Test Bank For Exceptional Learners An Introduction To Special Education 12 e 12th Edition Daniel P Hallahan James M Kauffman Paige C Pullen

Test Bank for Exceptional Learners: An
Introduction to Special Education, 12/E 12th

Edition Daniel P. Hallahan, James M. Kauffman,
Paige C. Pullen
Full download chapter at: https://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-

exceptional-learners-an-introduction-to-special-education-12-e-12th-edition-daniel-
p-hallahan-james-m-kauffman-paige-c-pullen/
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343324277
Exceptional Learners
Article in Oxford Review of Education · February 2020

DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.926
CITATION READS
S
21,503
27
3 authors:
Paige C. Pullen Daniel P Hallahan
University of Florida University of Virginia
85 PUBLICATIONS 2,692 133 PUBLICATIONS 4,171 CITATIONS
CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
James M. Kauffman
University of Virginia
352 PUBLICATIONS 9,881
CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Book, Exceptional Learners (14th edition) View project
Flamingo Literacy Teaching Platform View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paige C. Pullen on 07 April 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Exceptional
Learners
Exceptional Learners
Daniel P. Hallahan, Paige C. Pullen, James M. Kauffman, and Jeanmarie Badar
Subject: Cognition, Emotion, and Learning, Education, Health, and Social Services
Online Publication Date: Feb 2020 DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.926
Summary and Keywords
Exceptional learners is the term used in the United States to refer to students with dis-
abilities (as well as those who are gifted and talented). The majority of students with dis-
abilities have cognitive and/or behavioral disabilities, that is, specific learning disability
(SLD), intellectual disability (ID), emotional disturbance, (ED), attention deficit hyperac-
tivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The remaining have primarily
sensory and/or physical disabilities (e.g., blindness, deafness, traumatic brain injury, cere-
bral palsy, muscular dystrophy).
Many of the key research and policy issues pertaining to exceptional learners involve
their definitions and identification. For example, prior to SLD being formally recognized
by the U.S. Department of Education in the 1970s, its prevalence was estimated at ap-
proximately 2% to 3% of the school-age population. However, the prevalence of students
identified for special education as SLD grew rapidly until by 1999 it reached 5.68% for
ages 6 to 17 years. Since then, the numbers identified as SLD has declined slowly but
steadily. One probable explanation for the decrease is that response to intervention has
largely replaced IQ-achievement as the method of choice for identifying SLD.
The term intellectual disability has largely replaced the classification of mental retarda-
tion. This change originated in the early 2000s because of the unfortunate growing popu-
larity of using retard as a pejorative. Although ID used to be determined by a low IQ-test
score, one must also have low adaptive behavior (such as daily living skills) to be diag-
nosed as ID. That is the likely reason why the prevalence of students with ID at under 1%
is well below the estimated prevalence of 2.27% based solely on IQ scores two standard
deviations (i.e., 70) below the norm of 100.
There are two behavioral dimensions of ED: externalizing (including conduct disorder)
and internalizing (anxiety and withdrawal) behaviors. Research evidence indicates that
students with ED are underserved in public schools.
Researchers have now confirmed ADHD as a bona fide neurologically based disability.
The American Psychiatric Association recognizes three types of ADHD: (a) ADHD, Pre-
dominantly Inattentive Type; (b) ADHD, Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Type; and
(c) ADHD, Combined Type.
Page 1 of 29
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University
Press USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy
and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2020

Exceptional
Learners
The American Psychiatric Association recognizes two types of ASD: social communication
impairment and repetitive/restricted behaviors. The prevalence of ASD diagnosis has in-
creased dramatically. Researchers point to three probable reasons for this increase: a
greater awareness of ASD by the public and professionals; a more liberal set of criteria
for diagnosing ASD, especially as it pertains to those who are higher functioning; and “di
agnostic substitution”—persons being identified as having ASD who previously would
have been diagnosed as mentally retarded or intellectually disabled.
Instruction for exceptional children, referred to as “special education,” differs from what
most (typical or average) children require. Research indicates that effective instruction
for students with disabilities is individualized, explicit, systematic, and intensive. It differs
with respect to size of group taught and amount of corrective feedback and reinforce-
ment used. Also, from the student’s viewpoint, it is more predictable. In addition, each of
these elements is on a continuum.
Keywords: exceptional children, special education, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, learning
disabilities, intellectual disabilities, emotional disturbance, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,
autism, response to intervention, evidence-based instruction
Introduction
This article addresses fundamental information and issues pertaining to exceptional
learners and their education. Although the term exceptional learners sometimes includes
those who are gifted or talented, this article concentrates on those with disabilities. More
specifically, the focus is on students with cognitive and behavioral disabilities, who com-
prise approximately 70% of students identified with disabilities, with the remaining iden-
tified with several different sensory and physical impairments (e.g., blindness, deafness,
traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, and so forth; U.S. Department
of Education, 2018). In addition, the article focuses on exceptional learners in the United
States although much of what is covered is applicable to other countries. (For information
on the identification and education of exceptional learners in other countries, see, e.g.,
Anastasiou & Keller, 2017; Artiles & Hallahan, 1995; Wehmeyer & Patton, 2017).
Definition of Exceptional Learners

In the context of education, exceptional learners “differ from most . . . individuals in a
particular way that is relevant to their education. Their particular educationally relevant
difference demands instruction that differs from what most (typical or average) learners
require” (Hallahan, Kauffman, & Pullen, 2019, p. 6). The use of the term “exceptional”
originated in the latter part of the 20th century as a euphemism to replace denoting stu-
dents with disabilities as “handicapped.” The particular disabilities, as recognized by the
U.S. Department of Education, are specific learning disability, speech or language im-
paired, other health impairment, autism, intellectual disability, emotional disturbance, de-
velopmental delay, multiple disabilities, hearing impairment, orthopedic impairment, visu-
Page 2 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
al impairment, traumatic brain injury, and deaf-blindness (U.S. Department of Education,
2018).
Prevalence of Exceptional Learners

Many key issues pertaining to exceptional learners are encapsulated in the rates at which
U.S. public schools identify students with disabilities in each of the categories of special
education. When Public Law 94-142 (now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Im-
provement Act [IDEA]) was passed into law in 1975, it mandated that an annual report be
made to Congress that, among other things, would include the number of students served
by special education in each of the disability categories. Thus the topic of prevalence has
been at the core of many important issues concerning exceptional learners, which is un-
derstandable because it reflects how disabilities are defined and students with disabilities
are identified.
Debates over definition of exceptional learners proliferate, even with respect to those
that would seemingly be easily delineated, such as blindness and deafness (Hallahan et
al., 2019). However, disability categories garnering the most attention with respect to def-
inition and identification are the higher prevalence disabilities, such as specific learning
disabilities (SLD); intellectual disabilities (ID); emotional disturbance (ED); attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which accounts for a large percentage of students
identified as having other health impairment (OHI); and autism, or autism spectrum dis-
orders (ASD).
Figures 1 and 2 depict prevalence rates over time for SLD, ID, ED, OHI, and autism for
students 6 to 17 and 6 to 21 years of age, respectively. Beginning in 2006, annual reports
to Congress have only reported prevalence rates for 6 to 21 years of age. Prevalence
rates in Figure 2, as expected, are lower than Figure 1 because few general education
students stay in school past age 17 and not all students with disabilities remain in school
to the age of 21 years.
The rest of this article is composed of three parts. The first part introduces the aforemen-
tioned types of exceptional learners and issues associated with each, concentrating main-
ly on definitions and prevalence rates. The second part discusses instruction for excep-
tional learners. Finally, we draw general conclusions focusing on issues pertaining to the
educational placement of exceptional learners in special and general education.
Specific Learning Disabilities

