Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 35 (2011) 37–50

DOI:10.3233/JVR-2011-0552

IOS Press

37

Special education teachers serving students

with autism: A descriptive study of the

characteristics and self-reported knowledge

and practices employed

Dawn Hendricks

Virginia Commonwealth University Autism Center for Excellence, Department of Special Education

and Disability Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University-RRTC, 1314 West Main St., Box 842011,

Richmond, VA 23284, USA

E-mail: drhendricks@vcu.edu

Accepted: May 2011

Abstract.

Autism now affects a significant number of students in schools. The purpose of this study was to survey special

education teachers who serve students with autism to 1) determine teacher, environmental, and student related characteristics; 2)

identify the self-reported knowledge of effective teaching practices; and 3) identify the self-reported implementation of effective

teaching practices. The study was conducted with special education teachers employed in Virginia using a web-based survey

titled the

Needs Assessment of Special Educators who Serve Students with Autism.

Respondents included 498 special education

teachers with a wide array of qualifications and experience including licensure status, years of teaching and area of endorsement.

Results provide a description of teacher characteristics that directly impact instructional delivery as well as information regarding

self-rated knowledge and implementation of efficacious strategies. Information from this study can be used to improve service

delivery to students with autism by informing policy and directing and enhancing teacher professional development initiatives at

the preservice and inservice levels.

Keywords: ASD, special education teachers, students with autism

1. Introduction

Recent prevalence rates released in 2009 by the Cen-

ters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate

that 1 in 110 children have an autism spectrum disorder

(ASD). The increased prevalence has placed substantial

pressure on educational systems, creating a strong need

for teachers qualified to instruct these individuals. The

number of students identified with autism within our

public schools has risen at an approximate rate of 20%

per year since data first became available [45]. Autism

is currently the fastest growing group of students served

through special education [30].

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [21]

defines autism as a developmental disability signifi-

cantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication

and social interaction. Other characteristics are engage-

ment in repetitive activities and stereotyped move-

ments, resistance to change, and unusual responses to

sensory experiences. According to educational law, a

student may be determined to have autism if he/she

has any of the Pervasive Developmental Disorders, also

referenced as autism spectrum disorders, provided edu-

cational performance is adversely impacted.

Those with autism present with unique learning char-

acteristics that differ widely from typical learners as

1052-2263/11/$27.50 © 2011 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved



38

D. Hendricks / Teachers serving students with autism

well as learners with other types of disabilities [23, 37].

According to the National Research Council (NRC)

report,

Educating Children with Autism,

commissioned

by the USDOE Office of Special Education Programs

(OSEP) in 2001, one of the most pressing challenges

for school systems is keeping up with the increase in

personnel needed to provide appropriate services for

students with autism. The challenge involves not only

the quantity of personnel needed to accommodate the

increasing numbers of students, but also involves the

quality of those personnel. Teachers who work with

these students must be knowledgeable of the range of

available educational practices, and must be able to

implement them individually based on student need

[28, 39, 40].

Within the last decade, there has been an expansion

of educational practices demonstrated to be effective

with students with autism [22, 27, 42]. The current

literature published in this field describes a variety of

instructional methods found to be effective. Examples

include behavioral [7, 29], naturalistic teaching [25,

26], joint attention [32], peer-mediated [17], and story-

based interventions [4]. More recently, the National

Autism Center [36] conducted a comprehensive review

of intervention literature and identified eleven strate-

gies that are effective for students with autism. The

NAC published the National Standards Report which

described each intervention in detail and provided illus-

trative examples.

Despite these advancements, there is ongoing con-

cern regarding the quality of educational services for

this population. Educational achievement is low in

comparison to typically developing students, as well

as students from other disability categories [47, 48].

Furthermore, students with autism are not being well-

prepared for adulthood. Postsecondary outcome studies

reveal poor long term outcomes in living arrangements,

employment, and community integration [19, 20,

33].

2. Challenges educating students with autism

Educating students with autism creates a complex set

of issues for educators. Perhaps the most significant is

regarding the range of personnel who provide instruc-

tion to this group. In the Study of Personnel Needs

in Special Education (SPeNSE [8]) special educators

from all teaching assignments reported teaching at least

one student with autism. It is significantly associated

with intellectual disabilities and has an association with

some medical conditions including tuberous sclerosis,

fragile X, cerebral palsy, down syndrome, and epilepsy

[14]. Additionally, comorbidity with mental health con-

ditions including anxiety and depression is common

[16]. Taken collectively, these characteristics nearly

guarantee special educators from multiple backgrounds

will provide services to a student with autism during

their career, regardless of their primary content area

[31]. Given such variation, special education teachers

require preparation to educate this population with such

unique and intensive learning needs.

Preparation of special education teachers has been

fraught with challenges. According to a study by M¨ ller

u

[34], there are few states throughout the country with

licensure in the area of autism, therefore, there is not

a set of guidelines mandating teacher qualities and

requirements. Absence of state licensure in autism

ensures these students are educated by teachers with

different types of certification resulting in variation

of teacher knowledge and skills [41]. This issue is

exacerbated by the recent movement towards noncat-

egorical licensure in special education where teachers

are prepared to instruct students from all disability cat-

egories and do not receive specialized training [24].

How such programs are preparing the range of teachers

touched by autism to serve this group is unknown at this

time.

Educational standards have long been used to out-

line necessary teacher qualities [6]. However, nationally

accepted professional standards that could be used to

guide effective practices for teachers of students with

autism were regrettably absent from the educational

arena until 2009. It was at this time that the Coun-

cil for Exceptional Children (CEC) created standards

that reflect the knowledge, dispositions, and perfor-

mances deemed essential for a well-prepared special

educator. While the development of these standards is

an important step for guiding practice, given the licen-

sure situation described above, educator’s knowledge

of these standards remains unclear.

Professional development activities designed to build

knowledge and skills specific to autism have become

more prevalent in recent years. In cooperation with

OSEP, M¨ ller [35] surveyed state education agencies

u

to determine approaches to personnel preparation in

autism, and found states had increased training efforts

since 1996. In a survey of personnel preparation prac-

tices at colleges and universities, Barnhill, Polloway,

and Sumutka [3] reported 184 higher education insti-

tution programs from 43 states offering personnel



D. Hendricks / Teachers serving students with autism

39

preparation in autism. The nature of these training pro-

grams was highly variable with differences found in

the type, amount, and content of training provided.

How such programs are preparing the range of teachers

touched by autism to serve this group remains uniden-

tified.

