Effectiveness of Special Education: Is Placement The Critical Factor?

77
Effectiveness of
Special Education:
Is Placement the
Critical Factor?
Anne M. Hocutt
Abstract
Research indicates that various program models, implemented both in special educa-
tion and general education, can have moderately positive academic and social impacts Anne M. Hocutt, Ph.D.,
for students with disabilities. However, no intervention has been designed that elimi- is a research associate
nates the impact of having a disability. With few exceptions, students with disabilities professor at the School of
have not achieved commensurately with their nondisabled peers; even students with Education, Department
learning disabilities as a group have not been able to achieve at the level of low-achiev- of Educational and
ing nondisabled students. Psychological Studies at
the University of Miami.
In general, the most effective interventions for students with disabilities, whether in
special education or general education settings, have employed intensive and reason-
ably individualized instruction, combined with careful, frequent monitoring of stu-
dent progress.
There is no compelling evidence that placement rather than instruction is the critical
factor in student academic or social success. Further, studies have indicated that typi-
cal practice in general education is substantially different from practice in the model
programs that showed greatest success for students with disabilities. The interventions
that were effective in improving academic outcomes for students with disabilities
required a considerable investment of resources, including time and effort, as well as
extensive support for teachers.
The research does not support full-time inclusion for all students with disabilities. On the
contrary, it appears that there is a clear need for special education. At the same time, given
adequate resources, schools should be able to assist more students to be more successful
in general education settings.
R
ecently, both The Wall Street Journal (“Special Ed’s Special Costs”)1
and U.S. News and World Report (“Separate and Unequal: How
Special Education Programs Are Cheating Our Children and
Costing Taxpayers Billions Each Year”)2 accused special education of being
costly, ineffective, and perhaps even immoral (for example, it promotes
The Future of Children SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Vol. 6 • No. 1 – Spring 1996
78 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN – SPRING 1996
“segregation”). As noted by Fuchs and Fuchs,3 such articles in the media

echo criticisms by some professionals in the field. Critics of current practices
propose either a substantial decrease in or elimination of special education
altogether so that students with disabilities will be taught in general educa-
tion classes. This movement is called “inclusion,” and it is controversial
because of its emphasis on placement, that is, the classroom to which a stu-
dent is assigned rather than what happens in that classroom.
The purpose of this article is to review research conducted since 1980
which is directly relevant to inclusion, including research on the effective-
ness of special education in general. The majority of the research reviewed
here was funded by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in the
U.S. Department of Education. Selected older studies will be referenced as
appropriate. Efficacy of interventions is assessed in terms of either academ-
ic progress or improved social-behavioral skills for students with disabilities.
Overall, many models in both the special education and the general
education classroom show moderate academic and social improvement for
some special education students, though improvements have not been uni-
form or dramatic. Virtually all interventions showing positive impacts
involved considerable additional resources.
This article has four major sections. First, basic information about
definitions, current student placements, and positions taken by various
constituencies is presented. Second, data are provided regarding what
typically happens in the general education classroom and in the special
education classroom, emphasizing features salient to the needs of spe-
cial education students.
Third, data about outcomes for special education students are summa-
rized. Although various interventions can have some positive impact on
academic and social outcomes, no intervention reliably improves special
education student performance to the level of nondisabled students. The
more effective interventions have employed an intensive and reasonably
individualized approach to student instruction, combined with frequent
monitoring of student progress.
Fourth, interventions designed to facilitate inclusion of special educa-
tion students in the general classroom are considered. The research does
not support inclusion for all students with disabilities. At the same time, the
research indicates that, given adequate resources, schools should be able to
assist more students to be more successful in general education.
Current Placement and boards, parents, and advocacy groups for the
disabled) on the question of how placement
Constituent Groups should be determined for students with dis-
To understand the relationship between spe- abilities.
cial education and general education, one
must know the definitions of key terms, be Definitions: “Mainstreaming”
aware of where special education students and “Inclusion”
currently spend the school day, and under- Both mainstreaming and inclusion are con-
stand the positions taken by various concepts and movements, rather than precisely
stituencies (including teachers, school defined programs. Within this article, main-
Effectiveness of Special Education: Is Placement the Critical Factor? 79
Box 1
Full Continuum of Educational Services

and Student Placement
Level I Attendance in general education class, without supplementary instructional
supports, and with or without medical supports
Level II Attendance in general education class with supplementary
instructional services delivered in the general classroom
Level III Part-time attendance in resource room
Level IV Full-time attendance in special education class
Level V Special schools
Level VI Homebound instruction
Level VII Instruction in hospital or domiciled settings
Source: Deno, E. Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children (1970) 37:229–37. With modifications
by A. Hocutt for this publication. Originally termed the “cascade of services.”
streaming and inclusion will be defined as Programs (OSEP) show that a variety of
described below. placements are used (see Figure 1). The per-
centage of students with disabilities served in
“Mainstreaming” is the integration of the various placements has changed very lit-
children with disabilities with their peers in tle over the past decade.6 Approximately
general education based on individual one-third of special education students
assessment. The term is associated with the spend 80% or more of their school day in
least restrictive environment (LRE) man- the general education classroom. Another
date in the Individuals with Disabilities Act one-third spend 40% to 79% of their day in
(IDEA) and with the “full continuum of ser- general education. Approximately one-quar-
vices”4 (see Box 1). That is, mainstreaming ter spend 0% to 39% of their time in gener-
occurs when an interdisciplinary team al education, but their special education
(including parents) determines that, given classrooms share a building with the general
all available placement options, a specific education classes. The remaining 5% to 6%
child should participate in general educa- of special education students are served in
tion for some part of the school day. separate schools, residential programs, hos-
pitals, or their own homes.
“Inclusion” goes beyond mainstreaming
in that it implies that most children with dis- Positions on Inclusion
abilities will be educated in the general edu- Many constituencies, representing people
cation classroom for most, if not all, of the with widely differing disabilities, as well as
school day. “Full inclusion” means that all professional organizations of teachers,
children with disabilities, regardless of the school administrators, and professionals
nature or severity of the disability, will be who work with students with disabilities,
educated in general education: in a full have issued position statements on inclusion
inclusion system, separate special education through their professional or advocacy orga-
placements would no longer exist. Both nizations. These positions have been catego-
inclusion and full inclusion imply that other rized as follows:7
placement options would be severely cur-
tailed or abolished. ■ unqualified enthusiasm for full inclusion
and elimination of the continuum of special
Current Placement Patterns education services;8
Data from the most recent annual report to ■ enthusiasm for the philosophy of inclu-
Congress5 of the Office of Special Education sion but support for the continuum of ser-
Figure 1
Percentage of All Students Ages 6 through 21 with Disabilities

