An Educational Programming

Framework for a Subset of

Students With Diverse
Learning Needs:
Borderline Intellectual Functioning

S TEVEN R. S HAW

Students with intelligence test scores between 70 and 85 frequently fall

into the gap between general and special education. Students with bor-
derline intellectual functioning are a large population at-risk for school
failure. Recent educational trends (e.g., the use of response to interven-
tion models of special education eligibility, implementation of inclusive
education, and the accountability components of No Child Left Behind)
have increased awareness and may serve as a catalyst for improving the
education of students with borderline intellectual functioning. However,
students currently receive few supportive educational services. An edu-
cational programming framework is developed for improving the edu-
cation of students with borderline intellectual functioning in response to
recent educational trends. Effective instructional practices can build aca-
demic resilience skills to ameliorate the important, but often-ignored,
risk factor of borderline intellectual functioning.

Keywords: intervention; academic; instruction; accommodations; dif-

ferential curriculum for students with mild disabilities;
© 2008 Hammill Institute on Disabilities inclusion; strategies; intervention(s)
10.1177/1053451208314735
http://isc.sagepub.com

INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL AND CLINIC VOL. 43, NO. 5, MAY 2008 (PP. 291–299) 291
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on February 15, 2015
 tudents with borderline intellectual function-
S ing have intelligence test scores between 70
and 85. Nationwide, this population makes up
approximately 14% of the population, which is
more than all students in all special education
categories combined (Shaw, 1999a). Although these stu-
dents have intelligence test scores that range from the
2nd to the 16th percentile and frequently have difficulty
acquiring academic skills, they often are not eligible for
special education services (Kaznowski, 2004; MacMillan,
Gresham, Siperstein, & Bocian, 1996).
Students with borderline intellectual functioning are
a subset of diverse learners who account for dispropor-
tionately high levels of school dropout, grade retention,
school suspension and expulsion, referral for special edu-
cation services, teen pregnancy, incarceration, illicit drug
use, aggression, mental health problems, and underem-
ployment and unemployment (Ahrens, Evans, & Barnett,
1990; Shaw, 1999a; 1999b). Students with borderline
intellectual functioning often have deficits in social skills,
attention, speech and language skills, and school readi-
ness (Lynam, Moffitt, Stouthamer-Loeber, 1993; Shaw,
2000a). Students with borderline intellectual functioning
have been called slow learners, shadow children, gray-
area kids, low achievers, educationally subnormal, and
crack kids (i.e., because they fall between the cracks)
because they rarely meet eligibility criteria for special edu-
cation but have high failure rates in the general education
setting (MacMillan, Gresham, Bocian, & Lambros, 1998;
Stuebing & Shaywitz, 1998; Zetlin & Murtaugh, 1990).
These terms are considered to be pejorative, outmoded,
and even offensive (Cooter & Cooter, 2004). The label
“children with diverse learning needs” is now widely
used and far more acceptable in education (Coyne,
Kame’enui, & Carnine, 2007).
Current Educational Services
The majority of students with borderline intellectual
functioning currently receive educational services in the
general education classroom (MacMillan et al., 1998).
However, a large minority of them receive special educa-
tion services in the categories of learning disabilities and
emotionally disabled (MacMillan et al., 1998). There are
few formal educational supports for this population,
although many school systems develop local program-
ming to provide remedial instruction (Kaznowski, 2004;
Zetlin & Murtaugh, 1990). Overall, there is evidence
that many students with borderline intelligence are lan-
guishing between being ineligible for special education
services and being unable to compete academically with
their higher-ability peers (MacMillan et al., 1996). To a
large degree, this population has been ignored by educa-
tors (Zetlin & Murtaugh, 1990). However, there are
trends in education with the potential to bring attention
292 INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL AND CLINIC
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on February 15, 2015
to the educational issues of students with borderline
intellectual functioning.
Trends Affecting Students With
Borderline Intellectual Functioning
Response to intervention. With the revision of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA,
2004), the criteria for learning disabilities may include
measures other than discrepancy models (i.e., differences
between intelligence test scores and academic achievement
test scores). Response to intervention (RTI) models have
been used to determine special education eligibility in
many areas of the United States (Jimerson, Burns, &
VanDerheyden, 2007). These models involve providing
support services for all students with severe difficulty
acquiring academic skills based on curriculum-based meas-
urement (CBM) models of assessment (Hale, 2006).
Students who fail to improve significantly with academic
interventions and support services may then be eligible for
more intensive services and specialized instruction (Lau
et al., 2006; Marston, Muyskens, Lau, & Canter, 2003).
Given that intelligence test scores do not factor into RTI
models, there is no formal differentiation between students
with borderline intelligence and students with learning dis-
abilities (Jimerson et al., 2007). Therefore, RTI models
may bring more students with borderline intelligence into
the special education milieu (Lau et al., 2006).
