The Autism Society Event and Education Recordings Archive

This presentation examines 2008-2009 research findings on college/university teacher education practices for students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in the U. S. and offers suggestions for training in this critical area. The prevalence of programs and types of autism-specific courses, including a focus on teaching evidence-based interventions and strategies such as Applied Behavior Analysis, will be discussed. Professionals who work with individuals with ASD as well as parents of individuals with ASD would benefit from attending this presentation. In the last decade, the number of students identified as having one of the disabilities associated with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) has increased dramatically and it is currently the fastest growing group of students served in special education  (Ludlow, Keramidas, & Landers, 2007). Thirty years ago it was unusual to have a student with autism in the public schools (McKenna, 2007) and autism was considered a low incidence disability. However, autism is no longer considered a low incidence disability (Simpson, 2004) and recent prevalence rates estimate that 1 in 150 students eight years of age have an autism spectrum disorder (CDC, 2007).

Students with ASD present unique social, communication, and behavioral challenges to teachers trying to design effective individualized education programs (Iovannone, Dunlap, Huber, & Kincaid, 2003) and, therefore, they require specialized services in the schools (National Research Council, 2001; Simpson, 2004; Simpson et al., 2005). In addition, they often demonstrate cognitive deficits and lack of motivation to interact with others in their environment. Some individuals with ASD display self-injurious and aggressive behaviors that are challenging to deal with in the school setting (Scheuermann, Webber, Boutot, & Goodwin, 2003). Furthermore, students with ASD are served in various educational placements, which range from 13% in general education classes 100% of the time to 24% attending separate classrooms almost all of the time (USDOE, 2004, as cited by Ludlow et al., 2007). This would suggest that autism training is necessary for teachers across a wide range of ages and disabilities (McGee & Morrier, 2005). Furthermore, research has demonstrated that there is no one ideal curriculum or one intervention that works for all students with ASD because they have such diverse needs and learn best in a variety of contexts (McKenna, 2007; NCR, 2001).

While the numbers have increased significantly in terms of identification patterns, there has been increased parallel interest in the training of professionals to work with students with autism and related disorders. Schopler and Olley (1980) reported that most special education teachers were not prepared to teach students with autism in public school settings. Fifteen years later Simpson (1995) reported that the field of autism was grappling with personnel preparation issues. Furthermore, he contended that the solution to personnel shortages was not to add a single course to an existing generic special education pre-service program, to offer occasional and limited in-service, or to allow generically trained teachers to teach children with autism spectrum disorders. The issue of personnel preparation was revisited again almost a decade later when Simpson (2003, 2004) asserted that the need for educators and related service providers who have autism specific knowledge runs counter to the current movement in special education toward noncategorical and cross-categorical special education teacher preparation programs, generic education certificates and licenses, and the increased allowance of emergency certificates to untrained teachers. Other areas of concern with personnel preparation were raised including the current teacher shortage and attrition, the lack of scope and depth of most training models, clashes in theoretical training models, and concerns that arise when untrained teachers communicate with parents (Scheuermann et al., 2003). The National Research Council (2001) indicated that “personnel preparation remains one of the weakest elements of effective programming for children with autistic spectrum disorder” (p. 225).

Another area of significant concern in the field of autism has been the reliance on unsupported interventions and controversial interventions (Heflin & Simpson, 1998; Simpson 1995, 2004) that have resulted in wasted time, energy and money (Hess, Morrier, Heflin, & Ivey, 2008). Hess and colleagues (2008) found that almost 40% of the interventions used by teachers in Georgia public schools were not mentioned in the Simpson et al. (2005) collection of evidence-based practices and less than 10% of the interventions used by these teachers were cited in the literature as being scientifically based practice. Based on their research findings, Hess and colleagues recommended that researchers, teacher educators, and institutions of higher education provide more instruction on evidence-based practices to practitioners working with students with ASD.

Although there is a body of research that identifies effective practices for students with ASD (NRC, 2001; Simpson et al., 2005), there have been minimal efforts to incorporate the findings into a curricular foundation to be embraced by school systems (Iovannone et al., 2003). Based on the reviews of Powers (1992), Dawson and Osterling (1997), Hurth, Shaw, Izeman, Whaley, and Rogers (1999) and the National Research Council (2001), Iovannone and colleagues (2003) recommended the following six essential programming elements for children with autism of all ages:

1.      individualized supports and services for students and families,

2.      systematic instruction,

3.      comprehensible and/or structured environments,

4.      specialized curriculum content, 

5.      a functional approach to behavior problems, and

6.      family involvement (p. 153).

The past 15 years have seen a significant increase in litigation concerning students with ASD (Heflin & Simpson, 1998; Yell, Katsiyannis, Drasgow, & Herbst, 2003). Issues such as methodology used, adequacy and length of services, and placement decisions have been questioned (Heflin & Simpson, 1998). Under the IDEA requirement for a free and appropriate education (FAPE) several procedural violations have resulted against school districts. One of these is the lack of qualified personnel. Districts need to have personnel who are knowledgeable about ASD or provide their faculty appropriate training activities if they are not knowledgeable (Yell et al., 2003).

There has been limited attention within the literacy to the scope of the assumed increased commitment to training teachers to work with individuals with autism spectrum disorders. The National Research Council (2001) reported lack of data on the number of autism specialists trained yearly, the number of autism preparation programs, and information on which disciplines are involved in autism training. According to Muller (2005), only Delaware, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, and West Virginia offer endorsements in autism for special education teachers and only a few institutes of higher education offer specialized personnel preparation in autism. Texas had a combined emotional disturbance/autism endorsement that was eliminated in 2003 (Scheuermann et al., 2003). The autism endorsements in Florida and Delaware are exclusively add-on endorsements to the special education certification; whereas the autism endorsement in Michigan, Nevada, and West Virginia can be a stand alone or add-on endorsement (Muller, 2005). Delaware and West Virginia’s programs focus on applied behavioral analysis (ABA) and positive behavioral supports (PBS); Florida and Nevada’s theoretical framework was described as eclectic, and Michigan did not report a specific theoretical focus. Muller reported that a 3-credit classroom practicum experience with students with ASD was required in Florida, Michigan, and West Virginia; Delaware requires a practicum working either with students with autism or severe disabilities; and Nevada did not require practicum hours.

In summary, the dramatic increase in the prevalence rates of ASD combined with special education teacher shortages and the increasing number of ineffective interventions points to a critical need to examine the nature and type of personnel preparation for educators working with individuals with ASD. Therefore, the purpose of this presentation is to present findings obtained from a research study conducted by this writer (as principal investigator) that surveyed teacher educators at colleges and universities in order to determine the prevalence of programs training teachers in this area while identifying the nature of such training. The specific objectives are as follows:

1.      Determine the prevalence of institutes of higher education (IHE) that offer specific coursework in autism spectrum disorders.

2.       Gain an understanding of the nature of the autism specific coursework and programs currently being offered including the motivation for developing these courses, the number of autism specific courses offered and the length of time these courses and programs have been in existence, and the types of certification or endorsements received after completion of this coursework.

3.      Ascertain the topics included in ASD coursework and the depth at which these topics are addressed.

In addition, this presenter will discuss the findings of this research project in relation to the use scientifically-based practices for individuals with ASD in current teacher training programs. Recommendations and suggestions based on the research findings of the National Research Council (2001) and Simpson and colleagues (2005) will be addressed. This presentation would benefit professionals who work with individuals with ASD as well as parents of individuals with ASD.

References Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007, February 8). Prevalence of the autism

spectrum disorders in multiple areas of the United States, Surveillance years 2000 and 2002. Retrieved September 30, 2008, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dd/addmprevalence.htm
Dawson, G., & Osterling, J. (1997). Early intervention in autism. In M. Guralnick (Ed.), The

effectiveness of early intervention (pp. 307-326). Baltimore: Brookes.

Heflin, L. J., & Simpson, R. (1998). Interventions for children and youth with autism: Prudent

choices in a world of exaggerated claims and empty promises. Part II: Legal/Policy analysis and recommendations for selecting interventions and treatments. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,13, 212-220.

Hess, K. L., Morrier, M. J., Heflin, L. J., & Ivey, M. L. (2008). Autism treatment survey:

Services received by children with autism spectrum disorders in public school classrooms. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 961-971.

Hurth, J., Shaw, E., Izeman, S. G., Whaley, K., & Rogers, S. J. (1999). Areas of agreement about

effective practices among programs serving young children with autism spectrum disorders.

Infants and Young Children, 12(2), 17-26.

Iovannone, R., Dunlap, G., Huber, H., & Kincaid, D. (2003). Effective educational practices for

students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18, 150-165.

Ludlow, B. L., Keramidas, C. G., & Landers, E. J. (2007). Project STARS: Using desktop conferencing to prepare autism specialists at a distance. [on-line version]. Rural Special

Education Quarterly, 26(4), 27-35. McGee, G. G., & Morrier, M. J. (2005). Preparation of autism specialists. In F. R. Volkmar, P.,
Rhea, A. Klin, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders Volume II: Assessment, interventions and policy (3rd ed., pp. 1123-1160). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
McKenna, K. (2007). Confronting the autism epidemic: New expectations for children with

autism means a new role for public schools. Harvard Newsletter, 23(5), 1-3, 6. Muller, E. (2005, October). Autism endorsements: State approaches. inForum-Brief Policy
Analysis. Retrieved September 30, 2008, from www.projectforum.org/user.cfm.

National Research Council (2001). Educating children with autism. Washington DC: National

Academy Press.

Powers,  M. D. (1992). Early intervention for children with autism. In D. E. Berkell (Ed.),

Autism identification, education and treatment (pp. 225-252). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Scheuermann, B., Webber, J., Boutot, E. A., & Goodwin, M. (2003). Problems with personnel preparation in autism spectrum disorders.  Focus on Autism and Other Developmental

Disabilities,18, 197-206. Schopler, E., & Olley, J. G. (1980). Public school programming for autistic children. Exceptional

Children, 46, 461-463.

Simpson, R. L. (1995). Children and youth with autism in an age of reform: A perspective on

current issues. Behavioral Disorders, 21, 7-20. Simpson, R. L. (2003). Policy-related research issues and perspectives. Focus on Autism and

Other Developmental Disabilities, 18, 192-196.

Simpson, R. L. (2004). Finding effective intervention and personnel preparation practices for

students with autism spectrum disorders. Exceptional Children, 70, 135-144.

Simpson, R. L., de Boer-Ott, S. J., Griswold, D. E., Myles, B. S., Byrd, S. E., Ganz, J. B., et al. (2005). Autism spectrum disorders: Interventions and treatments for children and youth.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. United States Department of Education (USDOE). (2004). Twenty-sixth annual report to
Congress on implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Washington, DC: Author.

Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., Drasgow, E., & Herbst, M. (2003). Developing legally correct and educationally appropriate programs for students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus

on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,18, 182-191.

Learning Objectives:

Presenter:

Gena P. Barnhill, Ph.D., BCABA, NCSP
Assistant Professor
Lynchburg College

Gena Barnhill, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at Lynchburg College, mother of an adult son with Asperger syndrome, and author of numerous publications, including two books soon to be published on parents’ issues in families with disabilities. She has presented at 90 conferences, including multiple ASA and NASP national conferences.

<< Previous Session | Next Session >>