Served in Six Educational Environments During the 1991–92
School Year
Residential Facility
0.9%
Home/Hospital Environment
Separate School
0.5%
3.9%
Separate Class
23.5% Regular Class
34.9%
Resource Room
36.3%
■ Regular Class includes students who receive the majority of their

education program in a regular classroom and receive special education
and related services outside the regular classroom for less than 21% of
the school day.
■ Resource Room includes students who receive special education and

related services outside the regular classroom for at least 21% but no
more than 60% of the school day.
■ Separate Class includes students who receive special education and

related services outside the regular classroom for more than 60% of the
school day.
■ Separate School includes students who receive special education and

related services in separate day schools for students with disabilities.
■ Residential Facility includes students who receive education in a public or

private residential facility at public expense.
■ Home/Hospital Environment includes students placed in and receiving

special education in hospital or homebound programs.
Source: Office of Special Education Programs. Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Sixteenth
annual report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1994, p. 12.
vices and individual decision making;9,10 Middle and high school teachers moni-
■ reduction of the special education system tor the work of nondisabled students at high-
in size;11 er rates than they do the work of students
■ support for “appropriate” (individually with disabilities.22 Research suggests that
determined) inclusion, including a full con- teachers are more concerned about whether
tinuum of placement options and services;12 students demonstrate interest in a lesson
■ concern that inclusion does not provide and do not create discipline problems than
appropriate services for students with learn- they are about whether a particular student
ing disabilities, vision impairment/blind- experiences difficulty learning.22
ness, or hard-of-hearing/deafness;13–18 and
■ concern about responsibilities of gener- Research also indicates that general edu-
al education teachers and effects of inclu- cators do not usually adapt lesson plans in
sion on all students,19 with recognition that response to individual student confusion or
diversity of placement options and teach- low achievement.21,23 When surveyed, teach-
ing approaches is a strength of the current ers do not perceive themselves as having the
system.20 skill for adapting instruction in ways that
Experiences of Children in
General and Special From 3% to 5% of the school-age popula-
Education tion is referred in any given year, 92% of
To answer the question “What’s ‘special’ those referred are tested, and 74% of those
about special education,”3 it is necessary to tested are placed in special education.
compare special education with general
education (see Box 2). This section sum-
marizes OSEP-funded research, including: facilitate individual or small-group instruc-
(1) descriptive studies of general education; tion.24 When teachers modify instruction,
(2) descriptive studies and data about spe- they may be more likely to make adaptations
cial education; and (3) student outcomes. (for example, providing reinforcement and
encouragement, establishing appropriate
Common Practices in General routines, and adapting classroom manage-
Education ment activities and/or test situations) that
Recent studies have described typical prac- do not require preplanning.22,25 They may
tice in general education, emphasizing those be less likely to develop individual objectives,
factors that are critical for students with adapt curricular materials, use alternative
disabilities, such as classroom instruction, materials, and/or adjust scoring and grad-
teacher attitudes and referral decisions, and ing criteria for individual students.22
schoolwide issues. The results of these stud-
ies apply to all grades unless otherwise Teacher Attitudes and Referral
noted. Decisions
The decision by the general education
Classroom Instruction teacher to refer a given student for possible
Numerous practices in the typical general placement in special education is critical. In
education classroom conflict with known general, from 3% to 5% of the school-age
effective interventions for students with population is referred in any given year, 92%
special learning needs. Undifferentiated of those referred are tested, and 74% of
large-group instruction appears to be the those tested are placed in special educa-
norm in general education.21 Individual tion.26,27 There may be biases in teacher
assignments, small-group work, and stu- referrals: males and African-American stu-
dent pairing occur, but much less frequent- dents are referred more often than other
ly than whole-class instruction.21,22 Teachers students.28 However, referred students have
typically follow the sequence of lessons out- considerably lower reading achievement
lined in teachers’ manuals21 and focus on than those who are not referred.28
content coverage.22 Students with disabili-
ties in these classes may be expected to In deciding which children to refer for
cover the same content at the same pace as possible placement in special education,
nondisabled students.22 research shows that teachers consider their
Box 2
How Special Education Differs from General Education

The following are broad conclusions drawn from descriptive studies of classroom conditions and from
surveys of teacher attitudes and practices. However, many classrooms and teachers may differ because
of local conditions and practices.
GENERAL EDUCATION
Class size: Average class size is larger (24 elementary, 21 high school) than in special education (15).
Teacher training: Teachers’ preservice training is likely to focus either on content (for example, history or
math) or on a developmental stage (for example, kindergarten). General educators may have received
an introductory course describing children with special needs, resulting in limited information about
and limited opportunity to practice teaching techniques effective in meeting special needs. Such cours-
es have been called “inherently superficial” by the National Association of State Boards of Education
Study Group on Special Education.a
Accountability: Teachers are working in a climate of higher standards and raised expectations. They are
expected to cover a set curriculum over the course of the year, raise student test scores, and maintain
order in the classroom.
Classroom practices: Common practices are those which support average learners. Large-group instruction
is the norm, although individual and small-group assignments also occur.
Monitoring of students involves brief informal checking on what students are doing (as opposed to
extended observations and data collection), with limited direct feedback to students (as opposed to
extended, frequent one-on-one feedback about student progress).
When surveyed, teachers report lack of training to adapt the curriculum to individual students’ special
needs. They may be reluctant to adjust scoring and grading criteria for individual students.
Disruptive student behavior is a major concern of teachers (many would prefer to have disruptive stu-
dents removed from the class). Further, when observed, teachers demonstrate a limited range of tech-
niques to modify disruptive behavior.
Students do not generally receive instruction to help them acquire appropriate behaviors or social skills.
Teachers who have the greatest success at raising the academic achievement of the whole class may also
have the least tolerance for students with impaired skills or with maladaptive behavior.
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Class size: Average class size (15) is smaller than in general education.
Teacher training: Teachers are somewhat more likely to have advanced degrees. However, because of per-
sonnel shortages nationwide, about 10% of special education personnel are not certified for the position
they hold.b
Accountability: Each student in special education has an individualized education program (IEP), and
teachers are expected to help each student advance toward his or her individual goals.
Classroom practices: A minority of studies have found few differences between general and special educa-
tion in terms of instructional practices. However, the majority of studies have found differences, sum-
marized below.
Special education teachers are likely to use a wider variety of teaching strategies.
Special education teachers are also more likely to monitor student behavior frequently, praise students,
and provide answers to their own questions if student response is inadequate.
Special education teachers collect more data to monitor student progress and are more knowledgeable
about individual students.
Materials are covered at a slower pace.
Teachers have a wider repertoire of responses to manage students’ disruptive behavior or inattention.
a National Association of State Boards of Education. Winners all: A call for inclusive schools. The report of the NASBE Study
Group on Special Education. Alexandria, VA: NASBE, October 1992, p. 25.
b Office of Special Education Programs. Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Sixteenth annu-
al report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1994, p. 20.
perception of the child’s “teachability,” the teacher engages other children in the class
overall diversity of the classroom, and the in small-group work. Students engaged in
philosophy and policies of the school dis- individual seatwork receive minimal assis-
trict. Research also suggests that some teach- tance or corrective feedback while working,
ers who are most effective at raising overall increasing the likelihood of failure and con-
academic standards may have a lower toler- sequent referral.30
ance for students with special needs.
■ Effective Teachers and Special Education
■ Student Teachability. “Teachability” refers to Referrals. Researchers34 have found effective
the extent to which a student is alert, sustains teaching behaviors to include: reviewing and
attention in the classroom, and begins and checking the previous day’s work, and
completes work on time. A teacher’s percep- reteaching if necessary; promoting initial
tion of a student’s teachability plays a major student practice of new content and skills,
role in the decision to refer.28,29 Other child
characteristics that are related to this deci-
sion include language difficulties26,30 and Teachers who are most effective at raising
behavioral problems, particularly aggres- overall academic standards are likely to
sion, opposition, and hostility.26,29 General
education teachers will not tolerate disrup- have a lower tolerance for students with
tive and/or dangerous behavior.25,31 special needs.
■ Classroom Diversity. General education
instruction appears to be aimed at a relative- and checking for understanding; providing
ly homogeneous group of students as teach- corrective feedback; giving students an
ers try to reduce “the sheer cognitive opportunity for independent practice; and
complexity of planning and instruction asso- conducting weekly and monthly reviews of
ciated with broad ranges of student charac- progress. In theory, such close monitoring
teristics and abilities.”29 Thus, teachers refer and feedback-intensive practice should be
difficult-to-teach children who have serious well suited to the needs of special education
academic and behavioral problems28 and students, as well as to the needs of the gen-
who are markedly different from other stu- eral student body. Unfortunately, research
dents in the class.32 Not surprisingly, many on teacher attitudes suggests that some
teachers are skeptical of proposals to return effective teachers may not be willing to
all children with disabilities to general edu- accept students with disabilities.35,36
cation classrooms because coping with the
difficulties these children present may take For instance, data from one study34
time the teacher now uses for instruction.33 showed that elementary general education
teachers who were considered most effective
■ School District Factors. Teachers refer at were also the least likely to accept students
different rates depending partly upon with maladaptive behavior or disabilities into
contextual factors such as sources of avail- their classroom, and those teachers had a
able assistance,29 the way in which the lower sense of responsibility for dealing with
teacher is evaluated by administrators, the students’ problem behaviors. Data from two
restrictiveness of special education eligibil- other studies indicated that teachers with the
ity criteria used in the school district, and most effective instructional and classroom
district requirements regarding prereferral management techniques had the lowest tol-
intervention.26 erance for maladaptive behavior and the
highest expectations for behavior and
■ Classroom Environment. A child’s school achievement, and would be most likely to
failure and likelihood of being referred to resist placement of a disabled student in their
special education are influenced not only by classroom,35 especially if the student were
the child’s own characteristics, but also by deficient in self-help skills, required adapted
the manner in which the classroom oper- materials, or had impaired language ability.36
ates. Research suggests that the classroom
environment most conducive to school fail- Schools and School Systems
ure is one in which a student in academic The description of general education to this
trouble does individual seatwork while the point has focused on classroom instruction
and on reasons teachers refer students for ratios. Small classes facilitate more individ-
special education. However, research also ual attention and small-group instruction.
describes the context in which schools and Also, more special education teachers have
school systems operate. advanced degrees, with nearly 55% having a
master’s degree and 11% having an educa-
■ Schools’ Capacity for Teaching Behavior tional specialist or doctoral degree in com-
Management Skills. Many students with dis- parison with 40% and 6%, respectively, for
abilities have very poor social skills, and general education teachers.3 The special
some have behavioral and/or emotional dis- education curriculum is more oriented
orders. Public schools often do not address toward the development of functional skills,
social skills, and teachers have not been and the pace at which students cover mate-
trained to use positive behavior manage- rials is slower.40
ment strategies rather than punishment.
Mental health and other services are usually As noted earlier, approximately 95% of
not available or, if available, are not integrat- special education students are educated in
ed into the regular program.37 the public schools; these students spend an
average of 70% of their time in general edu-
■ Higher Standards for Academic Performance. cation settings5 (see Figure 1). Younger stu-
Further, schools and school systems are dents are more likely than older students to
operating in a climate of increased account- be placed in integrated settings (that is, set-
ability.38 Many reports and studies have tings which have both general and special
accused the U.S. educational system of being education students).5
mediocre.38 These reports have resulted in a
national drive for excellence in education, Comparison of Instruction in
generally interpreted as higher standards, General and Special Education
more courses, and more homework. The Although a majority of studies comparing
focus is now on student outcomes, for exam- instruction in general and special education
ple, higher scores on tests and increased have found numerous differences, a minori-
ty of studies have found few differences. For
instance, one study comparing special edu-
Approximately 95% of special education cation, resource-room instruction with typi-
cal classroom instruction in reading and
students are educated in the public schools; math found no significant differences in a
these students spend an average of 70% of variety of instructional practices, including
their time in general education settings. teacher modeling, opportunity for student
responses, amount of guided and indepen-
dent practice, and pacing of lessons.41 Other
high school graduation rates. Some states studies have indicated that general and spe-
are using enrollments in advanced courses, cial education teachers perform similar
the amount of homework given or complet- instructional tasks.42,43
ed, and SAT scores as measures of school
performance. These raised expectations Teaching Strategies and Interventions
occur in a climate of large classes and large For the most part, research shows differ-
teacher loads (for example, 150 students per ences between general and special educa-
day per teacher in secondary education).38 tion instruction, though findings have not
Consequently, it is not surprising that many been consistent across studies. Some com-
special educators doubt that general educa- parison studies have focused on the differ-
tion will be able to successfully educate more ences in the teaching strategies and inter-
students with disabilities for more hours dur- ventions used by general and special
ing the school day.39 education teachers, and this literature con-
sistently shows differences. One study, which
Common Practices in Special compared teacher planning and adaptation
Education for students with learning disabilities, found
Current data from the U.S. Department of that general educators preferred to use
Education show that class size in special edu- manipulative and audiovisual activities,
cation averages 15 students per teacher,5 while the special educators preferred
smaller than typical general education detailed intervention programs designed for
special education students, for example,

direct instruction and cognitive strategy
instructions.44 (Direct instruction and cogni-
tive strategy instructions are described later
in this article, in the section on inclusion
efforts.) Another study of instruction for
children with educable mental retardation
(EMR) in general and special settings found
that special educators showed more flexibili-
ty in selecting strategies with which to man-
age and monitor the classroom.42
Teacher Monitoring of Student Progress

The research comparing teacher monitor-
ing of student progress is also consistent
in showing that general and special edu-
cation teachers approach this task differ-
ently. General education teachers prefer
to determine progress or success through
informal observations in the classrooms;
when tests are involved, they prefer tests
directly based on material taught (as
opposed to standardized tests such as the
© Evan Johnson/Impact Visuals

California Achievement Test).44 On the
other hand, special educators are general-
ly more data-based.42,45 Further, with small-
er classes, special education teachers can
be more knowledgeable about their stu-
dents and can tailor educational programs
for specific students.42
Student-Teacher Interaction A follow-up study49 with different general

With regard to student-teacher interaction and special education teachers produced
in the two settings, results are somewhat similar findings.
inconsistent. One study, which compared
the interactions of students with learning Effective Teaching Literature
disabilities with a group of nondisabled stu- Some studies comparing instruction in
dents in general education classes, found general and special education come from
that the students with learning disabilities the effective teaching literature. Advocates
had more interaction with the teachers, for inclusion have often cited this litera-
but that the teachers asked academic ture because they assume that students
questions and provided feedback more to with mild handicaps are essentially the
the students without disabilities.46 Other same as low achievers and will respond well
researchers have found that the propor- to the same interventions that have been
tion of exchanges focused on academic effective with low-achieving students.50
content is greater in special than in gener- This is a controversial assumption because
al education.44,47 recent research indicates that there are
differences in brain structure and func-
A study of beginning general and special tioning between children with dyslexia (a
education teachers also found that special common learning disability) and other
educators monitored and praised their stu- children and that there is a biological and
dents with learning disabilities more than possibly genetic factor in some reading
did general educators. During teacher-initi- disabilities. (See the article by Lyon in this
ated interactions, the special educators were journal issue.)
more likely to provide more answers to their
own questions and less likely to ignore stu- One study compared instructional
dents’ inattention or disruptive behaviors.48 behaviors of general and special education
teachers from the perspective of the effec- Caveats Concerning Research

