Search

Many secondary students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) struggle with mathematics problem solving. When students with SLD are taught to use effective problem-solving strategies, their ability to solve mathematics word problems improves. The purpose of this article is to provide a guide for secondary teachers to implement self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) to teach mathematics problem-solving strategies to secondary students with SLD. The specific problem-solving strategy described in this article is SOLVE, which stands for Study the problem, Organize the facts, Line up a plan, Verify your plan with action, and Evaluate your results. Both SRSD and SOLVE are described, and an example of one teacher's application of SRSD is shared. When taught concurrently, SRSD and SOLVE can be useful tools to help students with disabilities overcome the challenges of problem-solving in mathematics.

Self-regulatory interventions have demonstrated numerous benefits for helping improve the academic performance of students. The purpose of this review was to report on the effectiveness and focus of academic self-regulation interventions for children and adolescents with emotional and behavioural disorders. Thirty-six studies published in 35 papers and involving 189 participants met inclusionary criteria. Overall, self-regulation interventions showed moderate/medium effect size gains [percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND) 75%; standard mean difference (SMD) 2.27; Tau-U 0.81] across academic subject areas. When assessing the effectiveness of self-regulation interventions for addressing specific academic content areas, the largest ES gains were observed in reading (PND 93%; SMD 2.13; Tau-U 0.94), although medium/moderate ES gains were observed in math (PND 71%; SMD 2.08; Tau-U 0.70) and writing (PND 83%; SMD 2.57; Tau-U 0.91). Self-regulated strategy development, self-monitoring interventions and strategy instruction were the predominant types of self-regulation techniques implemented by researchers. There was evidence to support a claim of the generalisation and maintenance of findings. Implications, limitations and areas for future research are discussed.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is intended to provide federal financial assistance to states in ensuring that qualified students with disabilities are receiving a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Indeed, approximately 6.4 million students ages 3-21, representing about 13% of school-age children, received services under IDEA in 2012-2013 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). To ensure the adequacy of funding in special education, IDEA 1997 amendments and the IDEA 1999 regulations included the requirement of maintenance of effort (MOE) for local education agencies (LEAs). MOE stipulates that the LEA must continue to maintain the same effort of state and/or local funding for the education of children with disabilities as they did during the previous fiscal year. Additionally, documentation of MOE was required from the LEA prior to receiving IDEA funding for the next fiscal year (Association of Educational Service Agencies, 2014). Although MOE is a long-standing IDEA requirement, confusion over the ever-changing interpretation of this requirement has created difficulty and confusion among state education agencies (SEAs) and LEAs. Further, the reauthorization of IDEA has been overdue, and this situation has exacerbated the concern over the MOE issue and led to the need to address the issue outside the IDEA reauthorization cycle. Due to the importance of providing appropriate funding to ensure FAPE, as well as the pertinence of the topic of LEA MOE due to updated regulations that were effective July 1, 2015, the purpose of this article is to provide an overview of trends and issues associated with MOE to aid the school administrator in understanding the complexities of the issue. Specifically this article will include a review of Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) letters of guidance, a discussion of select state practices (e.g., South Carolina), and summaries of both the 2015 MOE regulations and The Building on Local District Flexibility in IDEA Act.

Special education is the most highly litigated area within the field of education. Therefore, the purpose of the current article is to highlight cases (court decisions, Office of Civil Rights rulings, and State Educational Agency hearings) involving students with disabilities in 2015. Highlights from the case law point to the need for school districts to ensure that students with disabilities are provided free appropriate public education, ensure timely and comprehensive evaluations once a suspected disability is of concern, ensure that students with autism have access to an range of services, provide evidence in factors considered when determining placement, remove students only when they present imminent threat to self or others, and appropriately address bullying/harassment instances.