Page Utilities
Philip D. Patterson, Preventing School Failure (Heldref Publications) (page 1 of 4) Page 1 of 4
FOR THE PAST 30 years, federal legislation has mandated that students with disabilities be provided an education in the least restrictive environment possible. This has resulted in a continuum of alternative placements that have included settings from general education classrooms to state institutions. The rationale for these placements has, in theory, been students' educational needs and the proximity of placements to general education peers (McDonnell, Hardman, & McDonnell, 2003). In spite of the increasing trend to place students in the least restrictive educational environment, the continuum of alternative education options is still legally available to students with disabilities (Yell, 1998).
One educational option that receives scant attention in the literature is homebound instruction. Homebound instruction can also be referred to as home teaching, home visits, and home or hospital instruction. Homebound instruction involves the delivery of educational services by school district personnel within a student's home. This differs from home schooling, which is usually delivered exclusively by a parent (Zirkel, 2003).
Homebound instruction was initially seen as an educational service option for students with impairments that made them physically incapable of attending school (Wilson, 1973). Such students could have been recuperating from a severe illness or may have been so physically fragile that they were unable to be transported to a school setting. Over the years, the option of homebound services has expanded to other populations. These populations may include students whose schools are on break, students who may be suspended or expelled, students who are awaiting a more appropriate setting, and students who are difficult to handle in traditional settings. Although state institutions are commonly considered the most restrictive educational setting, homebound services may be the most restrictive placement because students have no opportunity to interact with their peers (Council for Exceptional Children, 1997).
The federal government maintains annual data on the numbers of students receiving special education services and the specific types of services they receive. According to these data (see Table 1), from 1991 to 2001, less than 1% (National Center for Educational Statistics) of all students with disabilities received home or hospital-based instruction. Specific student disability populations that received home- or hospital-based services at rates greater than 1% included those with emotional disturbances, orthopedic impairments, other health impairments, deaf-blindness, multiple disabilities, and traumatic brain injury (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002a). In collecting data, the federal government (as well as many states) identifies home or hospital instruction as a single entity. Thus the data shown in Table 1 do not factor out the percentages of students who received home- or hospital-based services exclusively or in combination with other forms of instruction. In addition, the data represent the primary placements of students at the time that the surveys were conducted. Multiple student placements that could have occurred within a single school year are not indicated. Students with disabilities may be experiencing homebound instruction at much different rates than the federal government's data indicate.
Please click here for larger PDF version of Table 1.
Providing homebound services to any student can be a unique and positive experience for teachers. It affords the teacher an opportunity to observe the home environment and the family dynamics within that environment, resulting in greater understanding of the student's behavior. Because of the frequency of interaction and communication, it offers teachers the prospect of building stronger ties with the family. Homebound instruction may also result in greater bonds between teachers and students because of to the one-on-one instruction provided and the opportunity to truly individualize instruction (Baker, Squires, & Whiteley, 1999).
Homebound instruction can also present many challenges for teachers. Teachers are frequently not prepared to provide such services. Few teacher preparation programs address the issue, and much of the available literature on homebound instruction comes from the field of early childhood special education (Klass, 1996). In addition, school districts may not have specific guidelines for their teachers on providing homebound services (Daly-Rooney & Denny, 1991). Homebound instruction can present a variety of unexpected variables with which to contend. These can include disruptive siblings, a noisy environment in which to work, family conflicts, and cancellations of visits. Teachers may also be frustrated in recognizing that homebound services do not provide sufficient depth and intensity of instruction that some students may need.
Providing homebound instruction to students with emotional or behavioral disorders can be a particularly demanding experience. Such students can display a wide range of challenging behaviors, from apathy to defiance (Kerr & Nelson, 2002). Undesirable behaviors that are evident in school and community settings can be even more intense in the home. Teachers should plan on using their full repertoire of behavioral interventions, which could include identifying and avoiding the triggering of undesirable behaviors, the use of token economy systems, behavioral contracts, the calculated use of verbal praise, and working on tasks in small increments of time.
Although federal legislation indicates that a teacher or paraeducator may provide homebound instruction (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002b), there may be state or local public policies that mandate specific personnel who can provide such services. The homebound instructor, whether a certificated teacher, therapist, or paraeducator, should plan well for providing educational services to students identified as having an emotional or behavioral disorder.
From Preventing School Failure, Winter 2007. Heldref Publications. Www.heldref.org.
