May 2018 – Special Educator e-Journal

By Linda Pearson

Hacking Leadership delivers a purposeful perspective on how to inspire learning within the school community. The author’s Joe Sanfelippo and Tony Sinanis are at the forefront of education, as a district superintendent and a school principal, they have proven the theories by implementing what they preach.

This book is an excellent resource for administrators who don’t want to become a victim of the bureaucracy in the school system and anyone wanting to improve their leadership skills.  In reviewing this book, the principal criteria encompassed clear-cut problems and solutions to these issues referred to as “hacks.” The author delivers a firm outlook of the education world with the intentions of equipping leaders with the tools necessary to create change within the school. The author’s focus on what leaders can do differently instead of embodying change in others.  Furthermore, he illustrates his approach to practical common-sense strategies in a logical order by undertaking difficult issues within the school.

Hacking Leadership is a book written for administrators in the education field by leaders with a lot of wisdom.  The author inspires administrators with ten specific ways a leader can operate and calls them “hacks”.  The strongest points in the book are when the author’s give step by step blueprints of how to overcome these obstacles. The reader is taken on a journey that presents every problem as an opportunity to create change. The tone of the book is very inspirational as he gives his first-hand story of how he has implemented a positive culture by focusing first and foremost on relationships and centering it around benefitting the students.  The flow of Hacking Leadership empathizes with the audience by presenting the reality and offering ten solutions on how to tackle these problems. This quote best illustrates the nature of the book: “Because a school’s culture extends to all of its stakeholders, effective interactions are the single most important non-negotiable entity in creating flourishing schools.” “And these schools and their leaders aren’t born; they have to be hacked. Each chapter in Hacking Leadership presents a problem, a hack or solution, a blueprint for implementing and improving strategies and practical tips when faced with setbacks. Some examples that define what a lead learner can do is model learning, offer an open ear when someone is struggling, take over the class for a teacher for a short time, and actively remove obstacles so staff can maximize their teaching by allowing them to be in charge of their goals. The ten different hacks are centered around looking at issues from a different perspective or lens, viewing the cup as “half full instead of half empty.”  The author’s enthusiasm throughout the book is evident and concentrates on the importance of actively applying self-reflecting skills as a leader. This quote illustrates this growth mindset eloquently, “we learn by doing, but we learn more by reflecting on what we have done.”

In contrast, Fullan’s book, Leading in a Culture of Change organizes the book as a theoretical framework while also presenting problems from different leaders perspectives. In other words, if you do this, then you will develop leaders. Fullan’s leadership book is presented as having a particular mindset that will lead to success but leaves out specific direction on how to get there or steps to take in order to reach the desired goal. The reader is left with having to rely on their own interpretation of problem-solving or having to apply it to any situation. As previously stated, Hacking Leadership outlines a specific plan and how to address issues when confronted with obstacles.    In comparison, both authors provide in-depth analysis of the significance of building relationships so ideas flow more freely where all stakeholders are willing to cohesively collaborate in an ever-changing society. “If educators feel passionate about an idea and see value in it, the chances of their using it as a focal point for future learning both individually and collectively increase exponentially. In both frameworks presented, the author’s focus is on building strong relationships, shifting mindsets, and creating dynamic cultures with opportunities for all involved.

One of the shortcomings of Hacking Leadership, which doesn’t really have a solution is that not all situations or problems can be so easily fixed. These solutions are very practical and seem very feasible but they focus on the leaders setting the tone. Unfortunately, the top permeates to the bottom, so if you have a boss who is pessimistic and unmotivated the effects are detrimental to the entire culture of the school regardless of what you do as a leader in a non-administrative position.

Bibliography

Sanfelippo, J., Sinanis, T. (2016). Hacking Leadership 10 Ways Great Leaders Inspire Learning That Teachers, Students, and Parents Love. Cleveland, Ohio: Times 10

Fullan, M. (2007). Leading In A Culture Of Change. San Francisco, California: Jossey Bass

About the Author

My name is Linda Pearson, born in Miami, Florida in 1974, and I am currently enrolled in Florida International University’s Master’s program for Special Education with a concentration in academics and behavior intervention. I received my undergraduate in Varying Exceptionalities in 2002 from Barry University. I have been teaching grades Kindergarten through fifth grade for sixteen years now. My passion is in teaching students with special needs and helping them realize their potential.  It is always exciting to find new strategies to help my ESE students bridge the gap. As an educator, it is important to keep up with current research and to read books and articles that inspire.

Contemporary issues in the scope of gifted education concentrate on learners whose performance does not correspond with their ability level. Underachievement among gifted learners constitutes one of the greatest disappointments for a school culture that contributes to frustration for parents, instructors, education shareholders, and the society in general due to the considerable disparity between the learners’ potential and their overall academic achievement. In this review, I concentrate on the issue of underachievement of gifted students in elementary school. This paper presents major challenges in the area of giftedness through a critical review of previous academic literature and their connection with underperformance of learners, under-exploitation of students’ potential, as well as teacher education. The review further examines the causes of underperformance such as school, environment, personal and family factors, as well as different strategies to address this problem in elementary schools.

Keywords:underachievement gifted students, elementary school, teacher education, nurturing environment, descriptive praise

Underachievement Among Elementary Gifted Students

Underachievement among gifted learners constitutes a paradoxical phenomenon that causes frustration in parents, instructors, education shareholders, and the society in general due to the considerable disparity between the learners’ potential and their overall academic performance (Cavilla, 2017). As defined by Chinnis (2016), underachievement, in this case, forms the discrepancy between learner’s potential and their actual performance. This implies that a student’s performance is not according to their anticipated ability. This perplexing issue has been the cause of major disappointment for educational institutions’ culture, from kindergarten to college; it contributes to social anxiety and behavioral problems in gifted and talented children. Moore, Ford, and Milner’s (2017) study claim that 15% estimated gifted students are usually underperformers. Consequently, parents, education stakeholders, institutions, as well as instructors need to be concerned about this population. These students represent a section of society that underperforms continuously, thus rendering the reversal of the issue impossible.

