Trends in the Prevalence of Developmental Disabilities in US Children, 1997–2008

OBJECTIVE: To fill gaps in crucial data needed for health and educational planning, we determined the prevalence of developmental disabilities in US children and in selected populations for a recent 12-year period.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We used data on children aged 3 to 17 years from the 1997–2008 National Health Interview Surveys, which are ongoing nationally representative samples of US households. Parent-reported diagnoses of the following were included: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; intellectual disability; cerebral palsy; autism; seizures; stuttering or stammering; moderate to profound hearing loss; blindness; learning disorders; and/or other developmental delays.

RESULTS: Boys had a higher prevalence overall and for a number of select disabilities compared with girls. Hispanic children had the lowest prevalence for a number of disabilities compared with non-Hispanic white and black children. Low income and public health insurance were associated with a higher prevalence of many disabilities. Prevalence of any developmental disability increased from 12.84% to 15.04% over 12 years. Autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other developmental delays increased, whereas hearing loss showed a significant decline. These trends were found in all of the sociodemographic subgroups, except for autism in non-Hispanic black children.

CONCLUSIONS: Developmental disabilities are common and were reported in ~1 in 6 children in the United States in 2006–2008. The number of children with select developmental disabilities (autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other developmental delays) has increased, requiring more health and education services. Additional study of the influence of risk-factor shifts, changes in acceptance, and benefits of early services is needed.

Changes in Prevalence of
Low-incidence Conditions

The research methods for this study are very strong, but it is important to note that these data are based on parental reports. Some will criticize that aspect of the study, but one must simply understand it, in my estimation; that's simply the way the data are. When the parents were surveyed, they were asked, “Has a doctor or health professional ever told you that [survey child] had any of the following conditions?” Here's the list of conditions: ADHD/attention deficit disorder (ADD), autism, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, and other developmental delay.

Over all areas of disability, Boyle et al. found a prevalence rate of 13.87% across the years. That is, nearly 14% of parents reported having been told at one time or another that their child had some form of developmental disability or had had seizures, stuttered, or any of the other issues listed in the health survey. Working with some of the data reported by Boyle and colleagues in their tables, I created the accompanying figures. (I didn't include all of the conditions they listed; for example, I omitted seizure disorders from the charts.) As this first image shows, the most remarkable change is in the prevalence of Autism. In contrast to other low-incidence conditions (e.g., blindness), Autism increased significantly. These reports may under-report the increase in comparison to other data sources, but note that they only reflect data as recent as 2008.

Changes in Prevalence of
High-incidence Conditions

The high-incidence conditions, which are really only Learning Disabilities and ADHD (I included "other developmental delay" here to make the two charts display more clearly) remained steady during the survey period. One might be tempted to say that both increased by looking at the graph, but Boyle reported that only ADHD statistically significantly increased when they compared the levels of the two at 1997-99 and 2006-08. ADHD increased 33% and LD increased 5.5%; the former is significant, but the latter is not. The data on LD staying steady are intriguing given the decrease in identification of LD reported by the US Department of Education during the first decade of the 2000s. Certainly much of the discrepancy between the two would be the result of different reporting methods; more capable scientists than I would need to resolve how much of the difference can be explained in that way and what other explanations (e.g., time of data collection) would be important in any comparison of those data.

Boyle, C. A., Boulet, S., Schieve, L. A., Cohen, R. A., Blumber, S. J., Yeargin,-Allsopp, M.,... & Kogan, M. D. (2011). Trends in the prevalence of developmental disabilities in US children, 1997-2008. Pediatrics, 127, 1034-1042. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-2989

This is an unusual opportunity to provide leadership in one of the leading organizations focused on special education in the world. It comes at a time when professional development services are changing rapidly and CEC can play an important role in contributing to postive progress for special educators and the children, youth, and families they serve.

Learn more about the position of Assistant Executive Director for Professional Development Services at CEC by downloading a PDF announcing the position vacancy. Learn more about CEC and it's professional development activities by visiting Professionl Development section of CEC's Web site.

Journalists reported that the parents of children with disabilities in Milwaukee (WI, US) and the American Civil Liberties Union have complained to the US Deaprtment of Justice that a Milwaukee school program permitting parents to choose schools discriminates against students with disabilities. According to the complaint, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) and the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program "discriminated against students with disabilities and segregated those students in one portion of the publicly funded educational system." The statistical basis for the argument is that 1.6% of students in the voucher-supported schools have disabilities, but nearly 20% of the students in the public schools have disabilities.

