← All roundups

It has been a long time since I last posted a Roundup. These fell off of my to-do list as things at a new job got crazy. Now that I can be happy at work again after switching jobs again I can get back to reading and writing about research. I have also found a way to make gathering articles to read much more efficient and this has made these round-ups doable.

This one is bigger than usual. I am sharing five recent articles, and they fell pretty naturally into two groups. The first three are about reading: who is teaching word reading to our older students, what they are using, and what happens when a student's reading difficulty does not look the way we expect it to. The last two are about relationships: how much our most vulnerable students trust the adults and systems around them, and what families of Black autistic youth need from us as their children leave school. Different topics, but I think they all come back to the same question: are we giving our students what they need, or what is easiest for us to provide?

Reading

Word Reading Instruction in Secondary Special Education

McFadden, K. A., Lindström, E. R., Kern, L., Chatzoglou, E., Young, M. K., & Ruiz, M. J. (2026). A survey of secondary special education teachers' word reading instructional practices. Learning Disability Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487261481756

We often treat word reading as an elementary responsibility, but anyone who has worked in a middle or high school knows we have students who still cannot decode. In a recent national survey, 58% of teachers and administrators reported concerns about basic reading skills for more than 25% of the middle and high school students in their school or district. This study asks what secondary special education teachers are actually doing about it.

Design

The authors surveyed 285 special education teachers in 43 states who teach reading to at least one student in grades 6 to 12 with word reading difficulties. 195 taught middle school, 71 taught high school, and 19 taught both. Teachers reported how they split their literacy time across skills, what materials they use, and which instructional practices they use from a list that included practices with and without research support. The sample closely matched the national profile of schools, although the response rate was only 2.48% and all of the data is self-reported.

Results

• Time use: Teachers spent more time on language comprehension than on word recognition. Reading comprehension took the largest share of time (19.5%). Of the word recognition skills, oral reading fluency got the most time (10.4%), followed by phonics (8.2%) and multisyllabic word reading (8.1%).
• Materials: About 55% used a published intervention program (such as REWARDS or Wilson). Around 43% used self-created materials, and 42.5% used materials from Teachers Pay Teachers, Pinterest, or other online sources. 63.6% of middle school teachers used a published program compared to only 26.8% of high school teachers.
• General practices: 85.3% reported using explicit instruction, but only 56.5% reported systematic instruction and 61.4% reported data-based decision making.
• Evidence-based versus not: In most areas teachers chose the evidence-based option more often. For example, more teachers taught blending and segmenting phonemes (53.3%) than deleting and substituting (35.1%), and more used morphology (41.8%) than syllable types (26.0%). However, 35.1% still reported teaching students to use pictures or context to guess words rather than decode them.
• Middle versus high school: High school teachers were about 20% less likely to teach phonics, phonemic awareness, or multisyllabic word reading. 85.9% of high school teachers said their students struggle with multisyllabic words, but only 63.3% teach it, while 81.6% teach oral reading fluency.

My takeaway

The encouraging part of this study is that most teachers are reaching for evidence-based practices when they have a choice. The concerning part is the drop off in high school and the gap between explicit and systematic instruction. Explicit instruction means clearly modeling and teaching a skill; systematic instruction means following a planned, logical sequence of skills over time. You need both. A teacher can explicitly teach a great lesson on prefixes, but if there is no scope and sequence behind it, the student is not building the skills in order.

The authors suggest that fluency gets more time because it is easier to run (repeated reading with a partner) than a systematic decoding program, and that high school schedules and credit requirements make intervention harder. I think that is true, and it is a system problem, not a teacher problem. It also lines up with older research showing that word reading goals often disappear from IEPs in high school even when the student still cannot decode. I know from my own experience high school teachers resisted decoding goals when they were appropriate because "we don't teach that here."