Gifted children exhibit unique abilities and talents such as high adaptability levels, exceptional inquisitiveness, and extensive vocabularies that distinguishes them from other children of their age (Cavila, 2017). Consequently, these children are expected to set outstanding records in academics. Aspects such as a learner’s socio-economic status, environment, culture, and motivation complicate the individualized nature of underperformance, since they are recognized as the central causes of this issue (Charissa, 2012). Although the reversal of the underachievement behavior through the utilization of a single strategy may not be possible, studies have revealed that placing gifted students in an academically stimulating nurturing environment gradually improves their performance (Siegle, 2013). Further, providing gifted learners tasks that correspond to their ability level reverses the issue of underachievement through the enhancement of their unparalleled thinking, unique insights, and diverse perspectives. Therefore, elementary school educators need to allocate individual programs that incorporate modified curriculum, motivation, counseling, and confidence to enhance the training of gifted learners.

Significance of the Issue of Underachievement among Elementary Gifted Students

There exists a myth in education that since gifted children possess an innate ability to learn, they possess the skills and strategies required to succeed in their academic life with any curriculum offered (Dial, 2011). These students are forced to face intellectual struggle and obtain poor grades due to failure in this aspect or because they may be intellectually weak. Consequently, some of the underperforming gifted students live in distress that causes self-doubt and low self-esteem. As outlined by Dial (2011), some gifted learners fail since they lack the strategies and skills required to succeed in educational institutions. Therefore, this review is significant for teachers to understand some of the reasons that hinder gifted students from utilizing their maximum potential in school, resulting in underachievement. Some educators may not realize the struggle that gifted students undergo in school. They mistakenly assume that these learners receive the required instructions to support and enhance their parallel thinking and unique abilities. They believe that poor grades constitute a motivational issue or impertinence of these apparently lackadaisical learners. However, research illustrates that parents and institutions can suppress the bright talent of gifted students by effecting a forceful separation of the students with that special skill set (Obergresser & Stoeger, 2015).

This paper aims to explore some of the factors that prevent gifted learners from utilizing their full potential and unique abilities in their academic life. Further, the paper could assist teachers, education shareholders, and families to understand some of the interventions or approaches that can be employed to assist these students to apply their innate abilities.

Literature Review

A considerable amount of existing academic research has examined the issue of underperformance among elementary gifted students (Bennet-Rappell & Northcote, 2016). This review critically assesses the subject and documents the inquiry of the requirements of gifted students in elementary school as well as the factors that demotivate them, leading to underachievement in academic life. The review attempts to uncover these factors by understanding the gifted learners through an assessment of their educational requirements. In spite of the fact that the gifted children possess unique abilities and talents such as high adaptability levels, exceptional inquisitiveness, desire to learn, leadership qualities, and extensive vocabularies, they still face difficulty in the academic sphere when they are subjected to the current or normal curriculum. The reason for this is that these children possess various ‘special needs’ that must be addressed for the realization of their special talents and capabilities.

Gifted learners are perceived as bright individuals who are expected to employ their sharp intellect to conquer all obstacles in their personal, social, and academic lives. Obergresser (2015) establishes that even when gifted children are placed in seemingly suitable classrooms, they fail due to lack of engagement. This perplexes administrators, parents, and teachers who may not comprehend the fact that learning requires more than proper classroom placement. Aspects such as socio-economic status, environment, culture, and motivation of a gifted learner may impact their education potential. Moreover, Siegle, Reis, & McCoach (2012) elucidate that the underperformance of gifted children in elementary school constitutes an extended fact. Thus, it is essential to discover the exact elements and interventions that can be employed to motivate gifted learners to work diligently in their personal and academic lives. The requirements of these students coherently depict the necessity of motivation, constant engagement, provision of appropriate tasks, those considered challenging for the students’ peers by the instructor, and regular assistance from families and educators. Further, research has also demonstrated that the discrepancy in gifted student’s abilities and performance is caused by a variety of factors that range from personal, such as low self-esteem, self-regulation, self-efficacy, and self-motivation, to environmental factors, such as socio-economic status and culture (Siegle et al., 2012). Individuals such as parents, siblings, and teachers, who are usually responsible for the gifted students’ academic lives can also contribute to their poor performance (Merrotsy, 2013).

Concept of Giftedness and Who are Underperforming

The notion of giftedness can be traced back to the research conducted by the New Jersey Department of Education that defined it as the possession of a high level of ability in more than one area (Siegle et al., (2012). The New Jersey Department of Education research investigated a potential explanation for gifted students. People have come to believe that gifted learners possess a high ability level as compared to their peers who require consistent modifications in educational programs to achieve academic standards in accordance with their cognitive abilities. The definition aligns with the research of Francis Galton, Lewis Terman, Alfred Binet, and Leta Hollingworth who are considered the fathers of modern gifted education. Their work included the application of IQ scores, since they believed that gifted people possessed unique mental abilities that distinguished them from their peers. Although there has been a lack of consensus on the key features that can qualify an individual as gifted, the four researchers, Galton, Terman, Binet, and Hollingtworth, believed that giftedness is exhibited through reasoning and mental abilities (Mingle, 2016).