Twenty years ago, Wisconsin passed laws creating, and DPI began implementing, a private school voucher system in the city of Milwaukee. The program provides public tax dollars for low-income students who live in the city to attend private religious and non-sectarian schools, at an estimated cost of $130.8 million for the 2010-11 school year. In 1990, when the voucher program began, it had only seven schools, enrolling just 337 students. In the last two decades it has grown to include more than 100 schools and now enrolls approximately 20% of the city's students.

Today, nearly 21,000 Milwaukee students attend private schools with these public vouchers. Although an average of 83% of the students in voucher schools attend with a tuition voucher, and in many private schools all of the students attend on taxpayer-funded vouchers, the State of Wisconsin asserts that the voucher schools are "private" schools. The state's implementing agency, DPI, fails to meaningfully enforce anti-discrimination laws against these schools; as a result, the voucher schools tend not to admit or accommodate students with disabilities in a non-discriminatory manner. The two individual parent complainants are examples of the voucher schools' discrimination against students with disabilities. D.E. attempted to enroll her two children with disabilities in a voucher school this year and they were never admitted. D.J.'s daughter, who has been diagnosed with a disability, was enrolled in a voucher school but expelled after her disability was not accommodated.

In addition to reading the full complaint (from which I drew the extract), see this coverage:

• Tom Held of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is covering the story; read his reports: "School choice program shuts out disabled, federal complaint says: Parents, civil rights groups request probe, seek to halt program's proposed expansion" and "Choice school leader denounces ACLU lawsuit."
• Under the headline "ACLU Alleges Milwaukee Voucher Program Discriminates Against Disabled Students," Ed Week is covering a story about The story is behind Ed Week's paywall, so it will be inaccessible to most readers, however, over at On Special Education, Nirvi Shah has a post entitled "Complaint: Milwaukee Vouchers Segregate Students With Disabilities" that provides some observations about the same story.)
• Michelle Diament has coverage on Disability Scoop under the headline "Disability Advocates Call For Federal Probe Of School Vouchers."
• eSchool News also is carrying a story "Milwaukee’s voucher program discriminates based on disabilities, ACLU says" (behind it's paywall).
• Even the Huffington Post is in on the fun, and reporter Joy Resmovits has some additional info in her story, "Milwaukee's Voucher Program Discriminates Based On Disabilities, ACLU Says."

In his summary of his book, Professor Kauffman wrote

I summarize how science works, why it offers hope to educators, how science has been neglected and abused in education, and what I think science now tells us — and doesn’t tell us—about several issues in education. In describing science, I necessarily describe pseudoscience or rogue science as well. Education and disciplines related to it, especially psychology, have too often, and for far too long, been characterized by rogue science rather than the real thing. It’s disheartening to face up to the fact that education and psychology haven’t usually been scientific. As educational researcher David Berliner says, a science of education, although possible, may well be the hardest science of all. Those of us who believe that science is the best hope for education mustn’t be discouraged or intimidated by the naysayers and the difficulty of the task. We know that the insistence and persistence of many will be required. Consequently, I haven’t written a book for educators only, but for a more general audience as well — those who care about education and its improvement, which is a lot of us, if not most. Neither have I written a book for educational researchers, reviewing all relevant details of scientific (or nonscientific) studies and their conclusions on particular topics. My intention was to write a book about the general principles of a scientific approach to educational issues and provide readable summaries of what I think research and rational analysis, tell us about a few particular problems. Critiques of particular studies and the details of research design and statistical analysis are better left to purely academic publications.

This award comes on the heels of recognition of Professor Kauffman's earlier book, The Tragicomedy of Public Education: Laughing and Crying, Thinking and Fixing, which I noted over on Teach Effectively.

Toward a Science of Education is published by Full Court Press with ISBN 1-57861-744-8 from Amazon and directly from Attainment Company.

Webinar: Everything You Wanted to Know About Evidence-Based Practices (and Shouldn't be Afraid to Ask)

On 8 March 2011, CEC and the Division for Research are co-hosting a webinar on evidence-based practices that DR has developed as a service to its members and to other university faculty and their graduate students. The webinar, presented by Bryan Cook, the new chair of CEC's Committee on Evidence-Based Practices, explores what evidence-based practice means for researchers, teacher educators, practitioners and administrators, and how evidence-based practices differ from other practices that claim to be research-based. As with CEC/DR's previous webinars, one registration can be used for a group, as long as the group is using one computer. All you need is an internet connection, a speaker phone, and a computer projector, and your entire group can participate in the webinar. After the webinar is over, you will receive your own copy of the webinar file, which you can keep to re-show to classes or other groups at your convenience. With the CEC member discount, each webinar registration costs only $89.00.