Reading Instruction for Students with Complex Communication Needs

Kovacich, H. M., & Brock, M. E. (2026). Teacher-reported reading instructional practices for students with complex communication needs. The Journal of Special Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669261481487

Students with complex communication needs (CCN) are students who cannot meet their communication needs through speech alone and use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), such as a speech-generating device, picture exchange, or sign. The authors make a point that solidifies my thinking: a student who can read and type can say anything they want, while a student who cannot is limited to the words someone else programmed into their device. Literacy is how these students get full access to communication.

Design

The authors surveyed 131 K to 12 special education teachers in one Midwest state about 217 of their students with CCN. Most of the students were classified under autism (54.4%) or multiple disabilities (26.3%). 61.3% used AAC and 22.1% had no reliable system of communication. Teachers reported where reading instruction happens, what curricula they use, and what reading skills are targeted in each student's IEP. The authors then sorted the IEP goals into the five components of reading identified by the National Reading Panel (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension).

Results

• Setting: 85.7% of students received reading instruction only in a special education classroom. Only 7.4% received it only in general education.
• Curricula: There are two curricula validated by research for students with CCN (Early Literacy Skills Builder and Accessible Literacy Learning). Across all 217 students, one student was taught with one of them. The most common programs were Unique Learning System (28%) and News2You (18%). The authors note that both rely on picture-supported text, which research shows can actually make it harder to learn to read the words.
• Other materials: Teacher-made materials were used with 23% of students and Teachers Pay Teachers materials with 18%. 14 students (6.5%) had no reading materials identified at all.
• IEP goals: About a quarter of students (24.4%) had no reading goal. Of the students who did, 32.9% had no goal aligned to any of the five components of reading. The most common goal outside of those five was listening comprehension (35.4%). Of the students with phonics goals, 28.2% had goals focused only on identifying letters.
• Elementary versus secondary: K to 5 students were much more likely to have a phonics goal than students in grades 6 to 12 (54.3% compared to 23.7% of students with reading goals).

My takeaway

This study is based on teacher report from one state, so it should be read as a snapshot. That said, a few of these numbers should make all of us uncomfortable. Nearly all of these students are taught reading in a separate setting, which should mean they are getting specialized, intensive instruction. Instead, most were taught with general education materials, online materials, or programs that are not validated for this population. As the authors point out, it is hard to justify a more restrictive setting if the instruction happening there is not specialized. This is particularly important when we consider placing students in more restrictive settings, what is special about those settings exactly?

The other piece that stood out to me is the goals. A goal for letter identification alone, or for listening comprehension alone, is not a path to reading. The authors argue that part of the problem is a belief, sometimes unspoken, that students who do not speak cannot learn to decode. The research says otherwise. When we write IEP goals for our students who use AAC, the question should be what reading skills they are working toward, not whether they are candidates for reading instruction at all.

Adding the Good Behavior Game to a Word Reading Intervention

Barwasser, A., Spilles, M., Vilz, D., Grünke, M., & Casale, G. (2026). A word reading intervention with and without the Good Behavior Game on reading and behavior of second-language learners with co-occurring reading and behavioral difficulties. Exceptional Children. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029261489709

We know that reading difficulties and behavior difficulties often show up together, and that each one makes the other worse. A student who cannot read avoids reading, and a student who is off task misses the instruction. This study, conducted in Germany, tested whether adding a behavior support to a reading intervention helps with both. The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a classroom management strategy in which the class is split into teams, the teams earn fouls for breaking a small number of rules, and teams that stay under a set number of fouls earn a reward.

Design

This was a single-case study (a multiple-baseline design) with 10 fourth graders who were learning German as a second language and who screened below the 15th percentile in word reading and above the cutoff for classroom behavior problems. Four had a diagnosed learning disability. The reading intervention used "Reading Racetracks," a board game in which a stronger reader tutors a partner through flashcards of words that share a common word part (such as "-icht" or "-and"). Sessions were 25 minutes, three times a week, for seven weeks. The study had three phases: baseline, the reading intervention alone, and the reading intervention with the GBG added. The intervention was delivered by trained graduate students, not classroom teachers.

