Transition Services in Eight Rural Counties of Western New York: Views of Directors of Special Education

Rural school districts face different challenges than urban and suburban districts. In fact, several Rural Systemic Initiatives (RSIs) have been established around the country to isolate and address rural school district issues (Harmon & Smith, 2012). In order to improve the effectiveness of transition services in rural schools, feedback from stakeholders in the process is vital. Directors of special education, specifically, must work to facilitate a quality and seamless process for transition despite challenges, and those working in rural settings may face additional obstacles. This study examines the perspectives of these front-line providers in order to begin to understand the difficulties that rural school districts, in particular, must overcome. The challenges and suggestions expressed by directors of special education impact the trajectory of improvements that need to be made in rural education transition services. These improvements will not only streamline processes for rural educators and staff involved in transition, but will ultimately benefit the families they serve.

Adoption of Telepractice for Speech-Language Services

Little information exists regarding the statewide adoption of telepractice, the delivery of speech-language services at a distance through telecommunications, for addressing the documented shortage of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in rural communities. A statewide survey of directors of special education revealed that only two school districts out of 87 respondents had adopted telepractice as a means of addressing job vacancies, whereas 79% ( n = 69) of the districts had never considered telepractice. A lack of knowledge about telepractice was not the primary barrier to adoption. Instead, concerns about the validity of telepractice, technology-related concerns, and inadequate support staff were noted as barriers to adoption.

Robust Reading Instruction in the Early Grades: Conceptual and Practical Issues in the Integration and Evaluation of Tier 1 and tier 2 Instructional Supports

Schools implement Response to Intervention (Rtl) for two major purposes. The first is to provide a coordinated system of high-quality instruction and intervention for all students in the school (Burns & Vanderheyden, 2006; Haager, Klinger, & Vaughn, 2007; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2006). This system can be envisioned as a framework of effective instruction to prevent academic problems from occurring and effective interventions to address problems that do occur in a timely and appropriate manner. The system is integrated and coordinated to support all students to reach primary learning objectives (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Zumeta, 2008; Greenwood, Kratochwill, & Clements, 2008). The second purpose of Rtl is to diagnose specific learning disabilities (SLD) in students who do not respond adequately to instruction and intervention (O'Conner, 2007; Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009; Torgesen, 1997, 2004). Strong empirical evidence supports the prevention and intervention purpose of Rtl (Baker et al., 2008; Gersten et al., 2009; Greenwood, Kratochwill, & Clements, 2008; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2006), but evidence for using Rtl for SLD determination is lacking (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009).

Robust Reading Instruction in the Early Grades: Conceptual and Practical Issues in the Integration and Evaluation of Tier 1 and tier 2 Instructional Supports

Schools implement Response to Intervention (Rtl) for two major purposes. The first is to provide a coordinated system of high-quality instruction and intervention for all students in the school (Burns & Vanderheyden, 2006; Haager, Klinger, & Vaughn, 2007; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2006). This system can be envisioned as a framework of effective instruction to prevent academic problems from occurring and effective interventions to address problems that do occur in a timely and appropriate manner. The system is integrated and coordinated to support all students to reach primary learning objectives (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Zumeta, 2008; Greenwood, Kratochwill, & Clements, 2008). The second purpose of Rtl is to diagnose specific learning disabilities (SLD) in students who do not respond adequately to instruction and intervention (O'Conner, 2007; Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009; Torgesen, 1997, 2004). Strong empirical evidence supports the prevention and intervention purpose of Rtl (Baker et al., 2008; Gersten et al., 2009; Greenwood, Kratochwill, & Clements, 2008; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2006), but evidence for using Rtl for SLD determination is lacking (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009).