Free Special Education Core Skills (Birth to Age 21) Subtest 1 (MTLE 200) Study Guide

Era 1 — Institutionalization (19th – Early 20th Century)

Through most of the 1800s and into the early 1900s, individuals with disabilities were routinely placed in large, state-operated residential institutions. The dominant belief was that these individuals could not learn, required custodial care only, and were best removed from mainstream society. The eugenics movement of the early twentieth century amplified this view, promoting forced sterilization and legal exclusion of people with disabilities from public life. Schools were under no obligation to educate students with disabilities, and many states explicitly excluded them.

Era 2 — Normalization and the Parent Advocacy Movement (1950s–1970s)

The mid-twentieth century brought a fundamental philosophical shift. Several forces converged to challenge institutionalization:

• Normalization principle: Originating in Scandinavian countries in the 1960s and popularized in North America by Wolf Wolfensberger, normalization argued that individuals with disabilities should experience living conditions and daily rhythms as close as possible to the norms of mainstream society. This directly challenged the rationale for institutions and segregated schools.
• Parent advocacy organizations: Groups such as the National Association for Retarded Children (founded 1950, now The Arc) organized parents to demand educational access and publicly exposed the neglect inside institutions. These organizations were instrumental in pushing for civil rights legislation.
• Landmark court cases: Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1971) established that students with intellectual disabilities had the right to a free public education. Mills v. Board of Education of D.C. (1972) extended this right to all students with disabilities, regardless of disability type or severity. These decisions set the stage for federal legislation.

Era 3 — Deinstitutionalization and Federal Legislation (1970s–1990s)

Deinstitutionalization was the large-scale movement — accelerated by media exposés of horrific institutional conditions — to close or downsize residential facilities and move individuals into community-based settings. This period also produced the foundational federal laws that govern special education to this day.

Philosophically, this era was characterized by the principle of the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): the recognition that separating students from their peers should require justification, not be the default. Integration into general education settings was reframed as both a right and a benefit.

Era 4 — Inclusion Movement (1990s–Present)

The inclusion movement goes beyond physical placement in general education classrooms. It holds that students with disabilities belong in general education settings as full members of the school community, with appropriate supports and services delivered within those settings whenever possible. Full inclusion advocates argue that even students with the most significant disabilities benefit from membership in the general education community. The reauthorization of IDEA in 1997 and 2004 strengthened requirements for general curriculum access and raised expectations for students with disabilities to participate in state assessments alongside their peers.

Connecting IDEA and Section 504

A student who qualifies under IDEA automatically receives Section 504 protections, but a student who qualifies under Section 504 does not automatically receive IDEA services. IDEA provides the most comprehensive set of rights and services; Section 504 fills in the gap for students with disabilities that affect school functioning but do not require specialized instruction. For example, a student with a broken leg may be entitled to Section 504 accommodations (elevator access, extended time) without qualifying for an IEP.

The 13 IDEA Disability Categories

A student must meet the criteria for one or more of these categories AND the disability must adversely affect educational performance to receive special education services under IDEA.

1. Autism (ASD) — Developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age three.
2. Deaf-Blindness — Concomitant hearing and visual impairments that cause severe communication, developmental, and educational needs not accommodated by programs for the deaf or blind alone.
3. Deafness — A hearing impairment so severe that the student cannot process linguistic information through hearing, with or without amplification, affecting educational performance.
4. Emotional Disturbance (ED) — A condition exhibiting one or more of five characteristics over a long period and to a marked degree: inability to learn not explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors; inability to build or maintain satisfactory relationships; inappropriate behaviors or feelings; pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression; tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems.
5. Hearing Impairment — Impairment in hearing, whether permanent or fluctuating, that adversely affects educational performance but is not included under deafness.
6. Intellectual Disability — Significantly below-average general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period.
7. Multiple Disabilities — Concomitant impairments (e.g., intellectual disability combined with orthopedic impairment) that cause such severe educational needs that the student cannot be accommodated in programs designed for any single impairment alone.
8. Orthopedic Impairment — Severe orthopedic impairment adversely affecting educational performance, including impairments caused by congenital anomaly, disease, or other causes (e.g., cerebral palsy, amputations, fractures).
9. Other Health Impairment (OHI) — Limited strength, vitality, or alertness (including heightened alertness to environmental stimuli) due to chronic or acute health problems (e.g., ADHD, asthma, diabetes, epilepsy, cancer) that adversely affect educational performance.
10. Specific Learning Disability (SLD) — A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, that affects the ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. Includes dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia. Does NOT include learning problems primarily resulting from visual, hearing, or motor disabilities; intellectual disability; emotional disturbance; or environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
11. Speech or Language Impairment (SLI) — A communication disorder such as stuttering, impaired articulation, language impairment, or voice impairment that adversely affects educational performance.
12. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) — Acquired injury to the brain caused by external physical force, resulting in total or partial functional disability or psychosocial impairment, or both, that adversely affects educational performance.
13. Visual Impairment (including Blindness) — An impairment in vision that, even with correction, adversely affects educational performance. Includes both partial sight and blindness.

Nondiscriminatory Evaluation and Eligibility Determinations

Before a student can receive special education services, the school must conduct a comprehensive individual evaluation. Key requirements include:

• The evaluation must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies, not relying on any single measure.
• Tests must be valid and reliable, administered by trained personnel, and used in ways consistent with their intended purposes.
• Assessments must be provided in the student's native language or other mode of communication unless clearly not feasible.
• No single procedure may be used as the sole criterion for determining eligibility.
• For students suspected of having a specific learning disability, the school may use a Response to Intervention (RTI) or Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) model or a severe discrepancy model to document the disability.
• The evaluation must be completed within 60 days of receiving parental consent (unless the state has a different timeline).
• Reevaluations must occur at least every three years unless the parent and school agree it is unnecessary.

Eligibility is determined by a multidisciplinary team (including the parents) reviewing all evaluation data. The team answers two questions: (1) Does the student meet criteria for one or more IDEA disability categories? (2) Does the disability adversely affect educational performance, creating a need for special education services?

Disproportionality and Equity in Identification

Disproportionality refers to the over- or under-representation of students from particular racial, ethnic, or linguistic groups in special education. IDEA requires states and districts to monitor and address significant disproportionality. Students from Black, Hispanic, and Native American backgrounds have historically been over-identified for high-incidence categories such as intellectual disability and emotional disturbance, while also being under-identified for some categories such as autism. Educators must be vigilant about whether a student's difficulties reflect a genuine disability or are primarily the result of limited English proficiency, poverty, inadequate instruction, or cultural and linguistic differences.

English Language Learners (ELLs) with Disabilities

Students who are English language learners and also have disabilities represent one of the most complex evaluation challenges in special education. Key principles:

• Distinguishing language acquisition from disability: Language differences are not disabilities. A student who struggles in English but performs adequately in their native language likely has a language acquisition issue, not a disability. Evaluation teams must ensure that language proficiency is assessed and considered before making eligibility determinations.
• Bilingual and native-language assessments: IDEA requires that evaluations be conducted in the student's native language when feasible. Schools must use qualified interpreters or bilingual assessors.
• IEP and language services coordination: When a student qualifies for both special education services under IDEA and English language development services under Title III of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the IEP team and the ELL program coordinator must collaborate to ensure the student receives both types of services in an integrated and coherent way. The IEP must address the student's language development needs alongside their disability-related goals.
• Native language instruction: Research supports the use of the student's native language as a bridge for academic content learning while English is being developed. Denying access to native language instruction without justification can violate the student's right to appropriate programming.

Gifted Students with Disabilities (Twice-Exceptional)

Twice-exceptional (2e) students have both a disability and exceptional intellectual, creative, or academic ability. These students present unique challenges because their giftedness can mask their disability and their disability can mask their giftedness, resulting in students who appear average and may go unidentified for either category.

• The IEP and the gifted education plan should work together to ensure the student's strengths are developed alongside the support for their disability-related needs.
• Gifted programming is not governed by IDEA and varies by state. Minnesota recognizes gifted learners and expects schools to provide appropriate programming, though gifted education is not mandated at the federal level.
• Common combinations include: SLD + giftedness, ASD + giftedness, ADHD (OHI) + giftedness. Educators should look for uneven skill profiles as a signal that twice-exceptionality may be present.

Early Intervention (Part C of IDEA)

Part C of IDEA governs early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities, from birth through age two. Key features:

• Services are delivered in natural environments — meaning the home and community settings where children without disabilities would participate.
• Instead of an IEP, families receive an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP), which identifies the child's needs and the family's priorities and concerns, and specifies the services the child and family will receive.
• Part C is voluntary — families choose whether to participate — and services are provided at no cost (beyond co-payments that may apply to some medical services).
• At age three, children transition from Part C to Part B (the school-age IDEA provisions). The transition plan is developed collaboratively between the early intervention team and the school district.
• Early intervention has strong research support: early intensive services during the birth-to-three period produce better long-term outcomes in language, cognitive development, and adaptive behavior than services begun later.

Community Participation and Transition

IDEA requires that by age 16 (or earlier in some states), every student's IEP include transition services focused on postsecondary education, vocational education, integrated employment, continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, and community participation. Transition planning is grounded in the student's strengths, interests, preferences, and needs. Community participation means that students with disabilities are supported to participate as full members of their communities — through employment, recreation, civic engagement, and personal relationships — not merely as recipients of services.

Assistive Technology

IDEA defines assistive technology (AT) as any item, piece of equipment, or product system — whether commercially acquired, modified, or customized — that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability. The IEP team must consider whether a student needs AT devices and services.

• Low-tech AT: Pencil grips, highlighters, graphic organizers, adapted scissors, picture communication boards, page fluffers, weighted utensils.
• Mid-tech AT: Recorded books, calculators, timers, digital voice recorders, portable word processors.
• High-tech AT: Screen readers, text-to-speech software (e.g., Kurzweil), speech-to-text software (e.g., Dragon), augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices, dynamic display communication apps (e.g., Proloquo2Go), eye-gaze systems.

Specialized Instructional Materials

Students with disabilities often require materials adapted to their learning needs. The National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS) requires publishers receiving federal funds to provide digital source files that can be converted into accessible formats such as Braille, large print, and digital audio. Bookshare and Learning Ally are federally funded repositories of accessible digital books and materials for students with print disabilities.

Community and Agency Resources

Special educators must know the key community and government agencies that support students and families:

• Vocational Rehabilitation (VR): State agencies that provide employment-related services to individuals with disabilities, including job training, job placement, and supported employment. VR is a critical transition planning partner.
• Social Security Administration: Administers Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for eligible individuals with disabilities, which may support families of students and students transitioning to adult life.
• County developmental disabilities services: Many states and counties provide residential, day program, and community support services for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
• Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs): Federally funded centers that help families understand IDEA, navigate special education, and advocate effectively for their children.
• Professional organizations: Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), Council for Learning Disabilities (CLD), Division for Early Childhood (DEC), and the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) provide resources, research, and professional development for special educators.

What Counts as Evidence-Based Practice

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) defines four tiers of evidence for educational programs and practices:

• Strong evidence: At least one well-designed and well-implemented randomized controlled experimental study showing a statistically significant positive effect.
• Moderate evidence: At least one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study.
• Promising evidence: At least one well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias.
• Demonstrates a rationale: Activities supported by a well-defined logic model and a research base suggesting potential effectiveness.

IDEA also requires that special education programs use scientifically based instructional practices where such practices exist. For many disability categories, robust bodies of research identify specific EBPs. For example, for students with ASD, the National Standards Project and the National Clearinghouse on Autism Evidence and Practice (NCAEP) have identified practices such as discrete trial training, naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions, social skills training, and visual supports as evidence-based.

Applying Evidence-Based Practices

Knowing that a practice is evidence-based is only the first step. Effective application requires:

• Fidelity of implementation: Using the practice as designed, with all core components intact. A practice implemented poorly will not produce the outcomes shown in research.
• Progress monitoring: Collecting ongoing data to verify that the practice is working for the individual student. If progress is not occurring, the educator adjusts the approach rather than continuing an ineffective intervention.
• Data-based decision making: Using student performance data to guide instructional decisions about pacing, intensity, grouping, and content.
• Contextual fit: Considering whether the practice is feasible to implement given the setting, resources, and individual student characteristics.

Reflective Practice

Reflective practice is the habit of systematically examining one's own teaching — what worked, what did not, and why — in order to improve. Reflective practitioners use data, feedback, and self-analysis to continuously refine their instructional skills. Keeping a reflective journal, analyzing video recordings of one's own teaching, and soliciting feedback from colleagues and supervisors are common reflective practice strategies.

Peer Coaching and Collaborative Models

Peer coaching involves pairs or small groups of educators observing each other's practice, sharing expertise, and giving structured feedback. Unlike evaluative observation, peer coaching is non-judgmental and focused on growth. Research consistently shows that peer coaching — when combined with initial professional development on the target skill — significantly improves the likelihood that teachers will implement new practices with fidelity.

Other collaborative professional development models include:

• Co-teaching: A general education teacher and a special education teacher share responsibility for planning, instruction, and assessment of a diverse group of students including those with disabilities. Co-teaching models include one teach/one assist, station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, and team teaching.
• Instructional coaching: A job-embedded, ongoing relationship with a content or instructional expert who provides individualized support, demonstration lessons, and targeted feedback.

Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)

A Professional Learning Community (PLC) is a collaborative group of educators who meet regularly to share expertise, examine student data, and work together to improve instruction and student outcomes. PLCs grounded in special education contexts often focus on identifying and solving implementation challenges, reviewing progress-monitoring data across a caseload, developing shared understanding of evidence-based practices, and planning for students with complex needs. The core principles of an effective PLC are shared mission and vision, collaborative culture, collective inquiry, an action orientation, commitment to continuous improvement, and results orientation.