During the 1950s, individuals associated the concept of giftedness with race and ethnicity; in this regard, they thought that white children possessed higher IQs than ‘colored people such as Hispanics, Latinos, and Blacks’ (Mingle, 2016). Such an inextricable association facilitated the desegregation of schools and maintenance of separate educational systems that resulted in racial segregation. Over time, the four fathers of modern gifted education realized that different individuals, irrespective of their ethnicity or race, recorded different levels of IQ. Therefore, this refuted the interconnection of giftedness and race, and this concept became observable. Teachers were provided the mandate to nominate learners whom they perceived as gifted, so that they could undergo the identification screening process. Consequently, Galton, Terman, Binet, and Hollingtworth emphasized the necessity for effective teacher preparation to identify and deal with gifted and talented learners. According to these researchers, the concept of giftedness refers to a high reasoning capacity and development that outpaces other children in the same age group. From this definition, it is evident that individuals with the high cognitive ability and reasoning capacity; commonly referred to as gifted learners are the ones who underperform, since they record performance that does not correspond with their potential. Therefore, underperforming gifted students comprise learners who are not motivated to learn due to a lack of engagement in classes.

Requirements for Elementary School Gifted Learners and How to Prepare Teachers to Fulfill Them

The definition of giftedness recognizes the affective needs of these individuals that require addressing the issue of underperformance. It is apparent that gifted students require social-emotional stability for the realization of their innate abilities. Educators and parents require finding supportive ways to satisfy the effective requirements of these highly intelligent students (Luzzo & Gobet, 2011). These strategies are required to facilitate the development of positive emotional and social skills in talented students, since these factors influence their cognitive abilities. Teachers may need to allow gifted students to assume a high level of responsibility towards their learning. This includes the selection of some of the teaching approaches and tasks to be administered in their leisure time. This will facilitate the provision of nurturing environments as well as educational tasks that are compatible with these learners’ potential. Gifted students require nurturing environments, which are academically stimulating about the achievement of their educational goals (Obergresser, 2015). The environmental stimulation of an academic nature can be challenging at times, but it enhances gifted learners’ unparalleled thinking, unique insights, and diverse perspectives.

During teacher training programs, instructors could be made aware of the need to modify the standard school experience and social-emotional ramifications to accommodate the gifted and talented individuals’ extraordinary levels of achievement and ability (Siegle et al., 2012). This can be accomplished by outlining the characteristics and requirements of gifted students in the academic sphere. As argued by Cavilla (2017), being a teacher can be an overwhelming and exciting experience due to the many established standards, curriculums covered, as well as numerous things that require to be learned. Teachers require to be taught the art of managing students’ behaviors to understand who require to be taken out of the normal curriculum and learning activities. As recorded in Sullivan’s article, some teachers are unaware of the needs of gifted learners; therefore, they tend to characterize their hyperactive nature as a behavioral problem (Sullivan, 2016). Thus, teachers’ training institutions may require familiarizing instructors with these needs and characteristics.

Causes of Underachievement

Underachievement among gifted students originates from various factors that range from personal to environmental. As per Siegle et al. (2012), the following are the causes of underachievement among the gifted students.

Engagement and self-regulation. A Research by Chinnis (2016) proves that a positive attitude about environmental perception, self-efficacy, and task meaningfulness helps a person to set realistic goals and evaluate themselves to achieve the intended task. Therefore, gifted students possess a high level of high self-esteem, self-regulation, self-efficacy, and self-motivation to enhance their academic achievements. Siegle et al. (2012) argue that gifted students may utilize their time in the creation of challenging and motivating environments, especially in schools to promote their unique innate abilities.

Emotional issues. Emotional issues such as depression and social psychological disorders influence the gifted students’ ability to assimilate knowledge. These issues affect a learner’s concentration level by causing social and behavioral problems such as being non-conformist about school rules (Charissa, 2012). Therefore, emotional issues cause problems with teachers and sometimes result in school dropout.

School Factor. The school environment influences a gifted learner’s performance. The reason for this is that is the school constitutes the only place where a student’s academic performance can be assessed and modified. Therefore, the lack of ability grouping, mentoring, motivation, diverse teaching approaches, and disregard for personal preferences negatively impacts one’s ability to learn (Siegle, Rubenstein, & Mitchell, 2014). Teacher’s personality and the offered curriculum lead to a rise or declines in learners’ performance in classroom activities.

Family issues. The relationship between a student and their family is vital to their academic performance. Children who obtain inadequate nurturing and those brought up in dysfunctional families exhibit underperforming behavior (Reis & McCoach, 2008). Further, elements such as affiliation conflicts, lack of parental support, poor economic status, and high academic expectations result in underperformance behavior.

Addressing Underachieving Students in the Classroom

To address underachievement in gifted students, teachers are required to motivate their students to pursue interests they perceive as good, related to their areas of interest and the academic curriculum. For schools, this translates as the fact that the schools’ educational content should be useful to cover the underachieving students’ interests (Chinnis, 2016). Further, the teachers need to assist students to set realistic goals and objectives without comparing the abilities of those who achieve to those who do not (Nancy, 2017).

Recommendations for Underperformance

Teachers and other educators may need to employ strategies to motivate and encourage their students positively. Teachers are required to adopt certain strategies to provide their students opportunities, especially to gifted underachievers. The high achieving students enjoy being in class and engaging in various challenging assignments due to their high intellectual capabilities (Dial, 2011). The task, as teachers and education stakeholders should be aware, represents difficult tasks that could be enjoyable to the underachieving gifted students (Dial, 2011). The following are recommendations that teachers can put into practice to assist the underachieving students.

One-on-one Teaching

This method of teaching is beneficial for both achieving and underachieving students. This method was studied, and it was proved that both kinds of students benefited from the individualization and accountability offered by one-on-one teaching. This method was successful as educators concentrate on students to ensure that all of them understand the concept and details of what they are learning. This could greatly reduce the risk of dropout of underachieving students (Dial, 2011). Sometimes, the one-on-one teaching method is not possible to practice due to different and timed teaching sessions (Snyder, 2013). This becomes a challenge; however, there are other ways that teachers can implement such as adopting a small teacher-student ratio in to pay increased attention to the voices of the underachieving students.

