Abstract
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2011). Educational programs for elementary students with learning disabilities: Can they be both effective and inclusive? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 48–57.
The least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 2004) provides a clear preference for educating students with disabilities in general education classrooms. More specifically, this mandate states that students with disabilities should only be educated in separate, special education settings if their disability is so severe that it cannot be addressed in the general education classroom with supplementary aids and services. As a result of this mandate, the majority of students with language-learning disabilities (LLD) receive all or nearly all of their education in general education classrooms. In 2007–2008, 62% of students with LLD were served in inclusive settings and 90% spent a large portion of their day in these settings. Some school districts even mandate that services by special education teachers and speech–language pathologists (SLPs) be provided within the general education classroom. Although in principle, the LRE mandate and inclusion are widely supported by parents, researchers, school professionals, and advocates for students with disabilities (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; McLeskey, 2007), many also raise concerns about the effectiveness of this service delivery model (Zigmond, Kloo, & Volonino, 2009).
McLeskey and Waldron, the authors of this article,
address research related to the characteristics of high-quality instruction that is needed if elementary students with learning disability (LD) are to make adequate academic progress,
summarize research related to whether this instruction can be delivered in inclusive, general education classrooms, and
review research regarding the extent to which high-quality instruction has been delivered in part-time, special education resource settings.
What Is High-Quality Instruction for Students With LLD?
Research indicates that high-quality instruction (that has strong support for significantly improving academic outcomes for students with LD) should be more intensive than instruction that is typically offered in general education classrooms (Gersten et al., 2009; Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009).
This more intensive instruction focuses on a small group of targeted, high-priority skills and concepts, which are taught directly with sufficient time for instruction and using modeling and guided practice to ensure mastery.
A teacher with a high level of specialized skills should deliver the instruction.
Instruction should be delivered to small groups of students with similar needs for optimal results.
Research has revealed that many elementary students with mild academic disabilities (mostly students with LD) can make significant academic gains when provided high-quality instruction in part-time, separate settings (e.g., Gersten et al., 2009; Torgesen et al., 2001). Furthermore, these gains are often significantly greater than gains that are experienced by most students with similar difficulties who are educated in high-quality, full-time inclusive settings (e.g., Torgesen, 2009; Torgesen et al., 2001; Waldron & McLeskey, 1998).
Can This High-Quality Instruction Be Delivered in an Inclusive Classroom?
Research has shown that teachers in inclusive classrooms tend to make routine adaptations in their general education classrooms to make the curriculum more manageable for students with LD (Zigmond et al., 2009). This includes reduced workload, altered assignments, homework adjustments, test accommodation. Teachers make many routine adaptations such as changing expectations, altering grading criteria, and using flexible within-class grouping. However, teachers find it difficult to provide focused, intensive instruction for students with LD in the general education classroom. They do not report making specialized instructional adaptation and, in fact, felt that such methods disrupted the flow of the classroom (e.g., Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Zigmond & Baker, 1995). Researchers concluded that the inclusive classrooms where they observed were more amenable to change with regard to the “how” of instruction (materials, instructions, structure), but the “what” of instruction (curriculum, pacing) was less amenable to change. Even when special education teachers were available to co-teach in the general education classrooms, they did not deliver high-quality intensive instruction. Thus, students with LD were not provided with the intensive, high-quality instruction that they needed that could result in significant improvement in their academic skills.
Can Resource Rooms Deliver High-Quality Specialized Instruction to Students With LD?
Special education resource classes, as currently configured, often are not equipped to provide the high-quality, intensive instruction that is needed to accelerate academic growth for elementary students with LD (Bentum & Aaron, 2003; Vaughn, Levy, Coleman, & Bos, 2002; Zigmond & Baker, 1996).
The major problems with instruction in resource settings included the following:
Lower-quality instruction that is undifferentiated, and thus was not tailored to individual student needs. Resource class instruction was found to be less intensive and included less active instruction and more seat work than general education classrooms.
Little coordination with general education. Instruction in resource classes was rarely connected to the general education curriculum. Different materials were used across the two settings, which were often based on different theories of reading instruction. This often resulted in fragmented learning experiences.
Less instructional time. Instruction in resource classes tended to supplant rather than supplement instruction in the general education setting. Also, students in resource settings tended to spend less time actively engaged in reading, were provided less direct instruction, and spent more time doing independent work.
Unclear accountability. It was not clear who was responsible for ensuring that students were making progress.
Based on their review of the literature, McLeskey and Waldron concluded,
that most resource settings, as currently configured, are largely a waste of time and resources and have failed to deliver the high-quality instruction that is desperately needed by students with mild disabilities to learn the basic skills they need to be successful in school. (p. 52)
Implications
McLeskey and Waldon proposed changes that need to be made if the needs of students with LD are to be met:
improving instruction in general education classrooms (i.e., ensuring that effective, inclusive classrooms are developed that accommodate a diverse range of student needs) and
developing service delivery options that support special education teachers and SLPs in delivering high-quality, intensive instruction in part-time special education classes or therapeutic sessions.
What is the SLP to do with this information? SLPs have multiple roles in schools (American Speech–Language–Hearing Association [ASHA], 2010):
They are to provide appropriate assessment and intervention services to students they serve, including addressing language-literacy issues.
They are to advocate for appropriate programs and services for children and adolescents, including reasonable workloads, professional development opportunities, and other program supports.
Given their expertise in communication and language, SLPs can design and conduct professional development for other educators, including administrators, teachers, other educational specialists, and paraprofessionals in the collaborative effort to enhance the performance of students in schools.
They are to collaborate with other school professionals to support the instructional program at a school, including working with school and district administrators in designing and implementing programs.
Although the research reviewed in this article focused on special education resource rooms, the same issues are likely to arise with SLP services. SLPs should evaluate the quality of the intervention services they are providing in pull-out settings. Are the groups so large and diverse that students are not receiving support for their specific needs? Are students receiving sufficient intense intervention to develop the language skills they need for the curriculum? Do the activities support or supplant classroom activities? The SLP needs to provide students with appropriate, intense services to develop the speech and language skills that they need to function within the classroom.
If a principal or school district mandates full inclusion for all students with disabilities, the SLP needs to advocate for why this might not be “the least restrictive environment” for a particular student. Why might a student require some intense intervention outside of the general education classroom? (This does not mean that the student should not spend time in a general education classroom, just that all of his or her needs cannot be met in that context).
Because so much of the time of students with LLD is spent in general education classrooms, it is imperative that instruction in these classes improve. Collaboration with teachers should go beyond suggestions for routine adaptations such as changing expectations, altering grading criteria, and using flexible within-class grouping. In Word of Mouth, 24, 4, an article was reviewed that described how an SLP trained teachers to modify their instructional techniques (Starling, Munro, Togher, & Arciuli, 2012). The SLP provided in-service training for teachers on vocabulary instruction, using more explicit language in instructions, and supporting their teaching with visual aids. In addition the SLP observed and modeled in the classrooms. Students with LLD in the classrooms of teachers who received this training made greater gains on the Written Expression and Listening Comprehension subtests of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Second edition (WIAT-II; Wechsler, 2007) relative to the students in classrooms of teachers who did not receive the training. The authors noted, however, that although the students exhibited language improvements, they did not exhibit continued growth at a later follow-up. They concluded that this lack of significant continued improvement from post-test to follow-up may indicate that these students require additional support to achieve further gains in the longer term. The data suggest that the use of a systems based approach may not be sufficient on its own to shift the long-term trajectory of adolescent language impairment (LI).
McLeskey and Waldon suggest that the response to intervention (RtI) framework could be a useful framework for meeting the needs of students with LLD. Rather than conceptualizing the service delivery continuum as a series of places or classrooms, one can think of this delivery system as a continuum of supports or tiers of instruction. Universal supports are provided in the general education classroom with the entire class and benefit all students. This may include supports such as differentiated instruction or providing a wide range of reading materials in the classroom. Targeted Supports are used to benefit students who struggle with learning basic academic skills and may include supports such as explicit instruction in small groups, peer tutoring, or extended opportunities for guided practice. At this time, in practice, most of the students at this level are not qualified for special education services. Because 15% of IDEA funds can be used for this level, some school districts do have SLPs provide Targeted Supports. Finally, Specialized Supports are designed to meet the needs of a small group of students who have specialized needs and who do not respond and significantly improve their academic skills when Universal or Targeted Supports are used. This may include Specialized Supports such as explicit teaching of specific skills in small groups or one-to-one. Because of the way that most states qualify students for language services, the majority of students on SLP caseloads probably require Specialized Supports. Hence, 100% placement in a general education classroom is highly unlikely to meet their educational needs.
SLPs can work to provide the intense intervention services their students need, collaborate with teachers to not only provide curriculum modifications for students with LLD but also improve the quality of their instruction, and work with school and district personnel to provide the continuum of supports that students with LLD require to be successful.