Inclusive education. General education classrooms are the
preferred environment for the education of children
with identified disabilities and diverse learning needs
(Acrey, Johnstone, & Milligan, 2005). Widely imple-
mented in Canada and throughout Europe, inclusive
classrooms are becoming the norm in the United States
as well (Florian, 1998); inclusive education results in
classrooms consisting of students who are heteroge-
neous in academic ability. Pressures on classroom
teachers to effectively educate (i.e., improve standard-
ized achievement test scores) increasingly diverse class-
rooms are growing (Heubert, 2002). An educational
programming framework that addresses the specific
needs of children with borderline educational function-
ing can help to address the daunting challenges facing
educators.
No Child Left Behind. An important aspect of No Child
Left Behind (2001) is that all students achieve at a proficient
level based on standardized tests of academic achievement
developed by each state. Group-administered standardized
achievement test scores have become the most valued
metric in most education systems (Elliott & Thurlow,
2006). This has placed pressure on teachers in the gen-
eral and special education systems to produce students
with high test scores on standardized group achievement
tests (Heubert, 2002). Teachers are expected to produce
students who are performing proficiently as demon-
strated by standardized tests. However, many students
are of borderline intellectual functioning and are under-
prepared for reading, writing, and mathematics (Elliott
& Thurlow, 2006). Students with borderline intellectual
functioning present significant challenges to all educa-
tors (Kame’enui, 1993). Raising standardized test scores
has become the primary goal of nearly all academic inter-
vention programs.
Summary
Students with borderline intelligence have been an over-
looked population. This population is generally unsuc-
cessful in the general education environment but is rarely
eligible for special education services. Three major edu-
cational trends have increased awareness and have served
as a catalyst for improving the education of students with
borderline intellectual functioning. The first trend is the
movement toward needs-based eligibility criteria for spe-
cial education services using RTI assessment models.
The second trend is the increased use of inclusive educa-
tional practices, which increases the heterogeneity of
academic skills in the classroom. The third trend is the
mandate to increase test scores on standardized achieve-
ment tests developed by states and provinces. To address
these trends, an educational programming framework is
proposed. A framework for the effective education of stu-
dents with borderline intellectual functioning requires
the following criteria be met:
1. Can be implemented by general education teachers.
2. Does not interfere with the instructional needs of
other children in classrooms that are heterogeneous
for academic skills.
3. Is flexible enough to meet the needs of children
from elementary to high school.
4. Has potential to raise achievement test scores.
5. Can be evaluated.
6. Meets the specific needs of students with borderline
intellectual functioning.
Characteristics of Students With
Borderline Intelligence
Students with borderline intellectual functioning have sev-
eral characteristics that make classroom learning and suc-
cessful test performance difficult. These characteristics are a
preference for concrete, rather than abstract, learning activ-
ities (Singh, 2004); difficulty mentally organizing and stor-
ing newly learned information (Verguts & DeBoeck, 2001);
difficulty generalizing material to new situations (Jensen,
1998); requiring additional practice to master academic
material (Cooter & Cooter, 2004); and problems with aca-
demic motivation (Guay & Vallerand, 1996–1997).
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on February 15, 2015
Preference for Concrete Material
The more abstract the material, the more difficult under-
standing of the material and motivation to learn the mate-
rial becomes for students with borderline intellectual
functioning (Singh, 2004). This is, in large part, a result of
students with borderline intellectual functioning often hav-
ing limitations in working memory (Verguts & DeBoeck,
2001). Working memory is the capacity to hold informa-
tion in mind for the purpose of completing complex tasks
(Sandberg, 2001). When possible, material should be pre-
sented so that there is the opportunity for physical manip-
ulation of materials rather than mental manipulation, with
its heavy demands on working memory (Haughton, 1980).
Problems With Organization of Knowledge
Learning is most effective when it can be assimilated into
a framework of previously learned information (Kolligan
& Sternberg, 1987). New information that does not relate
to previously learned information tends to be ineffectively
stored and ultimately forgotten (Verguts & DeBoeck,
2001). Students with borderline intelligence tend to have
more difficulty recognizing the relationship between
newly taught information and previously learned informa-
tion than their average functioning peers (Verguts &
deBoeck, 2001). Most often, teachers assume that students
make the connection automatically (Gravemeijer, 1997).
The difficulty in integrating new and old information
results in slower academic skill gains for this population
(Anderson, Fincham, & Douglass, 1999). Explicitly stated
and strategic integration of newly presented information
along with older information can be an important factor in
improving the instruction of students with borderline
intelligence (Cooter & Cooter, 2004).
Difficulty Generalizing Material
Rote memorization of facts is an insufficient outcome of
instruction (Kim, Woodruff, Klein, & Vaughn, 2006). The
ability to generalize strategies is a major component of
deep learning (Alessi, 1987). Moreover, most states have
developed high-stakes achievement tests that require sig-
nificant reasoning, inference, application of knowledge,
flexible problem solving, and mastery of material (Elliott
& Thurlow, 2006). Instruction involving simple rote
memory of material will result in failing test scores in most
states (Silberglitt, Burns, Madyun, & Lail, 2006). Whereas
students of average intelligence generalize skills with little
formal instruction, generalization is a critical teacher-
driven component of instruction for students with border-
line intellectual functioning (Alessi, 1987).