Encourage Positive Relationships between Students and Teachers

Students can be encouraged to establish good academic relationships with their teachers. This will facilitate potential achievement of underperforming students tremendously. Teachers affect the performance of their gifted students to a great extent (Siegle, 2013). This constitutes an influential way in the context of creative writing. Teachers training on the way to change negative attitudes toward non-performers, and consequently, to identify the gifted underachievers and engage with them form ways to improve underachievement (Bennett & Northcote, 2016).

Differentiating Gifted from the Achieving Students

Separation constitutes an excellent teaching strategy that is effective with students of different learning levels. It is also effective in the context of creative writing (Siegle, 2013). This creative writing strategy forms a flexible program that adapts to the requirements of various underachieving students (Nancy, 2017). It examines the level of their need, learning capabilities, and student interests. Additionally, the introduction of a differentiated study environment and individual learning constitute successful strategies for underachieving students. The teaching system requires teachers’ training about dealing with a classroom of both achievers and underachievers. Learning curriculum content and students’ interests are the aspects that teachers can exploit to differentiate gifted underachievers from achievers (Montgomery, 2009). This, therefore, illustrates that tailoring curriculum is essential to accommodate students’ unique necessities.

Development of Various Strategies

The application of multiple approaches employment is ideal for dealing with underachievement in gifted students. Underachievement manifests itself in a range of ways; therefore, a variety of ways to deal with it are required (Krishna, 2009). These various ways of intervention satisfy the need of every gifted underachiever. The application of these ways aims to remediate underachievement successfully. For example, teachers can strive at keeping the underperforming students on their toes. This is achieved by ensuring that the students remain occupied with extra assignments. Teachers also allow students to select, examine, and analyze all stimulating and new topics that are either in the curriculum or that are trending outside the curriculum. This satisfies the requirement for underachievers to be interested in the content and to start asking questions when they do not understand something. Chinnis (2016) stated that there increased performance is witnessed when teachers, parents, and education stakeholders provide underachieving students an opportunity to pursue their area of interest independently.

Calling on Underachievers

This involves all students’ participation in question-and-answer sessions. Normally, during such sessions in class, teachers tend to call on the achieving students to answer the questions. Receiving answers makes them feel better about their teaching in the classroom; however, they do not consider the negative attitudes the non-performers may develop if they do not get opportunities to demonstrate that they know the answers as well. The irony in these types of teaching methods is that the underachievers might feel excluded. Teachers can engage all students in these types of discussions to ensure that all their students have positive experiences.

Descriptive Praise

Awareness of teachers that the main objective of allowing students to participate in class discussions is to gain confidence and feel important in that particular learning environment is important. The teacher can offer descriptive praise to their students to provide positivity in the student’s learning process, so that in turn, the student will perceive themselves positively (Montgomery, 2009).

Conclusion

Underachieving gifted students face challenges in rising to their potential due to factors such as social economic status and environment. Teachers, parents, and education stakeholders are obliged to ensure that underachievers realize their potential. These recommendations are important for students’ performance enhancement in academics. This responsibility greatly lies with teachers, because they constitute academic developers. They should ensure that their students are in a suitable learning environment that stimulates and integrate cognitive abilities. Differentiation is essential for the observation of the content and learning methods applied to students. Teachers should also consider involving underachievers in decision-making processes regarding their educational content, as this would enable students to learn to assume the responsibility for their educational learning.

References

Bennett-Rappell, H., & Northcote, M. (2016). Underachieving gifted students: Two case studies. Issues in Educational Research, 26(3), 407–430.

Cavilla, D. (2017). Observation and analysis of three gifted underachievers in an underserved, urban high school setting. Gifted Education International, 33(1), 62. doi:10.1177/0261429414568181

Carroll, K. L. (2008). In their own voices: helping artistically gifted and talented students succeed academically. Gifted Child Today, 31(4), 36–43.

Charissa M. Govan. (2012). Exploring the underachievement of elementary gifted students: An analysis of classroom achievement and standardized test performance. UMI Number: 3544465.

Chinnis, K. L. (2016). The underperformance of gifted elementary school students. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A, 77.

Dial, M. F. (2011). The impact of classroom instructional practices in math on achievement or underachievement for academically gifted and talented students. Dissertation Abstracts International,Section A, 72, 3629.

Govan, C. M. (2013). Exploring the underachievement of elementary gifted students: An analysis of classroom achievement and standardized test performance. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A, 74.

Krishna, R. S. A. (2009). Widening horizons for educating the gifted. North Charleston, S.C: BookSurge Publishing.

Luzzo, D., & Gobet, F. (2011). The neglected importance of emotions. Talent Development & Excellence, 3(1), 85–87.

Merrotsy, P. (2013). Invisible gifted students. Talent Development & Excellence, 5(2), 31–42.

Mingle, M. (2016). The role of the teacher in gifted education nomination decisions. Rutgers: The State University of New Jersey.

Montgomery, D. (2009). Able, gifted and talented underachievers. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Moore III, J. L., Ford, D. Y., & Milner, H. R. (2017). Underachievement among gifted students of color: Implications for educators. Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 167–177. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4402_11

Nancy, B. (2017). A grounded theory study of gifted elementary school students’ perceptions of motivation and achievement. (ProQuest Number: 10282225).

Obergresser, S., & Stoeger, H. (2015). The role of emotions, motivation, and learning behavior in underachievement and results of an intervention. High Ability Studies, 26(1), 167–190. doi:10.1080/13598139.2015.1043003.

Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2012). Underachievement in gifted and talented students with special needs. Exceptionality, 10(2), 113–125.

Siegle, D. (2013). The underachieving gifted child: Recognizing, understanding, and reversing underachievement. Waco, Tex: Prufrock Press.

Siegle, D., Rubenstein, L. D., & Mitchell, M. S. (2014). Honors students’ perceptions of their high school experiences: The influence of teachers on student motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 35–50.