tive teaching literature to identify behaviors Studies of outcomes for special education
that differentiated teachers whose students students under various conditions are often
had high and low proportions of on-task characterized by methodological problems.
behavior. Overall, special education teach- Sample sizes are frequently small. Random
ers were more likely than general educators assignment is rare because it would violate
to monitor student behavior, praise, show the student’s IDEA guarantee of individually
determined appropriate interventions. (See
the article by Martin and Martin in this jour-
Schools routinely exclude special education nal issue.) Further, comparison groups are
unlikely to be truly comparable because stu-
students from schoolwide standardized dents who are educated in more restrictive
testing. settings are likely to differ from other stu-
dents in important but unmeasured ways,
such as exhibiting more disruptive behavior.
positive regard, give the answer, and reject
students’ verbalizations. More effective gen- The appropriateness of the measuring
eral and special education teachers had instruments used in many older studies of
materials ready, began lessons promptly, the efficacy of special education has been
oriented learners to the lesson, made criticized. Because the progress of some stu-
assignments more often, exhibited more dents with disabilities is slow, the effects of an
teacher-directed than student-directed intervention in a small sample might be too
learning, praised student responses more, small to be picked up by a standardized
and had to manage student inattention/dis- test.51 Further, studies reported in grade-
ruption less often.49 equivalent scores can seriously exaggerate a
student’s progress or lack of progress.52
It appears that differences in instruction
between general and special education In addition, most school systems and
teachers are common. Some of these differ- state departments of education do not accu-
ences may be a function of smaller class mulate information on the academic
sizes; others may be related to teachers’ pro- achievement of students in special educa-
fessional training. Given the existence of tion. With few exceptions, schools routinely
these differences, it is reasonable to ask exclude special education students from
whether outcomes for students with disabili- schoolwide standardized testing.
ties are determined more by the setting in
which they are educated or by what happens Finally, outcome research in special edu-
in that setting. cation is commonly conducted by university-
based researchers (including this author)
who also design and supervise the imple-
Outcomes in Special mentation of the intervention in question,
Education frequently providing substantial support to
Outcomes for students in special education the classroom teacher. This degree of sup-
are highly variable, reflecting the great port is unlikely to exist in typical practice.
diversity in the nature, degree, and co-
occurrence of disabilities experienced by With these caveats, studies of outcomes
individual students. Three points are made for special education students under various
in the following discussion: (1) much of the conditions are reviewed in this section.
research on the effectiveness of special edu-
cation is characterized by methodological Older Studies Cited by
problems; (2) the studies that have most Advocates
strongly criticized special education, and Proponents of inclusion frequently cite
are commonly cited by inclusion advocates, some older studies of the efficacy of special
are somewhat outdated; and (3) studies of education as proof that special education
the effectiveness of special education can does not work;53 however, this conclusion
best be interpreted by grouping students oversimplifies the results of these studies. In
with different types of disabilities, as sum- fact, this body of research should be viewed
marized in Box 3. with caution.
Box 3
Factors Affecting Outcomes for Special Education Students