3. What is known about teachers of students

with autism

Educators serving these students must possess

autism-specific knowledge and demonstrate methods

that fit into best practice [28, 41]. We place important

responsibilities on these teachers. As a result it is critical

to have a solid understanding of who is teaching stu-

dents with autism as well as their aptitudes. Research

in this area is sparse resulting in restricted information

regarding teacher competency. In 2008, Hess, Morrier,

Heflin, and Ivey surveyed Georgia public school teach-

ers to identify the types of interventions currently being

utilized by those working with students with autism.

Less than one third reported using interventions rated

as evidence based or a promising practice by Simpson

[42]. Fewer than ten percent of the strategies imple-

mented were based upon scientific research. Analysis

revealed the choice of strategies varied by grade level

and classroom type (e.g., general education, special

education).

In a study examining interventions utilized by early

intervention programs in the public schools in Califor-

nia, Stahmer, Collings, and Palinkas, [43] used focus

groups to investigate techniques employed. Results

indicated the use of practices that were research based

as well as many that were not. Additionally, when

evidence-based practices were used, significant mod-

ifications and adaptations were often reported. All

participants noted a lack of adequate training and prepa-

ration for teachers and paraprofessionals as a critical

concern.

we can improve both knowledge and performance and

ultimately, impact student outcomes [49]. Professional

development is needed that provides quality preservice

and inservice training and arms teachers with the skills

needed to effectively serve these students [28].

The purpose of this study was to survey special edu-

cation teachers who serve students with autism in order

to identify characteristics as well as specific knowledge

and practices of teachers who work with this population.

The three specific objectives were as follows:

1) Determine the teacher, environmental, and stu-

dent related characteristics of special education

teachers who serve students with autism.

2) Identify the self-reported knowledge of effective

teaching practices for students with autism.

3) Identify the self-reported implementation of eff-

ective teaching practices for students with autism.

The present study provides a preliminary evaluation

of special education teachers who serve students with

autism in a sample of schools in Virginia. The results

of this study may be used to inform research and edu-

cational efforts. Given that information about special

education teachers who serve students with autism is so

sparse, this preliminary study, despite its limited sample

size, presents information regarding gaps in knowledge

and skills that may inform professional development

for special educators.

5. Method and procedure

A quantitative study using a nonexperimental design

was utilized. A self-report survey was implemented to

answer the research questions.

5.1. Instrument

For the purpose of this study, a survey titled the

Needs

Assessment of Special Educators who Serve Students

with Autism

was created. The survey consisted of a com-

pilation of best and promising practices identified as

critical to address the needs of individuals with autism.

The authors created the survey by synthesizing items

contained in the

Virginia Skill Competencies for Profes-

sionals and Paraprofessionals Supporting Individuals

with Autism Across the Lifespan. The

“Virginia

Skill

Competencies”

were developed by the Virginia Autism

Council (VAC), a state-supported council of autism

experts who work to advance training and educa-

tional opportunities (2004). Its mission is to increase

4. Purpose of the study

The rise in reported numbers of students with autism

in public schools, poor educational outcomes, and an

expansion of knowledge of educational practices that

are effective with this population, has led to a sense

of urgency among educators and parents to ensure

students are provided an appropriate education. It is

essential to determine information about teachers so



40

D. Hendricks / Teachers serving students with autism

knowledge and understanding of autism in the wider

community in order to maximize outcomes for people

with autism.

The

Virginia Skill Competencies

is a list of guide-

lines for educators who serve students with autism.

The

Virginia Skill Competencies

were generated fol-

lowing an examination of current research and previous

efforts to develop educational standards in autism.

Resources used in their development included the

National Research Council report, Educating Children

with Autism [28]; the review of evidence-based prac-

tices compiled by Simpson [42]; the examination of

effective educational practices by Iovannone et al. [22],

the interventions and treatments text by Simpson, de

Boer-Oh, Griswold, Smith Myles, Byrd, Ganz, et al.

(2005); the

Iowa Best Practice Guidelines;

and the

Autism Program Quality Indicators.

The

Virginia Skill Competencies

outlines six key

areas of proficiency, each with equal importance:

1) General autism: Addresses basic information re-

garding the diagnosis and characteristics of

autism;

2) Individualization and support strategies: Addres-

ses appropriate assessment and program planning

for individuals with autism;

3) Communication: Focuses on practices and skills

needed to improve communication and language;

4) Social skills: Focuses on practices and skills

needed to improve social functioning;

5) Behavior: focuses on determining messages com-

municated by behaviors and developing positive

plans to teach new skills and reduce problem

behavior; and

6) Sensory motor development: Addresses sensory

motor supports that are needed by some individ-

uals with autism.

Under each area, there are two types of competencies:

knowledge based and specialized skills. Knowl-

edge based competencies depict particular knowledge

needed to serve individuals with autism, while spe-

cialized skills outline particular aptitudes professionals

should demonstrate.

5.2. Survey development

The Needs Assessment of Special Educators who

Serve Students with Autism

was created by identify-

ing items from the

Virginia Skill Competencies.

Three

specific steps were used to guide the development of

instrumentation. The first step was the generation and

selection of questionnaire items and ratings. This survey

contained 32 of the

Virginia Skill Competencies,

and

included items from each of the six proficiency areas.

There were a total of eight questions that comprised

the proficiency area General Autism. For this area, par-

ticipants were asked to rate their level of knowledge.

These questions contained knowledge-based content

that could not actively be implemented in the class-

room. For all other proficiency areas, participants rated

their level of knowledge and implementation as these

questions specifically asked about strategies and prac-

tices. The number of questions posed and examples for

each proficiency area are provided in Table 1.

Participants provided a self-rating of their knowl-

edge and implementation of practices using a five-point

Likert scale. When rating current level of knowl-

edge, one represented “little knowledge” and five “very

knowledgeable”. When rating current level of imple-

mentation, one represented “rarely implemented” and

five “frequently implemented”.

The second step consisted of a review by a panel of

experts to ensure validity. Experts in the field of autism

intervention reviewed the survey and provided feed-

back on the content and format. Changes were made

accordingly.

The third step was completion of a pilot test to ensure

validity and reliability. Participants in the pilot included

former special education teachers as well as private

school teachers of students with autism. The pilot group

was asked to take the survey and comment on the

following questions [13]: (a) Are instructions clearly

written? (b) Are questions easy to understand? (c) Are

response options easy to understand and exhaustive?

