Least Restrictive Environment and Socio-phycological Development for Special Education

Introduction

Success in school is based on several factors. Grades are one factor in measuring school success. However, other factors are also vital to students’ development and well-being. Socio-psychological development is one factor in school success that has been dismissed, especially in connection to the education of students with disabilities (Carson, 2015). Socio-psychological development considers the social development and interactions of students in combination with their psychological needs of students (Caballero, 2024). Socio-phycological development includes many factors, including “self-concepts, self-esteem, and self-perceptions of social integration” (Lohbeck, 2020, p. 1368). Socio-psychological development includes many factors, such as “self-concept, self-esteem, and self-perceptions of social integration” (Lohbeck, 2020, p. 1368). Examining socio-phycological development in connection to LRE, the question goes beyond “Do general education classrooms meet students’ academic needs?” and broadens to “Do general education classrooms help students grow on multiple fronts?”. It is important to note that socio-psychological development can differ for each student. For example, a student may not enjoy social integration and prefer to be separated or spend only with a few close friends. This student may still have healthy socio-psychological development If students have grade-appropriate levels of self-esteem and feel content with their peer relations.

In contrast, a student may have lots of friends, love social interaction and have successful socio-psychological development if students have a grade-appropriate sense of self. These varying factors can make it challenging to qualify and quantify socio-psychological development. However, difficulty understanding the subject does not dismiss its importance.

In the United States, the LRE model is used for disability education, attempting to minimize separation and discrimination between students by placing students in the classroom with the least amount of separation. Minimizing discrimination can be due to the interactions between students promoting equality, which typically means a lack of separation, creating challenges for students with SEN (Meisels, 1977). The reality of LRE has been challenged, with questions about the development of the policy and its implementation creating criticism around it. For example, the fact that the policy was partly supported to save money on separated classrooms has become a criticism of the model (Carson, 2015). Furthermore, the title “least restrictive environment” creates problems as the LRE depends on the individual students – an idea dismissed in LRE policy. Though LRE is criticized, it is still the primary model for disability education in the US as the desire for integrated – sometimes thought to be inclusive – classrooms are prevalent. Two factors are highlighted in IDEA when assessing what environment students should be placed in. These factors are students' academic success and behavioural abilities (Meisel, 1977).

Of the data on the effects of LRE, there is an imbalance of types of disabilities, as well as unclear outlines of the individuals used in the studies. The individual aspect is important because without knowing how the disabilities present and affect each student, conclusions are too broad (Dalgaard et al., 2022). For example, saying someone with autism is negatively affected in their socio-physiological development in general education classrooms – sometimes referred to as mainstream classroom - dismisses the different extent to which autism affects individuals. The lack of individualism in studies of the LRE model reflects a vital issue with how the LRE model dismisses the differences between students who may, on paper, have similar needs but present and interact with their classroom differently.

The topic of this study is the socio-psychological effects of differing levels of the least restrictive environment (LRE) model on intermediate (grades 5-8) students with special education needs (SEN) in the US. This study aims to identify and analyze the effects of LRE on the socio-phycological development and needs of students in special education classrooms, focussing on how the development of these students with SEN in general education and special education classrooms differs.  Overall, the significance of the topic is based on the need to connect existing research about the effects of the LRE model and its relevance, coupled with the need to understand better education practices in connection to students SEN and how these differing needs may or may not be compatible with current models of education in the United States.

Research Question

In the United States what ways, if any, does the LRE model affect the individual socio-phycological needs of students with disabilities?

Literature Review

Three reoccurring themes were notable within the examined literature. The first is socio-psychological development, followed by the LRE model. These two themes are critical ideas within the topic and were necessary to understand the relationship between the PRE models and students’ socio-psychological development. The third theme is inclusion. Inclusion was less inherent to the topic than the other two themes; however, throughout the research process, it was persistent in its connection to LRE and socio-psychological development. Inclusion was presented by many sources to be something inseparable from LRE, as differing definitions of inclusion greatly affect authors' viewpoint of LRE. Furthermore, the three themes were highly mingled in their analyses, data collection, and other elements of research, often creating difficulties in separating them. Therefore, though presented separately, the themes must be considered in their relationship.

