Noble, K., Pavlakis, S. G., Ali, N., & Frank, Y. (2015). Brain imaging and electrophysiology biomarkers: Is there a role in poverty and education outcome research? Pediatric Neurology, 52, 383-388.

Roeser, R. W., & Peck, S. C. (2003). Patterns and pathways of edu- cational achievement across adolescence: A holistic-develop- mental perspective. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 101, 39-62.

Rose, C. A., Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). Bullying and students with disabilities: The untold narrative. Focus on Exceptional Children, 45, 1-10.

Sasso, G. M., Conroy, M. A., Peck Stichter, J., & Fox, J. J. (2001). Slowing down the bandwagon: The misapplication of func- tional assessment for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 282-296.

Schaadt, G., Mannel, C., van der Meer, E., Pannekamp, A., Oberrecker, R., & Friederici, A. D. (2015). Present and past: Can writing abilities in school children be associated with their auditory discrimination capacities in infancy? Research in Developmental Disabilities, 47, 318-333.

Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Blachman, B. A., Pugh, K. R., Fulbright, R. K., Skudlarski, P., . . . Gore, J. C. (2004). Development of left occipitotemporal systems for skilled reading in children after a phonologically-based intervention. Biological Psychiatry, 55, 926-933.

Shores, R. E., & Wehby, J. H. (1999). Analyzing the classroom social behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 194-199.

Skoe, E., Krizman, J., & Kraus, N. (2013). The impoverished brain: Disparities in maternal education affect the neural response to sound. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 17221-17231.

Vaughn, S., & Swanson, E. A. (2015). Special education research advances knowledge in education. Exceptional Children, 82, 11-24.

White-Schwoch, T., Woodruff, C. K., Thompson, E. C., Anderson, S., Nicol, T., Bradlow, A. R., . . . Kraus, N. (2015). Auditory processing in noise: A preschool biomarker for literacy. PLoS Biology, 13, e1002196.