Results

• Reading: The average number of practiced words read correctly (out of 20) went from about 9 at baseline, to about 16 with the reading intervention, to 19 with the GBG added. Transfer words, which the students never practiced but which used the same word parts, went from 7.2, to 13.3, to 17.1. All ten students also improved on a standardized word reading test.
• Disruptive behavior: Disruptive behavior dropped from 31.1% at baseline, to 11.7% with the reading intervention, to 6.8% with the GBG added.
• Engagement: Academically engaged behavior went from 63.7%, to 85.4%, to 91.6%.
• Social validity: The students, the student tutors, and the teachers all rated the intervention positively. The teachers said they would use both the racetracks and the GBG in their classrooms.

My takeaway

It should be noted that this is 10 students in one school, the intervention was delivered by trained graduate students, and German is a much more consistent language to decode than English. I would not take the specific numbers and expect them to transfer directly to our classrooms. What I do think transfers is the idea. The reading intervention alone improved both reading and behavior, and the GBG added to both. We tend to plan academic interventions and behavior interventions separately, often with different staff and different meetings. For students who have both needs, this study is a good argument for building them together.

The other thing I like about this study is that the materials are simple. A game board, a die, and flashcards organized around word parts. The GBG costs nothing but stickers and a poster. For a teacher looking for a structured way to get more reading practice with a small group that struggles to stay on task, this is a very doable starting point.

Trust, Families, and Transition

Foster Youth and Trust

Cavendish, W., Perez, D., & Stewart, K. (2026). A mixed methods examination of youth in foster care's trust in social institutions. Exceptional Children. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029261485614

Of the over 500,000 youth served by the foster care system in the United States, only half graduate from high school, and up to 50% of children in foster care receive special education services. Research consistently shows that trusting, caring relationships are tied to better outcomes for these students, including graduation. The authors wanted to know how much youth in foster care actually trust the systems around them (school, the courts and police, and their own social networks) and what builds or breaks that trust.

Design

This was a mixed methods study, which means the authors collected both survey data and interview data and then combined them. 53 high school students in foster care completed a 20-item Trust Survey. The students were 72% Black and 28% Latinx, and roughly a third received special education services through an IEP or 504 plan. The authors then held four focus groups with 30 of those students, selected from across the range of trust scores, to find out what was behind their answers. The survey used a six-point scale, where anything below 3.0 means a lack of trust.

Results

• Legal system: Trust in the courts and police was the lowest of any area (1.96), which the authors describe as a complete lack of trust. Students described not being heard in court about their placements, and many shared experiences with police that they saw as racially motivated. One student said of the foster care system, "I already lost trust in them like six years ago."
• School: Trust in school was also low (2.69), but it was the most variable area. Some students named specific teachers and counselors they trusted. One student said of a teacher, "My perfect teacher is Ms. A…she wanted to know me." Other students described teachers and administrators who gossiped, played favorites, or were "fake." One student said school staff "say one thing, but then they mean another, or they do something else."
• Family and friends: Trust was highest here (3.56). Regardless of their placement, students named siblings, aunts and uncles, and biological parents as people they trust.
• Black males with disabilities: There were no significant differences by gender, race, or special education status on their own, but there was a significant interaction between all three. Black male students receiving special education services reported the lowest levels of trust overall.

My takeaway

This is a small sample of high school students from one university program, so I would be careful about generalizing too far. That said, the school findings are the ones I keep coming back to. The things that built trust were not programs; they were individual adults who showed that they cared, advocated for the student with other staff, and were consistent. The things that broke trust were adults being dishonest, inconsistent, or making decisions without the student.

The authors argue that trust should be treated as a measure of how well our systems are working, not as something the student is expected to develop on their own. When a student in foster care seems disengaged or guarded, that may be a reasonable response to what they have experienced rather than evidence of a disability or a lack of effort. They also recommend role-specific training for staff rather than generic "trauma-informed" training, which I found interesting since so much of our professional development in this area is generic.

Parent Perspectives on Transition for Black Autistic Youth

Miles, A., & Biggs, E. (2026). "I just want him to live, basically": Parent perspectives on facilitators and barriers to a successful transition to adulthood for Black autistic youth. Exceptional Children. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029261486783

Postschool outcomes for autistic young adults are already concerning. Within six years of leaving high school, only 16% live independently, 33% enter postsecondary programs, and 50% have any paid employment. Black autistic youth face additional barriers, and fewer than half are estimated to receive timely and appropriate transition planning. This study asked parents how they define a successful transition to adulthood and what helps or gets in the way.

Design

This was a qualitative interview study. The authors interviewed seven mothers of Black autistic youth, ages 16 to 22, in and around one large Southern city. Four of the mothers were Black and three were White (two of whom had adopted their sons from foster care). The youth ranged from using AAC and a few spoken words to speaking in full sentences. Each interview lasted about an hour and a half. The authors used a strengths-based framework, meaning they looked not just for barriers but for the strengths and resources families used to get past them.

Results

• How mothers defined success: The title comes from one mother, Leah: "I just want him to live, basically." Mothers described success as their child being able to communicate and be understood, growing in independence (especially meaningful employment), and having real relationships. They did not define success only by college or a job.
• School experiences: Four mothers described their child's time in school as "traumatic." Mothers described low expectations, inconsistent implementation of the IEP, behavior labels that followed their child for years, and in one case a daughter who could not speak being strapped into a chair. Several described racial bias from school staff.
• Transition planning: None of the mothers felt the school helped them with transition planning. One mother said, "I don't remember ever addressing transition services." Another, whose daughter was a junior, had not yet discussed it and assumed it would start senior year.
• Adult services: Mothers described the move to adult services as confusing and inadequate. One mother said, "It's almost like you drop off a cliff." The few mothers with good experiences credited "luck," such as meeting the right person at a transition fair.
• What helped: Family support, parent advocacy, connections to people who knew the system, and, in the one positive school story, a program where "they see her as a person."

My takeaway

Seven interviews in one city is a small sample, and the authors are clear about that. But I do not think we need a large sample to take the message seriously. Every one of these mothers felt they were figuring out transition on their own, and the ones who got help got it by chance. That should not be how it works. Transition planning is a legal requirement under IDEA, and in New York it begins with the IEP in effect when a student turns 15. These families are telling us that the requirement is being met on paper but not in practice.

There are two things I think we can act on. First, transition planning should start early and should be a real conversation with the family about their goals, not a form we complete. In New York our students can remain eligible for services until age 22, which gives us years to plan; there is no reason a family should reach graduation without a clear picture of what comes next. Second, we should not assume families know about adult services, funding, OPWDD eligibility, or ACCES-VR just because we handed them a packet. The OPWDD eligibility process in particular takes time and documentation, and it should be started well before a student exits. If the families in this study had to rely on luck, we can be the "right person at the right time" by design instead.

Closing Thoughts

Looking at these five articles together, one thread stands out to me. In almost every study, the students who need the most are at the greatest risk of getting less as they get older, whether that is a systematic reading program, reading goals on the IEP, a trusted adult, or real transition planning. Word reading instruction drops off in high school. Students who use AAC get fewer phonics goals after fifth grade. And the students and families who have the most reason not to trust us are often the ones we communicate with the least.

The good news is that every one of these studies also points to something we control: using systematic, research-based programs instead of pieced-together materials, writing IEP goals that lead to actual reading, building behavior supports into our academic interventions, being consistent and honest with our students, and bringing students and families into the decisions we make about them.

As always, please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions or with articles you think should be included in a future Roundup.