Methodologies

            Several different studies and articles were examined to understand and analyze the given topic. These articles vary in methodology and participants to gain comprehension of the scope of the LRE model and socio-psychological development. All the studies look at students with SEN in either general education or separated classes and the idea of LRE; however, the extent to which these topics are focused differs.

The qualitative studies use varying methodologies. For example, Dalgaard et al. (2022) examine the development of inclusive education trends, using a historical methodology to evaluate past sources and chronologically assess these trends. Lohbeck (2020) used cluster and stratified population sampling, interviews, and classroom observations to develop their theory on education around the concepts of self. Caballero (2024) looked directly at students' voices exam and examined those with disabilities and their perception of inclusive education. This mixed methodology study took from phenomenological research through its focus groups and interviews and used ethnography as the researcher interacted directly with the subject. Interviews and questionaries were the most common forms of data collection used throughout the examiner study, with all but one qualitative study using one of those forms of data collection. Vandana et al. (2024) and Kirby (2016) use a mixed methodology based on reviewing the previous literature to analyze their topics. Zuñiga (2024) was the only source to use a case study without a mixed methodology and looked explicitly at behavioural and emotional disabilities, differing from the focus on autism spectrum disorder and learning disabilities that are the focus of most other studies examined. 

Munik et al. (2024) used a quantitative research method, focusing on all students within Ontario, to find a relationship between population density and the number of support staff within schools. Munik et al. is the only study examined that used a strictly quantitative methodology.  

Socio-phycological development

Socio-psychological development combines several integrated ideas about student interaction and perceptions. Lohbeck (2020) looks at elements of socio-psychological development by dividing it into different ideas, including “self-concepts, self-esteem, and self-perceptions of social integration” (Lohbeck, 2020, p. 1368). With these concepts, Lobeck makes several conclusions. First, students with lower academic self-concepts typically feel less socially accepted and have lower self-esteem. This implies that academic needs must be met to fully support a student's socio-phycological development. Several other authors have addressed the idea of academic self-worth being tied to socio-psychological development. Kirby (2016) states that socio-phycological development is supported by students who feel confident in their academics.  This idea further connects to Kutash et al. 's (2015) statements about students' mental health. Students’ mental health is connected to “academic underachievement,” with mental health problems affecting the quality of work and the quality of one’s work affecting one’s mental health (Kutash et al., 2015, p. 5). These ideas from Kirby (2016) and Kutash et al. (2015) support Lobeck's (2020) claim that socio-phycological development cannot be separated from academic achievement. This would imply that the two main factors for evaluating student placement – reading level and subject grades – would reflect the socio-phycological development of a student, as better socio-phycological development in mental health leads to better academic achievement. At the same time, the connection between the two factors would imply that students whose grades drop or who feel less confident in their academics may need intervention related to their socio-psychological needs, not just their academics.

Another aspect of socio-psychological development is highlighted by Caballero (2024). Caballero states that social and emotional growth often comes when students are in difficult situations, such as being put in a general education classroom with a student who has SEN. Caballero also addresses that literature is split on whether having students with special education needs in general education classrooms positively affects a student's socio-phycological development. Some literature states that integration creates more accepting students, while others highlight that integration can create less acceptance within the classroom. The individual classroom and variety in the classroom, for example, the pre-disposition of the students or the type of teacher, affect how inclusive the classroom is and, therefore, affect the socio-psychological development of students (Franciso et al., 2020). Zuñig (2024) supports this idea by speaking about how, for general education classrooms to be effective, students with SEN must have teachers and students who are models of education and are willing to help and interact with students with differentiated needs. If the teacher is not creating an inclusive environment, the general education classroom will be problematic, stifling a student’s socio-phycological development. This idea relates to the individual students and their environment, highlighting how overarching policy can be harmful when the ideal factors are unmet. Therefore, for LRE to be an adequate model, all classrooms must have teachers and students who work towards inclusivity. When classrooms lack respect and understanding, the ability to effectively aid students with SEN inclusion cannot be met.

