Thus, efforts aimed at helping teachers to avoid harmful stereotyping of students often begin with activities designed to raise teachers' awareness of their unconscious biases." (1989) Cotton goes on the relate that there are specific ways in which differential expectations are communicated to students according to the work of: "Brookover, et al. (1982); Brophy (1983); Brophy and Evertson (1976); Brophy and Good (1970); Cooper and Good (1983); Cooper and Tom (1984); Cotton (1989); Good (1987, 1982); Good, et al. (1980); Good and Brophy (1984)" which are the ways as follows: Providing fewer opportunities for high-expectation students to learn new material than for low-expectation students to learn new material;

Allowing less waiting time for low-expectation students to answer questions in class than is allowed high-expectation students;

Providing low-expectation students with the answer or calling on another student "rather than trying to improve their responses by giving clues or repeating or rephrasing questions;

Providing inappropriate reinforcement to low-expectation students which is not contingent on performance;

Criticism of low-expectation students for failure more severely and more often than high expectation students and praising low-expectation students less frequently.

Failing to provide feedback to responses of low-expectation students;

Paying more attention to high-expectation students than low expectation students;

Seating the low-expectation students farther from the teacher than high-expectation students.

Providing less feedback and briefer feedback to low-expectation students;

Interacting with low-expectation students more privately than publicly and structuring their activities much more closely

Conducting differential administration or grading of tests or assignments, in which high-expectation students -- but not low-expectation students -- are given the benefit of the doubt in borderline cases

Conducting less friendly and responsive interactions with low-expectation students than high-expectation students, including less smiling, positive head nodding, forward leaning, eye contact, etc.

Asking high-expectation students more stimulating, higher cognitive questions than low-expectation students

Making less frequent use of effective but time-consuming instructional methods with low-expectation students than with high-expectation students, especially when time is limited." (Cotton, 1989)

Cotton states in the summary of the report that: "Teacher expectations and accompanying behaviors have a very real -- although limited -- effect on student performance, accounting for five to ten percent of student achievement outcomes.

There is more power in the communication of low expectations in limiting student achievement than communication of high-expectations in raising student achievement.

Low-expectation students have better attitudes in classrooms where differential treatment is low than in classrooms where it is high."

In the hands of some teachers, low groups and low tracks are subject to the same kinds of limiting treatment as are individual low-expectation students-- with the same negative effects. "

The negative effects of differential teacher treatment on low-expectation students may be direct (less exposure to learning material) or indirect (treating students in ways that erode their learning motivation and sense of self-efficacy)."

Training can enable school staff members to become aware of their unconscious biases and differential treatment of students, and help them to make positive changes in their thinking and behavior." (Cotton, 1989)

The work of Brattesani, Weinstein, and Marshall (1984) Presents two studies with results after examination of the relationships among expectations of teachers and the perception of students in relation to differential treatment for students who the teachers held different expectations "...student perceptions of teachers' treatment of them personally, and student achievement levels. Results indicate that differential teacher treatment emanating from different expectations sustains and even increases differences in student achievement." (Cotton, 1989) the work of Findley and Good entitled: "Relations between Student Achievement and Various Indexes of Teacher Expectations" published in the Journal of Educational Psychology (1982) makes examination of the expectations of teachers on the student achievement in reading. Thirteen classes of sixth graders and their teachers participated. Findings state that changes in student achievement levels were affected by the teachers' perceptions of the ability of students. The work of Cotton (1989) entitled: "Classroom Questioning: Close-Up #5" is a synthesis of findings from 37 studies relating to the relationship between the questioning behaviors of teachers and students achievement. The findings state that the use of longer waiting times between questioning sessions increases high cognitive questions in students. The work of Crohn entitled: "Toward Excellence: Student and Teacher Behaviors as Predictors of School Success" states that research exists showing that the expectations of teachers communicated to students "profoundly affects students performance." (1983) the work of Edmonds entitled: "Effective Schools for Urban Poor" published in the Educational Leadership Journal (1979) states that "high expectations" are a critical component of "effective schooling." The work of Feldman and Theiss (1982) entitled: "The Teacher and Student as Pygmalions: Joint Effects of Teacher and Student Expectations" also states research findings that teacher expectations do most definitely "influence student achievement..." The work of Gaddy entitled: "High School Order and classroom management and strategies of instruction in two fifth-grade classrooms " -- one in which students perceived that the teacher treated different students very differently, and one in which students perceived that the teacher treated all students similarly. Students treated similarly held higher achievement expectations for themselves." (1985; as cited in Cotton, 1989) Rosenthal writes in the work entitled: "Pygmalion Effects: Existence, Magnitude and Social Importance" published in the Educational Researcher Journal that: "meta-analytic work conducted with the teacher expectations research since the original Pygmalion study demonstrates that "there is a phenomenon to be explained...[and] that the phenomenon is nontrivial in magnitude." (1987) the work of Stockard and Mayberry entitled: "The Relationship Between School Environments and Student Achievement: A Review of the Literature" reviews the research on the effects of expectations for student achievement and finds that schoolwide and classroom expectations for high achievement were among the strongest predictor of this outcome. (1986) the work of Weinstein and Marshall entitled: "Ecology of Students' Achievement Expectations" makes comparison of the classroom management methods, instructional strategies and attitudes toward students of teachers who were "perceived by students as treating "different" students "very differently" and teachers who were perceived as treating "students similarly. The study states findings that "attitudes of students in low-differential classrooms were more positive and achievement results were mixed. (1984) it is also noted in the work of Woolfolk and Brooks entitled: "The Influence of Teachers' Nonverbal Behaviors in Students' Perceptions and Performance" published in the Elementary School Journal that the effects of nonverbal behaviors of teachers on student's achievement is real and that this holds implications for teachers in terms of classroom behavior toward students. The work of Dusek and Joseph entitled: "The Bases of Teacher Expectancies: A Meta-analysis" published in the Journal of Educational Psychology" presents a meta-analysis of 77 studies of the factors on which teacher expectations of student achievement are based. Teacher expectations are found to be based on factors such as: "attractiveness, student classroom conduct, cumulative folder information, race, and social class." (1983) the work of Grant and Rothenberg: entitled: "The Social Enhancement of Ability Differences: Teacher-Student Interactions in First- and Second-Grade Reading Groups" published in the Elementary School Journal relate the results of a study of ability grouping strategies and effects in eight elementary classrooms. The study concludes that: "ability grouping for reading is both a cause and an effect of teacher expectations, and that this expression of expectations is academically and socially damaging to students placed in "low" groups.
II. Teacher's perceptions of standardized testing and special education student's achievement

In the work entitled: "Including Students with Disabilities and Achieving Accountability: Educator's Emerging Challenge" the author, Martin J. Ward, Nicole Montague, and Thomas H. Linton report the examination of the issue of inclusion of students and accountability in view of the attitudes and practices of educators in Texas in view of inclusion and testing. It noted that the Individual's with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees children with disabilities the right to a free appropriate public education in the 'least restrictive environment." (Ward, Montague, and Linton, nd) in other words special educational programs should be as much "like regular education as possible." (Ward, Montague, and Linton, nd) it is additionally related in this work the fact that concerns are increasing among educators as to how: "...important issues such as multicultural education, multiple intelligences, character education, collaborative networks, service learning and others fit with the state-mandated standardized testing agenda (Bigelow, 1999, Bohn & Weeter, 2000; ERIC/OSEP, 2002, Glickman, 2000/2001; Kohn, 2001) Providing the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities may…