Editorial: Introduction to Pub. L. 99-457 Anniversary Issues

373 TEC31410.1177/0271121411429373Dunlap al Education 012 v Editorial Editorial: Introduction to Pub. L. 99-457 Anniversary Issues Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 31(4) 196–198 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2012 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0271121411429373 http://tec.sagepub.com Glen Dunlap1, Ann P. Kaiser2, Mary Louise Hemmeter2, and Mark Wolery2 Free appropriate public education (FAPE) became available to children above the age of 5 and to youth with disabilities in the mid-1970s with the passage of PL 94-142. Infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with developmental delays and disabilities were not granted access to FAPE, except in rare instances in which states already required provision of services for younger children, until 1986 when PL 99-457 was passed. PL 99-457 mandated services for 3- through 5-yearolds with disabilities and included incentives for states to develop services for infants and toddlers. Amazingly, 2011 was the 25th anniversary of the passage of PL 99-457. Anniversaries, particularly of such important events, are worthy of celebration, reflection, and challenge. To mark the 25th anniversary of PL 99-457, the editors of the Journal of Early Intervention (JEI) and Topics in Early Childhood Special Education (TECSE) decided to do something that to our knowledge has not been done in the world of academic publishing: simultaneously and collaboratively publish complementary issues on the same topic in two different and “competing” journals. Both JEI and TECSE began publishing in the early 1980s, JEI in 1979 and TECSE in 1981. The two journals have shared readers, authors, and editorial board members throughout their history. So, in the spirit of the collaboration and team work required to provide services to infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with disabilities, we set about to structure a celebration of the 25th anniversary of PL 99-457 in the two journals. Through a series of conference calls, we jointly made several decisions about how to proceed with the simultaneous publication of the anniversary issue. We first identified topics to be included and invited authors who had made contributions to the field over the last 25 years to write essays in their areas of expertise. The essay format seemed appropriate because it gave researchers who had spent a quarter century or more working on specific issues an opportunity to report what was on their mind about the field’s past and current status. In keeping with the productive nature of the field, everyone who was invited agreed to provide an article. This is remarkable because the timelines were short and unyielding. Authors were free to invite others to assist them with the articles. A general structure for the articles was suggested; however, authors produced articles that best fit their approach to their topics. We asked authors to limit their essays to 20 manuscript pages, although we understood the topics were deserving of much longer discussion. When articles exceeded the page limits, we insisted that authors reduce their essays to meet the page limits, although this was often not easily accomplished. We appreciate the authors’ willingness to contribute to this project and to comply with the page limitations and to requested revisions. Had space allowed, we would have invited more essays. Clearly, some outstanding investigators whose work is critical to what is known and done in the field are not represented in the articles here. We apologize to those individuals. The topics included reflect our biases and opinions about the topics we thought were of interest to the readers. We hope this double issue will provide a context for further discussion of topics important to the future of early intervention. Authors submitted their articles to the joint anniversary publication, rather than to either of the journals specifically. The editors reviewed each article and requested revisions. After revisions were received and accepted, articles were assigned to one of the two journals. In Table 1, a listing is provided of the authors, title of each article, and the journal in which it appears. Reading these 17 articles has been a tremendous privilege and educative. It was not as enjoyable as having a conversation with these authors about the content of their articles but it has been a close second. The articles reflect the current thinking of authors who are knowledgeable about research and about the issues the field has faced and still faces today. Many of the articles represent lifetimes of careful work and outline multiple lifetimes of future research and activity. Young investigators will be interested in the challenges posed and the directions offered for future research in these articles. Two overriding conclusions are apparent from these articles. First, a great deal of knowledge has been generated over the relatively short life of the field of early intervention 1 University of South Florida, Reno, NV, USA Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA 2 Corresponding Author: Glen Dunlap, University of South Florida, 2778 Mayberry Drive, Reno, NV 89509, USA E-mail: [email protected] 197 Dunlap et al. Table 1. Authors, Titles, and Allocations of Articles in the Anniversary Issues Author(s) Article Journal allocation Glen Dunlap, Ann P. Kaiser, Mary Louise Hemmeter, and Mark Wolery Editorial: Introduction to PL 99-457 Anniversary Issues Topics in Early Childhood Special Education and Journal of Early Intervention Kathy Hebbeler, Donna Spiker, and Lynne Kahn IDEA’s Early Childhood Programs: Powerful Vision and Pesky Details Parapatric Speciation in the Evolution of Early Intervention for Infants and Toddlers With Disabilities and Their Families What Is the Future of Family Outcomes and FamilyCentered Services? Implementing and Preparing for Home Visits Topics in Early Childhood Special Education Topics in Early Childhood Special Education Carl J. Dunst Donald B. Bailey, Jr., Melissa Raspa, and Leslie Fox Robin A. McWilliam Beth Rous and Rena Hallam Eva M. Horn and Jean Kang Stephen J. Bagnato, Mary McLean, Marisa Macy, and John T. Niesworth Charles R. Greenwood, Judith J. Carta, and Scott McConnell Glen Dunlap and Lise Fox Phillip S. Strain, Ilene S. Schwartz, and Erin E. Barton