(d) Is privacy of the responses understood? and (d) Are

there any suggestions for clarifying instructions, ques-

tions, or response options? Additionally, each question

was evaluated ensuring variability among responses.

Modifications were incorporated into the survey. After

this revision, the experts had an additional opportunity

to review the altered survey.

5.3. Participants

The participants for this study were special education

teachers employed in a public school in the Virginia

Department of Education Region I. Special education

teachers were eligible to participate if they taught at

least one student with autism in the five years preceding

distribution of the survey. To qualify as having taught a

student with autism, instruction must have been deliv-

ered to the student for a minimum of 25% of the school



D. Hendricks / Teachers serving students with autism

Table 1

Needs Assessment of Special Educators who Serve Students with Autism Description

Content area

General autism

# of Evidence

based indicators

8

Examples of evidence based indicators

41

Individualization and

support strategies

5

Communication

5

Social skills

5

Behavior

5

Sensory motor

development

4

– the characteristics of autism as defined by the most recent version of the Diagnostic

and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

– the array of learning styles associated with autism including difficulties in attending,

organization, and problem solving

– the steps involved in using discrete trial instruction to teach new skills, including

clearly defining the instruction, level of prompt needed, student’s desired response,

and the consequence to be delivered based on the student’s response

– the steps involved in identifying individualized reinforcement preferences for

students with autism, including observing the student; interviewing the student,

staff, and family; and conducting preference assessments

– the process for selecting an appropriate communication system that is based on the

specific characteristics of the student with autism

– the steps involved in using the natural environment to increase communication skills,

including setting up the environment to foster interactions, providing prompting that

encourages expansion of student responses, and providing positive feedback

– methods used to determine a student’s ability to understand and use nonverbal

communication, including interviews, structured observations, and standardized

assessments

– a variety of instructional strategies that enable a student with autism to increase

social interactions, including, but not limited to Circles of Support, peer tutoring,

social scripts, and self-management

– interventions designed to proactively prevent a problem behavior from occurring,

including modifying the environment, setting events, and antecedents that may

trigger the problem behavior

– the components of a crisis behavior management plan for a student with autism to

ensure health and safety

– methods used to determine if a student demonstrates hypo- or hyper- sensitivity to

sensory input, including interviews, structured observations, and standardized

assessments

– methods used to determine if a student demonstrates deficits in fine or gross motor

development, including interviews, structured observations, and standardized

assessments

day in any educational setting. Additionally, the stu-

dent must have met the educational criteria of autism

as outlined in IDEA [21].

The Virginia Department of Education Region I is

comprised of 15 school divisions and is located in

central Virginia. The divisions contained within are

geographically diverse. The USDOE, Institute of Edu-

cation Sciences National Center for Education Statistics

(IES NCES) provides the geographical status of each

school division using the classifications of city, suburb,

town, and rural. According to this source, two of the

divisions are classified as city, four are suburb, while

nine are rural. Cities and counties in this region make

up approximately 15% of Virginia’s total population

(United States Department of Agriculture Economic

Research Service [44]).

There are a large number of students with autism

served in this Region. During the last five years,

13–15% of the population of students with autism in the

state of Virginia have been served in Region I schools.

At the time of this survey, region one had 889 of the

6,753 students served under the category of autism in

the state. In the rural divisions, child counts of students

served under the category of autism ranged from 3–28.

For the suburban divisions, counts ranged from 12–314,

and for the two city divisions, counts were 6 and 87.

5.4. Procedure

Special education teachers were provided three

weeks to complete the Web based survey. All sur-

vey information was sent electronically to the teachers

through school email. Electronic correspondence pro-

vided a link to the survey. Participants could complete

the survey at their leisure at any point during the three

week period.

Permission was granted by the division’s special

education director or by their research department.

Attached to the email message was a detailed cover

letter explaining the study. The letter described the pur-



42

D. Hendricks / Teachers serving students with autism

pose, criteria for participation, the individual’s rights

to decline participation, confidentiality assurance mea-

sures, the website to access the survey, and detailed

instructions for completion.

Potentially, all special education teachers who

worked in Region I at the time of distribution had access

to this survey. However, the sample was limited to those

teachers who received the survey link and subsequently

responded. Follow-up procedures were used to enhance

participant response to the survey which included dis-

bursement of reminder e-mails one week prior to the

termination of data collection and again three days prior

to termination.

There was no direct interaction between participants

and researchers. Surveys were completed anonymously

so there was no link between names and responses.

Additionally, the name of the school division where

the participant taught was not included on the form

to further prevent linking responses to participants.

Information was stored through a secure web server

administered by the Virginia Commonwealth Univer-

sity Office of Technology Services.

The survey was administered and data collected

using SurveyMonkey. Data was exported and analyzed

using a statistical software package for Social Sciences

(SPSS 14.0). All data were aggregated based on cat-

egories and were reviewed for accuracy, completion,

and presence of univariate and multivariate outliers.

Reliability was evaluated to determine the internal

consistency of scores obtained within each of the six

proficiency areas of the

Virginia Skill Competencies.

6. Results

6.1. Response rate

There were 2,334 special education teachers

employed in the 15 participating divisions at the time of

the survey. A total of 498 surveys were completed and

used for analysis. This equates to 21.3% of special edu-

cation teachers from the participating school divisions.

Variation in the school division’s response rate ranged

from 11.1 to 57.1%. Eighty-six surveys (14.5%) were

not included in the analysis due to incomplete infor-

mation. Table 2 provides detailed information about

survey responses including the total from each school

division and the percentage of special education teach-

ers who completed a survey. Of these teachers 18.0%

were employed in a city division, 56.6% in a suburban

division, and 25.4% in a rural division.

It is unknown how many of the special education

teachers in the region served a student with autism

and were eligible to participate in this study. Studies

regarding estimates of teachers who serve this group are

sparse. The only known study available is from 2001.

Using the results from Carlson et al. (SPeNSE) it was

estimated that 438 of the 2,334 special education teach-

ers in the participating school divisions taught a student

with autism at the time of the survey. Given that 498

teachers responded to the survey, and given the age of

the SPeNSE study, obviously many more special educa-

tors taught this group. However, other means to provide

an exact count were not available.