Caballero's work concludes that students within general education classrooms believe in themselves acting inclusive towards students in separated classrooms and enjoy having students from separated classes within the general education classroom for select integration. Therefore, general education students' social needs are supported through inclusion and can develop tolerance and understanding of diversity without full intergradation. The implication is that students with SEN feel included and supported by their peers in the minds of students without SEN. These socio-psychological developments and feelings of acceptance are only practical when students have effective teachers, and the teacher adapts to student needs. Therefore, the balance between difficulties in creating reliance and support must be found to have proper socio-psychological development. Caballero’s conclusion about how peers and teachers are affected by intergraded is also addressed by Franciso et al. (2020), who state that the socio-psychological development of students without disabilities is also affected when students are placed in the general education when it is not a suitable environment for said, student. This is due to the teacher's energy and attention often being split un-equally among the class.

There are proven ways within general education classrooms that follow the LRE model to better support students with SEN. These supports can be done by including “social skills training” into “the regular curriculum to provide comprehensive support for students” (Vandana et al., 2024, p. 6). Though Vandana et al. refer specifically to students with ASD, the inclusion of social development training into the curriculum can help support social-phycological development, as it is challenging to learn a skill without practicing it. However, developing aspects of socio-psychological development in the classroom must be paired with a practical classroom setting. If students need a separate classroom to have the most successful environment, then targeted socio-psychological development in general classrooms will not have the intended effect. Instead, socio-psychological development should be practiced in all environments to further develop students rather than be used to supplement putting students in the most effective environment for their development.

There are debates around socio-phycological development in general education classrooms. Some sources state that socio-psychological development can be stiffened when students are in a general education classroom because students put their energy into meeting the academic challenges of a general education classroom, depriving them of the focus and strength needed to meet their social needs and psychological (Francisco et al., 2020). Others state that mainstreaming – that is placing students into general education classrooms - provides a healthy challenge that prompts students to grow (Zuñig, 2024). The methodology of studies appeared to have the most incredible determination on a source’s consultation about socio-phycological development in connection to LRE. Zuñig, for example, favours mainstreaming more than other sources. However, as the source uses a case study, it gives only a tiny glimpse into what students may need, as the results are highly individualized. Meanwhile, broader studies, such as Lobeck's, conclude that separation significantly promotes socio-phycological development.

Least Restrictive Environment

The LRE model was said to be created to be inclusive towards all students by allowing students to learn within the same environment regardless of disabilities. However, the reality of LRE is that it can often create inclusion issues, as students’ needs are frequently ignored (Kirby, 2016). Kirby states that LRE aims to create a positive social and educational environment; however, he provides little information on what this means and does not connect the claim to the students and the classroom but remains in the theoretical ideas of LRE. This gap in Kirby’s research is filled by other researchers who try to take similar ideas about inclusion and LRE and connect them to the reality of the classroom. However, Kirby provides an important point that made many early advocates of LRE, such as Meisels (1977). Meisel's observations on the creation of LRE legislation are obsolete. Kirby states that legislators' assumptions about special education may have tinted their view on education and, therefore, the policy that led to LRE. This refers explicitly to assumptions people had about disability as well as the lack of care for students’ individual needs. The theme of students’ individual needs is reoccurring throughout most sources criticizing LRE, showing a fundamental problem in the LRE model.

When the LRE model was first introduced, many people were thrilled at the inclusive nature of the model. However, as time went on, more and more parents were dissatisfied with their child’s integrated education, with “over 50%” wanting a “different school for their child” due to “dissatisfaction” with the least restrictive setting provided (Vandana et al., 2024, p. 4). Vandana et al. stated that parents with students in general education classrooms were often upset with the lack of support provided to their child and the dismissive nature toward the student’s needs. Parents with students in separate classrooms were often dissatisfied with the total separation of classes and wanted a more integrated model. The balance to these complaints, as addressed in the final theme, is to create an inclusive environment that, in many ways, works against the LRE model.