Need for an Increased Pace of Instruction
The phrase “slow learner” is an often-used colloquialism
for students with borderline intelligence and suggests
VOL. 43, NO. 5, MAY 2008 293
that students with borderline intellectual functioning
learn more slowly than their average-intelligence
peers. This is not entirely true. Students with border-
line intellectual functioning have rote memory skills in
the average range (Rodden-Nord & Shinn, 1991). Rote
memorization is often a relative strength of students with
borderline intellectual functioning (Jensen, 1998).
However, because students with borderline intellectual
functioning do not generalize well, they need more prac-
tice than their average-intelligence peers to understand
and apply a concept. Although it may take students with
borderline intellectual functioning more practice to be
able to understand and apply each lesson, it is not
because more time is required for them to memorize
each fact. They often require more time to learn a lesson
because they have to learn more examples that take more
time before they effectively understand and apply new
concepts (Born & Moore, 1978). In other words, stu-
dents with average to above-average intelligence simply
need to learn the rule or strategy, and then they can apply
it appropriately as needed (Bateman, 1991). Students
with borderline intellectual functioning need to over-
learn each possible application of the rule or strategy
before understanding and before the application of the
concept becomes clear. Thus, students with borderline
intellectual functioning are extremely inefficient in their
ability to understand and apply new academic informa-
tion (Bateman, 1991).
Deficits in Academic Motivation
When students with borderline intellectual functioning
begin school, academic motivation is rarely a problem
(Hihi & Harachiewicz, 2000). However, as they get
older, a consistent pattern emerges. Strong effort in the
early grades is met with academic frustration and possi-
ble failure. Despite the students’ efforts, this cycle of aca-
demic frustration and failure is repeated. After some
years, the cumulative effect of frustration and failure is
that students simply stop trying (Guay & Vallerand,
1996–1997). In the classroom, such students are referred
to as unmotivated and, sometimes, as lazy. Academic
motivation may have some temperamental and early
environmental factors that place a child at risk for moti-
vation deficits (Levine, 2003). However, academic moti-
vation and effort are often extinguished by repeated
failure and frustration (Levine, 2003).
Framework for Educational
Programming
Based on the five major characteristics of students with
borderline intellectual functioning, the following compo-
nents present the basis for a framework on which differ-
entiated instruction in a heterogeneous ability classroom
294 INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL AND CLINIC
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on February 15, 2015
can be developed. This framework includes concrete
instruction, preorganized instruction, generalization
strategies, appropriately paced classrooms, and develop-
ing academic motivation. The application of any frame-
work requires evaluation. An assessment component for
evaluation of the framework is also described.
Concrete Instruction
Experiential teaching methods such as carrying out sci-
ence projects; dissecting animals; writing, illustrating,
and publishing books; and working in community-based
schools without walls have been the domain of gifted
education (Guay & Vallerand, 1996–1997; Haughton,
1980). Meanwhile, their average- and low-ability peers
are required to gain skills and knowledge through the
abstractness of lecture, seatwork, reading, and rehearsal.
In many regards, this is the reverse of an effective educa-
tional strategy (Rapp, 2005). Students with borderline
intellectual functioning have difficulty with abstract con-
cepts such as those learned through books or lectures
(Anderson et al., 1999). Conversely, students with bor-
derline intellectual functioning perform and learn most
effectively when they can see, feel, touch, and do
(Saunders & Shepardson, 1987). High-ability students
perform at a high level in the abstract world of reading
and lecture (Rapp, 2005). Yet, for instruction of students
with borderline intellectual functioning to be most effec-
tive, active instruction should consist of the see-it, feel-it,
hear-it, touch-it, do-it approach to teaching (Cooter &
Cooter, 2004; Shaw, 2000b).
Reading is by nature an abstract task. Black print on
white paper is translated into symbols that are translated
into words and then thoughts. Teaching basic decoding
skills is an abstract task requiring a highly structured
approach (Engelmann, Carnine, & Johnson, 1988).
Structured reading programs using direct instruction such
as Reading Mastery (Engelmann & Bruner, 1988), Wilson
Reading System (B. A. Wilson, 1988), Orton-Gillingham
(Gillingham & Stillman, 1997), and Lindamood Bell
(Lindamood & Lindamood, 2001) are well supported and
recommended (Carreker et al., 2005; Gorman, 1997; Joshi,
Dahlgren, & Boulware-Gooden, 2002; Wiltz & Wilson,
2005-2006). Some of these direct-instruction programs
(e.g., Wilson Reading System and Orton-Gillingham) take
the opportunity to include specific concrete activities such
as tapping out syllables, drawing letters in sand, and other
experiential aspects of instruction (Gillingham & Stillman,
1997; B. A. Wilson, 1988). Although often referred to as
multisensory instruction (Gillingham & Stillman, 1997),
the key feature of multisensory instruction may be the con-
crete nature of the instruction rather than the use of mul-
tiple sensory channels.
