1996
DOI: 10.1007/bf02110131
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inclusion: Considerations from social validity and Functional Outcome Analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2000
2000

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Students exhibiting a variety of handicapping conditions perform at least as well as in inclusive settings as they do in segregated settings when appropriate educational experiences and support are provided. There is no conclusive evidence that children with certain handicapping conditions or severity of disability make more or less progress in inclusive classrooms (Alper & Ryndak, 1992; Buysse & Bailey, 1993; Little & Witek, 1996).…”
Section: Mainstreaming a N D Inclusion 95mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Students exhibiting a variety of handicapping conditions perform at least as well as in inclusive settings as they do in segregated settings when appropriate educational experiences and support are provided. There is no conclusive evidence that children with certain handicapping conditions or severity of disability make more or less progress in inclusive classrooms (Alper & Ryndak, 1992; Buysse & Bailey, 1993; Little & Witek, 1996).…”
Section: Mainstreaming a N D Inclusion 95mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is also suggested in the book that the inclusion movement emanates not so much from Dunn's critique of special classes as from an extension of civil rights issues to people with disabilities and from budget considerations, and concludes that such a combination of 'holiness and financial stress' is hard to counter! Further criticism of the inclusion movement in the USA has come from Borthwick-Duffy, Palmer and Lane (1996) and Little and Witek (1996), who suggest that the thinking of inclusion proponents is based more on emotion and philosophy than empirical evidence. These authors point out that the research evidence to date does not support a full inclusion model and therefore suggest that decisions about inclusion should be made on a case-by-case basis as is mandated by the current legislation in the USA.…”
Section: Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%