No abstract

A survey of 381 special and regular educators assessed perceptions and opinions surrounding the regular education initiative. Confirmatory factor analysis supported an a priori hypothesized structure of teachers' responses. Items factored into 14 categories. These factors describe issues related to preferred placement of students with mild disabilities, teachers' responsibility and ownership, teacher preparedness for meeting the needs of these students, achievement outcomes for all children, and the changes that would result from adopting the proposed consultant model rather than a pullout program. Results favored current special education practices (pullout programs) in elementary schools.

No abstract

Many suggestions of advocates of the Regular Education Initiative (RET) find broad support among educators. Several basic assumptions underlying the REI, however, are arguable. Contrary to advocates of the REI, we argue the following: (1) Students are not overidentifiedfor special education, andthegap between regular and special education is not widening.(2) Student failure should not be attributed solely to shortcomings of teachers. (3) Teachers who are more competent do not necessarily have more positive attitudes toward handicapped or difficult-to-teach students being placed in their classrooms, nor does school reform/school improvement necessarily mean that difficult-to-teach or handicapped students will be instructed more effectively. (4) Variability in student performance will increase, not decrease, when the most effective instruction is provided for all students, such that low performing students will become more rather than less obvious, and their stigma will not be avoided. (5) Teachers are always faced with the dilemma of maximizing mean performance versus minimizing group variance, such that protection of identifiable resources for identifiable low performing students is always necessary.

This review compared eight different inclusive models for elementary students with mild disabilities, primarily with learning disabilities. Model programs were described according to curricular innovations and the way school personnel and classrooms were organized. Quantified academic outcomes were also discussed. Methodological concerns prevented conclusions about the superiority of inclusive programming over pull-out programs. There were indications that inclusive programming can be effective for some, although not all, students with mild disabilities. More conclusive evidence suggests that the impact of organization and instructional changes on the achievement of nondisabled students was positive. Common elements in models reviewed included a redesigning of general education classrooms so that they more closely resembled special education: low student-to-staff ratio, intensive and prescribed basic skills instruction, performance monitoring, and the opportunity for intensive, one-to-one instruction. Results are discussed in light of implications of the inclusion movement and the future of special education.After the efforts of the past decade to formulate the P.L. 94-142 legislative mandate, and the equally, if not more, difficult task of implementing it, we may need to stop for a moment to reexamine the educational system we have created. We may need to modify and refine it. The time is right because we are now launching the second stage of the revolution-an enormous effort to create or totally reorganize a system of services for disabled people in our nation. Let us pause half-way up the slope to take a breath and gather that humor, confidence and strength for the next task. Let us pause, let us reflect, but not too long. (Will, 1984, p. 11)