Concreteness also refers to the immediate relevance
of a task to students (Joshi et al., 2002). Reading practice
can be both concrete and motivating for students. One
method of improving the concreteness and relevance of
reading practice is to develop a how-to library. The how-
to library is a collection of how-to books. Students find
reading about building a scale model, then actually
building the model, to be motivating (Salend, 2005).
Students read and follow cookbook recipes to create
something they can eat. Books about playing football,
dancing, auto repair, computer gaming tips, model car
building, and magic tricks are exciting for students.
Even in adult-audience how-to books, the vocabulary
level is rarely above the sixth grade. Although much of
the vocabulary in these books may be beyond their read-
ing level, the motivation to read to succeed at the latest
computer or videogame, be competent at car repair, or
stun their classmates with a magic trick can have students
seeking reading assistance from adults and even consult-
ing dictionaries. The how-to library increases the con-
creteness of the task by increasing relevance to the lives
of students. Reading can be turned from an abstract task
to a concrete task with positive results through the use of
direct instruction and concrete reading of how-to books
(Berends & Reitsma, 2006).
Mathematics is the area of biggest success and
biggest failure in teaching students with borderline intel-
lectual functioning (MacMillan et al., 1998). For exam-
ple, mathematics is often considered a relative strength
during kindergarten through second grade (Lannin,
2003). This is because of the reliance on manipulatives
and because of the relevance of material to day-to-day
functioning in learning mathematics at the early grades.
However, the material becomes more abstract and less rel-
evant to day-to-day functioning as students advance
through the mathematics curriculum (Henningsen &
Stein, 1997). This trend culminates in high school with
the graduation requirement of passing secondary-level
algebra. For many students with borderline intellectual
functioning, secondary-level algebra is an extraordinary
hurdle to graduation (Lannin, 2003). In the secondary
grades, students with borderline intellectual functioning
have extreme difficulty with algebra, plane geometry, pre-
calculus, and calculus. Perhaps the level of abstraction and
distance from the see-it, feel-it, touch-it, do-it approach is
too much for this population, and expectations should be
more realistic and functional (Rapp, 2005). There is much
to be developed in this area (Corno & Snow, 1986). The
mantra of the concrete classroom is that every lesson to be
learned is taught so that the students “see it, feel it, hear it,
touch it, do it” (Haughton, 1980).
Preorganized Information
Because many students with borderline intelligence do
not effectively integrate new information into existing
knowledge, teachers are required to explicitly link all
new activities to previous lessons (Gunter & Reed, 1997).
Therefore, each lesson needs to start out with a review of
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on February 15, 2015
related material that has been previously learned and
mastered (Cates, 2005). This use of advanced organizers
is well known and widely used (Salend, 2005; Swanson &
Hoskyn, 2001).
Presentation of new material should take place in a
consistent, stepwise fashion. Note that the last step is
generalization.
1. The association with previously learned information
needs to be made clear. For example, “Last week we
learned about words that help to describe or modify
nouns. You remember that these words are called
adjectives.”
2. Then, announce that there is something similar, but
slightly different, that the class is going to learn
today. “This week we are going to learn about words
that help to describe or modify verbs. These words
are called adverbs.”
3. Next, present the new material.
4. Provide a large number of examples.
5. Practice applying the new skill in a variety of situations.
6. Review.
7. Practice again.
8. Implement generalization strategies.
This simple instructional model is widely used (e.g.,
Binder, Haughton, & VanEyk, 1990). However, extra
practice sessions to learn how to implement the new skill
are important (Reith & Evertson, 1988). Because of poor
generalization skills, the extra practice is required to
learn broad concepts (Corno & Snow, 1986).
Generalization Strategies
Generalization of an academic skill is the transfer or
application of taught skills to situations requiring similar,
but not identical, skills. For example, when most students
learn that 1 + 1 = 2, they quickly generalize the concept
of addition and figure out that 1 + 2 = 3 without addi-
tional instruction. Because of difficulties with generaliza-
tion, students with borderline intellectual functioning
often must be taught explicitly that 1 + 2 = 3. Students
with borderline intellectual functioning tend have rote
memory skills in the average range (Bateman, 1991).
Therefore, rote memory is a relative strength for many
students with borderline intellectual functioning.
However, the minority of instruction in the typical class-
room is through rote memory (Fazio, 1997). Many
instructional approaches involve the teaching of an over-
all strategy or rule, and then the students apply the strat-
egy or rule to new situations with minimal guidance.
Although students with borderline intellectual function-
ing effectively learn and recite the strategy or rule they
were taught, they have difficulty knowing how, when, and
where to apply the strategy or rule (Veenman & Verhej,
2001). The most effective instruction for students with
VOL. 43, NO. 5, MAY 2008 295
borderline intellectual functioning involves providing
direct instruction of every specific academic skill with
extensive guided practice on how, when, and where to
use these skills (Alessi, 1987).