There is a multitude of factors that need to be considered when placing a student in an environment that suits their individual needs. These factors can be broad, such as a student's reading level, or specific, such as the brightness of the classrooms and its associations with possible overstimulation. However, these factors are often reduced to two main points – the students’ academic ability – a student’s grades and reading level - and the students' behavioural ability – is a student a danger to others (Munik et al., 2024, p. 73). Vandana et al. (2024) expand on this by stating that the environment a student is placed in must be appropriate for the individual's needs and cannot be determined by only considering parts of a student’s abilities and needs but by looking at the whole student. Therefore, the determination of LRE is flawed as it breaks students down into two abilities while not considering individual classroom factors and changes that can make a classroom inaccessible. Franciso et al. (2020) support Vandana et al.’s (2024) work by stating that often when students test as being able to exist in a general education classroom under LRE policy, students are placed in that environment without considering other unique and individualized factors. However, other aspects of the student, such as their social and emotional development, should be considered, leading to stifled development in their areas and less inclusive environments. The need for individualized approaches is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed in the LRE model.

Francisco et al. (2020) believes that stating general education classrooms as the LRE for everyone is discriminatory and generalizes students' needs. Caballero (2024) expands on this by stating that general education classrooms can benefit socio-psychological development; however, this relationship is not a universal statement but is on a student-to-student basis. Therefore, a major fault of the LRE is the need for more individualism. Lohbeck (2020) notes that the assumption that full integration will enhance performance needs to be revised in the LRE model as it ignores the non-academic needs of students. The importance of socio-psychological factors in the LRE model cannot be overstated, as they significantly impact the students' development and interaction with the educational environment.

Zuñiga (2024) states that LRE is a beneficial model as students need to interact with those different from them to create adequate socialization. Furthermore, LRE creates educational challenges that help to grow students' knowledge. These conclusions concur with Caballero's (2024); however, Zuñiga generally speaks more positively about LRE, whereas Caballero addresses the model's limitations.

A common theme related to the success of the LRE model is class sizes. Bondebjerg et al. (2023) and Maasoumi et al. (2005) agree that smaller classes will be more successful for academics and socio-psychological development regardless of the environment. That is, integration becomes more successful when classes are below 15 students. Furthermore, Bondebjerg et al. (2023) and Maasoumi et al. (2005) agree that additional teachers in a classroom do not replace smaller classes, as the environment and student interactions change depending on the number of students rather than the number of teachers. Therefore, having an integrated class with two teachers and 25 students is more effective than having a class of 15 with one teacher.

Inclusion

There are two different understandings of what inclusion means within the examined sources. Kirby (2016) defines inclusion as fully integrating students with special education needs into general education classrooms. The source states that this integration mode creates students with a well-developed sense of self and better attendance. The source needs to mention why this is the case or provide research on the subject, putting the claim into question. Kirby’s idea of inclusion also supports the founding principle of LRE. Other sources, however, dispute this, stating that inclusion can only be met when every student's needs are reflected and that an inclusive classroom may not be the LRE (Francisco et al., 2020). Therefore, inclusion is not the same as integration; it is based on making school accessible. For example, inclusion could look like separate classrooms that come together for a group project or lecture a few times a week. Here, students can interact while having their individual socio-psychological and academic needs met.

Caballero (2024) further disputes Kirby’s definition of inclusion by highlighting that there is a difference between integration and inclusion, with integration being the placement of students into general education classrooms and inclusion being the mingling of students for selected times that allow the development of connections and challenges students in both separate classrooms and general education classrooms. The main difference is that inclusion means building a relationship and including general education and separated classes together when appropriate, and integration means putting students in general education classrooms, as stated in policy related to LRE. Furthermore, inclusion reflects a positive environment that welcomes differences between students to create a diverse setting. Therefore, inclusive classrooms can be vital to balancing socio-phycological development with ideas of LRE while also creating an environment that supports students' differing needs.

Like Caballero, Lohbeck (2020) speaks to the differences between inclusive vs. integrated classrooms and sees inclusive classrooms as being more successful for students' development. Lohbeck also states that integration is based on assumptions about students' academic performance and challenges. Students' academic performance cannot be separated from students' other needs, such as their social needs and understanding of self. Integrated classrooms do not support these concepts to the same degree as inclusive classrooms. Furthermore, integration's “stimulating and demanding” nature can be mimicked through inclusion and effective separated teaching practices (Lohbeck, 2020, p. 1368). Finally, Lohbeck states that students in inclusive classrooms attend better than those in general education classrooms but does not discuss possible reasons. It is also important to note that Lohbeck's study is based on students' answers in inclusive classrooms vs. general education classrooms, directly connecting the study's results with ideas about inclusion.

