White Paper
Working with the “Hardest-to-Reach” Students in Virtual Services
Dowload to gain evidence-based strategies for engaging the learners assumed not to be a "good fit" for virtual education and telehealth—and the science behind why they work.
Get the full white paper
Free · Add your details & we'll email it to you.
What you'll learn
- Which four student populations get labeled poor fits for virtual services, and what actually drives the difficulty in each case
- Why multisensory elements — sound, motion, animation — hold young children's attention where static screens fail
- How visible timers, pictorial agendas and chunked tasks reduce cognitive load for students with executive functioning challenges
- Why AAC removes barriers for minimally verbal students without suppressing natural speech development, contrary to a common assumption
- Why caregiver coaching produces better outcomes than direct provider-student instruction alone
- Why feedback delivered within seconds of a behavior changes it, and delayed or summary feedback doesn't
- How regulation check-ins at the start of a session create the conditions trauma-affected students need before learning can happen
What this paper covers
"Not a good fit for virtual" is a judgment made about certain students before anyone tries. This paper takes the four populations that judgment most often lands on — very young children, students with attention and executive functioning challenges, minimally verbal and nonverbal students, and students with trauma histories or significant emotion regulation needs — and asks what the research actually supports for each.
The answer is not that virtual is equivalent for everyone. It is that the barriers these students face in a virtual setting are amplifications of barriers they already face, and that intentional redesign addresses them. Multisensory elements hold young children's attention where static screens don't. Visible timers and pictorial agendas give students with executive dysfunction something to predict. AAC removes barriers for minimally verbal learners without suppressing natural speech, a persistent misconception the paper corrects directly. Regulation check-ins at the start of a session create the safety that has to exist before learning does.
Two threads run through all four populations: caregiver coaching outperforms provider-student work alone, and feedback delivered within seconds beats feedback delivered later. The paper closes on transparent progress monitoring, and on what changes when students can see their own gains.
Who this paper's for
Special education directors, school psychologists, SLPs, counselors and providers designing virtual services for students with complex needs.
World-class providers — unparalleled care
Dr. Jordan Wright
Chief Clinical Officer, Parallel
ABAP, ABPP Board-Certified
Our Assessments
Gold standard assessment batteries using the most widely-accepted psychological and educational tests to help figure out how each specific brain works.
Our Partners
%401x.svg)
%401x%20(1).svg)
%401x.svg)