Metacognitive reminders can be helpful. Students
with borderline intellectual functioning often memorize
the strategies used to solve problems and can often recall
the strategies if asked but do not always apply the strate-
gies in the correct situation or at the correct time (Acrey
et al., 2005; Hale, 2006). An effective method is to teach
one prime strategy—look up the strategy in your problem-
solving notebook (Price et al., 1997). The notebook con-
sists of all the strategies students have learned, presented in
a step-by-step format much like a cookbook. For example,
the steps to complete basic story problems in mathematics
(Price et al., 1997) are to read the problem carefully,
identify the most important information (e.g., What is
the story about? How many objects were there to begin
with? What is happening to these objects?), underline
the information needed to solve the problem, figure out
what this problem wants to know, create a drawing
describing the problem, create a math problem that rep-
resents the drawing, and solve the problem. Every strat-
egy can be written out as a numbered list or placed in a
comic strip format. Students often have a classroom rules
and social skills notebook in addition to the academic
strategies notebook (Gresham, 1995).
An effective approach to promoting generalization is
the big ideas concept (Coyne et al., 2007). Big ideas are
overarching concepts that tie information together in an
efficient manner. Using big ideas helps to address the
issue of having to teach many learning objectives that are
apparently unrelated. For teaching students with border-
line intelligence, some modification of the big ideas con-
cept can aid in generalization. Big ideas can be made
concrete and practical for students. For example, “math
for money management,” “communicating your ideas,”
and “history as a guide to understanding today’s newspa-
per” are all concrete twists on the big ideas concept.
Generalization is itself a big idea. Not only can gen-
eralization refer to linking information together to con-
solidate and integrate information, but it also can refer to
context (Cates, 2005). Context is often a limiting factor
in the knowledge and application of learned information
(Corno & Snow, 1986). Sometimes children know and
apply information at a certain time, in a certain place, in
a certain situation, or in the presence of certain people
(Kashinath, Woods, & Goldstein, 2006). Context is more
of a limitation for students with borderline intelligence
than for students with average to above-average intelli-
gence, who easily and automatically generalize skills
(Hale, 2006). Specific and targeted plans to assist stu-
dents to generalize skills to different settings and situa-
tions are important (Rapp, 2005). An example is social
skills training. When specific social skills are taught in a
classroom with lectures and role play, many students
296 INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL AND CLINIC
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on February 15, 2015
learn and apply the skills in the classroom (Gresham,
1995). However, the application of the lesson is rarely gen-
eralized to recess, lunch, or the bus unless generalization
of the skills taught is programmed (Gresham, 1995).
An example of an effort to reduce the limitation of
context is cross-topic instruction based on big ideas
(Alessi, 1987). This approach is difficult to implement
but can be an effective method to improve the general-
ization of skills. The purpose of cross-topic instruction is
to expose students to a big idea throughout the curricu-
lum points of the day. For example, if the big idea is elec-
tricity, then electrical safety can be taught in health
classes, Benjamin Franklin’s original experiments can be
read about in history, experiments on circuitry can be
designed in science, and wattage requirements and
power supplies can be calculated in mathematics class. In
this fashion, the topic being taught is not in isolation but
occurs across topics throughout the day.
Ensuring generalization of academic skills is among
the most difficult teaching skills. Practicing and being
instructed with diverse and concrete examples of the con-
cept is necessary, but not sufficient (Coyne et al., 2007).
Learning how, when, and where to apply academic skills
and strategies is important for successful performance on
standardized achievement tests (Sliberglitt et al., 2006).
Appropriately Paced Instruction and Activities
Pace is an important variable in teaching (Born &
Moore, 1978). Students with borderline intellectual
functioning require more practice than their average-
ability peers to learn the same concept (Cooter &
Cooter, 2004). To teach the required extra material, stu-
dents with borderline intellectual functioning must be
taught at a more rapid pace than their average-ability
peers (Binder, 1996; Binder et al., 1990). The purpose of
this is threefold: to give students with borderline intel-
lectual functioning a chance to learn all of the discrete
facts they need to know to overcome limitations in gen-
eralization (Kame’enui, 1993), to minimize transition
time and the inevitable attention and behavior problems
that often result (R. Wilson & Wesson, 1986), and to
allow for the opportunity to close the academic skill gap
between the students with borderline intellectual func-
tioning and their average-intelligence peers (Rhymer,
Hennington, Skinner, & Looby, 1999). Slower paced
instruction makes catching up impossible. Slower paced
instruction is a guarantee of falling further behind
(Shaywitz et al., 1999). Appropriately paced instruction
allows more material to be taught over the course of the
day and increases practice opportunities.
Academic Motivation
Teachers report that over 95% of students with border-
line intellectual functioning lack academic motivation
(Bimler & Kirkland, 2001). Because teachers have stu-
dents in their classroom with a history of academic fail-
ure experiences, explicitly teaching the value of effort
may be required (Fazio, 1997). For most students and
teachers, the value of effort appears self-evident (Martin,
March, & Debus, 2001). For students who have not had
their efforts rewarded with positive academic results, the
value of effort is less clear. Students who have not learned
the value of effort frequently are punished for not trying
in school, thus making school itself an aversive place to
be (Guay & Vallerand, 1996–1997). This leads to a vari-
ety of future problems such as increased truancy and
drop-out rates (Bimler & Kirkland, 2001; Guay &
Vallerand, 1996–1997).
