School districts learned a difficult lesson during the COVID-19 pandemic: when education is disrupted, students with disabilities are often impacted first and most. Long-standing equity gaps did not begin with the pandemic, but they were amplified when schools had to shift services quickly, often without the infrastructure, staffing, or training needed to deliver specially designed instruction and related services at scale.
As a Special Education Director, I continue to see the ripple effects: increased expectations for continuity of services, ongoing staffing shortages (especially in related services), and a renewed urgency to ensure students receive FAPE even when learning environments change. For organizations like TinyEYE that provide online therapy services to schools, this moment also creates an opportunity: to help districts move from “emergency remote teaching” toward planned, evidence-informed online service delivery.
A 2024 study published in the Journal of Online Learning Research offers a helpful framework. The article, “Exploratory Study of a K-12 Special Education Online Learning Model for Students with Developmental Disabilities,” describes an online learning model used with students in grades 4–12 receiving special education in small groups, and it examines outcomes related to attendance, engagement, and social validity (student and teacher perceptions).
Why this study matters for districts and online service providers
Many educators and leaders experienced the pandemic shift as a compliance and implementation scramble: devices, platforms, training, service minutes, documentation, and parent communication all had to happen at once. The research base for K-12 online learning for students with disabilities was (and still is) limited, which left districts with few practical roadmaps.
This study matters because it does three things that district leaders need:
It outlines a multi-component online model designed specifically for students with developmental disabilities receiving special education in small groups.
It uses direct observation data to look at engagement (not just grades or logins).
It includes student and teacher feedback, which helps leaders understand what was workable and what was challenging.
Who participated and what the online model looked like
The program served 57 students ages 9–20 in grades 4–12, all pursuing a high school diploma. Many students also received related services such as speech-language therapy, occupational therapy, mental health services, and physical therapy. Most students were classified under autism, with additional classifications including multiple disabilities, specific learning disability, other health impairment, and intellectual disability.
Instruction was delivered five days per week in small groups (3–5 students to one teacher). The daily schedule prioritized synchronous instruction (live teaching), complemented by one to two asynchronous work sessions for assignments and independent practice. In other words, it was not “all independent packets” and it was not “all video calls all day.” It was a structured blend designed to maintain rigor while building flexibility.
The seven critical components of the online learning model
The model included seven components that will feel familiar to strong special education programs—yet the study is helpful because it describes how those components were operationalized in an online environment.
1) Foundational access and instructional platforms/tools
Online learning cannot be equitable without access. The program distributed school-provided devices and provided Wi-Fi hotspots to families without connectivity. It also used a learning management system and a set of tools for synchronous instruction, asynchronous instruction, and independent practice.
From a district leadership lens, this reinforces a key point: access is not just a device. It includes secure platforms, privacy agreements, and tools that allow small-group instruction and active student responding.
2) Attendance systems that trigger immediate outreach
Attendance is a prerequisite for learning, and chronic absenteeism rose nationally during the pandemic. In this model, staff identified students who were absent within five minutes of class start and contacted the student and/or caregiver immediately. If needed, they resent links and provided troubleshooting support. Attendance was documented so case managers could identify patterns early.
This is a practical takeaway for districts: online attendance systems must be proactive, not passive. “We posted the link” is not an attendance strategy.
3) Executive functioning supports and skill-building
Students received one-on-one sessions once or twice weekly (about 30 minutes) focused on organization, time management, and navigating platforms (alarms, calendar invites, Google Classroom routines, individualized schedules with embedded links, and electronic planners).
In my experience, this is often the missing layer when teams wonder why students “won’t do the work” online. Executive functioning is not a character trait; it is a teachable set of skills and supports.
4) Rigorous specialized instruction in small groups
The instructional approach emphasized explicit instruction (model, guided practice, independent practice), intact “learn units” (teacher cue, student response, teacher feedback/error correction), and frequent opportunities to respond—approximately once per minute using choral responses, chat responses, thumbs up/down, and interactive tools like Pear Deck.