Click here to register online at the CEC web site.

Hosted in Collaboration with CEC's Division for Research (CEC-DR) Anyone who goes to a conference, attends professional development, or even has a conversation about instruction is bombarded with the term "evidence-based practice." Evidence-based practices represent the most recent, and perhaps most sophisticated, attempt to identify what works and what has the potential to meaningfully improve the educational outcomes of students with disabilities. But what exactly does evidence-based practice mean for practitioners? How are evidence-based practices different from "best practices" and "research-based practices"? Where can you find them? How should you select them? How can you use them? How can you evaluate them? This webinar will provide researchers, teacher educators, administrators, teachers, parents and other stakeholders with the answers to these and other questions related to evidence-based practices for students with disabilities.

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, 8 March 2011, 4:00-5:00 PM Eastern time (-5 hours GMT)

PRESENTER: Bryan Cook, University of Hawaii
Bryan Cook is a professor of special education at the University of Hawaii. He received his PhD in special education from the University of California at Santa Barbara in 1997. One of his primary areas of research interest is evidence-based practices—how they are identified as well as issues related to their adoption and maintenance. Dr. Cook has published broadly on the topic, serving as lead guest editor, for example, for recent special issues related to evidence-based practices in special education in Intervention in School & Clinic (2008), Exceptional Children (2009), and Intervention in School & Clinic (2010). He is currently president-elect of the Council for Exceptional Children's Division for Research (CEC-DR) and chairs CEC's Evidence-based Practice Workgroup. He is also the previous recipient of CEC-DR's Distinguished Early Career Research Award.

Here's that link again: Click here to go to the registration for this excellent webinar

Through extensive public exposure by speaking engagements and appearances on radio and television, Dr. Levine was able to promote his ideas about emphasizing the strengths of children with disabilities and of providing simplified explanations of their problems to the children themselves.

Dr. Levine's reputation was tarnished by lawsuits alleging molestation of young patients during examinations for learning disabilities.

How many times have you uttered the words multisensory structured-language reading instruction? If you are a long-time member of IDA or a seasoned reading and learning-disabilities practitioner, that mantra, or a version thereof, has rolled off your tongue countless times. If you had a dollar for every time you spoke or wrote those words, you would be rich. In fact, those words and the principles and practices they represent are so ingrained in the IDA community, they have earned an acronym—MSL reading instruction.

Meanwhile, you probably cheered over the years as scientific evidence mounted in support of reading instruction that explicitly addresses oral and written language components in an integrated, systematic, and cumulative manner. Very likely, phrases like evidence-based instruction also have become part of your lexicon, along with nearly everyone else’s in this era of No Child Left Behind.

Most members of IDA’s rank and file probably espouse both mulitisensory structured-language instruction and evidence-based education, particularly for students with dyslexia. Steeped in venerable MSL traditions, IDA and its members played a role in advancing reading research and in linking it to educational policy. As you probably know, however, there is no substantial body of scientific research supporting the efficacy of the multisensory component in structured-language reading instruction.

If that wasn't enough, Ms. Cowen goes on to ask the question quite bluntly: "Can [IDA] raise the banner of evidence-based education in a campaign to promote structured-language reading instruction, yet overlook the inconvenient truth that our multisensory tenet lacks scientific evidence?"

To it's credit, IDA is putting up funds to promote research about the efficacy of multisensory structured-language reading instruction. It's a great opportunity for folks to propose applied studies of multisensory structured-language reading instruction. People may differ with Ms. Cowen's assessment of the extent of the research base for multisensory structured-language reading instruction; some may consider it strong, in fact (see Kristen & Goeke, 2006, for example). Regardless of the relative strength of the evidence, there is surely room for additional studies, especially those that refine the knowledge base.

For more information, please peruse these IDA Web pages:

• IDA’s Multisensory Research Grant Program: A Bold and Challenging Initiative and
• IDA Research Grant Guidelines (note that as of 20110202 the link to the specific guidelines on that page pointed to a document for 2010, not 2011; I presume it will be updated soon).

For those who are looking for a starting place, here's a review of one multi-sensory structured-language reading intruction program that will provide direction about current research and possible research directions:

Kristen D. R., & Goeke, J. L. (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-Based Reading Instruction: A Review of the Literature. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 171-183.