Snyder, K. (2013). A developmental, person-centered approach to exploring multiple motivational pathways in gifted underachievement. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2013.835597

Sullivan, M. (2016). Investigating an intervention used to address underachievement in gifted and non-gifted high school students: A mixed methodological study. (ProQuest Number: 10131515).

About the Author

Abdulmajeed Alzahrani is a Ph.D. student in Special Education (curriculum and instruction) at The University of South Florida. He is a special educator with high ability to adapting and modifying general/special education curriculum to enable student success. He focuses on special education in leadership and policy. Email is aalzahrani16@gmail.com

Abstract

When in 1990 EHA was replaced by the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA), Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) became one of the six principles the IDEA has since been based upon. LRE consists of a number of concepts and mandates that schools in the United States provide Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to all disabled students according to their individual needs, strengths, and weaknesses.  However, the problems with determining the appropriate settings for disabled children still exist and cause American special education a lot of trouble. The purpose of this project is to show how the concepts of the LRE were developed, what challenges the American education system faced in implementing them and how well they are applied in teaching children with disabilities now.

Introduction

When in 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) was enacted, it had a provision that students with disabilities should be taught in the least restrictive environment. Given that most of disabled kids had no access to education when a lot of them could easily cope with the program of regular schools at the time, passing the Act undoubtedly was a very noble move on the part of Congress (MacBeath J, Galton, Steward, MacBeath A, and Page C, 34).  The problem was, however, that the law did not provide a clear definition of what “the least restrictive environment” actually meant and how such a provision should in reality be implemented.  It was clear that the law required schools to make fair and appropriate decisions about their education services when it came to teaching students with physical and mental problems.  What basically remained unknown was what criteria teachers had to use in order to determine the most appropriate setting for their students.

Most children with disabilities required individual approaches and supplementary services. Such needs often were misunderstood and a large number of children were unfairly refused access to mainstream education.  In other words, regular schools were totally unprepared to educate disabled students.  It came as no surprise that teachers who were never trained to work with people with disabilities found it unusually difficult to provide effective services for physically and mentally ill children. According to Rothstein., & Johnson (2014), In 1989, in Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education case, the Court made it clear that schools should use all the resources available in order to keep disabled students in mainstream classes to the greatest extend possible.  If a child finds it difficult to handle the program of mainstream schools, additional services must be provided to improve their achievements.  When this is not likely to be effective, it might be removed from mainstream education but, if it is possible, should be allowed to interact with children without disabilities during lunch and/or recess.

When in 1990 EHA was replaced by the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA), Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) became one of the six principles the IDEA has since been based upon. LRE consists of a number of concepts and mandates that schools in the United States provide Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to all disabled students according to their individual needs, strengths, and weaknesses (Turnbull, Stowe, & Huerta, 2007). However, the problems with determining the appropriate settings for disabled children still exist and cause American special education a lot of trouble. The purpose of this project is to show how the concepts of the LRE were developed, what challenges the American education system faced in implementing them and how well they are applied in teaching children with disabilities now.

Review of Literature

As a principle of the IDEA, LRE was literally shaped in the United States by six court hearings which took place in different parts of the country between 1989 and 1994.  The outcomes of those cases not only helped the parents of children with disabilities to understand the actual meaning of the LRE, but they also became case law which still is highly influential when it comes to resolving similar disputes.  The first case as Rothstein., & Johnson (2014) pointed out that was started by the parents of a six-year-old boy with Down’s syndrome, who lived in Texas.  It took place in 1989 and became known as Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education . The parents disagreed with the decision of their school district to withdraw their son from his pre-kindergarten program due to the high degree of his mental retardation and speech impairment.  He needed a lot of special attention, which could not be given to him without affecting the quality of education services that had to be provided to the rest of the class.  As it was later stated by the court, an attempt to modify the curriculum to fit Daniel’s ability to learn would change it beyond recognition, and doing that was not what the IDEA was designed for.

In order to make the decision, the court used a two-question test.  Its first question was whether the program of the regular schools with additional educational aids and services was or could be effective given the severity of his disability.  The court was satisfied that if there was no chance of Daniel being able to handle the mainstream school program, then he had to receive special education and /or should be removed from the classes of a regular school.  The second question of the test was whether or not Daniel was mainstreamed to the greatest extent possibly appropriate.  Those two questions became irreplaceable parts of the tests, created by the judges in other court hearing, similar to Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education, in order to determine the correct LRE placement (Gruenhagen &Ross, 1995)..

Another major case in which LRE was to be established took place in 1991 and was started by the Georgia school district. According to Rothstein., & Johnson (2014), this case invaded history as (Christy) Greer v. Rome City School District.  This time, the school district requested hearing against parents of a ten-year-old Christy who also suffered from Down’s syndrome.  When she was five, her parents wanted to send her to the kindergarten at a local school.  However, the school district requested that the parents allowed assessing their child first in order to determine whether it was appropriate to enrol it in the program of mainstream kindergarten.  Fearing that their daughter might be placed in the class of special education, Christy’s parents took her home in order to work on her education.  After two year’s time, they brought the girl to the same kindergarten again.  This time, the school district still continued to insist on the girl’s evaluation, but allowed her to attend the classes as she had already reached the compulsory school age.  When Christy’s parents refused the request, the school district applied for a hearing to take place and was eventually permitted to assess the girl.  After the assessment, it was suggested that she should be placed in a special education class.  Parents did not accept the decision and took the case to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal.  For the time the case was being considered, Christy remained in the above-mentioned kindergarten (Laura &Louis , 2014 ).

The court decision was that she should not be placed in a special education class and keeping her in the kindergarten in which she was being educated at the time was found appropriate.  Although the court made a remark that remaining in the class of regular education might not really be good for Christy in the future, it however, concluded that she made considerable progress during the last two yeas there, her behaviour was not unusually disruptive, and she did not need such an amount of extra attention that would appear to be disproportionate compared with other students.  On top of that, it was discovered that the school district did not do enough to provide Christy with supplementary educational aids and services and did not modify curriculum for her as it was required in such circumstances by the IDEA (Gruenhagen &Ross, 1995).

