No abstract

Resource programs, sometimes called pull-out programs, have been widely criticized recently. Several professionals have asserted that programs that pull students out of general classrooms for special instruction have for the most part failed to meet the needs of these students. As an alternative to pull-out programs, many professionals recommend that students who have problems be educated full-time in general classrooms. This article provides a critical inspection of resource programs. The resource program model is first described. This is followed by a critical analysis of these programs and some suggestions for future directions. N THE 1970s and early 1980s, resource programs Ibecame popular as an alternative to the segregated, self-contained class that had predominated. Advocates of this model included Chaffin and Brown (1983), among others. Drawing heavily on the work of these authors, this section contains (a) the basic rationale underlying the resource program, (b) the historical development of the interest in this approach, and (c) the different types of resource models that are available. RationaleA resource program is any school operation in which a person (usually the resource teacher) has the responsibility of providing supportive educationally related services to students who are at risk for school failure. Three types of services are provided: (a) assessment of the student's aptitude, achievement, and/or affect; (b) direct instruction in the form of analytic, remedial, developmental, or compensatory teaching and/or socio-emotional behavioral management; and (c) consultation support for classroom teachers and parents in the form of behavioral, organizational, medical, mental health, process, clinical, or collaborative consultation. All of the above services may be conducted either in the general classroom or in a room designated for that purpose, such as the resource room or center.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract