Over 90% of students with complex support needs are taught in self-contained (segregated) special education classrooms for most of their school day, despite accumulating evidence these classrooms are not associated with positive student outcomes. Yet placement in these segregated classrooms persists, in part because of assumptions about the degree of specialized, intensive, and individualized instruction that occurs in these settings. We observed a national sample of 30 students with complex support needs using time sampling and fieldnote data in this convergent parallel mixed methods study to describe (a) the ecobehavioral characteristics of classrooms, (b) the learning activities occurring in classrooms, and (c) how the materials, supports, and learning activities explain student experiences in these classrooms. Quantitative time sampling data indicated that students experienced passive learning opportunities and downtime, with few occasions to engage with other peers or grade-aligned content. Qualitative fieldnote data provided context for the quantitative results. These findings provide a picture of the low expectations that persist in segregated classrooms and contradict the need to remove students from general education to learn in segregated classrooms.
AgranM.JacksonL.KurthJ. A.RyndakD.BurnetteK.JamesonM.ZagonaA.FitzpatrickH.WehmeyerM. (2020). Why aren’t students with severe disabilities being placed in general education classrooms: Examining the relations among classroom placement, learner outcomes, and other factors. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45, 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919878134
2.
Americans with Disabilities Act, Public Law No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328 Cong. Rec. (1990).
3.
AttaiS. L.ReyesJ. C.DavisJ. L.YorkJ.RanneyK.HydeT. W. (2021). Investigating the impact of flexible furniture in the elementary classroom. Learning Environments Research, 24, 153–167.
4.
BaconJ.RoodC. E.FerriB. A. (2016). Promoting access through segregation: The emergence of the “prioritized curriculum” class. Teachers College Record, 118(14), 1–22.
5.
Bates-HarrisC. (2012). Segregated and exploited: The failure of the disability service system to provide quality work. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 36(1), 39–64. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2012-0581
6.
BazeleyP. (2012). Integrative analysis strategies for mixed data sources. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 814–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211426330
7.
BrowderD.TrelaK.CourtadeG.JimenezB. A.KnightV.FlowersC. (2012). Teaching mathematics and science standards to students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 46, 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910369942
8.
ColemanO. F.McDonnellJ.BowmanJ.EichelbergerC.RyanJ.ConradiL. A. (2023). Self-contained special educators’ perceptions toward including students with significant cognitive disabilities in general education classes. Exceptionality, 31(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2023.2171418
9.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
10.
de BoerH.TimmermansA. C.van der WerfM. P. C. (2018). The effects of teacher expectation interventions on teachers’ expectations and student achievement: Narrative review and meta-analysis. Educational Research and Evaluation, 24(3–5), 180–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2018.1550834
11.
FettersM. D. (2020). The mixed methods research workbook: Activities for designing, implementing, and publishing projects. Sage.
12.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6 Pt. 2), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
13.
GeeK.GonzalezM.CooperC. (2020). Outcomes of inclusive versus separate placements: A matched pairs comparison study. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(4), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796920943469
14.
GiangrecoM. F. (2004). The stairs don’t go anywhere! A self-advocate’s reflections on specialized services and their impact on people with disabilities. In NindM.RixJ.SheehyK.SimmonsK. (Eds.), Inclusive education: Diverse perspectives (pp. 34–42). David Fulton Publishers in association with The Open University.
15.
GiangrecoM. F.SuterJ. C.HurleyS. M. (2011). Revisiting personnel utilization in inclusion-oriented schools. The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911419015
16.
GladstoneC. (2014). Tales from the market. In WillsR.MortonM.McLeanM.StephensonM.SleeR. (Eds.), Tales from school: Learning disability and state education after administrative reform (pp. 227–237). Sense.
17.
HughesC.AgranM.CosgriffJ. C.WashingtonB. H. (2013). Student self-determination: A preliminary investigation of the role of participation in inclusive settings. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48(1), 3–17.
18.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub.L. No.P.L.108-446. (2004).
19.
JacksonL.AgranM.LanseyK. R.BakerD.MatthewsS.FitzpatrickH.JamesonM.RyndakD.BurnetteK.TaubD. (2022). Examination of contextual variables across and within different types of placement for elementary students with complex support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 47(4), 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969221132248
20.
JamesonJ. M.HicksT.LanseyK.KurthJ. A.JacksonL.ZagonaA. L.BurnetteK.AgranM.ShogrenK.PaceJ. (2022). Predicting the frequency and significance of social contacts across placements: A Bayesian multilevel model analysis. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 47(4), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969221136538
21.
JimenezB. A.KameiA. (2015). Embedded instruction: An evaluation of evidence to inform inclusive practice. Inclusion, 3(3), 132–144. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-3.3.132
22.
JimenezB. A.KemmeryM. (2013). Building the early numeracy skills of students with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48(4), 479–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932519873121
23.
KauffmanJ. M.FelderM.AhrbeckB.BadarJ.SchneidersK. (2018). Inclusion of “all” students in general education? International appeal for a more temperate approach to inclusion. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 21(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.9782/17-00009
24.
KauffmanJ. M.LandrumT. J.MockD. R.SayeskiB.SayeskiK. L. (2005). Diverse knowledge and skills require a diversity of instructional groups: A position statement. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 2–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325050260010101
25.