This time, the court used the test which was constructed in Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education case to create its own and just a few more questions were added to the test in this case. In order to determine the LRE for the girl, the judges was considering whether or not the school district compared the benefits that the disabled child would receive in a mainstream classroom with the benefits she would receive in a special education setting.  Also, the court considered whether or not the presence of the child with disability had a negative effect on other students in the classroom.  Finally, the court asked the question about how much it actually cost to provide additional educational aids and services to the handicapped child.  This new test was widely used in determining the LRE in other cases and its questions were used to create even better and much more effective tests (Gruenhagen &Ross, 1995 ? Rothstein & Johnson, 2014)..

In 1993, there was another major court case which became known as (Rafael) Oberti v. the Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District. This case also played a big role in developing the concepts of the LRE principle.  As mentioned Rothstein., & Johnson (2014), The dispute occurred over an eight-year-old boy with Down’s syndrome in New Jersey.  As in (Christy) Greer v. Rome City School District case, the parents of Rafael were requested to give permission to assess their child before accepting it to their local kindergarten.  After evaluating him, it was recommended that he be placed in a special education class.  When his parents refused, the boy was allowed to attend the kindergarten regular classes for the morning but was also sent to join a special education school in another district which he had to attend in the afternoon.  Despite the fact that Rafael made some social and academic progress in this kindergarten, his behaviour was the major stumbling block to remaining there.  The school district recommended that he be placed in a special education class.  Although his parents opposed the decision, the school district eventually convinced them to place their son in a segregated class but promised to take him back to the local regular school when mainstreaming possibilities are explored (Gruenhagen &Ross, 1995).

However, when Rafael’s behaviour improved there, his local school district made no attempt to mainstream him.  Because of that, his parents requested a court hearing. It was found that the school district failed to implement appropriate special education techniques to improve his progress and his behavioural problems occurred due to the lack of additional aids and services that were necessary for him.  Because of that, in order to determine the least restrictive environment for the boy, the court created a new test.  This time, a new question was added to the test, and future courts would also use it to determine the LRE for children with physical and mental disabilities.  It was reasoned that the school district should consider all possible additional aids and services in determining LRE for the child with a disability, and if necessary, give it itinerant instructions and assign it to a resource room (Laura &Louis , 2014).

Just a year after the (Rafael) Oberti v. the Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District case was over, there took place another major LRE court hearing in the United States.  This case was started by parents from California who insisted that their eleven-year-old daughter Rachel should be placed full-time in a mainstream setting.  The girl was previously enrolled in various special education programs in her local school district, and according to the test she took there, she had an IQ of 44.  The school district refused the request of Rachel’s parents.  Instead, it suggested that the girl be placed in a class of regular education only for non-academic subjects and continue to attend special programs, according to her ability to learn.  Her parents disagreed with the decision and took the matter to the court.  For the time their case was being considered, they enrolled their daughter in a private school’s kindergarten program  (Gruenhagen &Ross, 1995 ? Rothstein, & Johnson, 2014? Laura &Louis , 2014 ).

Sometime later, the court found that Rachel made considerable progress in this kindergarten and her behaviour was not unusually disruptive there.  It also appeared that the school district exaggerated the true cost of supplementary services that the girl actually needed. The court ordered that the school district place the girl full-time in a mainstream second grade classroom and provide her with necessary additional aids and services.  Apart from using the tests that were created in the above-mentioned cases, the court asked the school district to consider a few more factors in determining the LRE for disabled children.  It asked the district to take into account what effect the presence of Rachel had not only on other students but also on her teachers.  It was highlighted that the actual cost of mainstreaming her should also be taken seriously.  Later, this case became known as the Holland Case or Sacramento City Unified School District, Board of Education v. Rachel Holland (Laura,Louis .2014).

The next LRE case was heard by the same circuit court which decided the Holland case and entered the history as Clyde K. v. Puyallup Case (Rothstein., & Johnson, 2014).  This time, the dispute was over a fifteen-year-old Ryan who suffered from Tourette’s syndrome and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).  Ryan attended a mainstream education class and received special education aids and services in the Puyallup School District (Washington).  In 1992, in the middle of the school year, the student’s behaviour started to deteriorate and become unusually disruptive.  He started to assault teachers and students, his remarks toward females in the school consisted of the elements of sexual harassment, and seeing him kicking furniture and other objects become no longer unusual in the class.  When the school district insisted that Ryan should be placed in a special education setting, his parents initially agreed to that but changed their mind a bit later. The matter was taken to the court which eventually upheld the decision of the school district. This time, the court used the test which it created in the Holland case.  However, this case was unique as unlike other cases, the judges had to determine the LRE for an older youth with no signs of retardation.  The judges took into account that his presence had a very negative effect on other students in the school, his behaviour precluded him from learning, and he no longer received any non-academic benefit in the school.  That was the fifth court case which configured the LRE concepts (Gruenhagen &Ross, 1995 ? Rothstein, & Johnson, 2014? Laura &Louis , 2014 ).

The sixth LRE case was heard by U.S. District Court of Denver, the state of Colorado.  In this case, the parents of a nineteen-year-old retarded students Gregory insisted upon placing him in their neighbouring high school in order to integrate him into his local community.  They argued that attending special education in other city cannot provide their son with the LRE. However, the court dismissed this claim and said that LRE concepts do not cover such requirements (Gruenhagen &Ross, 1995).

Those courts became the historic background for today’s LRE concepts which are included in the Individuals with Disability Education Act.  The LRE means that disabled children should have the opportunity to be educated with their peers who have no disabilities to the greatest extent appropriate (American Physiological Association, 2013)

The decision on whether a disabled child will get more benefits in a regular or special education setting must be made by the individual education program team which should approach each case on an individual basis.  The schools which accept children with disabilities must be able to provide alternate placements in order to guarantee each of them educational services that meet their individual needs.  Every child who is entitled to receiving FAPE must be placed in the least restrictive environment.  Public schools which run preschool programs for children with no disabilities should comply with LRE requirements.  The schools that do not have such a program in place do not have to initiate it solely to meet placement requirements (Yell, 2012).  .

Nevertheless, every school must make sure that the unique needs of each student with mental or physical problems are met properly by placing them in an appropriate setting according to their IEP (Raike, Ed, 2013).  At the same time, if a student’s behaviour is disruptive and prevents other children in a mainstream class from learning, then regular placement should be deemed as inappropriate for them (Berg, 2004).  When an alternate setting is being considered for any disabled person, it is important that they are placed as close to their home as possible.  By LRE, school must provide disabled students with non-academic services in as integrated environment as possible.  However, for some students, a general education classroom can sometimes be the most restrictive environment, so full inclusion can not be and is not a legal requirement or mandate in education (Keuhne, 1998). When placing a student, it is essential to remember that social benefits often are more important than academic ones (Cpenhaver, 2001).

It is worth noting that the LRE as a complex of specific concepts presents a number of advantages and disadvantages in the education system of America.  On one hand, it gives disabled children the opportunity to receive their education in a more natural and simulating environment in which they have high chances of starting friendships with their peers without disabilities (Yell, 2012).  This may help them to integrate into their community and feel more confident in their lives when they leave they schools one day.  Non-disabled students have the opportunity to learn about differences between various people, and are taught how to tolerate and assist those who are born less fortunate in this world.  By having to use different methods and approaches in special education, teachers become more skilled and professional.  On the other hand, however, there always are some problems when it comes to implementing the LRE concepts.  The teachers of regular schools often are unable to provide special educational services to children with severe behavioural or language disorders (Turnbull, Stowe, & Huerta, 2007).

It has already become clear that to expect from teachers of mainstream education that they will be able to always deal with disabled students in a professional manner is totally unrealistic.  It is impossible for them to constantly be ahead of the latest researches or have appropriate knowledge in order to deal with broad range of mental or/and physical disorders. Even if a regular school is assisted by professional specialists, its setting may still be a serious problem for a lot of mentally or physically ill students (Harchik, 2005).

It is obvious that teachers must constantly improve their qualification in order to be able to use specific techniques and strategies in special education.  It is crucial to understand that the expectations which teachers set according to disabled students must always be realistic.  Without that, no placement can be helpful in improving their academic achievements.  When working with mentally impaired students, teachers need to break their assignments into pieces and, if it is possible, try to explain each of them separately.  Also, they need to make longer breaks between them, as this usually helps disabled children to get more focused on their works.  What is more, it is very important to reward students for their good behaviour, finishing their work in a timely manner, and for being active.

It is crucial to remember that there is no strategy that is good for everyone in special education. Because of that, whatever method is invented, it should be flexible.  However, as in special education setting there are usually students with different needs and problems, to create the lesson plan that would fit everyone in the class might be rather difficult.  For that reason, teachers should be creative and develop a complex of resources which work and are effective.

Although efficient strategies are most often chosen through the method of trial and error, there, however, are some instructions which are very important to follow in teaching children with disabilities.  First of all, lesson plans must always be developed considering the impairments that students who attend the class have.  When developing lesson plans, it is essential to ask peers to assess them in order to make sure they will definitely work (Effective teaching strategies for special education, 2013).

When giving a lesson, every response from disabled students must be carefully monitored and verified.  The strengths and weaknesses of each impaired person should be taken into account in order to develop an individual plan for teaching them effectively in the future.

One of the effective instructional strategies is Class Wide Peer Tutoring (CWPT).  This strategy lies in encouraging students to work in pair, instructing teachers to systematically cover material and correcting errors immediately after their occurrence, conducting tests, and arranging various competitions which are based on points earning.

Another instructional approach which has already proved to be effective is called direct instruction (DI).  By this approach, teachers are the only ones who are responsible for students’ academic achievements.  Timing and wording play a big role in this method of teaching, and sequencing of presenting information in order to explore a general idea of the material is what makes DI effective the most when is used in special education.

Self-monitoring is another strategy designed to be used in special education which helps disabled students to better control their own behaviour and stay more focused on their tasks.  The strategy is exceptionally good because it helps children with not only academic problems but also behavioural ones to get ready to be placed in mainstream education classes (Martel, 2009).

Implication of Literature

Reviewing various literatures, one can see that special and regular education teachers are encouraged to use different methods and techniques today, and a lack of resources is not going to be a problem for them in the nearest future. However, the availability of various techniques or/and methods does not necessarily mean that mainstream education teachers are or will be happy and willing to use them.  The inclusion approach in American education makes teaching profession more and more difficult and repels a lot of people from becoming a teacher.  There is a shortage of this kind of specialists in the country, and this precludes this profession from becoming popular and competitive. It is a big challenge for American education system indeed, as a lack of competitiveness in it discourages today’s teachers from implementing the methods that require hard work even if they are very likely to be effective.  On top of that, not every teacher finds the techniques that are allegedly effective really workable (Turnbull, Stowe, & Huerta, 2007).  It is a well-known fact that there is no method that is equally good for everyone.  The need for finding an individual approach to each student often makes teaching job unbearably hard and confusing.  Because of that, determining the LRE for many disabled children in schools still appears to be a real problem nowadays.  At the same time however, it is worth noting that this problem has now been addressed much better than it was, for example, several decades ago.  It would be wrong to say that there is no progress in improving the opportunity for disabled children to learn in American schools.  Today, for example, there is created the Least Restrictive Environment Hierarchy (LREH) in special education, which consists of various hybrid placement programs for disabled children.  When determining the least restrictive environment for a child, any of them may be viewed as a possibility.  This allows placing a student into a setting, in which their proficiency will be the highest.

