Elementary students with learning disabilities (LDs) often have limited opportunities to learn science, and little is known about how special educators engage in science instruction. This study drew on a nationally representative survey of elementary special education teachers to describe their roles, preparedness, time allocation, and perceived barriers. Most teachers reported minimal discipline-specific preparation and felt less prepared to teach science than other subjects. Many noted that students with LDs often missed science classes because of pull-out instruction. Common barriers to students receiving science instruction included remediation priorities and accountability pressures in tested subjects. These findings provide a national snapshot of science instruction for elementary students with LDs and point to the need for greater teacher preparation and policy support to ensure access to high-quality science learning for students with LDs.
BanilowerE. R.SmithP. S.MalzahnK. A.PlumleyC. L.GordonE. M.HayesM. L. (2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Horizon Research, Inc.
2.
BerlinerD. C. (2011). Rational responses to high-stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2011.607151
3.
BlankR. K. (2013). Science instructional time is declining in elementary schools: What are the implications for student achievement and closing the gap?Science Education, 97(6), 830–847. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21078
4.
BrownellM. T.SindelarP. T.KielyM. T.DanielsonL. C. (2010). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600307
CurranF. C.KitchinJ. (2019). Why are the early elementary race/ethnicity test score gaps in science larger than those in reading or mathematics? National evidence on the importance of language and immigration context in explaining the gap-in-gaps. Science Education, 103(3), 477–502. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21491
7.
De La PazS.ButlerC.LevinD. M.FeltonM. K. (2024). Effects of a cognitive apprenticeship on transfer of argumentative writing in middle school science. Learning Disability Quarterly, 47(2), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487221119365
8.
DoablerC. T.TherrienW. J.LonghiM. A.RobertsG.HessK. E.MaddoxS. A.UyJ.LovetteG. E.FallA. M.KimmelG. L.BensonS.VanUitertV. J.WilsonE. S.PowellS. R.SampsonV.TopracP. (2021). Efficacy of a second-grade science program: Increasing science outcomes for all students. Remedial and Special Education, 42(3), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932521989091
9.
FlodenR. E. (2002). The measurement of opportunity to learn. In PorterA. C.GamoranA. (Eds.), Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of student achievement (pp. 231–266). National Academies Press.
10.
GriffithG.ScharmannL. C. (2008). Initial impacts of no child left behind on elementary science education. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(3), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174707
11.
GrovesR. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 646–675. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl033
KalerL.MarkhamJ.JonesN. (2024). Service-delivery models and outcomes for students with disabilities: A review of administrative-data studies. Remedial and Special Education, 46(2), 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325241268747
14.
KaufmanJ. H.DilibertiM. K. (2021). Divergent and inequitable teaching and learning pathways during (and perhaps beyond) the pandemic: Key findings from the American Educator Panels Spring 2021 COVID-19 surveys (RR-A168-6). RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RRA168-6
15.
King-SearsM. E.StefanidisA.BerkeleyS.StrogilosV. (2021). Does co-teaching improve academic achievement for students with disabilities?Educational Research Review, 34, 100405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100405
16.
MaddoxS. A.GersibJ. A.FallA.-M.LonghiM. A.TherrienW. J.RobertsG.PhelpsJ. B.GhafghaziS.DoablerC. T. (2025). The role of instructional design in the delivery of early science instruction. Remedial and Special Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325251314119
17.
McLeskeyJ.LandersE.WilliamsonP.HoppeyD. (2012). Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings?Journal of Special Education, 46(3), 131–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910376670
18.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.HillemeierM.MaczugaS. (2016). Science achievement gaps begin very early, persist, and are largely explained by modifiable factors. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16633182
19.
MulveyB. K.ChiuJ. L.GhoshR.BellR. L. (2016). Special-education teachers’ nature-of-science instructional experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(4), 554–578. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21311
20.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). Call to action for science education: Building opportunity for the future. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26152
21.
National Center for Education Statistics (2022a). NAEP report card: Science: Student group scores and score gaps (grade 4 and 8, 2019). The nation’s report card. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/science/nation/groups/?grade=4
22.
National Center for Education Statistics (2022b). National teacher and principal survey (NTPS), 2020–21. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/
23.
National Center for Education Statistics (2024). Students with disabilities (condition of education indicator CGG). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
24.
National Science Board (2022). Science & engineering indicators 2022: The STEM labor force of today: Scientists, engineers, and skilled technical workers (NSB-2022-3). National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20245
25.
NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press.
PedersonP. V. (2007). What is measured is treasured: The impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on nonassessed subjects. The Clearing House, 80(6), 287–291. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.80.6.287-291
28.
PiantaR. C.BelskyJ.HoutsR.MorrisonF. J. (2007). Opportunities to learn in America’s elementary classrooms. Science, 315(5820), 1795–1796. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1139719
29.
QuallsL. W.Arastoopour IrgensG.HirschS. E. (2025). Co-teaching as a dynamic system to support students with disabilities: a case study. Education Sciences, 15(6), 733. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15060733
30.
RomineW.van GarderenD.FolkW.LanninA.JuergensenR.SmithC.AbedelnabyH.MilarskyT. (2024). Science literacy: using multimodal STEM text sets to help students with disabilities engage in argumentation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 47(2), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487231209505
31.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (1993). Current approaches to science education: Implications for mainstream instruction of students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 14(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259301400104
32.
SmithR.SnowP. C.SerryT.HammondL. (2021). The role of background knowledge in reading comprehension: A critical review. Reading Psychology, 42(3), 214–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2021.1888348
33.
TherrienW. J.TaylorJ. C.HospJ. L.KaldenbergE. R.GorshR. J. (2011). Science instruction for students with learning disabilities: a meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00340.x
34.
TherrienW. J.WongV. C.ChenL.TaylorC. M.ChiuJ. L.GonçalvesB.LiuQ.CookB. G.DoablerC. T.SwansonE.BrameP. B.BudinS.ChoE.ConwayS. J.DavisK. M.DunnM. W.Faggella-LubyM. N.GersibJ.StinchcombH. R. (2025). National survey of 4th and 5th grade science education teachers: insights into instruction and inclusion of students with disabilities. Science Education, 109(5), 1406–1421. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21972
VannestK. J.MasonB. A.BrownL.AdiguzelT. (2009). Instructional settings in science for students with disabilities: implications for teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(4), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9135-x
37.
VannestK. J.Temple-HarveyK. K.ParkJ. (2011). Special education teacher time use in four types of programs. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(4), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671003709898
38.
VillanuevaM. G.TaylorJ.TherrienW.HandB. (2012). Science education for students with special needs: A review of recommendations and implications for practice. Studies in Science Education, 48(2), 187–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.737117
39.
WilsonS. E.TherrienW. J.GersibJ.RojoM.VanUitertV. J.LovetteG.LonghiM. A.BensonS.PowellS. R.DoablerC. T. (2025). Inquiry-based science instruction for students with disabilities: a systematic and meta-analytic review. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.70029
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