SLD was largely born out of parents’ frustrations with schools not providing needed ser-
vices for their children (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002; Kirk, 1962, 1963). Their children were
struggling academically, but they had IQ scores too high to qualify as “mentally
retarded” (now referred to as “intellectually disabled”). Largely propelled by parent pres-
Page 3 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
sure, the federal government officially recognized SLD as a special education category in
1975 with passage of Public Law 94-172.
Defining Specific Learning Disabilities
The most commonly accepted definition of SLD, and the one primarily used by schools in
the United States, is the one first introduced in Public Law 94-142 and, with minor adjust-
ments, included in the 1997 and 2004 IDEA reauthorizations:
GENERAL—The term “specific learning disability” means a disorder in one or

more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using
language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in an imperfect
ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.
DISORDERS INCLUDED—Such term includes such conditions as perceptual dis-

abilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental
aphasia.
DISORDERS NOT INCLUDED—Such term does not include a learning problem

that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retar-
dation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disad-
vantage (IDEA, Amendments of 1997, Sec. 602(26), p. 13).
Prevalence of Specific Learning Disabilities
SLD has for some time accounted for the greatest percentage of students identified for
special education. As SLD was being proposed as a category of special education, it was
estimated that its prevalence would be about 2% to 3% of the school-age population.
Once states began reporting, per federal requirements, actual numbers of students iden-
tified and served, however, it became obvious that this was an underestimate. As Figure 1
shows, SLD increased steadily, more than doubling by 1999 when it reached its asymp-
tote of 5.68% for students 6 to 17 years.
Page 4 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Figure 1. Prevalence rates for SLD, MR, EBD, OHI,

and autism, 1995–2005.
The rapid expansion of SLD spawned a number of critics over the years who have dispar-
aged the SLD category. Criticism has been generally of two types, those expressing
doubts concerning (a) the validity of the SLD category (i.e., whether it is “real”) and (b)
the methods for determining whether a student has SLD.
Criticism of SLD: Questionable Validity as a Disability

From its inception, there have been those who have cast doubt on the very existence of
SLD. One of the earliest criticisms asserted that SLD was a convenient way for schools
and parents to explain the failures of children from White, middle class families to meet
the academic standards that were being ratcheted up by a society bent on competing
globally via economic and military progress (Sleeter, 1987). At the same time, SLD was al-
so branded by some as a socially constructed phenomenon fitting a sociological model
based on an ideology of race- and class-based oppression of minorities.
Although viewing SLD as emerging from an ideology of oppression was an extreme cri-
tique, it was consonant with more mainstream criticisms that focused on questionable
claims regarding its etiology. SLD was built largely on the assumption that it was caused
by what was referred to as minimal brain dysfunction (Clements, 1966). Given the rela-
tively crude state of neurological diagnosis in the latter part of the 20th century, claims of
neurological involvement at the time were speculative.
With the advent of neuroimaging technology in the 1990s, however, evidence emerged
supporting neurological dysfunction as a cause of SLD (Flowers, 1993; Flowers, Wood, &
Naylor, 1991; Gross-Glenn et al., 1991; Hagman et al., 1992; Hynd & Semrud-Clikeman,
1989; Kushch et al., 1993; Larsen, Hoien, Lundberg, & Odegaard, 1990; Shaywitz et al.,
1998). Today, substantial evidence has accumulated supporting neurological dysfunction
as a cause of many instances of SLD (Gabrieli, 2009; Hoeft et al., 2011; Peterson & Pen-
nington, 2015; Saygin et al., 2013). Furthermore, evidence strongly supports a hereditary
basis in many cases (DeFries, Gillis, & Wadsworth, 1993; DeThorne et al., 2006; Lewis &
Page 5 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Thompson, 1992; Reynolds et al., 1996; Shalev, 2004). Establishing a biological basis of
SLD thus blunted much of the criticism challenging the validity of SLD as a legitimate dis-
ability.
Criticism of SLD: Identification Methods

With the designation of SLD as a category of special education in the 1970s, the federal
government also published regulations regarding SLD determination. In order to be said
to have SLD, the student was to exhibit a severe discrepancy between achievement and
intellectual ability. Most state departments of education relied on an IQ-achievement dis-
crepancy, with some using statistical formulas, to identify students with SLD. Over the
years, statisticians have determined these formulas to be less than perfect. In addition, an
IQ-achievement approach is problematic in the earliest grades because very little reading
or math skills are expected of students at this point, which has led to this method being
referred to as a “wait-to-fail” model. Such problems have led influential researchers to
declare an IQ-achievement approach as invalid, inappropriate, or unnecessary (e.g.,
Fletcher et al., 2002; Gresham, 2002; Siegel, 1989).
Response to Intervention
In answer to the criticism of IQ-achievement discrepancy, an alternative method of identi-

fying students with SLD has been proposed: response to intervention (RtI). Although by
law RtI is not mandated and IQ-achievement is still permissible, the U.S. Department of
Education encourages states to use RtI. RtI refers to a student’s change (or lack of
change) in academic performance or behavior as a result of instructional intervention
(Duhon, Messmer, Atkins, Greguson, & Olinger, 2009; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young,
2003; O’Connor, Sanchez, & Kim, 2017). Implementation of RtI is highly variable from
school district to school district, but the path to identification of a student as having SLD
typically involves some variation of the following. The student (a) receives quality instruc-
tion in the general education classroom and does not do as well as peers, (b) receives in-
tervention in the form of small group instruction and still does poorly, (c) is referred for
formal evaluation for special education, and (d) is determined by an interdisciplinary
team to have SLD, which results in the development of an individualized education pro-
gram.
Page 6 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Figure 2. 6 to 21 years of age: Prevalence figures for

SLD, ID, BD, OHI, and autism, 1995–2015.
RtI is rapidly replacing IQ-achievement discrepancy as a means of identifying students

with SLD. However, researchers have presented several criticisms of RtI (O’Connor et al.,
2017; Pullen & Hallahan, 2015; Pullen, Lane, Ashworth, & Lovelace, 2017; Vaughn &
Fuchs, 2003; Yell, 2019). Most of these criticisms have focused on, or been related to, the
inconsistency with which RtI has been interpreted and implemented (Hudson & McKen-
zie, 2016). For example, considerable variability exists with respect to such things as type
of instruction, duration of instruction, and who the instructor is (e.g., general education
teacher, special education teacher, school psychologist, paraprofessional). Such variabili-
ty is undoubtedly a factor in the paucity of evidence on the effectiveness of RtI when im-
plemented at scale. Correlated with, and perhaps affected by, the growing popularity of
RtI, the rising prevalence of SLD slowed and reversed course in the first decade of the
21st century. As shown in Figures 1 and 2, after SLD’s asymptote of 5.68% in 1999, it has
declined slowly but steadily (Pullen, 2017).
Intellectual Disabilities
At one time, people with intellectual disabilities were referred to as mentally retarded.
However, by the early 2000s, the pejorative retard had regrettably reached such a level of
use that professionals, family members, and persons with intellectual disabilities them-
selves expressed discomfort with the term mental retardation. Unfortunately, throughout
history, people with subaverage intellectual abilities have been ridiculed. In fact, as late
as the early 1900s the terms idiot, imbecile, and moron were used by professionals and
professional organizations to refer to individuals with severe, moderate, or mild intellec-
tual disability or mental retardation, respectively. In 2007, the major professional organi-
zation for people with significant cognitive or intellectual disabilities—the American Asso-
ciation on Mental Retardation (AAMR)—changed its name to the American Association on
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Furthermore, in 2010, Public Law 111-256
mandated that intellectual disability replace mental retardation in many areas of the fed-
eral government. As of 2016, the term mental retardation was only being used in the
State Department of Education in three states (Polloway, Bouck, Patton, & Lubin, 2017).
Page 7 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Defining Intellectual Disabilities
ID is currently defined by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental

Disabilities as follows: “a disability characterized by significant limitations both in intel-
lectual functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and prac-
tical adaptive skills. This disability originates before age 18” (AAMR Ad Hoc Committee
on Terminology and Classification, 2010, p. 1).
At one time, mental retardation (now ID) was determined by an IQ test, with a score of 70
or below indicative of probable mental retardation. In addition to the terminology change
from mental retardation to intellectual disabilities, a significant difference in definition
from several years ago has been the recognition of adaptive behavior as a critical compo-
nent of determining ID.
Prevalence of Intellectual Disabilities
Figures 1 and 2 indicate that the prevalence of students identified as ID for special educa-
tion is lower than one would expect based on other factors. For example, theoretically, we
expect 2.27% of the population to fall two standard deviations (IQ = 70 on the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition) or more below this average. This expecta-
tion is based on the assumption that intelligence, like so many other human traits, is dis-
tributed along a normal curve. Researchers have pointed to three likely reasons for the
discrepancy: (a) use of adaptive behavior in addition to an IQ score to diagnose ID, (b)
preference to label students with IQs in the 70s as learning disabled because it is less
stigmatizing (MacMillan, Gresham, Bocian, & Lambros, 1998), and/or (c) preference for
identifying children as having ASD because of increased awareness of this condition.
Emotional Disturbance
Generally, researchers recognize two behavioral dimensions of ED: externalizing behavior
(including conduct disorder) and internalizing (anxiety and withdrawal). The former in-
volves striking out against others (Furlong, Morrison, & Jimerson, 2004; Kazdin, 1995)
whereas the latter involves mental or emotional conflicts, such as depression and anxiety
(Gresham & Kern, 2004). Although not mutually exclusive, research indicates poorer out-
comes for students with externalizing behavior disorders (Kauffman & Landrum, 2018).
Research indicates that boys outnumber girls with respect to externalizing disorders,
with the opposite true for internalizing disorders, although some girls exhibit externaliz-
ing and such disorders in girls appear to be increasing (Javdani, Sadeh, & Veerona, 2011).
In addition, students with externalizing disorders, undoubtedly because of their overt be-
haviors, are much more likely than those with internalizing disorders to be identified as
ED for special education services (Kauffman & Landrum, 2018).
Page 8 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Defining Emotional Disturbance
Most school divisions use the federal definition of ED or some variation:
i. The term means a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics
over a long period of time and to a marked extent, which adversely affects education-
al performance:
A. An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or
health factors;
B. An inability to build or maintain satisfactory relationships with peers and
teachers;
C. Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances;
D. A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression; or
E. A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or
school problems.
ii The term includes children who are schizophrenic. The term does not include chil-
dren who are socially maladjusted unless it is determined that they are emotionally
disturbed. (45 C.F.R. 121a5[b][8][1978])
Notably, IDEA provides no guidance on distinguishing maladjustment from ED, which has
resulted in many researchers claiming the futility of trying to separate social maladjust-
ment from ED. It was Eli Bower who first suggested the definition in the 1950s without
the exclusion of social maladjustment (Bower, 1982; Kauffman & Landrum, 2018). A more
reasonable definition has been suggested by Forness and Knitzer (1992), but it has not
been adopted in federal law. As testament to the complexity of differentiating social mal-
adjustment from ED, a review of case law found judges applying a variety of principles in
interpreting facts, resulting in rulings showing little conformity (Sullivan & Sadeh, 2014).
Prevalence of Emotional Disturbance
Figures 1 and 2 reveal that fewer than 1% of students have been consistently identified
for special education as ED. This low prevalence rate, however, flies in the face of find-
ings by several other researchers who have uncovered higher rates, ranging from 6% to
10% (Forness, Freeman, Paparella, Kauffman, & Walker, 2012; Kauffman & Landrum,
2018; Kauffman, Mock, & Simpson, 2007; Landrum, 2017). The U.S. Surgeon General’s
report at the turn of the century (U.S. Public Health Service, 2000) and a report by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2013) have documented that only a
very small percentage of children with ED receive mental health services. Furthermore,
data from the National Survey of Children’s Health (Child and Adolescent Health Mea-
surement Initiative, 2012) reveal that parents report having been informed by a profes-
sional that their child has mental health problems at a substantially higher rate than the
number of students being served as ED in schools. In addition, NSCH data reveal that be-
tween the years of 2003 to 2011, children with internalizing behaviors, specifically anxi-
ety and depression, increased; longitudinal data indicate that children being served in
Page 9 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
schools as ED decreased slightly during that same time period (Pullen, Ryoo, & Hallahan,
2019).
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Although sometimes considered a bogus, “fad” diagnosis, persons who today would be
very likely considered ADHD were recognized in the medical literature as far back as the
18th century. Dr. Melchior Weikard, a highly respected German physician, serving in pres-
tigious government positions (e.g., court physician to an empress, a prince-bishop, and a
tsar) is recognized as the first to write about ADHD-like symptoms (Barkley & Peters,
2012). In 1775, Weikard wrote, “Lack of Attention,” a chapter in which he described the
inattentive person as having deficits in concentration and being distracted by “every
humming fly, every shadow, every sound, the memory of old stories [drawing] him off task
to other imaginations . . . [hearing] only half of everything” (Barkley & Peters, 2012, p. 5).
Not long after Weikard’s publication, Sir Alexander Chrichton (1798) theorized that a per-
son could be born with attention disorders or could acquire them through diseases affect-
ing the brain.
Defining ADHD
IDEA does not recognize ADHD as separate category of special education. In the 1980s,
professionals and parents advocated for ADHD. ADHD advocates claimed that the federal
government made this decision partially based on the fear that including ADHD would
lead to a substantial increase in the numbers of students qualifying for special education
services. In any case, as part of the answer to advocates’ concerns, the U.S. Department
of Education decided to include ADHD within the category of OHI. IDEA defines OHI as
follows:
having limited strength, vitality, or alertness, including a heightened alertness to

environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the educa-
tional environment, that—
(i) Is due to chronic or acute health problems such as asthma, attention

deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy,
a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic
fever, sickle cell anemia, and Tourette syndrome; and
(ii) Adversely affects a child’s educational performance. (§300.8[c][9]; italics
added).
The American Psychiatric Association (2013) recognizes three subtypes of ADHD: (a) AD-
HD, Predominantly Inattentive Type; (b) ADHD, Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive
Type; and (c) ADHD, Combined Type. Examples of criteria used to determine these sub-
types include (a) for inattention: difficulty sustaining attention, distractible; (b) for hyper-
Page 10 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
activity: fidgeting, leaving seat at inappropriate times, talking excessively; (c) for impul-
sivity: problems awaiting one’s turn, interrupting others.
Prevalence of ADHD
Advocates have claimed that the federal government was afraid that including ADHD as a
specific category in IDEA would further expand a growing population of students identi-
fied for special education, who would thus be guaranteed services. Evidence of the
government’s concern is contained in a U.S. Department of Education’s Memorandum in
1991, which states “While estimates of the prevalence of ADD vary widely, we believe
that three to five percent of school-aged children may have significant educational prob-
lems related to this disorder” (Joint Policy Memorandum [ADD] Office of Special Educa-
tion and Rehabilitative Services, September 16, 1991).
Given that only about 1% of students are identified as OHI (see Figures 1 and 2), it is like-
ly that students with ADHD are underidentified for special education. At the same time,
these figures reveal that the prevalence of students categorized as OHI has increased
dramatically, rising over 400% from 1995 to 2015. In addition, research suggests that
some students receiving services as emotionally disturbed or learning disabled are also
ADHD (Schnoes, Reid, Wagner, & Marder, 2006). Some critics have asserted that this in-
crease is artificial, due to U.S. society’s emphasis on achievement and conformity. Howev-
er, prevalence of ADHD globally, such as in Africa, the Middle East, Oceania, South Amer-
ica, Asia, North America, and Europe, have indicated a worldwide prevalence of 3.4% to
5.29% (Polanczyk, Salum, Sugaya, & Rohde, 2015; Polanczyk, Silva de Lima, Horta, Bie-
derman, & Rohde, 2007).
Autism
Although we can trace recognition of autism in the psychiatric literature back to the
1940s (Asperger, 1944/1991; Kanner, 1943/1973), it has only been a separate category
under the IDEA since 1990. Most researchers now refer to it as ASD to emphasize that
the disabilities associated with ASD fall on a continuum from relatively mild to severe.
For example, the American Psychiatric Association’s (2013) Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (fifth edition; DSM-5) uses the term “autism spectrum disor-
ders” as an umbrella term.
Defining Autism Spectrum Disorders
The symptoms of ASD vary considerably, but the DSM-5 classifies them as consisting of
two general types: “social communication impairment” and “repetitive/restricted behav-
iors.” Asperger syndrome, a term which is often used in practice, is no longer recognized
in the DSM-5 as a separate entity; instead, a person whose intellectual and verbal abili-
ties are relatively high is considered to be a person with ASD who is high functioning in
some areas. Specifically, the DSM-5 criteria are
Page 11 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple
contexts, as manifested by the following, currently or by history (examples are il-
lustrative, not exhaustive):
1. Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, ranging, for example, from abnor-

mal social approach and failure of normal back-and-forth conversation; to re-
duced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect; to failure to initiate or re-
spond to social interactions.
2. Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction,
ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communi-
cation; to abnormalities in eye contact and body language or deficits in under-
standing and use of gestures; to a total lack of facial expressions and nonver-
bal communication.
3. Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understand relationships, ranging,
for example, from difficulties adjusting behavior to suit various social con-
texts; to difficulties in sharing imaginative play or in making friends; to ab-
sence of interest in peers.
Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders
When the U.S. Department of Education first recognized autism in the early 1990s as a
category of special education, the percentage identified for services was minimal (see
Figures 1 and 2). Immediately, however, the prevalence jumped substantially (e.g., by
about 600% from 1995 to 2005 for students 6 to 17 years old). Since then, the figures
have increased steadily and significantly. For example, for students 6 to 21 years old, the
prevalence has increased from 0.54 in 2005 to 0.80 in 2015.
The CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network has been monitor-
ing the prevalence of ASD since the early 2000s. As of 2018, the CDC reported that 1 in
59 persons (1.69%) under 21 years of age was diagnosed with ASD (Baio et al., 2018).
Like the U.S. Department of Education, the CDC has documented a substantial increase
in ASD over time. Figure 3 reveals a growth of almost 300% between 2000 and 2014. It is
important to point out that the prevalence figures reported by the CDC are well above
those reported by the U.S. Department of Education.
Page 12 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Figure 3. Prevalence rates of autism, 2000–2014

(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
Researchers have generally attributed the increased prevalence of ASD (Fombonne, 2001;
Frith, 2003; Matson & Kozlowski, 2011; National Research Council, 2001; Shattuck, 2006;
Van Naarden Braun et al., 2015; Wing & Potter, 2002) to three factors, most likely in com-
bination: (a) a greater awareness of ASD by the public and professionals; (b) a more liber-
al set of criteria for diagnosing ASD, especially as it pertains to those who are higher
functioning; and (c) “diagnostic substitution,” referring to the phenomenon of persons
now being identified as having ASD who previously would have been diagnosed as men-
tally retarded or intellectually disabled. For example, as shown in Figure 1, for students 6
to 17 years of age, the percentage of students identified as autistic grew from 0.06% to
0.37% from 1995 to 2005 whereas during this same period of time students identified as
ID decreased from 1.13% to 0.94%. And, as Figure 2 reveals, for students 6 to 21 years of
age, students identified as autistic rose from 0.05% to 0.80% from 1995 to 2015 whereas
ID dropped from 0.96% to 0.60%.
It is well established the cause of ASD is neurologically based (National Institute of

Health, 2013), with strong evidence that genetic factors are at play (Stichter, Conroy,
O’Donnell, & Reichow, 2017). However, the exact interplay of these factors is a puzzle far
from being solved. Just a few clues researchers are investigating are (a) “neuronal under-
connectivity”—a disruption of cells communicating with each other from different areas
of the brain (Elison et al., 2013; Just, Keller, Malave, Kana, & Varma, 2012; (b) microbio-
me dysregulation—evidenced by immune and gastrointestinal issues (Vuong & Hsiao,
2017); (c) environmental toxins, such as lead and mercury (Hertz-Picciotto & Delwiche,
2009; Volk, Lurmann, Penfold, Hertz-Picciotto, & McConnell, 2013); and (d) genetic muta-
tions—sometimes passed down to children from one or both parents (Autism Genome
Project Consortium, 2007; Sebat et al., 2007).
With respect to toxins, one particularly controversial and unproven theory is that the
measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine can cause ASD. The presumption that vaccines
cause ASD owes its origin to an article published in the prestigious journal The Lancet
(Wakefield et al., 1998). The notion of such a link caught on quickly, largely reinforced by
the fact that some of the first signs of ASD occur about the same time as when the vac-
cine is administered. Wakefield’s research received harsh criticism from the scientific
Page 13 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
community, with several of the study’s authors registering retractions, The Lancet
recording a retraction of the article, and Wakefield eventually being stricken from the
U.K. Medical Register for unethical behavior (Meikle & Boseley, 2010).
Numerous governmental and independent critiques of the MMR vaccine theory have de-
termined it is baseless (Institute of Medicine, 2004; Taylor, Swerdfeger, & Eslick, 2014).
However, believers in its findings continue to trigger intermittent outbreaks of measles
(Healio, 2018), putting the public at risk for outbreaks of measles, which can lead to
pneumonia and death and, if contracted in pregnancy, severe developmental disabilities
and blindness in newborns.
Instruction for Exceptional Learners

Instruction for exceptional children, referred to as “special education,” differs from what
most (typical or average) children require (Hallahan et al., 2019; Kauffman & Konold,
2007; Stichter et al., 2008). The U.S. Department of Education defines special education
as
specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs
of a child with a disability, including
(i) Instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and insti-
tutions, and in other settings; and
(ii) Instruction in physical education. (IDEA 34 CFR §300.39)
As a practical matter, special education differs from general education in several ways.
Special education is more individualized, explicit, systematic, and intensive. It differs with
respect to size of group taught and amount of corrective feedback and reinforcement
used (Pullen & Hallahan, 2015). Also, from the student’s viewpoint, it is more predictable.
Individualized
Individualized instruction is fundamental to special education. General education teach-

ers, because of the range of students’ abilities in their classrooms, aim instruction to
meet the needs of the maximal number of students, those in the middle range of abilities
(Gerber & Semmel, 1984). Special education teachers, on the other hand, are prepared to
focus on individual students and each student’s instructional needs.
Special education’s individualized instruction is reified by law. Fred Weintraub, an instru-

mental architect of Public Law 94-142, asserted:
The cornerstone of special education policy for the past four decades has been in-
dividualization. IDEA was and remains unique in educational policy in that it pre-
scribes no truth in what is appropriate for children with disabilities. Rather, it pro-
Page 14 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
vides for a process whereby the individualized educational program (IEP) team
that knows the child determines what is appropriate for the child.
(Weintraub, 2012, p. 53)
Explicit
Pullen and Hallahan (2015) offer the definition of explicit from the CO-BUILD Advanced
Dictionary of American English (Harper Collins, 2012), “something that is explicit is ex-
pressed or shown clearly and openly, without any attempt to hide anything.” Further, it in-
volves the teacher explaining “skills and concepts in a clear and direct manner. If instruc-
tion is explicit, the teacher provides a clear explanation or model of the skill or
concept” (Pullen & Hallahan, 2015, p. 38). In their book Explicit Instruction: Effective and
Efficient Teaching, Archer and Hughes (2011) propose a very similar definition:
[It] is called explicit because it is an unambiguous and direct approach to teaching