One aspect of Kirby’s definition that aligns with others' definition of inclusion is that inclusion does not just mean being physically in the classroom but having the opportunity to choose their educational path and partake in clubs, assignments, and courses that are the same, regardless of special education needs.  Therefore, inclusion goes beyond having students with SEN in the general education classrooms. Inclusion is connected to the attitudes of others and the ability to participate equitably. Francisco et al. (2020) agrees with this aspect of Kirby’s argument, further stating that inclusion is not just the physical classroom but the willingness of students and teachers to adapt to different needs and be inclusive toward students with specialized educational needs. Vandana et al. state that to “promote inclusive classrooms, all educators, not just special education teachers, should be given training so that teachers know how to help children with special needs” (2024, pg. 4). When students have teachers who understand their needs non-separated classrooms become more inclusive as there are better supports and understanding of SEN.

Inclusion can also co-exist with the LRE model. The mode of LRE is, in some ways, meant to set students up to expect a "future of inclusion" due to the integration aspects of LRE (Kirby, 2016, p. 179). Here, inclusion becomes a by-product of the school system through the building of tolerance and integration. Others believe that inclusive classrooms do not support the LRE model as these models of classrooms should be used to remove the separation between students, specifically when students are labelled as needing special education because students have a disability or SEN without considering the extent or needs of the individual student (Munik et al., 2024). Munik et al.’s idea that inclusion is not possible in LRE is not to say that inclusion should be strived for but that the LRE model works against proven educational practices of inclusion. Furthermore, inclusive practices and interactions can be built without integration through positive interactions and creating an environment of diversity for students with SEN.

Limitations

The sources evaluated have limitations that must be understood to evaluate the reach.

Meisels's (1977) works can provide a historical context and overview of the implantation of the LRE model, but due to their close publication date to the release of LRE, there is limited information and time to reflect upon them.

Another area for improvement is the theoretical aspects of some of the studies. For example, Caballero (2024) uses questions that ask students to consider hypothetical or theoretical experiences, creating results that are not based on concrete data. Zuñig (2024) has a similar limitation as much of the discussion in the case study is hypothetical or theoretical interactions that Christian was meant to walk through or describe how he would interact with them. Furthermore, the study generalizes students with different behaviour and emotional needs, a by-product of the hypothetical nature of the study questions.

Limitations with study results not only come from the hypothetical nature of questions but can also come through cross-sectional design. The limitation of cross-sectional design is addressed by Lohbeck (2020) in their work, stating that cross-sectional design leads to less conclusive results. This underscores the urgency for single-sectional results, as students may need the appropriate understanding or ability to separate the concepts. Therefore, additional studies are needed to look at the different concepts separately to have more accurate results on individual concepts. However, these limitations do not invalidate the research.

Similarly, Munik et al. (2024) state that their research results may need to be more specific, like Lohbeck, as the numerical data sometimes lack specificity, using values such as <5. This can lead to misleading data when averaging, as <5 can mean 0.1 or 4.9. Some values are described as random numbers, such as schools that did not have all 12 years' worth of data and simulated data that was used to replace the missing data set. Therefore, the numerical data lacks preciosity, relating to issues with theoretical results. Once again, this does not invalidate the research but must be critically examined.

Another limitation of the work is that results are highly personalized. As each student's needs and experiences differ, creating a clear image of ideas around LRE and students' experiences in the classroom is difficult. By making overarching assumptions about students with SEN within this paper, the issues surrounding LRE and discrimination within the examined field percolate into the study.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Research about LRE and socio-psychological development led to the conclusion that the LRE model is ineffective for socio-psychological development. This conclusion is not true for every student. However, the nature of LRE is to dismiss socio-psychological development when considering students' placement in classes. Furthermore, aspects of LRE and justifications for putting students in a general education classroom often relate to the goal of helping students, dismissing how using effective practices within separated education combined with select inclusion is considered the most effective practice. This, paired with small class sizes, creates the most effective learning environment for socio-psychological development for students with SEN.