Student academic and social success is affected more by the instructional models employed
and the classroom environment than by placement in general or special education.
Students with learning disabilities (LD) perform slightly better and think of themselves as
more competent academically when placed in special education.
Students with severe emotional disturbance (SED) are more likely to succeed in general edu-
cation if they take part in vocational education and are integrated into the school, for
example, through sports participation. However, students with SED who have a history of
course failure may be more likely to drop out of school if placed in general education.
Students with hearing impairments appear to gain some academic advantage but suffer some
loss of self-concept when placed in general education. The strength of the child’s audito-
ry and oral skills is a critical determinant of success in general education. On average,
hard-of-hearing students do not perform as well academically as normally hearing stu-
dents in any setting, and the gap in performance increases with age.
Students with educable mental retardation (EMR), usually defined as having an IQ between
70 and 50 combined with deficits in adaptive behavior, appear to be particularly sensitive
to classroom environment. A supportive teacher, instruction style, and classmates have a
greater impact on outcomes for these students than for students without disabilities.
Students with severe mental disabilities, usually with IQs below 50, typically have greater social
integration as a primary goal. Programs providing supportive transitional services have
been successful at avoiding placements in residential settings.
Nondisabled students do not appear to be impacted by the inclusion in general education
of students with learning disabilities, mild behavior disorders, or severe mental disabilities,
as long as supportive services are provided. When the inclusion program brings a lower
overall teacher-student ratio to the classroom, the nondisabled students are likely to ben-
efit academically.
Effective schools appear to be more likely to benefit nondisabled low achievers than to ben-
efit special education students. Outcome data for students with disabilities in identified
effective schools are inconclusive.
It should be noted that these older stud- concluded that placement in special educa-
ies were done so long ago that their rele- tion worked best for students with hearing
vance to today’s classroom practices and impairments and worked well for students
student characteristics is questionable.54 with mild retardation; however, it was not
There have been historical changes in such successful for students with learning disabili-
classifications as educable mental retarda- ties. (It should be noted that Wang and
tion (EMR), so that results of older efficacy Baker analyzed outcomes for students with
studies of students with EMR may not be hearing impairments only in terms of atti-
generalizable to the current population of tudes toward school and toward other stu-
students with EMR.55 dents. They analyzed outcomes for students
with mild retardation primarily in terms of
Both Carlberg and Kavale56 and Wang attitudes, but measured outcomes for learn-
and Baker57 conducted meta-analyses of a ing disabled students in terms of academic
number of efficacy studies comparing gen- performance.)
eral versus special class placement. Carlberg
and Kavale,56 who examined the results of 50 Other researchers reviewed studies of
studies, found that placement in general outcomes associated with various types of
rather than special education classes result- placements. One review of the research
ed in better outcomes for students with mild literature58 reached the same conclusion
retardation but poorer outcomes for stu- as Carlberg and Kavale, that is, that stu-
dents with learning disabilities or behav- dents with learning disabilities or emo-
ioral/emotional problems. Similarly, Wang tional/behavioral problems were better off
and Baker,57 who meta-analyzed 11 studies, in special education resource rooms than in
general education classrooms. A second there is a wide range of severity, with and
review59 found “weak evidence” of improved without co-occurring conditions.
educational and emotional outcomes in less
restrictive environments, although these Though caution is appropriate, it is nec-
reviewers, as well as the authors of a third essary to consider some broad groupings of
review,52 stated that the intervention itself, students with somewhat similar conditions
rather than the setting in which it is imple- to understand their needs and the services
mented, is related to student academic they require.
progress.
■ Students with Learning Disabilities. Students
Although these older meta-analyses and with learning disabilities (LD) constitute the
literature reviews are still presented as evi- largest single category of children with dis-
dence that special education is ineffective, in abilities. (See the Child Indicators article by
fact the authors of the meta-analyses con- Lewit and Baker in this journal issue.) In
cluded that special education was preferable general, studies conducted since 1980 indi-
cate slightly better academic outcomes for
students with learning disabilities who are
Generalized efforts to improve instruction served in special education settings. When
for all students may do little to meet the these same students are served in general
education settings, they have poorer self-
special academic needs of students with concepts. The latter finding may be relat-
disabilities. ed to data showing that students with learn-
ing disabilities have one of the highest
dropout rates of any group of students with
for students with learning disabilities or disabilities. (See the article by Wagner and
emotional disorders. It is also important to Blackorby in this journal issue.)
remember that the research on which these
studies are based cannot be assumed to Special education settings appear to be
reflect current teaching practices and cur- superior in two recent studies,60,61 which
rent student populations. compared academic outcomes for students
with learning disabilities who were placed at
different times in general and special educa-
Recent Studies of Outcomes in
tion settings. A time-series analysis allowed
Special Education and in researchers to compare the performance of
Effective Schools the same students in each of the settings.
First, this section examines outcomes for stu- One study60 of 11 poor readers who subse-
dents with specific disabilities (summarized quently were diagnosed as having learning
in Box 3). Then, this section considers stud- disabilities showed that these students
ies of students without disabilities when stu- gained nearly twice as many new reading
dents with disabilities are included in the words per week in special education as they
classroom, concluding that no negative had in general education. A separate study61
impacts have been indicated, though the of 21 students with learning disabilities who
research base is small. Finally, a discussion of had been in special education classes and
generalized efforts to improve instruction returned to general education showed that
for all students (the “school effectiveness” the students made small but steady gains
movement) concludes that improving the while in special education, but made no
effectiveness of schools may do little to meet gains in general education.
the special academic needs of students with
disabilities. While most research on the perfor-
mance of students with learning disabilities
Effectiveness of Special Education for has taken place in elementary schools, some
Students with Disabilities has been done at the high school level. A
It is not possible to reach broad conclusions study62 comparing the performance of sec-
about all students with disabilities, and even ondary students with learning disabilities
within groupings, caution should be exer- and their low-achieving nondisabled peers
cised. Distinctions between categories of dis- found that ninth-grade students with learn-
ability are not absolute. Within categories, ing disabilities who were taught in general
education had an average grade point aver- tional/behavioral disorders (EBD) or seri-
age (GPA) of 0.99, significantly lower than ous emotional disturbance (SED) have sig-
the already low 1.38 GPA of the nondisabled nificant difficulty in these areas.
students who were classified as low achiev-
ing. Additionally, 20% of the students with An article describing the characteristics
learning disabilities failed the ninth grade; and outcomes of children with serious emo-
during their ninth-grade year, 79% earned a tional disturbance appeared in the sum-
D or less in social studies, 69% earned a D or mer/fall 1995 issue of this journal.69 The
less in science, and 63% earned a D or less in author concluded that improved long-term
health. These results corroborate earlier outcomes (employment, postschool educa-
studies23,63 showing that most secondary stu- tion, and residential independence) for stu-
dents with learning disabilities pass their dents with serious emotional disturbance
classwork, although one study23 indicated were associated with parental involvement,
that general educators give students with vocational education, and social integration
learning disabilities a grade of D simply for into the school through participation in
attending class. Thus, it is not known how
much actual learning was taking place, but it
is clear the students with learning disabilities Lower functioning students (those with more
placed in general education were not achiev- course failures) were more likely to drop out
ing even at the level of nondisabled, low-
achieving students. of school altogether when placed in general
education.
Research suggests that the self-concept of
students with learning disabilities improves
the most in the most segregated settings, sports or other groups. Another critical
despite the assertion by some proponents of factor was appropriate placement: higher-
inclusion that children with mild handicaps functioning students with serious emotional
will improve in their self-perceptions when disturbance benefitted socially and held
placed full time in general education.64 constant in academic achievement when
Various studies have found that (1) children returned to general education. However,
with learning disabilities in general educa- lower-functioning students (those with more
tion classes had significantly poorer self-per- course failures) were more likely to drop out
ceptions of academic competence and of school altogether when placed in general
behavior than their nondisabled class- education.
mates,65 (2) students with learning disabili-
ties who spent part of the day in resource Students with serious emotional distur-
room programs thought of themselves as bance who have the most severe problems
more competent academically than did sim- may be taught in a separate school or resi-
ilar students who spent all day in general dential treatment program. Logically, these
classes,66 and (3) the self-concept of students students are more likely to be accepted in a
with learning disabilities who spent all day in less restrictive environment if teachers in
special education classes was higher than both the special and general schools are able
that of similar students who spent one or two to devote time and resources to planning
hours per day in special education resource and carrying out the transition.
classes.67
That, indeed, was the finding of one
■ Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders recent study involving the resource-inten-
and/or Serious Emotional Disturbance. As noted sive reintegration of 10 students with emo-
earlier, research consistently finds that gen- tional/behavioral disorders from a self-
eral education teachers will not tolerate dis- contained day school into neighborhood
ruptive, aggressive, oppositional, defiant, or schools.70 The intervention consisted of
dangerous behaviors.68 Both elementary and 18 weeks of planning and intervention.
secondary teachers are concerned that stu- Research staff spent an average of 20 hours
dents follow classroom rules, listen to and per week for 18 weeks working with school
comply with teacher directives, and carry out personnel, while special and general edu-
decisions—in short, behave in an orderly cation teachers spent 10 and 8 hours,
fashion. By definition, students with emo- respectively, on transition activities. This
intensive use of resources appeared to be advantage but suffer regarding self-concept

effective. One of the 10 students entered a in mainstreamed classes.
mainstream class, while the other 9 were
placed in special education classes in the The development of auditory/oral skills
public school. Only 5 students in a compar- appears critical to the success of hard-of-
ison group of 10 EBD students were reinte- hearing students in mainstream settings. A
grated into public school settings. The stu- study involving such students, 90% of whom
dents who received the intervention were received support services from speech/hear-
considerably more positive about their ing teachers or from teachers of deaf stu-
adjustment in the public school, and the dents, found that the three factors most
behavior of the comparison students was related to their academic performance were
more disruptive in the public school than oral communication, personality (for exam-
that of the students who received support- ple, motivation, self-concept), and linguistic
ive interventions. competence.73 The students in this study
were not so impaired as to need an inter-
■ Students with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity preter in the classroom. Students with more
Disorder. Children identified as having profound hearing loss who use manual sign
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder language might have great difficulty in gen-
(ADHD) have behavioral problems involv- eral education classrooms: manual sign lan-
ing poor impulse control, attention deficits, guage has its own rules of grammar, and
and sometimes hyperactivity. A diagnosis of teachers who use standard English may not
ADHD does not by itself make a student eli- be effective at communicating complex con-
gible for special education, though some of cepts to these students within the constraints
these children qualify under one or more of of a general education classroom.74
the disability categories spelled out in the
■ Students with Educable Mental Retardation.
While definitions vary, students with educa-
The use of cooperative learning approaches ble mental retardation (EMR) generally
promoted students’ frequent interaction with have intelligence quotients (IQs) between
50 and 70, combined with deficits in adap-
nonhandicapped peers. tive behavior. Research suggests that such
aspects of the educational environment as
teacher characteristics, instruction, and
IDEA. While children with ADHD may or classroom climate may be even more impor-
may not be considered disabled under the tant to the success of students with EMR
IDEA, they often show improved behavior in than they are to other students.
school if they receive medication as pre-
scribed by a physician. A review71 of research In one of the most extensive studies
on the use of stimulants (for example, involving students with educable mental
Ritalin) on children identified as having retardation and nondisabled students,42 the
ADHD, suggests that stimulants are success- academic achievement of students with edu-
ful in the temporary management of hyper- cable mental retardation was predicted by a
activity, inattention, impulsivity, aggression, variety of classroom environment factors
social interactions, and academic productiv- (teaching style, classroom climate), while
ity. However, there is no evidence to indicate that of nonhandicapped students was pre-
that significant improvement of reading dicted by their family background (parents’
skills, social skills, learning, or of achieve- education, economic status). Variations in
ment results from medication. the classroom environment accounted for
nearly a quarter of the variance in the social
■ Students with Hearing Impairments. One lit- acceptance or rejection of the students with
erature review72 concluded that, on average, mental retardation by their peers. The class-
hard-of-hearing students do not perform as room factors associated with better out-
well as normal-hearing children in any set- comes for students with educable mental
ting and that the difference in performance retardation were active involvement of the
increases with age. The same researchers students in teacher-directed and supervised
also concluded tentatively that hearing- instruction (as opposed to passive individual
impaired students gain some academic seatwork) and the use of cooperative learn-
ing approaches, which promoted students’ Nondisabled elementary students have

