Academic Outcomes of Youth with Autism

Background:

The increasing prevalence of autism, along with legal and philosophical rationales for inclusion in general education, necessitates determining if inclusive education benefits youth with autism. It is important to understand the academic ability of youth with autism and the impact of inclusion in general education on academic development.
Objectives:

The following research questions are addressed: (1) what are the academic strengths and weaknesses of adolescents with autism? (2) What are the educational goals, services, and needs for youth with autism, and do these change over time? (3) Does placement in inclusion versus non-inclusion impact academic goals, achievement, and engagement?

Methods:

Fifteen students with autism between the ages of 12 and 16 years participated in this study.  All students were continuously enrolled in special education inclusion or non-inclusion settings.  Three measures were used: records review, assessment, and observation.  First, cumulative IEP records were analyzed for type of goal, goal progress, services, and accommodations.  Second, students were assessed using the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-3), and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) or the Test of Non-Verbal Intelligence (TONI).  Finally, students were observed in their math and language arts classes to note their levels of engagement, learning partners, curriculum use, instructional activities, and location of instruction.  The engagement patterns of adolescents with autism were compared to the engagement patterns of other students in the class.

Results:

Records Review:  All students with autism had a large number of IEP goals and limited progress in meeting their IEP goals.  Students who are included have goals derived from higher content standards, have more goals addressing higher order thinking and problem solving skills, and were more likely to meet their annual IEP goals.   Services varied by program as well, with older students having more “managerial” services and younger students with more “remedial” services.  Students who are included had more accommodations.
Assessment:  Students in both programs had statistically non-significant intelligence and adaptive behavior scores.  However, the students who were included had statistically significant higher academic achievement as measured in all three sub-tests of the WJ-3.  All students had relative strengths in rote, memory-based academic skills, but those students who are included had statistically higher scores on all sub-tests areas.
Observation:  Students who are included were accessing the core curriculum, had more teacher directed instruction, completed more independent work, and were more passively engaged.  Students with autism who were not included in general education completed more individual instruction, used alternate curriculum, were primarily instructed by paraeducators, and were more actively engaged.  Students who were not included had a high frequency of breaks during instructional time (approximately 30% of their instructional time).
Conclusions:

These findings indicate the value of academic inclusion for students with autism in general education.  We find that inclusion is associated with greater academic achievement and participation in the core curriculum, the development of higher-order thinking skills, access to higher grade level content standards, and more accommodations and services provided to individual students.