Furthermore, when considering where students should be placed, their current levels of socio-psychological development and what environment best meets the student's individual needs must be considered. Many issues with LRE come back to the lack of individualism, declaring one environment less restrictive when what is considered less restrictive is based on a student’s individual needs. General education classrooms are beneficial for the integration between students as they prompt a relationship between peers and attempt to build tolerance in a practical setting (Zuñig, 2024). However, the integration of students is not as effective for socio-psychological development as inclusion, meaning the select integration and interaction between students to promote acceptance and challenge students at all levels.

Though these researchers deal with different approaches to LRE, they outline the principle that the LRE model is flawed and needs to be re-examined in differing ways. The individual aspect is important because without knowing how the disabilities present and affect each student, the conclusion that affects student placement is too broad (Dalgaard et al., 2022). For example, saying someone with autism is negatively affected in their socio-physiological development in general education or separated classrooms dismisses the different extent to which autism affects individuals. It must also be noted that differences between students who may, on paper, have similar needs can present and interact with their classroom differently.

In terms of inclusion, inclusive cross-classroom work is a powerful tool that helps students create social connections between classes, fostering socio-psychological development in a way that considers individual needs more effectively than the traditional LRE approach (Kirby, 2016). This collaborative approach is essential for achieving inclusive education. Some of the key areas in which children need support are “handwriting, social skills, behaviour, communication, attention, sensory, academics, and self-regulation” (Vandana et al. 2024, p. 4).

Based on the research around LRE and socio-psychological development, it is fair to conclude that a more inclusive method of classroom divisions and student placement should be used. That is, students with SEN should have the option to be in a physically separate classroom, but the general education and separated classrooms should have chances to interact to promote inclusive behaviour. This would meet one of the intentions for LRE, as highlighted in Caballero (2024) and Lohbeck (2020). The inclusive interactions would also provide a challenge for students with SEN while still allowing for the support provided by a separate classroom. This recommendation would expect students within general education classrooms to be tolerant and accepting of those in separated classrooms and that teachers from the general education classroom are fully provided with education or other resources to support students with SEN. Furthermore, the students with SEN will be expected to, at the very least, try to meet the general education classroom's expectations without minimizing student differences. For example, a student may be asked to sit quietly and listen to a lecture presented by the teacher; however, if a student is prone to sound outbursts, students should not be shamed for still making noise.

The goal is to understand the differences in the environments and aim to collaborate between the two, not to strip the individual nature away from students. These inclusive opportunities can differ in amount and type depending on grade and the students. For example, a grade 4 class may have inclusion integration twice weekly to work on a collaborative project. In contrast, a grade 8 class may have rotary subjects (drama, art, gym, music) as fully integrated classes with a support teacher focusing on students with SEN. Furthermore, it should be noted that inclusive classes do not just mean having classes together. As previously addressed by Francisco et al. (2020) and Kirby (2016), inclusion is more than being physically in the classroom. Creating an inclusive environment means having teachers and students who accept students' individual needs and differences and having classes, assignments, and spaces that are accessible and equitable to all students. These factors need to be met so that inclusion is an effective model.

Select inclusion can also work within the curriculum for active learning and growth. Coming together for inclusive development and work is separate from education. These inclusive classes should develop learning and connect back to class. For example, if students are learning about gears and physics, the inclusive project can be to create a model amusement park ride using pullies and gears. Outside of these times, the classes still learn about pullies and gears and physics, but this inclusive work is the assessment that directly connects to the curriculum.