Mark Wolery and Mary Louise Hemmeter Howard Goldstein Ann P. Kaiser and Megan Y. Roberts William H. Brown and Maureen A. Conroy Karen Lifter, Emanuel J. Mason, and Erin E. Barton Samuel L. Odom,Virginia Buysse, and Elena Soukakou Patricia Snyder, Mary Louise Hemmeter, and Tara McLaughlin Topics in Early Childhood Special Education Topics in Early Childhood Special Education Transition Services for Young Children With Topics in Early Childhood Disabilities: Research and Future Directions Special Education Supporting Young Children With Multiple Disabilities: Topics in Early Childhood What Do We Know and What Do We Still Need Special Education To Learn? Identifying Instructional Targets for Early Journal of Early Intervention Childhood via Authentic Assessment: Alignment of Professional Standards and Practice-Based Evidence Advances in Measurement for Universal Screening Journal of Early Intervention and Individual Progress Monitoring of Young Children Function-Based Interventions for Children With Journal of Early Intervention Challenging Behavior Providing Interventions for Young Children With Journal of Early Intervention ASD: What We Still Need to Accomplish Classroom Instruction: Background, Assumptions, Journal of Early Intervention and Challenges Knowing What to Teach Provides a Roadmap for Journal of Early Intervention Early Literacy Intervention Advances in Early Communication and Language Journal of Early Intervention Intervention Social-Emotional Competence in Young Children Journal of Early Intervention With Developmental Delays: Our Reflection and Vision for the Future Children’s Play: Where We Have Been and Where Journal of Early Intervention We Could Go Inclusion for Young Children With Disabilities: A Journal of Early Intervention Quarter Century of Research Perspectives Professional Development in Early Childhood Journal of Early Intervention Intervention: Where We Stand on the Silver Anniversary of PL 99-457 Note: IDEA = Individuals With Disabilities Education Act; ASD = autism spectrum disorders. and early childhood special education. This knowledge spans the domains of development in young children, strategies and contexts for intervention, and the policies and research that shape practice, access to services, and research. Much, but not all, of this knowledge has been accumulated over the last 25 years. As a field, we can point with pride to the body of knowledge that has been built through systematic research and scholarship surrounding the development of recommended practices for children and families. It is reason for celebration. Second, and not surprisingly, a gap exists between what is known by researchers and what is done in usual practice. The gap between what is possible and what is likely to be delivered is daunting. The word gap understates the magnitude of this critical issue; a chasm, a wide gulf, or an unbridged void may be a more accurate description of what exists. 198 This occurs at nearly every level of conceptualization—at the policy level, in the personnel preparation arena, in the supports and assistance available to practitioners, in the conceptual approach to issues and problems, and in terms of resources available. This is cause for reflection. Although a gap can represent a rapidly advancing research base, it also can reflect the barriers to making changes in the field and the lack of a systematic approach to translating research into policy and accessible practice. As a field, we have become skilled at conducting efficacy studies that include high-quality designs, measures of treatment implementation fidelity, and sound outcome measures. Most efficacy studies have been relatively small scale, and large trials that test the scaling up of early intervention models are notably absent. We have very little knowledge about the variables that control adoption, sustained implementation, and fidelity of evidence-based practices. It is essential that we work simultaneously to actively translate research to practice through policy, personnel preparation, professional development, and translational research. The field cannot be healthy when what is known from its research base is practiced so infrequently. We cannot continue the bifurcation between the worlds of research and practice; we must plan for and support interactions between researchers and practitioners to build effective services for young children and their families. Although we may advocate for policies that mandate evidence-based practice, for data-based accountability, and for funding to support the development of effective early intervention systems, such regulatory policies have not solved the research to practice gap in other areas of Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 31(4) education. Without doubt, the challenge for the next 25 years is to cause usual practice to reflect more closely what is known. In preparing this special issue, we were struck by the absence of discussion of culture, poverty, and the changing demographics of families and children in the articles describing progress in our field. We do not believe our field is unaware of these issues; we do note that little research has directly addressed these important factors influencing early intervention. The cultural and linguistic contexts of communities, classrooms, practitioners, and families must be addressed systematically in research to develop evidencebased practices appropriate for all communities and effective for families and children from the widening range of cultural, linguistic, and economic backgrounds. Is there reason for optimism? We think so; not because we have multiple examples of where practice and research knowledge are aligned but because so much knowledge has been generated. Any field which has recruited a collection of incredibly innovative, bright, committed individuals of integrity to work on recalcitrant problems and issues over multiple decades is likely to be able to find solutions to the challenges posed in these articles. With nonidealistic eyes, we acknowledge it will not be easy, inexpensive, or straightforward; however, if it were, more pedestrian minds would suffice. We need to ensure that we recruit another cohort of similarly capable individuals to devote their lives to these issues over the next 25 years. If we do that, then what we know now to be the findings of research will become usual practice.