An Examination of IEP Quality, Parent and Teacher Stress, and Teacher Background for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders in Rural and Urban Areas

Background: Recent estimates indicate that as many as 1 out of 110 children have an autism spectrum disorder (ASD; ADDM, 2009), and more than 190,000 children in 2009 received special education services under the autism category (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Research indicates that parents (Abbeduto et al., 2004) and teachers (Kokkinos & Davazoglou, 2009) of children with ASD experience more stress in comparison to other disabilities.  Further, Individualized Education Program (IEP) quality for students with ASD has been found to be weak (Ruble, McGrew, Dalrymple, & Yung, 2010), which is discouraging as IEPs drive the educational services students with special needs receive.  Students with ASD in rural areas may face additional challenges in comparison to their urban counterparts due to a consistent shortage in special education teachers and personnel in rural school districts (Ludlow, Coner, & Schechter, 2005; Pennington, Horn, & Berrong, 2009).  Moreover, rural parents have voiced concerns regarding their child’s educational outcomes and the availability of school personnel (Applequist, 2009). Specific to ASD, there is a limited amount of research that compares IEP quality, parent and teacher stress, teacher background and child goal attainment in rural and urban areas. 

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to compare IEP quality, parent and teacher stress, parent and teacher alliance, teacher background variables, and child goal attainment for students with ASD in rural and urban areas.

Methods: This study will utilize an existing data set of 79 parents and teachers who participated in a randomized control study of the Collaborative Model for Promoting Competence and Success (COMPASS; Ruble & Dalrymple, 2002) which evaluated a parent-teacher consultative framework developed to improve student IEPs and child educational outcomes. Parents and teachers completed a variety of assessment measures including measures of stress, background, and parent-teacher alliance.  IEP quality was measured by a reliable IEP evaluation tool (Ruble, et al., 2010) that assessed students’ individual goals (i.e., were they measurable, described in behavioral terms, the conditions under which the behavior must occur, etc.) and the description of students’ present level of performance.  Of the total sample, 49% of students received services in rural areas (M_age = 6 years). 

Results: Results are currently being analyzed.  Cross-tabulation results via Chi-square analyses (i.e., rural vs. urban) will be utilized to compare parents and teachers in rural and urban areas on the variables of interest (i.e., IEP quality, parent and teacher stress, parent and teacher alliance, teacher background variables of number of years teaching children with autism and number of students taught, and child goal attainment). 

Conclusions: Findings from this study will shed light on the current state of educational services for children with ASD.  Further, the findings may highlight the current disparities between rural and urban regions, and provide evidence for the needed improvement of the services available to children regardless of geographic location.