Depending on the child’s disability, it could be placed in a general education class, which is considered an example of the least restrictive environment, or enrolled in a special residential program, which environment is seen as the most restrictive one.  This is a great benefit that today’s special education actually provides to mentally and physically ill children.

Conclusion

It has already become clear that the government should do more to implement the principle of the IDEA and improve educational opportunities for disabled children.  There are many ways to do that.  For example, much more needs to be done to encourage people to become a teacher and make this profession more prestigious.  This can be done by increasing wages of such specialists and/or investing more money in their education.  Without such steps, it is unlikely that the situation will improve at any time soon, and more and more children with mental and physical disabilities will be missing the opportunity to get educated in the right setting.  The sooner the government understands that, the better.

References

American Physiological Association. (2013). Individuals with Disability Education Act. Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/about/gr/issues/disability/idea.aspx

Berg, S. (2004). The advantages and disadvantages of the inclusion of students with disabilities into regular education classrooms. Retrieved from: http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/2005/2005bergs.pdf

Copenhaver, J. (2001). The least restrictive environment. A Primer for Parents and Educators, 2-3. Retrieved from: http://familiestogetherinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/LREPrimer.pdf

Effective teaching strategies for special education. (2013). Retrieved from: http://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/special-ed/effective-teaching-strategies-for-special-education/

Gruenhagen, K.& Ross, S. (1995). Least restrictive environment and case law: What the courts are saying about inclusion. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED386005).

Harchik, A. (2005). Including children with special needs in regular classrooms: Pros & cons.  Retrieved from: http://www.newsforparents.org/experts_inclusion_pros_cons.html

Turnbull, H. R., Stowe, M., & Huerta, N. (2007). Free appropriate public education: the law and children with disabilities. Denver, CO: Love Pub. Co.

Keuhne, C. (1998). Least Restrictive Environment: How do we prepare both our special educators and our general educators to comply with the provision? Retrieved from: http://www.ldonline.org/article/6083/

Laura, R. & Louis, D. (2014). Special Education Low. By SAGE Publications,Inc.

MacBeath J, Galton M, Steward S, MacBeath A, and Page C.  (2008).“The Cost of Inclusion.” National  Union of Teachers Official Site. University of Cambridge.

Martel, A. (2009). Effective strategies for general and special education teachers.  Retrieved from: http://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1251&context=honors

Raike, J., Ed, S. (2013). Least Restrictive Environment: Influences on placement decisions in rural Appalachian Ohio. Retrieved from: http://www.cehs.ohio.edu/gfx/media/pdf/raike.pdf

Rothstein, L. F., & Johnson, S. F. (2014). Special education law. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Yell, M. L. (2012). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

About the Author

– Lecturer at Taibah University in Medina, Saudi Arabia.

– PhD researcher in deaf and hard of hearing at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

All articles below can be accessed through the following links:

http://www.parentcenterhub.org/buzz-march2018-issue2/

http://www.parentcenterhub.org/buzz-april2018-issue1/

Register today for High Expectations and Appropriate Supports: The Importance of IEPs
OSEP Virtual Symposium, April 9, 2018 from 1:30-3:30 PM Eastern.

Everything You Need for the Month of the Military Child
From the Military PTAC, the Branch, just in time for April’s Month of the Military Child.

Webinar | Endrew F: A New Tool for Enhancing the Family Voice at the IEP Decision-making Table
A must-hear webinar featuring Diana MTK Autin and Michael Yudin examining the Endrew F. decision by the Supreme Court and its implications for the education of children and youth with disabilities.

Agents of Their Own Success: Self-Advocacy Skills and Self-Determination for Students with Disabilities in the Era of Personalized Learning
From the National Center for Learning Disabilities.

Summer Camp Guide 2018
From the Family Support Program.

The Kid Zone!
Tell your families about The Kid Zone, where parents can participate as their child builds literacy skills in a fun and interactive way.

Accommodations for Common Core Tests
If your state has adopted use of the PARCC or Smarter Balanced, here’s what parents need to know about securing the testing accommodations their child needs. Also available in Spanish (Adaptaciones en las pruebas estandarizadas comunes).

At a Glance: 5 Factors of Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence (EI) allows children to act on feelings in an effective way. This key ability can help kids with learning and attention issues work through their challenges. Take a look at these 5 aspects of having EI. Also available in Spanish.

Teaching Emotional Intelligence in Early Childhood
Emotional intelligence is related to many important outcomes for children and adults. From the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).

Self-Awareness Worksheets for Young People
There’s a worksheet for younger children, and there’s another for tweens and teens. Both are available in English and Spanish (Hojas de ejercicios de autoconsciencia para niños).

The Importance of Self-Care
Don’t forget about yourself! These TED talks offer simple ways to stay healthy–both emotionally and physically.

Reinforcing Resilience: How Parent Centers Can Support American Indian and Alaska Native Parents
This new 2-pager from NAPTAC describes the importance of resilience in Native communities and suggests ways that Parent Centers can share the skills that reinforce resilience with Native parents of youth with disabilities.

Bouncing Back from Setbacks: A Message for American Indian and Alaska Native Youth
As a companion piece to the above, this 2-pager is designed for Parent Centers to share with Native youth.

ED’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
To ensure the Department’s “significant disproportionality” regulations effectively address this serious issue, the Department of Education is proposing to postpone the compliance date by two years, from July 1, 2018, to July 1, 2020. The Department also proposes to postpone the date for including children ages 3 through 5 in the analysis of significant disproportionality with respect to the identification of children as “children with disabilities” and as “children with a particular impairment” from July 1, 2020, to July 1, 2022. Read the proposed new rule and see where to submit your public comments. Deadline for submitting comments: May 14, 2018