Table 2

Response Summation by School Division

School division

# Special

education

teachers per

division

14

15

16

36

42

42

53

64

312

33

48

530

710

48

371

2,334

# Surveys

completed

per

division

8

7

3

4

7

0

20

11

102

15

21

104

160

8

28

498

% Surveys

completed

per

division

1.6%

1.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.4%

0%

4.0%

2.2%

20.5%

20.5%

4.2%

20.9%

32.1%

1.6%

5.6%

% Special

education

teachers per

division

57.1%

46.7%

18.8%

11.1%

16.7%

0%

37.8%

17.2%

32.7%

45.5%

43.8%

19.6%

22.5%

16.7%

7.5%

Rural - A

Rural - B

Rural - C

Rural - D

Rural - E

Rural - F

Rural - G

Rural - H

Rural - I

Suburban - J

Suburban - K

Suburban - L

Suburban - M

City - N

City- O

Total



D. Hendricks / Teachers serving students with autism

43

6.2. Teacher characteristics

The teacher characteristics fell into one of three

categories: teacher related characteristics, environment

related characteristics, and student related character-

istics. Table 3 contains a description of participants

according to teacher related characteristics. The major-

ity of special education teachers who completed the

survey were fully licensed with 86.7% falling into this

group. In Virginia, there is no licensure in autism. At

the time of this study, Virginia operated under a special

education system of categorical licensure. Categories

are listed in Table 3. Participants were asked to choose

their primary area of endorsement. Each of the seven

endorsements recognized by the Virginia Department

of Education (VDOE) at the time of the survey was

reported by teachers with full or provisional licensure.

Learning disabilities and mental retardation were the

most commonly reported with nearly one quarter of

special education teachers endorsed in either category.

Hearing impairments and vision impairments were the

least commonly reported areas. A total of 12 (2.4%)

participants reported an endorsement of other. It is not

known what other endorsements teachers held, as this

information was not collected. On the survey, partici-

pants were asked to provide number of years they had

been teaching inclusive of the school year in progress.

Years of teaching experience ranged from 1 to 36 years

with 11.99 being the mean and a standard deviation

Table 3

Participant demographics: teacher related characteristics

Characteristic

Type of licensure

– Full licensure

– Provisional licensure

– No license/long term substitute

Area of teaching endorsement

– Early childhood special ed

– Emotional disturbance

– Hearing impairments

– Learning disabilities

– Mental retardation

– Severe disabilities

– Visual impairments

– Other

Years of teaching experience

– 4 or less years

– 5–9 years

– 10–16 years

– 17 or more years

# of

participants

N = 495

432

59

4

N = 490

57

106

6

137

117

52

3

12

N = 498

122

132

107

137

Valid % of

participants

87.3%

11.9%

0.8%

11.4%

21.3%

1.2%

27.5%

23.5%

10.4%

0.6%

2.4%

24.5%

26.5%

21.5%

27.5%

of 9.02. Fifty percent of teachers reported teaching for

nine years or less. These data were analyzed and cate-

gorized into four groups containing an approximately

equal number of teachers: 4 or less years, 5–9 years,

10–16 years, 17 or more years.

Information describing the demographics related to

the teaching environment is summarized in Table 4. The

majority of participants were from a suburban school

division, while nearly a third from a rural division.

The grade or educational level taught was captured.

The majority, with 42.8%, taught elementary aged stu-

dents. The lowest percentage of participants taught

early childhood with 9.1%, while the balance taught

middle and high school students. Teachers were asked

to indicate the classroom setting that best describes

where they teach. Participants reported working in a

variety of settings. A self-contained classroom for stu-

dents with a disability category other than autism was

the most commonly reported, while a general education

classroom as a consultative or collaborative teacher was

the second most common.

Table 5 provides a description of participants accord-

ing to student related characteristics. Teachers were

asked to report the number of students taught in the

past five years. The number ranged from 1–65, with

7.29 being the mean and a standard deviation of 8.04.

These data were analyzed and categorized into three

groups containing an equitable number of teachers. The

groups delineated teachers who have taught a small (3

or less), moderate (4–9), and large (10 or more) number

of students with autism.

Table 4

Participant demographics: environmental related characteristics

Characteristic

Geographical Description

– City School Division

– Suburban School Division

– Rural School Division

Educational Level

– Early Childhood

– Elementary

– Middle

– High

Classroom Setting

– Self-contained Classroom-Autism

– Self-contained Classroom-Other

– Special Education Resource Room

– General Education Classroom

# of

participants

N = 498

36

300

162

N = 495

45

212

109

129

N = 484

68

211

67

138

Valid % of

participants

7.2%

60.2%

32.5%

9.1%

42.8%

22.0%

26.1%

13.7%

42.4%

13.5%

27.7%

Note.

Number of participants who completed occupational informa-

tion varied.

Note.

Number of participants who completed occupational informa-

tion varied.



44

D. Hendricks / Teachers serving students with autism

Table 5

Participant demographics: student related characteristics

Characteristic

Number of students with autism taught

– Small number (3 or Less)

– Moderate number (4–9)

– Large number (10 or More)

Type of students with autism taught based on cognitive ability

– Majority with an intellectual disability

– Majority without an intellectual disability

– Comparable number with/without intellectual disability

Type of students with autism taught based on classroom setting

– Majority in special education classroom

– Majority in general education classroom

– Comparable number in both

# of participants

N = 498

194

181

123

N = 428

93

181

154

N = 381

179

109

93

Valid % of

participants

100%

39.0%

36.3%

24.7%

21.7%

42.3%

36.0%

47.0%

28.6%

24.4%

Note.

Number of participants who completed occupational information varied.

Characteristics about the students taught were

acquired and were based on the student’s level of

need and capabilities. First, teachers were asked to

indicate the percentage of students believed to have

an intellectual disability and requiring significant lev-

els of support. These students were defined as those

with non-verbal or minimal verbal language, seem-

ingly below normal cognitive functioning and adaptive

behavior. Teachers were also asked to indicate the per-

centage of students believed to have average or above

average intellectual ability and requiring less support.

Students in this group were defined as those with flu-

ent verbal language and seemingly normal cognitive

functioning and adaptive behavior. This group included

students who were diagnosed with Asperger’s Disor-

der or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise

specified. These data were arranged into the following

groups: majority of students with an intellectual dis-

ability (61–100% of students served had an intellectual

disability), majority of students without an intellec-

tual disability (61–100% of students served did not

have an intellectual disability), and comparable number

of students with and without an intellectual disabil-

ity (between 39–60% of students served from either

category). The greatest number of teachers reported

teaching students without an intellectual disability,

while the fewest reported teaching those with an intel-

lectual disability.

Teachers were asked to indicate the percentage of

students they had taught who were primarily educated

in a special education or general education classroom.