Overcoming a personal history of failure is not easy
to accomplish. The most important aspect of overcom-
ing a history of failure is for students to experience aca-
demic success (Levine, 2003). Success occurs when
students are taught using effective teaching methods that
are matched to the students’ skills (Ahrens et al., 1990).
However, teachers developing personal relationships
with students can be an important additional step.
Frequently, even the students with good relationships
with teachers still do not care about school and do not
want to try for fear of another failure (Martin et al.,
2001). Yet they will make some effort because they do
not want to disappoint the teacher with whom the stu-
dent has developed a personal relationship. This is sim-
ply a foot-in-the-door approach (Martin et al., 2001).
A secondary foot-in-the-door method is to develop
classroom communities wherein each class member is
invested in the effort and performance of the other students.
Peer efforts to encourage and support one another are as
important as teacher interactions with students (Gresham,
1995). Although there are many ways to foster classroom
communities, one simple method is to have 25% of the class
grade based on group effort and participation, 25% of the
grade on individual efforts to encourage classmates, and
50% on academic performance (Moll, 2003). Although
there are many methods for improving academic motiva-
tion, any attempt to differentiate instruction for students
with borderline intellectual functioning requires a thought-
ful strategy to address academic motivation.
Progress Monitoring
Although increasing state and provincial standardized
test scores are the summative goals, progress monitoring
is related but equally important (Jimerson et al., 2007;
Silberglitt et al., 2006). CBM, a set of short-duration
standardized and validated tests, is an effective approach
to progress monitoring and evaluation (Marston et al.,
2003). Although CBM takes many forms, it is commonly
used to evaluate the effects of instructional programs
on basic skills such as oral reading, writing, behavior,
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on February 15, 2015
spelling, and mathematics calculation (Hosp, Hosp, &
Howell, 2007). Daily CBM can be conducted in as little
as 30 min for an entire class across multiple subject areas
(Hosp & Fuchs, 2005). The advantages of CBM are that
the results are sensitive to change, can be adapted to
match instructional goals, and are aligned with the cur-
riculum (Hosp et al., 2007). As a result, aspects of the
curriculum can be changed quickly to meet the needs of
students when there is evidence that progress goals are
not being met (Hosp et al., 2007). In addition, there is
strong evidence that using CBM technology in the class-
room results in improved academic skill development
and leads to improve state and provincial standardized
test scores (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986; Hosp et al., 2007;
Silberglitt et al., 2006).
Conclusions
Students with borderline intellectual functioning repre-
sent a number of challenges to teachers and policy mak-
ers. Although students with borderline intellectual
functioning are not specifically covered under IDEIA
(2004), they still are at risk for school failure. Students
with borderline intellectual functioning do not have an
educational home under the current educational system.
An organizational framework for effective instruc-
tion can promote effective education of this subset of
students with diverse learning needs known as students
with borderline intellectual functioning. This framework
includes enhanced concrete and relevant instruction,
prearranged material to be presented, implementation of
a plan for aiding in generalization of academic skills,
implementation of a speeded classroom, and addressed
academic motivation issues. Progress monitoring is also
a major aspect of any educational programming frame-
work. This organizational framework can assist teachers
in differentiating instruction for students with diverse
learning needs, specifically students with borderline
intellectual functioning. If No Child Left Behind is to be
more than an empty promise, then educational program-
ming must be improved for the large population of stu-
dents with borderline intellectual functioning, who are
currently being left behind.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Steven R. Shaw, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Depart-
ment of Educational and Counselling Psychology at McGill
University. His research interests include the education of chil-
dren with chronic medical issues, microdeletion syndromes and
developmental disabilities, and educational and mental health
issues of children with borderline intellectual functioning.
Address: Steven R. Shaw, Department of Educational and
Counselling Psychology, 3700 McTavish, Montreal, QC, H3A
1Y2, Canada; e-mail: steven.shaw@mcgill.ca
VOL. 43, NO. 5, MAY 2008 297
 REFERENCES
Acrey, C., Johnstone, C., & Milligan, C. (2005). Using universal design
to unlock the potential for academic achievement of at-risk learn-
ers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 22–31.
Ahrens, J. A., Evans, R. G., & Barnett, R. W. (1990). Factors related to
dropping out of school in an incarcerated population. Educational &
Psychological Measurement, 50, 611–617.
Alessi, G. (1987). Generative strategies and teaching for generalization.
Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 15–27.
Anderson, J. R., Fincham, J. M., & Douglass, S. (1999). Practice and
retention: A unifying analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1120–1136.
Bateman, B. (1991). Teaching word recognition to slow-learning chil-
dren. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 7, 1–16.
Berends, I. E., & Reitsma, P. (2006). Remediation of fluency: Word
specific or generalized training effects? Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 221–234.
Bimler, D., & Kirkland, J. (2001). School truants and truancy motiva-
tion sorted out with multidimensional scaling. Journal of Adolescence
Research, 16, 75–102.
Binder, C. (1996). Behavior fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm.
Behavior Analyst, 19, 163–197.