KleinertH.Towles-ReevesE.QuenemoenR.ThurlowM.FlueggeL.WesemanL.KerbelA. (2015). Where students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are taught. Exceptional Children, 81(3), 312–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914563697
26.
KrissonE.QureshiM.HeadA. (2022). Adapting photovoice to explore identity expression amongst people with intellectual disabilities who have limited or no verbal communication. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12373
27.
KurthJ. A.BornK.LoveH. (2016). Ecobehavioral characteristics of self-contained high school classrooms for students with severe cognitive disability. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(4), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916661492
28.
KurthJ. A.JacksonL. (2022). Introduction to the special issue on the impact of placement on outcomes for students with complex support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 47(4), 187–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969221134509
29.
KurthJ. A.RupparA. L.McQuestonJ. A.McCabeK. M.JohnstonR.ToewsS. G. (2019a). Types of supplementary aids and services for students with significant support needs. Journal of Special Education, 52(4), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918791156
30.
KurthJ. A.RupparA. L.ToewsS. G.McCabeK. M.McQuestonJ. A.JohnstonR. (2019b). Considerations in placement decisions for students with extensive support needs: An analysis of LRE statements. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 44(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796918825479
31.
LandrumT. J.TankersleyM.KauffmanJ. M. (2003). What is special about special education for students with emotional or behavioral disorders?The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669030370030401
32.
LekoM. M.HitchcockJ. H.LoveH. R.HouchinsD. E.ConroyM. A. (2022). Quality indicators for mixed-methods research in special education. Exceptional Children, 89(4), 432–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221141031
33.
LoveH. R.ZagonaA. L.KurthJ. A.MillerA. L. (2017). Parents’ experiences in educational decision making for children and youth with disabilities. Inclusion, 5(3), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-5.3.158
34.
MansouriM. C.KurthJ. A.Lockman TurnerE.ZimmermanK. N.FrickT. A. (2022). Comparison of academic and social outcomes of students with extensive support needs across placements. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 47(2), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969221101792
35.
MaytonM. R.CarterS. L.WheelerJ. J. (2014).Intrusiveness of behavioral treatments for adults with intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.10.023
36.
MillerA. L.KurthJ. A. (2022). Photovoice research with disabled girls of color: Exposing how schools (re)produce inequities through school geographies and learning tools. Disability & Society, 37(8), 1362–1390. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1881883
37.
MimsP. J.HudsonM. E.BrowderD. M. (2012). Using read-alouds of grade-level biographies and systematic prompting to promote comprehension for students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 27(2), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357612446859
38.
MorningstarM. E.KurthJ. A.JohnsonP. J. (2017). Examining national trends in educational placements for students with significant disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 38(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516678327
39.
NagroS. A.MarkelzA.DavisR.MacedoniaA.MonninK. (2023). The evolution of access to education through landmark legislation, court cases, and policy initiatives setting precedent for the Gary B. court decision. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 33(4), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073221094806
40.
PenningtonR. C.CourtadeG. R. (2015). An examination of teacher and student behaviors in classrooms for students with moderate and severe intellectual disability. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 59(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.919141
41.
SaldañaJ. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
42.
SauerJ. S.JorgensenC. M. (2016). Still caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of least restrictive environment and its effect on placement of students with intellectual disability. Inclusion, 4(2), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-4.2.56
43.
ShogrenK. A.ZimmermanK. N.BurkeK. M.ZagonaA. L.KurthJ. A.MaloneE. J.LoylessR.GerasimovaD.PaceJ. R.HicksT. A. (2023). Educational placement and goal quality for students with complex support needs. Inclusion, 11(4), 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-11.4.222
44.
TaubD. A.ApgarJ.FosterM.RyndakD. L.BurdgeM. D.LetsonS. (2019). Investigating the alignment between English language arts curricula developed for students with significant intellectual disability and the CCSS. Remedial and Special Education, 41(5), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932519843184
45.
TaubD. A.McCordJ. A.RyndakD. L. (2017). Opportunities to learn for students with extensive support needs: A context of research-supported practices for all in general education classes. The Journal of Special Education, 51(3), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466917696263
46.
ToewsS. G.KurthJ. A.Lockman TurnerE.LyonK. J. (2020). Ecobehavioral analysis of inclusive classrooms and instruction that supports students with extensive support needs. Inclusion, 8(4), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-8.4.259
47.
TraversJ. C. (2022). Not everything can be special: Appropriate education for severe disabilities. In KauffmanJ. M. (Ed.), Revitalizing special education (pp. 109–119). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80117-494-720221006
48.
ZagonaA. L.KurthJ. A.Lockman TurnerE.PaceJ.ShogrenK.LanseyK.JamesonM.BurnetteK.MansouriM.HicksT.GerasimovaD. (2022). Ecobehavioral analysis of the experiences of students with complex support needs in different classroom types. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 47(4), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969221126496
49.
ZagonaA. L.LanseyK. R.KurthJ. A.KuhlemeierA. (2021). Fostering participation during literacy instruction in inclusive classrooms for students with complex support needs: Educators’ strategies and perspectives. The Journal of Special Education, 55(1), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920936671
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.