Based on the results, these data were arranged into

three groups: majority of students educated in a special

education classroom (66–100% of students educated in

special education classroom), majority of students edu-

cated in a general education classroom (66–100% of

students educated in general education classroom), and

comparable number of students educated in a special

and general education classroom (34–65% of students

educated in either setting). The greatest number of

teachers reported teaching a majority of students edu-

cated in a special education classroom, with nearly half

teaching this group.

6.3. Self-reported knowledge

Data analysis required the use of descriptive statistics

(total number of participants, mean, standard deviation,

and range) to determine the self-reported knowledge

and implementation practices of special education

teachers. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the

total score for Region I as well as each of the six profi-

ciency areas.

Information describing teachers’ self-reported

knowledge is found in Table 6. This table summarizes

the responses for total knowledge as well as knowledge

Table 6

Self-reported knowledge of skill competencies

N

Region I

Total

General autism

Behavior

Individualization

Communication

Social skills

Sensory motor

Minimum Maximum Mean

Std.

deviation

0.87

0.92

1.07

1.02

1.07

0.99

1.02

440

490

481

479

480

485

488

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

4.97

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

2.89

3.12

3.06

3.04

2.72

2.61

2.54

Note.

A mean score of 1.00 = little knowledge; 2.00 = low knowl-

edge; 3.00 = intermediate knowledge; 4.00 = moderate knowledge

and 5.00 = high knowledge.



D. Hendricks / Teachers serving students with autism

Table 7

Self-reported implementation practices of the virginia skill

competencies: Region I

N

Region I

Total

Individualization

Behavior

Communication

Sensory motor

Social skills

Minimum Maximum Mean

Std.

deviation

0.89

1.01

1.05

1.09

1.00

0.95

45

441

474

480

477

482

483

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

4.96

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

2.55

2.75

2.68

2.57

2.39

2.38

Note.

A mean score of 1.00 = rare implementation; 2.00 = low imple-

mentation; 3.00 = intermediate implementation; 4.00 = moderate

implementation and 5.00 = high implementation.

of General Autism, Individualization and Support

Strategies, Communication, Social Skills, Behavior,

and Sensory Motor Development. Responses are

provided in descending order to indicate the greatest

to least amount of knowledge reported in the six

areas. The mean for total knowledge was 2.89 with a

standard deviation of 0.87. This demonstrated a low

to intermediate mean level of knowledge. Participants

reported the greatest knowledge in General Autism, and

the least knowledge in Sensory Motor Development

followed by Social Skills.

6.4. Self-reported implementation of practices

Table 7 provides a summary of the self-reported

implementation practices. A summary for the total

score is provided, as well as the proficiency areas

of Individualization and Support Strategies, Commu-

nication, Social Skills, Behavior, and Sensory Motor

Development. The proficiency area General Autism

was not included in this analysis, as this area was com-

prised of knowledge-based content that could not be

actively implemented in the classroom. Responses in

the table are provided in descending order to indicate

the greatest to least amount of implementation. The

mean score for total implementation was 2.55 with a

standard deviation of 0.89. This demonstrated a low

to intermediate level of implementation. Participants

reported implementing Individualization and Support

Strategies the most often. They reported implementing

practices related to Social Skills followed closely by

Sensory Motor Development the least often.

7. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to ascertain infor-

mation about special education teachers who serve

students with autism. It is critical to have a solid under-

standing of who is teaching these students as well as

their aptitudes. Research in this area is sparse resulting

in restricted information regarding teacher competency.

The present study provides a preliminary evaluation

of special education teachers who serve students with

autism in a sample of schools in Virginia.

This study provides a description of germane teacher

characteristics that directly impact instructional deliv-

ery as well as information regarding actual knowledge

and implementation of efficacious strategies. Results

can be used to improve service delivery by directing

and enhancing teacher professional development ini-

tiatives at the preservice and inservice levels. Results

may also be used to inform future research. There are

several important observations that can be made based

on the data. These observations are summarized below.

1) Special education teachers who serve students

with autism present with a wide array of quali-

fications and experience. Teachers, regardless of

area of endorsement, teach students with autism.

All seven areas of endorsement recognized by

VDOE were represented in this study. Endorse-

ments in learning disabilities, mental retardation,

and emotional disturbance were the most fre-

quently reported. However, also noteworthy were

the number of participants with endorsements in

early childhood special education or severe dis-

abilities. This finding is critical, as students with

autism present with needs vastly different from

those with other disabilities [23, 28]. Distinc-

tive supports and intervention are required given

that cognitive ability is interwoven with social

and communication limitations and the presence

of stereotypical patterns of behavior and sensory

processing difficulties interfere with learning [2].

Total years of teaching experience varied dra-

matically with a fairly even distribution ranging

from one to 36 years. This demonstrates that large

numbers of special educators just entering the

field are serving this group. It also shows that

seasoned teachers are involved. These teachers

may have very different professional develop-

ment needs as their experience with students with

autism as well as training opportunities likely dif-

fer tremendously.

Special education teachers provide service

delivery to a sizable number of students with

autism. These students demonstrate a wide-range

of cognitive, verbal, and adaptive ability. The



46

D. Hendricks / Teachers serving students with autism

majority of teachers reported having taught mod-

erate to large numbers of students with autism in

the past five years with approximately one quarter

having taught ten or more. Autism is consid-

ered a spectrum disorder that ranges from severe

to milder forms [1, 37]. Predictably, such diver-

sity among student ability is reported. Teachers

served students ranging from those with mini-

mal or no verbal language and seemingly below

normal cognitive functioning to students with

fluent verbal language and normal cognitive func-

tioning. Over one third of teachers had taught

a comparable number of students on opposite

ends of the spectrum. This is of particular inter-

est given the challenges educators face due to

the multidimensional nature of the disability. The

wide range of cognitive abilities and verbal skills

affect the knowledge and competencies required

[28]. What’s more, the majority of participants

(approximately 80%) reported having served stu-

dents who are considered to have normal cognitive

abilities and are high functioning, requiring spe-

cial practices that address communication and

social needs and enable academic success.

2) Special education teachers provide service deliv-

ery to students with autism in a variety of

educational environments. Teachers from all

grades reported serving this group. Approxi-

mately half taught students in early childhood

and elementary school while the other half were

middle and high school teachers. Obviously, stu-

dents with autism do age and cross all grade levels

impacting teachers regardless of educational level

taught.

Well over half of participants served students

in a special education self-contained classroom.