Another way to meet the socio-phycological developmental needs of students with SEN is to create a more challenging environment in a separate classroom. Many of the concerns around socio-phycological development in separated classrooms can be addressed by pushing students further and providing enriching and challenging academic opportunities. For example, Caballero’s (2024) statement that challenges are necessary for growth means that challenges must be provided to students in all environments. The key idea is to push students and expect more of them rather than expecting less because they have different needs. Creating a challenging environment does not dismiss the reasons for students being separated. For example, if a student needs support in reading and is less stimulated in a separate classroom, the students should still receive that support. However, while receiving support in reading, the students should be pushed in math or given a slightly higher reading level than where the students are apt to be challenged. Using tiered assignments can help create challenges while still meeting students where they are at. Alternatively, using different modes of instruction within a classroom, such as lecture styles, group work, and inverted instruction, can challenge students to engage with varying modes of instruction. Furthermore, these students are supported by having a chance to engage with the most effective mode of instruction while providing opportunities for growth. By supporting students’ needs, the confidence needed to support mental health is being implemented while providing challenges to advance academics and allowing students to develop their sense of self further.

Finally, challenges can be developed while teaching “handwriting, social skills, behaviour, communication, attention, sensory, academics, and self-regulation,” directly supporting socio-phycological development.  (Vandana et. al, 2024, p. 4). These skills can be imparted in several ways. For example, having class discussions to practice verbal communication can translate to developing better social communication.

In conclusion, full integration of students with SEN into general education classrooms under LRE can negatively affect their socio-psychological development. Based on the conclusions found in the examined literature, two recommendations are reached. The first is to create more purposefully inclusive environments that move away from the integration promoted under LRE. The second is to promote socio-psychological development in separated classrooms through active challenges. By providing these two critical aspects for creating the LRE model, a more practical education model for students with SEN can be implemented.

References

Bondebjerg, A., Dalgaard, N. T., Filges, T., & Bjørn Christian, A. V. (2023). The effects of small class sizes on students' academic achievement, socioemotional development and well-being in special education: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 19(3) https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1345

Caballero, C. M. (2024). From specialised classrooms to mainstream classrooms: A study on the inclusion of students with special educational needs from the voices of their mainstream peers. Education Sciences, 14(5), 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14050452

Carson, C. (2015). Rethinking Special Education’s “Least Restrictive Environment” Requirement. Michigan Law Review, 113(8), 1397–1426. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24770829

Dalgaard, N. T., Bondebjerg, A., Viinholt, B. C., & Filges, T. (2022). The effects of inclusion on academic achievement, Socioemotional Development and wellbeing of children with special educational needs. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1291

Francisco, M. P., Hartman, M., & Wang, Y. (2020). Inclusion and special education. Education Sciences, 10(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090238

Kirby, M. (2016). Implicit assumptions in special education policy: promoting full inclusion for students with learning disabilities. Child &amp; Youth Care Forum, 46(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-016-9382-x

Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., & Green, A. L. (2015). Meeting the Mental Health Needs of Youth with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Beyond Behavior, 24(2), 4–13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26341294

Lohbeck, A. (2020). Does integration play a role? academic self-concepts, self-esteem, and self-perceptions of social integration of elementary school children in inclusive and mainstream classes. Social Psychology of Education, 23(5), 1367–1384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09586-8

Maasoumi, E., Millimet, D. L., & Rangaprasad, V. (2005). Class Size and Educational Policy: Who Benefits from Smaller Classes? Econometric Reviews, 24(4), 333-368. https://ezproxy.niagara.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/class-size-educational-policy-who-benefits/docview/212084251/se-2

Meisels, S. J. (1977). First Steps in Mainstreaming: Some Questions and Answers. Young Children, 33(1), 4–13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42643474

Munik, A., Jordan, S., Chahine, S., & Berish, F. (2024). Trends in the Inclusive Classroom Placement of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Retrospective Study. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 59(1). https://www.proquest.com/docview/2928377698/D55B038023841D2PQ/5?accountid=28213&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals

Vandana, D., Kennedy, C., & Mandeep, K. (2024). Policies for individuals with autism: Gaps, research, and recommendations. Cureus, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.51875

Zuñiga, L. (2024). Positive Interventions in Practice: Working with Students with Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties. School Social Work Journal, 48(2), 38–55. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3082841756/2C00CA961FB14835PQ/3?accountid=28213&parentSessionId=KXDjX7Bphe3J6eckg8%2BMQI3sehs1wuyIAz5ndlP73so%3D&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals