Understanding Inclusive Practices for Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder Through the Individualized Education Plan Process

Students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often display atypical behaviors which general education teachers may not know how to handle. As a result, students with ASD may not get the opportunity to be educated alongside typical peers in the least restrictive environment. Segregated settings often become the most recommended setting for students with ASD. The way to change this practice is if the child's parent is willing to speak up and request an inclusive, less restrictive setting. Working together with the school site, as an equal partner, parents can collaboratively prepare the student for an inclusive setting. Inclusive environments can be overwhelming to a student with ASD, if they come from a smaller classroom environment. Preparing the student and teacher for the transition can help to eliminate potential barriers in the inclusion process. Barriers can be identified through the individualized education plan (IEP), and solutions can be devised within that process.

Examining the Quality of Individualized Education Plan (IEP) Goals for Children With Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

The purpose of this descriptive study was to investigate the quality of Individualized Education Plan (IEP) goals for students with traumatic brain injury (TBI) using an empirically based rating instrument. One hundred twenty-five IEP goals for 49 students with TBI were coded using the Revised IEP/IFSP Goals and Objective Rating Instrument (R-GORI; Notari). Using this dichotomous measure, we analyzed the quality of IEP goals across six areas: observability, measurability, functionality, generalizability, application in daily tasks, and clarity of goals. On average, students had three IEP goals (range: 1–8). The average goal quality score was 3.74 (range: 1–6). While most of the goals were measurable, only a few contained details about how the goals could be generalized beyond the specific educational or therapeutic environment. These findings highlight variability in the quality of IEP goals, which may have implications to the therapeutic environment and child outcomes.

The School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist's Role in Diverting the School-to-Confinement Pipeline for Youth With Communication Disorders

Purpose The overarching aim of this article is to discuss the intersectionality of the school-to-confinement pipeline and its detrimental effect on the societal and academic success of youth with communication disorders. Communication disorders in youth with behavior concerns or placed at risk for delinquency that is not adequately addressed by a speech-language pathologist (SLP) can increase the youth's involvement with the school-to-confinement pipeline, resulting in a dire need for the intervention of the SLP to intervene on the language-based needs of this population. However, the role of the United States—based SLPs in interrupting the school-to-confinement pipeline has not yet been clearly defined and recognized. Method This article will (a) discuss why the role of the SLP providing language intervention for youth placed at risk for delinquency or involved with the criminal justice system is necessary, (b) discuss the definition of the school-to-confinement pipeline, (c) examine the impact of the school-to-confinement pipeline on youth with communication disorders, and (d) highlight a framework for cognitive and language-based intervention that may promote positive outcomes. Results The SLP's role in interrupting the school-to-confinement pipeline is vital to providing and increasing the societal and academic success of youth with communication disorders placed at risk for delinquency and should consider multiple factors such as (a) SLPs becoming an active and integral member of the individualized education plan team, (b) SLPs advocating for opportunities to collaborate and interact with the youth as an integral member of the individualized education plan team, and (c) SLPs creating consistent and streamlined opportunities for culturally relevant goals and intervention that increase the student's academic and societal success. Conclusion There are many reasons why the SLPs' role in interrupting the school-to-confinement pipeline cannot be ignored or overlooked. As a profession in the United States, speech-language pathology is in the early stages of developing a stronger stance for advocacy and understanding the communication needs of youth on the SLP's caseload who are at risk for the school-to-confinement pipeline. Nonetheless, increasing how SLPs approach and intervene on behalf of students with communication disorders may produce better outcomes for youth-at-risk for the school-to-confinement pipeline.