that . . . is characterized by a series of supports or scaffolds, whereby students are
guided through the learning process with clear statements about the purpose and
rationale for learning the new skill, clear explanations and demonstrations of the
instructional target, and supported practice with feedback until independent mas-
tery has been achieved. (p. 1)
Systematic
Something done systematically is done according to an organized plan; for example, a

occurs first, b occurs second, c occurs third, and so on. With respect to special education
students, systematic instruction usually means teaching easier before more difficult skills
and teaching pre-skill strategies before teaching the strategy. It also requires students to
repeat skills or skill sequences until ready to move on to more difficult skills (Carnine, Sil-
bert, Kame’enui, Tarver, & Jungjohann, 2006). This emphasis on repetition is designed to
promote automaticity to counter the halting pattern of skill acquisition so often present in
students with disabilities.
Intensive
Something done intensively maximizes the ratio between the effort and the time it takes
to do something (Harper Collins, 2012). Because students identified for special education
services are behind other students academically, intensive instruction helps them
progress as quickly as possible. Intensity of instruction is influenced by the size of the
group instructed and by duration and frequency of instruction (Pullen & Hallahan, 2015).
Page 15 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Instructional Group Size
Research indicates that the smaller the group instructed, the more effective the instruc-
tion. Not surprisingly, one-on-one instruction is the most effective, followed by small-
group instruction and whole-class instruction (Wanzek & Kent, 2012). In practice, with re-
spect to classroom instruction, one-on-one instruction is rarely possible. Small-group in-
struction is possible especially in the context of RtI or tiered instruction. What little re-
search exists suggests that the best size of small groups is three to five (Gersten et al.,
2009; Rashotte, MacPhee, & Torgesen, 2001).
Frequency and Duration of Instruction
Frequency is usually defined as the number of times an event occurs over a specified peri-
od of time. Duration usually refers to the length of time something continues. In practice,
with respect to classroom instruction, students with disabilities may require more fre-
quent interventions each day and/or week, and they may need to continue this schedule
of instruction for a relatively extended period of time (e.g., one semester, one year, or per-
haps even over multiple years; Vaughn et al., 2010).
Corrective Feedback
Abundant research supports the use of corrective feedback for students with learning dis-
abilities (Brosvic, Dihoff, Epstein, & Cook, 2006; Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2012; Eckert,
Dunn, & Ardoin, 2006; Heubusch & Lloyd, 1998; Kouri, Selle, & Riley, 2006; Wanzek et
al., 2006). The beneficial effects apply to several academic areas, including reading word
recognition, comprehension, and fluency; spelling; and acquisition of math facts. The
more immediate and explicit the correction, the more likely it will have a beneficial effect
(Pullen & Hallahan, 2015). Being explicit helps to ensure that the student understands
why his or her response was incorrect, as well as to understand and be able to generate
the correct response. In order to help the student to understand why the response was in-
correct, it is often helpful for the teacher to model the correct response.
Reinforcement
Reinforcement of correct academic responding or appropriate behavior is the sine qua

non of a behavioral approach to instruction. Decades of research document the effective-
ness of using behavioral principles in teaching students with disabilities (Cooper, Heron,
& Heward, 2019). These behavioral teaching methodologies include traditional applied
behavioral analysis as well as cognitive behavior modification.
Predictable From Student’s Perspective
Student with disabilities, especially those who are also ADHD, benefit from a consistent
classroom routine. One of the first, if not the first, researchers to stress the importance of
establishing a consistent routine for students with what at the time were referred to as
minimally brain injured but today would likely be labeled as learning disabled and ADHD,
Page 16 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
was William Cruickshank. He established self-contained classrooms for elementary school
students with attention problems that were highly structured, with carefully sequenced
and predictable activities. The following describes his belief in consistent routines:
For example, upon coming into the classroom the child will hang his hat and coat
on a given hook—not on any hook of his choice, but on the same hook every day.
He will place his lunch box, if he brings one, on a specific shelf each day. He will
then go to his cubicle, take his seat, and from that point on follow the teacher’s in-
structions concerning learning tasks, use of toilet, luncheon activities, and all oth-
er experiences. . . . The day’s program will be so completely simplified . . . that the
possibility of failure experiences will be almost completely minimized.
(Cruickshank Bentzen, Ratzeburg, & Tannhauser, 1961, p. 18)
Conclusion
A major issue facing exceptional children going forward is whether they will be able to be
taught according to the elements of special education instruction (e.g., individualized, ex-
plicit, systematic, and intensive, with appropriate amounts of corrective feedback, rein-
forcement, and predictable routines; Pullen & Hallahan, 2015; Zigmond & Kloo, 2017). In
practice, more students with disabilities are spending more time in general education set-
tings. The U.S. Department of Education’s Annual Reports reflect this trend (see Figure
4). Inclusion increased substantially from 1990 to 1995, stabilized in the late 1990s, then
again increased substantially from 2000 to 2005 and 2005 to 2010, and has risen steadily
ever since. Federal law requires that a continuum of placements (e.g., general education
classrooms, special education classrooms for all or part of the day, residential settings) be
made available to students with disabilities; many schools are offering only general edu-
cation classroom placement (Maag, Kauffman, & Simpson, 2018).
Figure 4. Percentage of students with disabilities

in general education settings for varied amounts
of time per day.
Page 17 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
In keeping with the notion that the goal for exceptional children should be to increase
their placement in general education classrooms is the relatively common refrain that
“good teaching is good teaching” (Algozzine & White, 2007). However, others take excep-
tion with this as being overly simplistic (Kauffman & Konold, 2007; Pullen & Hallahan,
2015; Zigmond & Kloo, 2017). For example, Pullen and Hallahan think it best to regard
the elements, or techniques, of special education as being on a continuum, for example,
from less to more explicit and from less to more intensive. Where the student falls on the
continuum should determine whether he or she is taught by a general or a special educa-
tor and how much time he or she spends in a general or a special education classroom.
The more the instruction needed encompasses each of the techniques (e.g., explicitness,
intensity, etc.), the more likely the student should be taught by a special educator in a
special education setting. It is reasonable to maintain that there is a limit to how effec-
tively a general education teacher is able to use each of these techniques. A variety of
factors can contribute to these limitations. Chief among these influences are a teacher’s
preparation and teaching philosophy, class size, and instructional time.
Pullen and Hallahan (2015) have addressed the issue of differentiating between general
and special education instruction by posing the question:
Is special education instruction quantitatively or qualitatively different from gen-

eral education? In other words, is special education instruction merely a matter of
doing more of the same thing that’s done in general education? Or is special edu-
cation instruction somehow a different entity, with its own identity?
Special education instruction doesn’t include any techniques that can’t, and aren’t,
used by good general education instructors. However, there is a difference in the
quantity of these techniques, with respect to the degree to which they’re used, the
regularity of their use, and how many different techniques are used. And it’s the
greater quantity that makes special education differ from general education; it’s
what makes special education qualitatively different from general education; it’s
what gives special education its own identity; it’s what makes special education
special. (p. 42)
In conclusion, it is imperative that schools abide by IDEA’s mandate of providing a contin-