Binder, C., Haughton, E., & Van Eyk, D. (1990). Increasing endurance
by building fluency: Precision Teaching attention span. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 22, 24–27.
Born, D. G., & Moore, M. C. (1978). Some belated thoughts on pac-
ing. Journal of Personalized Instruction, 3, 33–36.
Carreker, S. H., Swank, P. R., Tillman-Dowdy, L., Neuhaus, G. E.,
Monfils, M. J., Montemayor, M. L., et al. (2005). “Language
enrichment” teacher preparation and practice predicts third grade
reading comprehension. Reading Psychology: An International
Quarterly, 26, 401–432.
Cates, C. L. (2005). A review of the effects of interspersing procedures
on the stages of academic skill development. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 14, 305–325.
Cooter, K. S., & Cooter, R. B. (2004). One size doesn’t fit all: Slow
learners in the reading classroom. Reading Teacher, 57, 680–688.
Corno, L., & Snow, R. E. (1986). Adaptive teaching to individual dif-
ferences among learners. In M. E. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 605–629). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (2007). Effective
teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (3rd ed.).
Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Elliott, J. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2006). Improving test performance of stu-
dents with disabilities . . . On district and state assessments (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Engelmann, S., & Bruner, E. C. (1988). Reading mastery. Chicago:
Science Research.
Engelmann, S., Carnine, L., & Johnson, G. (1988). Corrective reading:
Word-attack basics. Chicago: Science Research.
Fazio, B. B. (1997). Memory for rote linguistic routines and sensitivity
to rhyme: A comparison of low-income children with and without
specific language impairment. Applied Psycholoinguistics, 18,
345–372.
Florian, L. (1998). Inclusive practice: What, why, and how? In C. Tilstone,
L. Florian, & R. Rose (Eds.), Promoting inclusive practice (pp. 13–26).
London: Routledge.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative eval-
uation on student achievement: A meta-analysis. Exceptional
Children, 53, 199–208.
Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. W. (1997). The Gillingham manual:
Remedial training for students with specific disability in reading, spelling,
and penmanship. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
Gorman, A. J. (1997). The 15% solution: Literacy and learning dis-
abilities. American Libraries, 28, 52–53.
298 INTERVENTION IN SCHOOL AND CLINIC
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on February 15, 2015
Gravemeijer, K. (1997). Mediating between concrete and abstract. In
T. Nunes and P. Bryant (Eds.), Learning and teaching mathematics. An
international perspective (pp. 315–345). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Gresham, F. M. (1995). Best practices in social skills training. In
A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology—IV
(pp. 1029–1040). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Guay, F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1996–1997). Social context, student’s moti-
vation, and academic achievement: Toward a process model. Social
Psychology of Education, 1, 211–233.
Gunter, P. L., & Reed, T. M. (1997). Academic instruction of children
with emotional and behavioral disorders using scripted lessons.
Preventing School Failure, 42, 33–37.
Hale, J. B. (2006). Implementing IDEA 2004 with a three-tier model
that includes response to intervention and cognitive assessment
methods. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice, 1, 16–27.
Haughton, E. C. (1980). Practicing practices: Learning by activity.
Journal of Precision Teaching, 1, 3–20.
Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and stu-
dent cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit
high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 524–549.
Heubert, J. P. (2002). First, do no harm: How the misuse of promotion
and graduation tests hurts our neediest students. Educational
Leadership, 60, 26–31.
Hihi, S., & Harachiewicz, J. M. (2000) Motivating the academically
unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of
Educational Research, 70, 151–179.
Hosp, M. K., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Using CBM as an indicator of
decoding, word reading and comprehension: Do the relations
change with the grade? School Psychology Review, 34, 9–26.
Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM:
A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. New York:
Guilford.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub.
L. 108-446 (2004).
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Jimerson, S., Burns, M., & VanDerheyden, A. (2007). The handbook of
Response to Intervention: The science and practice of assessment and inter-
vention. New York: Springer.
Joshi, R. M., Dahlgren, M., & Boulware-Gooden, R. (2002). Teaching
reading in an inner-city school through a multisensory teaching
approach. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 229–242.
Kame’enui, E. J. (1993). Diverse learners and the tyranny of time:
Don’t fix the blame; fix the leaky roof. Reading Teacher, 48, 700–703.
Kashinath, S., Woods, J., & Goldstein, H. (2006). Enhanced general-
ized teaching strategy use in daily routines by parents of children
with autism. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49,
466–485.
Kaznowski, K. (2004). Slow learners: Are educators leaving them
behind? National Association of Secondary School Principals, 88, 31–45.
Kim, A.-H., Woodruff, A. L., Klein, C., & Vaughn, S. (2006).
Facilitating co-teaching for literacy in general education through
technology: Focus on students with learning disabilities. Reading &
Writing Quarterly, 22, 269–291.
Kolligan, J., & Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Intelligence, information pro-
cessing, and specific learning disabilities: A triarchic synthesis.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 8–17.
Lannin, J. K. (2003). Developing algebraic reasoning through general-
ization. Mathematics Teaching in Middle School, 7, 342–348.
Lau, M. Y., Sieler, J. D., Muyskens, P., Canter, A., Vankeuren, B., &
Marston, D. (2006). Perspectives on the use of the problem-solving
model from the viewpoint of a school psychologist, administrator,
and teacher from a large Midwest urban school district. Psychology in
the Schools, 43, 117–127.
Levine, M. (2003). Celebrating diverse minds. Educational Leadership,
61, 14–18.
Lindamood, P., & Lindamood, P. (2001). Lindamood phoneme sequencing
program for reading, spelling, and speech. San Luis Obispo, CA:
Gander Educational Publishing.
Lynam, D., Moffitt, T., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1993). Explaining the
relation between IQ and delinquency: Class, race, test, motivation, school
failure or self-control? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 187–196.
MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., Bocian, K. M., & Lambros, K. (1998).
Current plight of borderline students: Where do they belong? Education
& Training in Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 33, 83–94.
MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., Siperstein, G. N., & Bocian, K. M.
(1996). The labyrinth of IDEA: School decisions on referred stu-
dents with subaverage general intelligence. American Journal on
Mental Retardation, 101, 161–174.
Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M. Y., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-
solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities:
The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 18, 187-200.
Martin, A. J., March, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001). A quadripolar need
achievement representation of self-handicapping and defensive pes-
simism. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 583–610.
Moll, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction guide for inclusive teaching. Port
Chester, NY: Dude.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. section 6301.
Price, J. J., Canarecci, M., Conrad, J., Ehresman, D., Foster, C., Harris,
M. D., et al. (1997). Mathematics notebooks in middle school and jun-
ior high school. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3, 34–38.
Rapp, W. H. (2005). Inquiry-based environments for the inclusion of
students with exceptional student needs. Remedial & Special
Education, 26, 296–310.
Reith, H., & Evertson, C. (1988). Variables related to the effective instruc-
tion of difficult-to-teach children. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20, 1–7.
Rhymer, K. N., Henington, C., Skinner, C. H., & Looby, E. J. (1999).
The effects of explicit timing on mathematics performance in second-
grade Caucasian and African American students. School Psychology
Quarterly, 14, 397–407.
Rodden-Nord, K., & Shinn, M. R. (1991). The range of reading skills
within and across general education classrooms: Contributions to
understanding special education for students with mild handicaps.
Journal of Special Education, 24, 441–453.
Salend, S. J. (2005). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective
practices for all students (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Sandberg, A. D. (2001). Reading and spelling, phonological awareness,
and working memory in children with severe speech impairments:
Downloaded from isc.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on February 15, 2015
A longitudinal study. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication,
17, 11–26.
Saunders, W. L., & Shepardson, D. (1987). A comparison of concrete
and formal science instruction upon science achievement and rea-
soning ability of sixth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 24, 39–51.
Shaw, S. R. (1999a). The devolution of interest in slow learners: Can we
continue to ignore? NASP Communiqué, 28, 31.
Shaw, S. R. (1999b). IDEA 97 and slow learners. NASP Communiqué, 28, 15.
Shaw, S. R. (2000a). Slow learners and mental health issues. NASP
Communiqué, 28, 4.
Shaw, S. R. (2000b). Academic interventions for slow learners. NASP
Communiqué, 28, 16.
Shaywitz, S. E., Fletcher, J. M., Holahan, J. M., Schneider, A. E.,
Marchione, K. E., Stuebing, K. K., et al. (1999). Persistence of
dyslexia: The Connecticut Longitudinal Study at adolescence.
Pediatrics, 104, 1351–1359.
Silberglitt, B., Burns, M. K., Madyun, N. H., & Lail, K. E. (2006).
Relationship of reading fluency assessment data with state account-
ability test scores: A longitudinal comparison of grade levels.
Psychology in the Schools, 43, 527–535.
Singh, V. P. (2004). Education of the slow learners. New Delhi: Sarup.
Stuebing, K. K., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1998). Intelligent testing and the
discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 186–203.
Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (2001). Instructing adolescents with
learning disabilities: A component and composite analysis. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 109–199.
Veenman, M. V. J., & Verhej, J. (2001). Technical students’ metacogni-
tive skills: Relating general vs. specific metacognitive skills to study.
Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 259–272.
Verguts, T., & DeBoeck, P. (2001). On the correlation between work-
ing memory capacity and performance on intelligence tests.
Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 37–56.
Wilson, B. A. (1988). Wilson reading system. Millbury, MA: Wilson
Language Training Corporation.
Wilson, R., & Wesson, C. (1986). Making every minute count:
Academic learning time in LD classrooms. Learning Disabilities
Focus, 2, 13-19.
Wiltz, N., & Wilson, G. P. (2005–2006). An inquiry into children’s
reading in one urban school using SRA Reading Mastery (direct
instruction). Journal of Literacy Instruction, 37, 493–528.
Zetlin, A., & Murtaugh, M. (1990). Whatever happened to those with
borderline IQs? American Journal on Mental Retardation, 5, 463–469.
VOL. 43, NO. 5, MAY 2008 299