Given the importance of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for improving outcomes for students with disabilities, it is key that preservice special education teachers have the opportunity to implement EBPs with high levels of fidelity during their teacher preparation program. For this reason, the authors conducted a systematic review of the literature to answer the question: Does providing performance feedback improve preservice special education teachers’ fidelity of implementation of EBPs and outcomes for students with disabilities? Five studies were found which met inclusion criteria. These studies demonstrated a clear functional relationship between performance feedback and preservice teachers’ increased fidelity to the EBP(s). Across studies, there were mixed effects in student outcomes when preservice teachers increased their fidelity to EBPs. Limitations of the current analysis and the included studies are discussed along with future implications for researchers and practitioners.

The prevalence of students with visual impairments (VI) varies across the United States, yet no analysis exists on how individual state factors may correlate with the number of students receiving services. This study presents the results of an analysis of variations in eligibility criteria for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) category “visual impairments including blindness,” and a series of statistical models exploring correlations between prevalence rates for students with VI and state-level variables during the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 school years. Multiple regression analyses indicated that requiring specific assessments as part of the eligibility process may strongly correlate to states’ number of students with visual impairments reported in Child Count and explain the degree of difference between Child Count and total population reports. Child Count prevalence rates were higher in states that housed a preparation program for teachers of students with visual impairments. Implications for policy makers, administrators, and practitioners were discussed.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to determine how many young children and students (birth to 22 years old) were identified with visual impairments and receiving special education services in the United States. Professionals estimate at least 50% of students with visual impairments have additional disabilities and are not identified as having a visual impairments for the purposes of the federal Child Count census; therefore, the differences between Child Count and states’ total population counts were explored. Methods: A mixed-methods survey was sent to each U.S. state to determine the total population of students with visual impairments (birth to 22 years old) during the 2016–2017 school year. Results: The 49 responding states reported an average total population four times greater than the number of students with visual impairments than were documented in Child Count data. Many states had limited or no data on their total population of students with visual impairments. Discussion: The findings demonstrate many states are making policy and administrative decisions based on Child Count data not their total population data of students with visual impairments (e.g., planning for 100 students with a primary disability of visual impairments rather than a total population of 405 students with visual impairments). Misuse of Child Count data contributes to underfunding and under-hiring of teachers of students with visual impairments and orientation and mobility instructors. How to address these issues at a systemic level so all students with visual impairments receive appropriate access to resources and quality instruction is also discussed. Implications for practitioners: Practitioners can use available population data across states to educate decision makers at local and state levels regarding the differences between Child Count and total population data for students with visual impairments. Statewide vision programs can also circumvent limited data collection programs at the state level by developing their own systems for total population counts of students with visual impairments.

Introduction: Special education eligibility criteria vary across U.S. states; this study reports a systematic analysis of interstate eligibility criteria in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) category of visual impairments including blindness. Method: Eligibility criteria for all 56 U.S. states, territories, and Washington, DC, were collected and coded on 20 different variables. Variables included use of federal language, qualifying conditions, assessment components, and eligibility team member requirements. Results: Fourteen of 56 states use similar or identical eligibility criteria written in IDEA. Forty-one states (73%) included language that specified criteria or operationally defined what it meant to be a student with a visual impairment in their state. Although about half of the states included an eye report as part of the eligibility process, few specifically mentioned functional vision, learning media, and orientation and mobility assessments in their criteria. Discussion: Significant interstate variations in the interpretation of who qualifies as a student with a visual impairment exist in the United States. Some eligibility criteria were written in an unclear language, making the criteria hard to interpret. Given that identification and prevalence rates of students with disabilities, including students with visual impairments, correlate to components of eligibility criteria, future work should seek to develop an operationalized universal definition of who qualifies as a student with visual impairment in schools. Implications for Practitioners: Since significant interstate variations exist, students, families, and educators must have easy access to all states’ criteria so that families may understand how a student's eligibility for services may change if they move between states.

No abstract