uum of placements ranging from decidedly separate to highly integrated with general ed-
ucation classrooms.
Further Reading
Barkley, R. A. (2018). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis
and treatment (4th ed.). New York: NY: Guilford.
Burack, J. A., Hodapp, R. M., Iarocci, G., & Zigler, E. (2012). The Oxford handbook of in-
tellectual disability and development. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Page 18 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Landrum, T. J. (Eds.). (2016). Instructional practices with
and without empirical validity. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities (Vol. 29).
Bingley, U.K.: Emerald.
Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2019). Exceptional learners: An introduc-
tion to special education (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Kauffman, J. M. Hallahan, D. P., & Pullen, P. C. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of special educa-
tion (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kauffman, J. M. Hallahan, D. P., Pullen, P. C., & Badar, J. (2018). Special education: What it
is and why we need it. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Pullen, P. C., & Kennedy, M. J. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of response to intervention and
multi-tiered systems of support. New York, NY: Routledge.
Volkmar, F. R., Paul, R., Rogers, S. J., & Pelphrey, K. A. (2014). Handbook of autism and
pervasive developmental disorders (Vols. 1 and 2). New York, NY: Wiley.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Patton, J. R. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of international special educa-
tion. Santa Barbara, CA: Prager.
Zigmond, N. (2003). Where should students with disabilities receive special educa-
tion services? Is one place better than another?. The Journal of Special Education,
37, 193–199.
References
AAMR Ad Hoc Committee on Terminology and Classification. (2010). Mental retardation:
Definition, classification, and systems of supports (11th ed.). Washington, DC: American
Association on Mental Retardation.
Alogozzine, B., & White, R. (2007, October 12). School-wide academic and behavior sup-
port. Presentation for Forum for Change School-Wide Positive Behavior Support Planning
for Systems Change: Ideas That Work. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental dis-
orders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Anastasiou, D., & Keller, C. (2017). Cross-national differences in special education: A ty-
pological approach. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of
special education (2nd ed., pp. 911–923). New York, NY: Routledge.
Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching.
New York, NY: Guilford.
Artiles, A. J., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.) (1995). Special education in Latin America: Experi-
ences and issues. London: Praeger.
Page 19 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Artiles, A. J., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). (2017). Special education in Latin America: Experi-
ences and issues. Westport, CT: Prager.
Asperger, H. (1991). The “autistic psychopathy” in childhood. In U. Frith (Ed. & Trans.),
Autism and Asperger syndrome (pp. 37–92). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Press. (Original work published 1944)
Autism Genome Project Consortium. (2007). Mapping autism risk loci using genetic
linkage and chromosomal rearrangements. Nature Genetics, 39, 319–328.
Baio J., Wiggins, L., Christensen, D. L., Maenner, M. J., Daniels, J., Warren Z., . . . Dowling,
N. F. (2018). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years
—Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United
States, 2014. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 67(SS-6), 1–23.
Barkley, R. A., & Peters, H. (2012). Earliest reference to ADHD in the medical litera-
ture? Melchior Adam Weikard’s description in 1775 of “attention
deficit” (Mangel der Aufmerksamkeit, Attentio Volubilis). Journal of Attention Disor-
ders, 16, 623–630.
Bower, E. M. (1982). Defining emotional disturbance: Public policy and research. Psychol-
ogy in the Schools, 19, 55–60.
Brosvic, G. M., Dihoff, R. E., Epstein, M. L., & Cook, M. L. (2006). Feedback facilitates
the acquisition and retention of numerical fact series by elementary school stu-
dents with mathematics learning disabilities. The Psychological Record, 56, 35–54.
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., Tarver, S. G., & Jungjohann, K. (2006). Teach-
ing struggling and at-risk readers: A direct instruction approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Mental health surveillance among
children —United States, 2005–2011. MMWR, 62(Suppl.), 1–35.
Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B.-J. (2012). A synthesis of research on effective in-
terventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386–406.
Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative (2012). “Fast Facts: 2011/12 Nation-
al Survey of Children’s Health.” Data Resource Center, supported by Cooperative
Agreement 1‐U59‐MC06980‐01 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Maternal and Child Health Bu-
reau (MCHB).
Chrichton, A. (1798). An inquiry into the nature and origins of mental derangement (Vols.
I and II). London, U.K.: Strand.
Page 20 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Clements, S. D. (1966). Minimal brain dysfunction in children: Terminology and identifica-
tion: Phase one of a three-phase project. NINDS Monographs 9. Public Health Service
Bulletin No. 1415. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2019). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Cruickshank, W. M., Bentzen, F. A., Ratzeburg, F. H., & Tannhauser, M. T. (1961). A teach-
ing method of brain-injured and hyperactive children. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University
Press.
DeFries, J. C., Gillis, J. J., & Wadsworth, S. J. (1993). Genes and genders: A twin study of
reading disability. In A. M. Galaburda (Ed.), Dyslexia and development: Neurobiological
aspects of extra-ordinary brains (pp. 187–294). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
DeThorne, L. S., Hart, S. A., Petrill, S. A., Deater-Deckard, K., Thompson, L. A.,
Schatschneider, C., & Davison, M. D. (2006). Children’s history of speech-language
difficulties: Genetic influences and associations with reading-related measures.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 1280–1293.
Duhon, G. J., Mesmer, E. M., Atkins, M. E., Greguson, L. A., & Olinger, E. S. (2009). Quan-
tifying intervention intensity: A systematic approach to evaluating student re-
sponse to increasing intervention frequency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18,
101–118.
Eckert, T. L., Dunn, E. K., & Ardoin, S. P. (2006). The effects of alternate forms of per-
formance feedback on elementary-aged students’ oral reading fluency. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 15, 149–162.
Elison, J. T., Paterson, S. J., Wolff, J. J., Reznick, J. S., Sasson, N. J., Gu, H., . . . Piven, J.
(2013). White matter microstructure and atypical visual orienting in 7-month-olds
at risk for autism. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 899–908.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J., Olson, R. K., . . .
Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evalua-
tion. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabili-
ties: Research to practice (pp. 185–250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flowers, D. L. (1993). Brain basis for dyslexia: A summary of work in progress. Jour-
nal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 575–582.
Flowers, D. L., Wood, F. B., & Naylor, C. E. (1991). Regional cerebral blood flow corre-
lates of language processes in reading disability. Archives of Neurology, 48, 637–
643.
Fombonne, E. (2001). Is there an autism epidemic? Pediatrics, 107, 411–412.
Page 21 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Forness, S. R., Freeman, S. F. N., Paparella, T., Kauffman, J. M., & Walker, H. M. (2012).
Special education implications of point and cumulative prevalence for children
with emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disor-
ders, 20, 1–14.
Forness, S. R., & Knitzer, J. (1992). A new proposed definition and terminology to replace
“serious emotional disturbance” in Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. School
Psychology Review, 21, 12–20.
Frith, U. (2003). Autism: Explaining the enigma (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness to interven-
tion: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities con-
struct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171.
Furlong, M. J., Morrison, G. M., & Jimerson, S. (2004). Externalizing behaviors of aggres-
sion and violence and the school context. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & S. R. Math-
ur (Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 243–261).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2009). Dyslexia: A new synergy between education and neuro-

science. Science, 325, 280–283.
Gerber, M. M., & Semmel, M. I. (1984). Teacher as imperfect test: Reconceptualizing

the referral process. Educational Psychologist, 19, 1–12.
Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B.
(2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to Intervention
(RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC: Na-
tional Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the

identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.),
Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467–519). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gresham, F. M., & Kern, L. (2004). Internalizing behavior problems in children and ado-
lescents. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & S. R. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research
in emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 262–281). New York, NY: Guilford.
Gross-Glenn, K., Duara, R., Barker, W. W., Loewenstein, D., Chang, J., Yoshii, F., . . . Lubs,
H. A. (1991). Positron emission tomographic studies during serial word-reading by
normal and dyslexic adults. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 13,
531–544.
Page 22 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Hagman, J. O., Wood, F., Buchsbaum, M. S., Tallal, P., Flowers, L., & Katz, W. (1992).
Cerebral brain metabolism in adult dyslexic subjects assessed with positron
emission tomography during performance of an auditory task. Archives of Neurolo-
gy, 49, 734–739.
Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2019). Exceptional learners: An introduc-
tion to special education (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Hallahan, D. P., & Mercer, C. D. (2002). Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives. In

L. Danielson, R. Bradley, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Re-
search to practice (pp. 1–67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Harper Collins. (2012). Collins COBUILD dictionary of advanced American English. In

Dictionary for iPhone/iPad (1.0.1). Japan: Monokakido.
Healio: Infectious Diseases in Children. (2018, April). U.S. measles outbreaks cat-
alyzed by vaccine hesitancy.
Hertz-Picciotto, I., & Delwiche, L. (2009). The rise of autism and the role of age at di-
agnosis. Epidemiology, 20, 84–90.
Heubusch, J. D., & Lloyd, J. W. (1998). Corrective feedback in oral reading. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 8, 63–79.
Hoeft, F. Bruce, D. M., Jessica, M. B., Alexander, G., Nahal, Z., Charles, H., Heikki, L., . . .
John, D. E. G. (2011). Neural systems predicting long-term outcome in dyslexia. Pro-
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(1),
361–366.
Hoeft, F., Ueno, T., Reiss, A. L., Meyler, A., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., Glover, S., & Gabrieli, J.
D. E. (2007). Prediction of children’s reading skills using behavioral, functional,
and structural neuroimaging measures. Behavioral Neuroscience, 121, 602–613
Hudson, T. M., & McKenzie, R. G. (2016). Evaluating the use of RTI to identify SLD: A
survey of state policy, procedures, data collection, and administrator perceptions.
Contemporary School Psychology, 20, 31–45.
Hynd, G. W., & Semrud-Clikeman, M. (1989). Dyslexia and brain morphology. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 106, 447–482.
Institute of Medicine. (2004). Immunization safety review: Vaccines and autism. Washing-
ton, DC: National Academies Press.
Javdani, S., Sadeh, N., & Veerona, E. (2011). Expanding our lens: Female pathways to
antisocial behavior in adolescence and adulthood. Clinical Psychology Review, 31,
1324–1348.
Page 23 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Joint Policy Memorandum: ADD. (1991, September 16). Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
Just, M. A., Keller, T. A., Malave, V. L., Kana, R. K., & Varma, S. (2012). Autism as a neur-
al system disorder: A theory of frontal-posterior underconnectivity. Neuroscience
and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36, 1292–1313.
Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous Child, 2, 217–250.
Kanner, L. (1973). Childhood psychosis: Initial studies and new insights. Washington, DC:
V. H. Winston. (Reprinted from “Autistic Disturbances of Affective Contact,” Nervous
Child, 2, 217–250, 1943.)
Kauffman, J. M., & Konold, T. R. (2007). Making sense in education: Pretense (includ-
ing NCLB) and realities in rhetoric and policy about schools and schooling. Ex-
ceptionality, 15, 75–96.
Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2018). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral dis-
orders of children and youth (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Kauffman, J. M., Mock, D. R., & Simpson, R. L. (2007). Problems related to underservice
of students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavior Disorders, 33, 43–57.
Kazdin, A. E. (1995). Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kirk, S.A. (1962). Educating exceptional children. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Kirk, S. A. (1963, April 6). Behavioral diagnosis and remediation of learning disabilities.
In Proceedings of the Conference on Exploration into the Problems of the Perceptually
Handicapped Child, First Annual Meeting, Vol. 1. Chicago, IL.
Kouri, T. A., Selle, C. A., & Riley, S. A. (2006). Comparison of meaning and grapho-
phonemic feedback strategies for guided reading instruction of children with
language delays. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 236–246.
Kushch, A., Gross-Glenn, K., Jallad, B., Lubs, H., Rabin, M., Feldman, E., & Duara, R.
(1993). Temporal lobe surface area measurements on MRI in normal and dyslexic
readers. Neuropsychologia, 31, 811–821.
Landrum, T. J. (2017). Emotional and behavioral disorders. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Halla-

han, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 312–324). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Larsen, J. P., Hoien, T., Lundberg, I., & Odegaard, H. (1990). MRI evaluation of the
symmetry of the planum temporale in adolescents with dyslexia. Brain and Lan-
guage, 39, 289–301.
Page 24 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Lewis, B. A., & Thompson, L. A. (1992). A study of development of speech and lan-
guage disorders in twins. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 1086–1094.
Maag, J. W., Kauffman, J. M., & Simpson, R. L. (2018). The amalgamation of special ed-
ucation? On practices and policies that may render it recognizable. Exceptionality,
26, 1–16.
MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., Bocian, K., & Lambros, K. (1998). Current plight of bor-
derline students: Where do they belong? Education and Treatment of Children, 33, 83–94.
Matson, J. L., & Kozlowski, A. M. (2011). The increasing prevalence of autism spec-
trum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5, 418–425.
Meikle, J., & Boseley, S. (2010, May 24). MMR row doctor Andrew Wakefield struck
off register. The Guardian.
National Institute of Health. (2013, August 21). Autism spectrum disorder fact sheet.
National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke.
National Research Council. (2001). Educating children with autism. Washington, DC: Na-
tional Academy Press.
O’Connor, R. E., Sanchez, V., & Kim, J. J. (2017). Responsiveness to intervention and multi-
tiered systems of support for reducing reading difficulties and identifying learning dis-
abilities. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. Cullen (Eds.), Handbook of special educa-
tion (2nd ed., pp. 189–202). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Peterson, R. L., & Pennington, B. F. (2015). Developmental dyslexia. Annual Review of

Clinical Psychology, 11, 283–307.
Polanczyk, G. A., Salum, L. S., Sugaya, A. C., & Rohde, L. A. (2015). Annual research re-
view: A meta-analysis of the worldwide prevalence of mental disorders in chil-
dren and adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 56, 345–365.
Polanczyk, G., Silva de Lima, M., Horta, B. L., Biederman, J., & Rhode, L. A. (2007). The
worldwide prevalence of ADHD: A systematic review and metaregression analysis.
The American Journal of Psychiatry, 164, 942–948.
Polloway, E. A., Bouck, E., Patton, J. R., & Lubin, J. (2017). Intellectual and developmental
disabilities. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special
education (2nd ed., pp. 265–285). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pullen, P. C. (2017). Prevalence of learning disabilities from parental and profes-

sional perspectives: A comparison of the data from the National Surveys of
Children’s Health and the Office of Special Education’s Reports to Congress. Jour-
nal of Learning Disabilities, 50(6), 701–711.
Page 25 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Pullen, P. C., & Hallahan, D. P. (2015). What is special education instruction? In B. Bate-
man, J. W. Lloyd, & M. Tankersley (Eds.), Enduring issues in special education: Personal
perspectives (pp. 22–49). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pullen, P. C., Lane, H. B, Ashworth, K. E., & Lovelace, S. P. (2017). Specific learning dis-
abilities. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. Cullen (Eds.), Handbook of special educa-
tion (2nd ed., pp. 286–299). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pullen, P. C., Ryoo, J. H., & Hallahan, D. P. (2019). Prevalence of emotional and behaviour-
al disorders from parental and professional perspectives: A comparison of the data from
the National Surveys of Children’s Health and the Office of Special Education Programs.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Rashotte, C. A., MacPhee, K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2001). The effectiveness of a group
reading instruction program with poor readers in multiple grades. Learning Dis-
ability Quarterly, 24, 119–134.
Reynolds, C. A., Hewitt, J. K., Erickson, M. T., Silberg, J. L., Rutter, M., Simonoff, E., . . .
Eaves, L. J. (1996). The genetics of children’s oral reading performance. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 425–434.
Saygin, Z. M., Norton, E. S., Osher, D. E., Beach, S. D., Cyr, A. B., Ozernov-Palchik, O., . . .
Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2013). Tracking the roots of reading ability: White matter volume
integrity correlate with phonological awareness in prereading and early-reading
kindergarten children. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 13258–13251.
Schnoes, C., Reid, R., Wagner, M., & Marder, C. (2006). ADHD among students receiving
special education services: A national survey. Exceptional Children, 72, 483–496.
Sebat, J., Lakshmi, B., Malhotra, D., Troge, J., Lese-Martin, C., Walsh, T., & Yamrom, B.
(2007). Strong association of de novo copy number mutations with autism.
Science, 316, 445–449.
Shattuck, P. T. (2006). The contributions of diagnostic substitution to the growing

administrative prevalence of autism in U.S. special education. Pediatrics, 117,
1028–1037.
Shalev, R. S. (2004). Developmental dyscalculia. Journal of Child Neurology, 19, 765–

771.
Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Pugh, K. R., Fulbright, R. K., Constable, R. T., Mencl, W.
E., . . . Gore, J. C. (1998). Functional disruption in the organization of the brain for read-
ing in dyslexia. Neurobiology, 95, 2636–2641.
Siegel, L. S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal

of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469–478, 486.
Page 26 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Sleeter, C. E. (1987). Why is there learning disabilities? A critical analysis of the birth of
the field with its social context. In T. S. Popkewitz (Ed.), The formation of school subjects:
The struggle for creating an American institution. (pp. 210–237). London, U.K.: Palmer
Press.
Stichter, J. P., Conroy, M., & Kauffman, J. M. (2008). Introduction to students with high in-
cidence disabilities. Columbus, OH: Pearson.
Stichter, J., Conroy, M., O’Donnell, R., & Reichow, B. (2017). Current issues and trends in
the education of children and youth with autism spectrum disorders. In J. M. Kauffman, D.
P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 394–410). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Sullivan, A. L., & Sadeh, S. S. (2014). Differentiating social maladjustment from

emotional disturbance: An analysis of case law. School Psychology Review, 43, 450–
471.
Taylor, L. E., Swerdfeger, A. L., & Eslick, G. D. (2014). Vaccines are not associated with
autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Vac-
cine, 32, 3623–3629.
U.S. Department of Education. (2018). 40th annual report to Congress on the implementa-
tion of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2018. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Public Health Service. (2000). Report of the Surgeon General’s Conference on
Children’s Mental Health: A National Action Agenda. Washington, DC: Department of
Health and Human Services.
Van Naarden Braun, K., Christensen D., Doernberg N., Schieve L., Rice C., Wiggins L., . . .
Yeargin-Allsopp, M. (2015). Trends in the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder,
cerebral palsy, hearing loss, intellectual disability, and vision impairment, metro-
politan Atlanta, 1991–2010. PLoS ONE 10(4), e0124120.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate re-
sponse to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 18, 137–146.
Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Barth, A., Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J. M., . . . Francis, D. J.
(2010). The relative effects of group size on reading progress of older students
with reading difficulties. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 931–
956.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M.
B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor
readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and
experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
Page 27 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Volk, H. E., Lurmann, F., Penfold, B., Hertz-Picciotto, I., & McConnell, R. (2013). Traffic-
related air pollution, particulate matter, and autism. JAMA Psychiatry, 70, 71–77.
Vuong, H. E., & Hsiao, E. Y. (2017). Emerging roles for the gut microbiome in autism
spectrum disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 81, 411–423.
Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M., . . . Walk-
er-Smith, J. A. (1998). Illeal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and
pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351, 637–641.
Wanzek, J., & Kent, S. C. (2012). Reading interventions for students with learning disabili-
ties in the upper elementary grades. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 10(1),
5–16.
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Swanson, E. A., Edmonds, M., & Kim, A. E. (2006). A
synthesis of spelling and reading interventions and their effects on spelling out-
comes of students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 528–543.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Patton, J. R. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of international special educa-
tion. Santa Barbara, CA: Prager.
Weintraub, F. J. (2012). A half century of special education: What we have achieved

and the challenges we face. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 50–53.
Wing, L., & Potter, D. (2002). The epidemiology of autistic spectrum disorders: Is
prevalence rising? Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews,
8, 151–161.
Yell, M. L. (2019). Response to intervention, multi-tiered systems of support, and federal

law: Commentary and analysis. In P. C. Pullen & M. J. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of re-
sponse to intervention and multi-tiered systems of support (pp. 26–39). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Zigmond, N. P., & Kloo, A. (2017). General and special education are (and should be) dif-
ferent. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special educa-
tion (2nd ed., pp. 249–261). New York, NY: Routledge.
Daniel P. Hallahan
University of Florida; University of Virginia
Paige C. Pullen
University of Florida
James M. Kauffman
University of Virginia
Page 28 of 29
and Legal Notice).

Exceptional
Learners
Jeanmarie Badar
Charlottesville City Schools
Page 29 of 29
and Legal Notice).
View publication stats

Test Bank For Exceptional Learners An Introduction To Special Education 12 e 12th Edition Daniel P Hallahan James M Kauffman Paige C Pullen

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Test Bank For Exceptional Learners An Introduction To Special Education 12 e 12th Edition Daniel P Hallahan James M Kauffman Paige C Pullen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Test Bank for Exceptional Learners: An

Introduction to Special Education, 12/E 12th

Full download chapter at: https://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-

Article in Oxford Review of Education · February 2020

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Book, Exceptional Learners (14th edition) View project

Flamingo Literacy Teaching Platform View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Summary and Keywords

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2020

Definition of Exceptional Learners

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2020

Prevalence of Exceptional Learners

Specific Learning Disabilities

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2020

Defining Specific Learning Disabilities

GENERAL—The term “specific learning disability” means a disorder in one or

DISORDERS INCLUDED—Such term includes such conditions as perceptual dis-

DISORDERS NOT INCLUDED—Such term does not include a learning problem

Prevalence of Specific Learning Disabilities

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2020

Figure 1. Prevalence rates for SLD, MR, EBD, OHI,

Criticism of SLD: Questionable Validity as a Disability

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2020

Criticism of SLD: Identification Methods

In answer to the criticism of IQ-achievement discrepancy, an alternative method of identi-

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2020

Figure 2. 6 to 21 years of age: Prevalence figures for

RtI is rapidly replacing IQ-achievement discrepancy as a means of identifying students

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2020

ID is currently defined by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental

Prevalence of Intellectual Disabilities

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2020

Most school divisions use the federal definition of ED or some variation:

Prevalence of Emotional Disturbance

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2020

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

having limited strength, vitality, or alertness, including a heightened alertness to

(i) Is due to chronic or acute health problems such as asthma, attention

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2020

Defining Autism Spectrum Disorders

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2020

1. Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, ranging, for example, from abnor-

Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2020

Figure 3. Prevalence rates of autism, 2000–2014

It is well established the cause of ASD is neurologically based (National Institute of

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2020

Instruction for Exceptional Learners

Individualized instruction is fundamental to special education. General education teach-

Special education’s individualized instruction is reified by law. Fred Weintraub, an instru-

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2020

(Weintraub, 2012, p. 53)

[It] is called explicit because it is an unambiguous and direct approach to teaching

Something done systematically is done according to an organized plan; for example, a

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2020

Frequency and Duration of Instruction

Reinforcement of correct academic responding or appropriate behavior is the sine qua

Predictable From Student’s Perspective

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2020

(Cruickshank Bentzen, Ratzeburg, & Tannhauser, 1961, p. 18)

Figure 4. Percentage of students with disabilities

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 28 February 2020