This aligns strongly with what we know about engagement: students need frequent, structured opportunities to participate, and teachers need observable indicators that learning is occurring.
5) Social-emotional supports: motivation, well-being, and connectedness
The model included daily morning meetings and virtual recess, frequent positive feedback, a weekly social planning class to facilitate connections outside school, and a structured motivation system using ClassDojo points tied to expectations and incentives.
For districts, this is a reminder that social-emotional supports are not “extra.” They are often the conditions that make instruction possible—especially for students who experienced anxiety, isolation, or reduced stamina during remote learning.
6) Communication and collaboration with caregivers and teams
Communication occurred through synchronous sessions, Google Classroom, Remind, and email. Teachers and caregivers communicated as frequently as daily to weekly regarding attendance, performance, and events. Multidisciplinary teams collaborated regularly to problem-solve student needs and align procedures.
This is also where online therapy partners like TinyEYE can be a stabilizing force: consistent scheduling, clear documentation, and predictable caregiver communication routines reduce friction and improve service continuity.
7) Professional development and monitoring
Teachers received training through asynchronous modules, synchronous sessions, and ongoing meetings. Topics included instructional practices for online formats, technology tools, accessibility, case management, and student well-being. Instructional variables were monitored to guide ongoing coaching and support.
From a compliance and quality standpoint, this is essential: districts cannot assume that strong in-person teaching automatically translates to strong online teaching without targeted training and feedback.
What the study found: attendance, engagement, and social validity
Attendance outcomes
Average daily attendance during online learning was extremely high: 99.6% for elementary/middle school and 99.3% for high school. During hybrid learning, attendance dipped slightly (99.0% EMS; 98.1% HS) but remained high.
While these rates may not generalize to every setting, they underscore what is possible when attendance is actively supported and when systems are designed to reduce barriers quickly.
Engagement outcomes
Engagement was measured through direct observation of two variables:
Student responding (responding within 10 seconds of teacher instruction), with an 80% criterion.
Student accuracy (correct responses within 10 seconds), also with an 80% criterion.
High school engagement during online learning met or approached criteria (responding averaged 90.3%; accuracy averaged 80.3%). Elementary/middle school engagement decreased during online learning (responding averaged 73.8%; accuracy averaged 67%), then improved again during hybrid learning.
The authors suggest several plausible reasons younger students may have struggled more online, including technology readiness, endurance, motivation systems, and the difficulty of monitoring attention when students can shift to other tabs.
Student and teacher perceptions
Most students preferred in-person learning, often for social reasons (seeing friends and teachers). However, students also identified helpful online components, including Pear Deck, devices, Google Classroom, related services, and structured study halls. Some students preferred online learning for flexibility (sleep, reduced transportation demands, easier routines).
Teachers rated all model components as “somewhat essential” to “essential,” with access to devices/platforms rated highest. This matters for leaders: staff buy-in is not automatic, but when systems are coherent and supported, educators can view online instruction as legitimate and workable.
Implications for districts partnering with TinyEYE
Districts are still balancing legal compliance, parent expectations, and staffing shortages. Online related services can be part of a responsible solution, but only if they are embedded in a broader system that supports attendance, engagement, communication, and progress monitoring.
Based on the study’s model, here are practical considerations I would recommend districts and online therapy partners align on:
Define “attendance” and “participation” clearly for therapy and instruction, and document consistently.
Build rapid-response routines when a student doesn’t log in (who contacts whom, how quickly, and using what tool).
Integrate executive functioning supports so students can actually access therapy sessions and complete carryover activities.
Use engagement-friendly tools (frequent opportunities to respond, visuals, interactive slides, short segments).
Prioritize caregiver communication with predictable cadence and clear next steps.
Provide professional development that goes beyond platform navigation to include instructional and therapeutic best practices online.
Online learning for students with developmental disabilities is not simply a video call. When done well, it is a structured, multi-component system that protects access, supports engagement, and strengthens collaboration—especially during disruptions.
For more information, please follow this link.