For those teachers, only one quarter taught in

a class specific to students with autism, while

most taught these students in classrooms designed

for other types of disabilities or multiple dis-

abilities. A quarter of teachers reported serving

students primarily in the general education class-

room. Noteworthy, is the number of teachers who

served students in both a special education and

general education setting. These teachers had stu-

dents on their case load who received the majority

of their educational services in two very different

educational environments.

3) Special education teachers who serve students

with autism have low to intermediate levels of

knowledge of autism and effective instructional

practices. The total mean score for self-reported

knowledge was in the low range. Teachers do

not possess a moderate or high level of knowl-

edge in any of the six proficiency areas. General

Autism received the highest score and fell just

within the intermediate level of knowledge. Com-

munication, Social Skills, and Sensory Motor

were the lowest scored. While teachers reported

higher levels of knowledge of autism character-

istics, knowledge of strategies to address skill

development in fundamental areas of need was

lacking. This is a distressing result considering

the defining characteristics of the disorder and the

tremendous impact on the student with autism.

4) Special education teachers who serve students

with autism have low to intermediate levels of

implementation of effective teaching practices.

The total mean score for self-reported implemen-

tation was in the low range. Mean implementation

scores failed to reach an intermediate level for any

of the six proficiency areas, including Individu-

alization and Support Strategies which received

the highest rating. These results are especially

problematic since Individualization and Sup-

port Strategies outlined appropriate assessment,

program planning, and evaluation methods. Com-

munication, Social Skills and Sensory Motor were

reported to have the lowest level of implemen-

tation. This is not surprising given these were

the lowest rated areas of knowledge. All students

with autism will benefit from an array of educa-

tional supports and practices to address primary,

secondary and learning characteristics. Therefore,

special education teachers, regardless of the stu-

dents served, must be well-versed in a variety of

strategies that effect change. It is evident from

these data that special education teachers are not

implementing evidence based strategies for stu-

dents with autism at a satisfactory level.

8. Implications

The implications from this study are important to

state policy makers, school divisions, and institutes of

higher education (IHE) as results can impact teacher

qualifications and guide professional development ini-

tiatives that will ensure current and future special

education teachers are effectively able to teach students

with autism. These findings are especially important

given the rise in prevalence. The fact that this population



D. Hendricks / Teachers serving students with autism

47

of students is now estimated to comprise approximately

one percent of school age children is compelling (CDC,

2010).

As professional development initiatives are designed

and implemented, there are several important consider-

ations extrapolated from this research. First, it is critical

to ensure all special education teachers, regardless of

endorsement area are prepared to teach this group. Stu-

dents with autism will differ tremendously from others

and teachers must be knowledgeable of the characteris-

tics and impact on learning. They must be familiar with

research and theory regarding best practices to address

academic social, communication, behavior, sensory,

and motor needs.

Second, special education teachers must be ade-

quately prepared to address the entire array of learning

needs of students served. Teachers are faced with a

huge task given the heterogeneity. They must be mas-

terful in a range of strategies including applied behavior

analysis, natural environment teaching, assistive tech-

nology, augmentative and alternative communication,

as well as assessment and data collection and must be

able to apply strategies based on student need [28, 36].

For those students considered to have normal cognitive

abilities, their academic profile presents with a num-

ber of unique challenges, yet they are often expected to

meet the same academic standards as their neuro-typical

peers [38]. This requires special practices that address

communication and social needs and enable academic

success.

Third, special education teachers must know how to

provide effective instruction as the student ages and

develops. Teachers, regardless of grade taught, will

serve these students. Practices employed as well as

specific curriculum components will vary as the stu-

dent ages and reaches higher grade levels. Professional

development, therefore, must help teachers learn how to

meet the ever changing needs of these students and must

ensure appropriate preparation for adulthood including

skills related to social functioning and self-regulation

that are so critical in the adult world.

Finally, the finding related to placement is an impor-

tant one to consider. While most participants are

serving students in self-contained classrooms, there

is a significant number serving students additionally

or exclusively in the general education environment.

Preparation is to include training on differential deliv-

ery of strategies and supports based on student need as

well as the learning environment. Practices are mod-

ified according to the environment in many cases to

maximize learning and to facilitate peer interaction and

social inclusion. Further, the ability to implement evi-

dence based practices in a variety of educational settings

will enhance opportunities for students. It could be

that students who require intensive supports and who

fail to receive those supports would present increased

instructional and behavioral challenges, resulting in an

increased use of self contained placement. Thus, in

order to increase these students access to general educa-

tion environments, it is imperative to increase the skills

of their teachers.

At the preservice level of teacher preparation, there

is a demonstrated need for increased content related to

autism as well as scientifically based practices across all

teacher education programs. Teachers from all certifica-

tion categories recognized by the VDOE taught students

with autism. Further neophytes taught students upon

entry into the field. Given the rise in prevalence, this

is likely to be the case for the foreseeable future. Thus

all special education teachers entering the field need to

be prepared and receive instruction on those strategies

currently deemed evidence based. However, instruction

should also be provided in identifying practices through

research findings and integrating such knowledge with

the unique characteristics of the student, values and

preferences of families, and data-based decision mak-

ing [36]. This can and should be addressed through

multiple levels of preservice instruction for special

education teachers including coursework specifically

centering on autism, integration of content into current

teacher preparation courses, as well as opportunities for

hands-on experience with students with autism through

practicums and student teaching.

In service professional development for special edu-

cation teachers is a critical consideration. Teachers will

not enter the educational arena armed with all knowl-

edge and skills needed to effectively serve this group

of heterogeneous students. Additionally, research on

autism and evidence based strategies is growing rapidly.

Thus, ongoing and intensive educational opportuni-

ties for teachers are needed. The quantity, quality and

structure of professional development activities require

careful consideration. Common training strategies con-

sist of workshops and large group presentations. These

methods are often ineffective. According to Gersten,

Vaughn, Deshler, and Schiller [15], special education

teachers’ knowledge of research based strategies only

sporadically finds its way into educational practice.

For educational performance to improve, teachers must

infuse such knowledge into current practice through

training that involves supervision, feedback, and con-

sultation [36]. Teachers in this study reported lower



48

D. Hendricks / Teachers serving students with autism

implementation than knowledge, supporting the need

for training and development methods that will result

in higher rates of implementation of substantiated prac-

tices.

These findings also beg the question regarding spe-

cialized teacher licensure in autism. It is clear that

students with autism require specialized environmental

and instructional practices [20]. Barnhill et al. (2010)

reported that a number of IHEs now offer preparation

programs related to this disability. Programs differed

significantly. Only four IHEs offered a state endorse-

ment leading to full licensure while the most commonly

reported program was a certificate in autism. Licensure

is determined in each state individually and IHEs can

only offer licensure programs allowed by their state.

This leaves IHEs to develop programs on their own,

resulting in tremendous variability among the quan-

tity and quality of courses. By offering licensure in

autism, state agencies have the ability to improve con-

sistency of IHE programming, increase availability, and

ensure provision of evidence based research coupled

with opportunities for practice. At the very least, state

agencies not offering autism licensure should clearly

define minimum standards for personnel qualifications

and experience [28]. This would work towards ensur-

ing teachers are equipped with requisite knowledge and

skills needed to teach effectively.

the sample was a true representation, as it was not

known exactly how many special education teachers

employed in the Region I area had served a student

with autism. This survey was dependent on voluntary

participation and research using voluntary participation

typically yields response rates well below one hun-

dred percent [5]. The personal and professional interests

of the teachers may have resulted in response bias.

Comley [10] noted response rates are impacted by the

participant’s interest or relevance in the survey. Spe-

cial education teachers who were motivated to express

their knowledge of autism were more likely to respond.

These limitations point to the need for more research in

this area.

10. Conclusion

The rise in reported numbers of students with autism

in public schools, poor educational outcomes, and an

expansion of knowledge of educational practices effec-

tive with this population has led to a sense of urgency

among educators and parents to ensure students are

provided an appropriate education. As a result, it has

become increasingly necessary to ensure special edu-

cation teachers are adequately prepared and possess

knowledge and skills needed to promote change.

To date, little research has evaluated qualities of spe-

cial education teachers who serve students with autism.

This study sought to lessen this gap by providing a

description of special education teachers and an eval-

uation of knowledge and implementation of evidence

based practices. The results of this study provide base-

line data that have implications for development and

refinement of personnel requirements as well as training

initiatives. The success of students with autism depends

on improving efforts that ensure current and future

special education teachers provide consistent programs

based on substantiated methods.

9. Limitations

This research study provides a unique examination

of special education teachers who serve students with

autism. The lack of research investigating the spe-

cific knowledge and implementation practices of these

teachers suggests findings are preliminary and provide

a baseline for generation of future research.

Limitations with this study have been identified. The

methodology employed created limited generalization

of the findings. The study was regional in focus and gen-

eralizations to special education teachers outside of the

Region I area should be considered with caution. Each

county and city in Region I is considered to be near a

metropolitan area [44]. While the size of the counties

and cities vary, the proximity to metropolitan areas may

have provided a unique population, resulting in partic-

ipants who are not indicative of all special education

teachers who teach students with autism.

There is a limited amount of information known

about the population. It was not possible to determine

the actual size of the population and to determine if

References

[1]

American Psychiatric Association,

Diagnostic and Statistical

Manual of Mental Disorders,

4th ed., text revision, Author,

Washington, DC, 2000.

M.E. Anzalone and G.G. Williamson, Sensory processing and

motor performance in autism spectrum disorders, A trans-

actional developmental perspective. (pp. 143–166) Paul H.

Brookes Publishing, In A. M. Wetherby. & B. M. Prizant

(Eds.), Autism spectrum disorders, 2000.

[2]



D. Hendricks / Teachers serving students with autism

[3]

G.P. Barnhill, E.A. Polloway and B. Sumutka, A survey of

personnel preparation practices in autism spectrum disorders.

Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities

26(2)

(2011), 75–86.

L.M. Barry and S.B. Burlew, Using Social Stories™ to teach

choice and play skills to children with autism,

Focus on Autism

and Other Developmental Disabilities

19(1)

(2004), 45–51.

J.E. Bartlett, J.W. Kotrlik and C.C. Higgins, Organizational

research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey

research,

Information Technology, Learning, and Performance

Journal

19(1)

(2001), 43–50.

L.B. Blanton, Preservice education: Essential knowledge for

the effective special education teacher,

Teacher Education and

Special Education

15(2)

(1992), 87–96.

J. Bourret, T.R. Vollmer and J.T. Rapp, Evaluation of a vocal

mand assessment and vocal mand training procedures,

Journal

of Applied Behavior Analysis

37(2)

(2004), 129–143.

E. Carlson, K. Schroll and S. Klein,

OSEP briefing on the

study of personnel needs in special education (SPeNSE),

Retrieved March 24, 2011, from www.spense.org/results.htm

(2002).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Autism

and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network Surveil-

lance Year 2006 Principal Investigators. Prevalence of autism

spectrum disorders Autism and Developmental Disabilities

Monitoring Network, United States, 2006.

Morbidity and Mor-

tality Weekly Surveillance Summaries

58(10)

(2009), 1–20.

P. Comley,

Pop up surveys: What works, what doesn’t work,

and what will work in the future?

Retrieved March 31, 2011,

from http://www.virtualsurveys.com/news/papers/ (2000)

Council for Exceptional Children, The Council for Exceptional

Children definition of a well prepared special education teacher

Retrieved March 5, 2010, from http://www.cec.sped.org/Con

tent/NavigationMenu/ProfessionalDevelopment/Professional

Standards/wellpreparedfinal.pd.2004

Council for Exceptional Children (2009),

What every special

educator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines for spe-

cial educators,

6th ed., Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle

River, NJ.

A. Fink, The survey handbook. The survey kit(1). Thousand

Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, 1995.

E. Fombonne, The changing epidemiology of autism,

Jour-

nal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

18

(2005),

281–294.

R. Gersten, S. Vaughn, D. Deshler and E. Schiller, What we

know about using research findings. Implications for improv-

ing special education practice,

Journal of Learning Disabilities

30(5)

(1997), 466–476.

M. Ghaziuddin, N. Ghaziuddin and J. Greden, Depression in

persons with autism: Implications for research and clinical

care,

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

32(4)

(2002), 299–306.

C.B. Harper, J.B.G. Symon and W.D. Frea, Recess is time in:

Using peers to improve social skills of children with autism,

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

38

(2008),

815–826.

K.L. Hess, M.J. Morrier, L.J. Heflin and M.L. Ivey, Autism

treatment survey: Services received by children with autism

spectrum disorders in public school classrooms,

Journal of

Autism and Developmental Disorders

38(5)

(2008), 961–971.

P. Howlin, S. Goode, J. Hutton and M. Rutter, Adult outcome

for children with autism,

Journal of Child Psychology and

Psychiatry

45(2)

(2004), 212–229.

[20]

49

[21]

[22]

[4]

[5]

[23]

[6]

[24]

[7]

[25]

[8]

[26]

[9]

[27]

[28]

[10]

[29]

[11]

[30]

[12]

[31]

[13]

[14]

[32]

[15]

[33]

[16]

[34]

[17]

[35]

[18]

[36]

[19]

K. Hurlbutt and L. Chalmers, Adults with autism speak out:

Perceptions of their life experiences.

Focus on Autism and

Other Developmental Disabilities

17(2),

103–111.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of

2004, PL 105–17, 111 U.S.C.

R. Iovannone, G. Dunlap, H. Huber and D. Kincaid, Effective

educational practices for students with autism spectrum disor-

ders,

Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities

18(3)

(2002), 150–165.

G. Jones, Department for Education and Skills/Department

of Health: Good practice guidance on the education of chil-

dren with autistic spectrum disorder,

Child Care, Health and

Development

32(5)

(2006), 543–552.

A. Katsiyannis, D. Zhang and M.A. Conroy, Availability of

special education teachers: Trends and tests,

Remedial and

Special Education

24(4)

(2003), 246–253.

R.L. Koegel and W.D. Frea, Treatment of social behavior in

autism through the modification of pivotal social skills,

Journal

of Applied Behavior Analysis

26

(1993), 369–377.

R.L. Koegel, L.K. Koegel and C.M. Carter, Pivotal teach-

ing interactions for children with autism,

School Psychology

Review

28(4)

(1999), 576–594.

D.C. Lerman, C.M. Vorndran, L. Addison and S.C. Kuhn,

Preparing teachers in evidence based practices for young chil-

dren with autism,

School Psychology Review

33(4)

(2004),

510–526.

C. Lord and J.P. McGee,

Educating children with autism,

National Research Council, National Academy Press, Wash-

ington, DC, 2001.

O. Lovaas, Behavioral treatment and normal educational and

intellectual functioning in young autistic children,

Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology

55(1)

(1987), 3–9.

B.L. Ludlow, C.G. Keramidas and E.J. Landers, Project

STARS: Using desktop conferencing to prepare autism spe-

cialists at a distance,

Rural Special Education Quarterly

26(4)

(2007), 27–35.

J. McLeskey, N. Tyler and S. Flippin, The supply of and

demand for special education teachers: A review of research

regarding the nature of the chronic shortage in special edu-

cation, University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in

Special Education, Gainesville, FL, 2003.

M.P. Martins and S.L. Harris, Teaching children with autism to

respond to joint attention initiations,

Child & Family Behavior

Therapy

28(1)

(2006), 51–68.

L. Mawhood, P. Howlin and M. Rutter, Autism and develop-

mental receptive language disorder. A comparitive follow up in

early adult life. I: Cognitive and language outcomes,

Journal

of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

41(5)

(2000), 547–559.

E. M¨ ller,

Autism endorsements: State approaches,

Retrieved

u

February 10, 2011 from http://www.projectforum.org/doc.

stateapproachesautism.pdf, Project Forum. National Associ-

ation of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE),

2005.

E. M¨ ller,

State approaches to serving students with autism

u

spectrum disorders,

Retrieved February, 10, 2011 from http://

www.projectforum.org/docs/StateApproachestoServingStude

ntswithAutismSpectrumDisorders.pdf, Project Forum. Natio-

nal Association of State Directors of Special Education

(NASDSE), 2006.

National Autism Center Evidence based practice and autism in

the schools: A guide to providing appropriate interventions to

students with autism spectrum disorder Randolph. MAAuthor

2009P.



50

[37]

[38]

D. Hendricks / Teachers serving students with autism

J.T. Neisworth and P.S. Wolfe,

The Autism Encyclopedia,

Paul

H, Baltimore, MD, 2005. Brookes Publishing.

J. Schaefer Whitby and R.G. Mancil, Academic achievement

profiles of children with high functioning autism and asperger

syndrome: A review of the literature,

Education and Training

in Developmental Disabilities

44(4)

(2009), 551–560.

B. Scheuermann, J. Webber, A. Boutot and M. Goodwin, Prob-

lems with personnel in autism spectrum disorders,

Focus on

Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities

18(3)

(2003),

197–206.

I.S. Schwartz, S.R. Sandall, B.J. McBride and G. Boul-

ware, Project DATA (developmentally appropriate treatment

for autism): An inclusive school based approach to educating

young children with autism,

Topics in Early Childhood Special

Education

24(3)

(2004), 156–168.

R.L. Simpson, Finding effective intervention and personnel

preparation practices for students with autism spectrum disor-

ders,

Exceptional children

70(2)

(2004), 135–144.

R.L. Simpson, Evidence based practices and students with

autism spectrum disorders,

Focus on Autism and Other Devel-

opmental Disabilities

20(3)

(2005), 140–149.

A.C. Stahmer, N.M. Collings and L.A. Palinkas, Early inter-

vention practices for children with autism: Descriptions from

community providers,

Focus on Autism and Other Develop-

mental Disabilities

20(2)

(2005), 66–79.

[44]

U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service

(2006).

Rural urban continuum codes for Virginia.

Retrieved

June 15, 2010 from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/RuralUrban

ContinuumCodes/2003/LookUpRUCC.asp?C=R&ST=VA

U.S. Department of Education. (2009).

Individuals with Dis-

abilities Education Act (IDEA) Data.

Retrieved March 5, 2010

from www.ideadata.org

Virginia Autism Council. (2005). Skill competencies for

professionals and paraprofessionals in Virginia supporting

individuals with autism across the lifespan. Richmond, VA:

Author.

M. Wagner, C. Marder, J. Blackorby, R. Cameto, L. Newman

and P. Levine, et al.,

The achievements of youth with disabilities

during secondary school,

SRI International, A report form the

national longitudinal study 2. Menlo Park. CA, 2003.

Wagner, L. Newman, R. Cameto and P. Levine, The academic

acheivement and functional performance of youth with disabil-

ities, SRI International, A report from the national longitudinal

transition study 2. Menlo Park. CA, 2006.

S.M. Wilson, R. Floden and J. Rerrini Mundy, Teacher prepara-

tion research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations,

A research report prepared for the U.S. department of edu-

cation. Retrieved February 10, 2011, from http://depts.

washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/TeacherPrep-WFFM-02-2001.

pdf. (2001).

[45]

[39]

[46]

[40]

[47]

[41]

[48]

[42]

[49]

[43]