frequent interaction with nonhandicapped shown no difference on California Achieve-
peers. ment Test scores, whether they were
assigned to typical classes or to an Integrated
■ Students with Severe Mental Disabilities. Of Classroom Model (ICM), a highly structured
all disability groupings, the students with class composed of one-third students with
severe/profound mental disabilities (gen- and two-thirds students without disabilities.77
erally with an IQ below 50) and those with
emotional disturbance are the most likely Similarly, nondisabled students have
to spend their school time in restricted, iso- benefitted academically from a program78
lated settings. Lessening this social isolation that created an integrated classroom com-
is a major goal expressed by severely men- posed of one-third mildly disabled students
tally disabled students and their parents, and two-thirds nondisabled students. These
and research on this group has examined classes also had two teachers, giving a low
social outcomes rather than academic teacher-to-student ratio of about 1 to 14. The
performance. Social interaction between nondisabled students in the integrated class-
severely disabled students and nondisabled es benefitted most in a comprehensive test
students has increased in more integrated of reading, math, and language skills, show-
settings.75 ing greater gains than both nondisabled stu-
dents in general classes and students with
Students with severe disabilities have disabilities in integrated classes.
been successfully reintegrated into neigh-
borhood schools, and others have success- In an analysis of behavior and time man-
fully avoided placement in restricted, resi- agement, one study79 examined the behav-
dential settings. In one study,76 researchers ior of 89 nondisabled students in grades 1
developed, field tested, and evaluated an through 5 in five classrooms where 11 stu-
intervention to return students with severe dents with learning disabilities had been
mental limitations from residential place- placed for an eight-month period. When
ments to their neighborhood schools
and/or to avoid placing other students in
residential programs. Considerable exter- In general, studies have indicated that stu-
nal support was provided by university dents without disabilities do not suffer from
researchers in the form of technical assis-
tance and access to specialists such as being in classes also serving students with
“integration facilitators,” speech/language mild disabilities or severe mental disabilities.
pathologists, occupational therapists, and
paraprofessionals. Of 77 students in this
study, 58 successfully made the transition the students with learning disabilities
to their home school and avoided re-refer- were added to the class, the nonhandi-
ral to an out-of-school residential place- capped students spent the same amount of
ment; the remaining students continued to time (35% to 40%) in academic instruc-
be maintained in general education classes tion; nonacademic behavior decreased sig-
in their home schools. nificantly during math instruction. Further,
the time devoted to waiting and classroom
The Effects of Inclusion on Students management activities decreased signifi-
Without Disabilities cantly in reading.
Parents and teachers often have expressed
concerns about the likely impact on students Research on the integration of students
without disabilities when children with with severe mental disabilities has empha-
special needs are moved to the general class- sized the social and emotional benefits to
room. Although the body of literature exam- nondisabled children and teachers, showing
ining this issue is small, in general these increased awareness of the needs of persons
studies have indicated that students with- with disabilities, increased levels of social
out disabilities do not suffer from being in development in nondisabled children,
classes also serving students with mild dis- increased willingness to work with students
abilities (learning disabilities or mild behav- with disabilities, and increased skills for
ior disorders) or severe mental disabilities. teachers.80
Box 4
Interventions Designed to Promote Inclusion

Prereferral interventions are individualized accommodations and adaptations made in the general class-
room, with the goal of avoiding referral to special education. Although prereferral interventions are
widely recommended and are required in many states, there are few data demonstrating that they lead
to long-term academic improvement for struggling students. However, prereferral interventions do
appear to reduce the number of students referred to special education.
Teacher consultation typically involves assistance (for example, suggestions for teaching strategies) pro-
vided by a special educator to a general educator. The student toward whom the problem-solving
process is targeted may be a general education student experiencing problems (possibly needing
referral to special education) or a special education student in a general education class. Research
on the impact of teacher consultation for students with disabilities is scant and inconclusive.
Many types of modified instructional methods in the general classroom have been tried. Practices in this
category are classwide changes, not modifications for individual students. Types of modified practices
include, but are not limited to,
direct instruction (which, among other things, breaks academic skills down into small,
sequenced steps);
cooperative learning (which groups students heterogeneously and makes the group
responsible for the performance of all students);
peer tutoring; and
cognitive strategy instruction (in which students are taught specific learning strategies).
Several instructional methods appear to result in modest improvements in academic outcomes for
students with mild disabilities. The more promising programs involve lengthy (often multiyear)
teacher training, teacher planning time, administrative support, and sometimes additional instruc-
tional staff. When additional resources are provided, outcomes for nondisabled students may be
improved.
In transenvironmental programming (TP), special educators and general educators coordinate their
efforts to support individual students as they leave special education settings and reintegrate into
general education. Transenvironmental programming appears to improve student academic
progress initially, but there is some question as to whether faithful adherence to TP is feasible in
general education.
Whole school models have been developed to enhance the capacity of schools to address the needs of
students with disabilities. These models have involved an intensive use of resources. Results show that
51% of the students with learning disabilities moved up in standing relative to their nondisabled class-
mates, while the remaining 49% lost ground. The best outcomes were attained by the project that
used case-by-case reintegration of students into mainstream settings (as opposed to reintegration of
all students), ongoing assessment and intensive instruction in special education, and transenviron-
mental programming.
Studies Based on School Effectiveness eliminate the need for special education.
Literature Two studies discussed below have demon-
Theoretically, “effective schools” should be strated only modest gains for special educa-
well matched to the classroom needs of spe- tion students in effective schools, while
cial education students. Characteristics of another has shown a negative impact.
effective schools include improved academ-
ic achievement, strong educational leader- One project,45 studying 2,604 students in
ship, an orderly school climate, high grades 1 through 6 at 32 schools, indicated
achievement expectations, systematic moni- that effective schools facilitate inclusion of
toring of student performance, and an special education students. Researchers
emphasis on basic skills. While the literature found that students with mild disabilities in
on effective schools is large, few studies integrated programs in effective schools had
examine the outcomes of special education better academic achievement and better
students. However, research suggests that social behavior than did similar students in
making schools more “effective” will not special education classes in similar effective
schools. However, these students consistent- However, there is limited evidence of the
ly did more poorly than their low-achieving effectiveness of prereferral interventions.
but nondisabled classmates. Another study Research has generally looked only at
of 758 students (255 in special education, whether the intervention succeeded in
the remainder low achieving) showed some avoiding referral, not at student outcomes in
positive academic impact for students with general education. One review of research
mild disabilities attending effective schools between 1961 and 1989 found that only 32
but not enough to bring the special educa- of 119 studies used student academic
tion students to the level of the low-achiev- achievement to determine the success of the
ing nondisabled students.45
On the other hand, a study of 58 effec- Most of these interventions show some
tive schools81 showed a negative relation- promise, though none show dramatic or
ship between general education students’
reading performance (on the California consistent success for all or even most
Achievement Test) and that of special edu- students.
cation students (on the Basic Academic
Skills Sample).
intervention.83 Further, much of the
Interventions Designed to research discussed below may have shown
Facilitate Increased positive outcomes because of extra, some-
times intensive, assistance from the investi-
Placement in General gators. Results from these studies may be
Education difficult or expensive to duplicate.
A variety of interventions have been devel-
oped to facilitate increased placement of stu- Several models of prereferral interven-
dents with disabilities in general education. tions have been tried that involve consulta-
The goal of each of these interventions is to tion between two or more teachers (and
provide an appropriate education for the sometimes specialists), followed by class-
special education student in the general room changes targeted toward the problems
education setting. All of the promising inter- of the identified student. Interventions
ventions require significant resources for range widely and are not described in the
implementation, such as smaller class sizes, research literature. However, in this author’s
extensive consultation with specialists, experience, prereferral interventions may
added planning time for teachers, teacher’s include individualized behavior-modification
aides, and ongoing, intensive training. programs, changed seating arrangements,
teaching in small steps, or increased moni-
Most of these interventions show some toring of student progress.
promise, though none show dramatic or
consistent success for all or even most stu- In the Teacher Assistance Team (TAT)
dents. However, some of the caveats dis- model, a team of general education teachers
cussed earlier also apply to this body of plan classroom modifications for students
research, especially the lack of random with special needs; a recent review found
assignment. Therefore, the research must be that only 21% of students focused on by
interpreted with care. TATs were referred for special education.84
In another study, referrals were low (7% of
These models are briefly described and targeted students), and teachers had an
conclusions summarized in Box 4. increased tolerance for a range of student
abilities, though not for a wider range of
Prereferral Interventions student behaviors.85
Efforts to avoid referring students to special
education by making instructional accom- Studies of Mainstream Assistance Teams,
modations and adaptations for them in gen- in which general education teachers con-
eral classrooms are reasonably widespread. sulted with special education teachers to
As of 1989, some 23 states required and 11 design interventions, showed that teach-
states recommended some form of prerefer- ers initially complained that extensive
ral intervention.82 consultations leading to individualized pro-
grams for selected students were too com- than comparison schools on measures of
plex and demanded too much time;86 a achievement.92
shorter, less complex form of consultation
was equally effective in achieving positive Alternative Instructional
outcomes.87 Students on average achieved Methods
between 66% and 72% of daily goals set by Alternative instructional methods in the
teachers. general classroom involve classwide changes,
not individualized modification. As a group,
Postreferral Teacher they require lengthy (often multiyear)
Consultation teacher training, teacher planning time,
The goal of postreferral consultation is to administrative support, and sometimes addi-
enable the general educator to deliver spe- tional instructional staff. However, research
cial education services in the general educa- indicates that these models of instruction
tion classroom rather than sending special are promising for improving outcomes for
education students to a “resource room” for students with disabilities.
part of the day. A special educator consults
with the general educator regarding the spe- Direct Instruction
cial needs of some students and suggests Direct instruction (DI) is a comprehensive
modified teaching techniques such as behav- curriculum, classroom management, and
ior management strategies or modified read- teaching system that includes teaching skills
ing instruction. in small sequenced steps, providing immedi-
ate feedback, and offering frequent student-
There are relatively few data-based stud- teacher interaction. It is designed to be a
ies of these consultation programs that complete curriculum, rather than a supple-
examine outcomes for special education stu- ment to an existing curriculum, and it
dents.83 These studies are not conclusive: requires the use of trained supervisors who
reported outcomes may be more related to work in the classroom.
initial differences among students than to
the intervention itself. Two studies88,89 com- A meta-analysis of 25 experimental stud-
ies of direct instruction involving students
with mild, moderate, and severe disabili-
Data support the effectiveness of direct ties found that 53% of the academic and
instruction for students with disabilities and social outcomes favored direct instruc-
tion, while no outcome measures favored
also for low-achieving students who might be the comparison treatment.93 Outcomes
referred for special education. were assessed in reading, math, language,
spelling, writing, health, and social skills.
Research suggests that learning under
paring consultative services in general class- direct instruction appears optimal for stu-
rooms against pull-out services in resource dents with disabilities when they respond
rooms showed no differences in outcomes. to many questions during the course of a
A third study90 in which the special educator lesson and the teacher provides step-by-
provided both consultation and direct ser- step instruction.94 Data support the effec-
vices in the general class showed slight tiveness of direct instruction for students
improvement over outcomes achieved in with disabilities and also for low-achieving
resource rooms. students who might be referred for special
education.
Other studies suggest that the consult-
ing model may hold promise for all stu- Cooperative Learning
dents (including nondisabled students) if In cooperative learning approaches, teach-
the model involves additional teaching ers assign students to heterogeneous teams
resources. One study91 of consultation at of four or five to achieve common academic
the first-grade level, where schools added goals.95 Cooperative learning appears to
27% more staff, showed increased achieve- have potential for assisting students with
ment across all levels of IQ. Another study mild disabilities; they progress academically
found that students in schools using the and are perhaps better accepted by their
consulting teacher approach scored higher nondisabled peers.
Two models have shown positive acade- Peer Tutoring

mic results for students with disabilities but Under peer tutoring, students work in pairs
researchers have not been able to replicate or in teams where one member serves as a
those results consistently. A study of one tutor. While the primary goal of peer tutor-
model, Team Assisted Instruction (TAI), ing is to improve academic achievement,
found increased learning in math computa- other goals include development of cooper-
tions (52% of a grade equivalent more than ative work habits and increased positive
control students) for “academically handi- social interaction. A meta-analysis101 of 19
capped” students,96 though another study studies found the performance level of the
with a shorter intervention time (8 weeks tutor and tutee were increased more than
versus 24 weeks) had disappointing results.96 one-half a standard deviation above the per-
formance level of control groups.
Similarly, the Cooperative Integrated
Reading and Composition (CIRC) model Peer tutoring may facilitate academic
showed better achievement for main- growth; however, among students with dis-
streamed special education students in abilities, it appears to promote fluency
reading comprehension (gained 1.9 grade rather than initial acquisition of informa-
equivalents more than controls) and vocab- tion. Consequently, it may be that peer tutor-
ulary (gained 1.4 grade equivalents more ing is best used as a supplement to another
than controls) in one study,97 while another intervention.
study of this program with a shorter inter-
vention period (12 weeks versus one year) Cognitive Strategy Instruction
found no significant differences.97 The research on children with learning dis-
abilities indicates that these children are
Positive social outcomes for students inactive learners who lack strategies for
with disabilities have been more reliable. attacking problems;102 that is, these students
Research comparing teams of students work- do not understand what strategies can be
ing under cooperative and competitive con-
ditions consistently shows significantly more
friendship choices of academically and emo- Students with disabilities in cooperative
tionally handicapped students by nondis- schools had significantly higher achievement
abled peers in cooperative conditions.98
Another model helped decrease rejection with regard to reading vocabulary and
for mainstreamed students but did not reading comprehension.
increase friendships.99
Studies of whole schools using coopera- used to solve problems, and they have diffi-
tive learning have shown positive academic culty in spontaneously producing appropri-
and social outcomes. An evaluation after ate learning strategies.
one year of implementation found that stu-
dents with disabilities in cooperative schools The Strategies Intervention Model
had significantly higher achievement (a (SIM)103 trains students with learning dis-
10% to 100% grade equivalent higher than abilities to use specific strategies to solve
their matched peers in control schools) problems and complete tasks indepen-
with regard to reading vocabulary and read- dently. Research suggests that the SIM can
ing comprehension.95 Students with disabil- assist students with learning disabilities to
ities in the cooperative schools were also remain in general education classrooms.104
30% more likely to be selected as friends by However, the general educator must use spe-
classmates. cific routines to cue the students with learn-
ing disabilities to use these strategies.
Implementation of cooperative learning Without this support, the students do not
requires special curricular materials, exten- use the strategies in the general classroom to
sive training, substantial time for planning the same extent they did in the special edu-
and problem solving among teachers,100 cation resource room, where they originally
and considerable administrative support. learned the strategies. The developers of the
Additional staff members are not required SIM believe that three to five years are need-
but may be desirable. ed to fully train teachers in its use.
Transenvironmental Programming students with disabilities in general educa-

Transenvironmental programming105 is a tion. Three OSEP-funded projects used mul-
process to assist students in special educa- tiple schoolwide interventions—including
tion classrooms to reintegrate into the teacher consultation, peer tutoring, inten-
general education classroom. In the sive prereferral services, cognitive strategy
transenvironmental programming model, instruction, and cooperative learning—
the special education teacher determines toward this end. These three projects cre-
what academic and behavioral skills the stu- ated a common base of student outcome
dent needs to succeed in general education data.108 Two projects required inclusion for
and teaches these skills to students in special all students and eliminated resource pull-out
education. Once the student has moved to programs, while the third project used case-
the general classroom, the special educa- by-case reintegration and retained the con-
tor monitors whether the skills are used by tinuum of services. Most of the students with
the student in the general classroom.106 disabilities were identified as having learning
Student progress is monitored through fre- disabilities.
quent testing.
Outcome data showed that 54% of the
Transenvironmental programming students with learning disabilities achieved
appears to improve student academic gains on reading achievement in excess of
progress initially but has not been shown to the standard error of measurement. Fifty-
be sustainable in the general classroom. In one percent of the students with learning
one study, a group of students with learning disabilities moved up in standing relative to
the nondisabled students in these schools,
while the remaining 49% lost ground. Forty
The best outcomes were attained by the percent of the students with disabilities had
project that used frequent, structured academic gains of less than half the size of
the gain made by the average student with-
meetings between general and special out disabilities.
education teachers.
The best outcomes were attained by the
project that used
disabilities who were being reintegrated into
general education had greater achievement ■ case-by-case reintegration of students into
than did members of the control group.105 mainstream settings (as opposed to reinte-
However, a time-series analysis showed that gration of all students);
the improvement occurred only in the spe- ■ maintenance, rather than elimination, of
cial education class. A separate study showed the pull-out special education program;
that reading improvement also occurred ■ ongoing assessment and intensive instruc-
only in the special education class.107 tion in special education;
■ transenvironmental programming to
There is some question as to whether increase the similarity of the instruction, cur-
faithful adherence to transenvironmental riculum materials, and behavioral expecta-
programming is feasible in general educa- tions between the general and special edu-
tion. Implementation of transenvironmental cation classrooms; and
programming requires considerable special- ■ frequent, structured meetings between
ized teacher training, expertise, and time for general and special education teachers.
evaluation, planning, and consultation
between the special educator and the gener- Conclusions
al educator.
What Works in Educating
Schoolwide Models Students with Disabilities?
Is it possible to enhance the capacity of a The intervention studies cited above suggest
school as a whole to meet the needs of all that these various intervention models can,
children? One of the priorities of research in some instances, have a positive impact in
programs in the Office of Special Education (1) improving academic outcomes for stu-
Programs (OSEP) was to develop and dents with disabilities, (2) improving rela-
evaluate schoolwide models for educating tionships between students with and without
disabilities, or (3) reducing referrals for spe- ment and quality of instruction have more
cial education. impact than placement per se on the success
of students with disabilities. Unfortunately,
However, these studies also indicate that, descriptive research on the condition of gen-
even when academic outcomes for students eral education indicates that typical practice
with disabilities are positive, no intervention is different from the model programs that
eliminates the impact of having a disability showed greatest success for students with dis-
on a student’s level of achievement. In no abilities. There is little evidence of the capac-
study did the students with disabilities ity of general educators as a group to make
achieve commensurately with their nondis- the extensive changes that are needed to
abled peers. Even when relationships facilitate more, and more successful, main-
between students with and without disabili- streaming or inclusion, particularly if ade-
ties are the focus, the research suggests that quate resources are lacking.
acceptance rather than friendship is the
more likely outcome. The research does not support inclusion
for all students with disabilities. On the con-
Further, the interventions that were trary, it appears that there is a clear need for
effective in improving academic outcomes special education to continue, through
for students with disabilities required a con- preservation of the continuum of services.
siderable investment of resources. As a
group, these interventions involved inten-
sive retraining of teachers; ongoing support, Inclusion is not likely to lead to savings in
supervision, and technical assistance from the costs of education. The interventions
university faculty and other outside staff;
supplementary curricular materials and described in this article required consider-
training manuals; and administrative sup- able investment of expensive resources.
port from school or district personnel, par-
ticularly in providing time for training, plan-
ning, and various types of meetings. Also, At the same time, the research indicates that,
both the intervention and descriptive given adequate resources, more students
research included in this article indicate that could be assisted to become more successful
other supports—for example, smaller class in general education settings.
sizes—may be required. Some researchers
argue that, given the effort required by these What Are the Cost Implications?
interventions, teachers should volunteer for Inclusion is not likely to lead to savings in the
this work, not be forced to participate. costs of education. Referring fewer students
However, this could affect the proportion of for special education and reducing the cur-
children with disabilities who would be in rent expensive requirement of individual
each volunteer teacher’s classroom. assessments should lead to some savings. It is
unclear whether or to what extent current
This research suggests that the most special education staffs would be reduced or
effective interventions for students with retained. Depending on circumstances, spe-
disabilities have the following characteris- cial educators might be needed to operate
tics: a case-by-case approach to decision pull-out resource rooms, consult with gener-
making about student instruction and place- al educators, or work on a regular basis in
ment; intensive and reasonably individual- the general classroom.
ized instruction combined with very close
cooperation between general and special The interventions described in this arti-
education teachers; and careful, frequent cle required considerable investment of
monitoring of student progress. All of these expensive resources. Possible savings men-
elements require significant teacher time tioned above might be offset because school
and supportive resources. districts might need to (1) hire more teach-
ers or more paraprofessionals to handle
Is Placement the Critical Factor? increased membership in general educa-
There is no compelling evidence that place- tion classes and (2) provide considerable
ment is the critical factor in student acade- amounts of ongoing professional develop-
mic or social success; the classroom environment activities to general educators and
paraprofessionals. Increased time probably cally or socially or that it costs more than
would be required for planning instruction adequately educating students with disabili-
and for problem solving about individual ties in general education settings. Instead,
students, which in turn would demand inno- research supports the continuation of efforts
vative scheduling and release time. to improve academic and social outcomes
for students with disabilities in both special
In summary, research does not support and general education settings and indicates
assertions such as those in The Wall Street that instruction, not setting, is the key to
Journal or U.S. News and World Report that spe- achievement of success as measured by stu-
cial education is cheating students academi- dent outcomes.
1. Special ed’s special costs. The Wall Street Journal. October 20, 1993, at A14.
2. Shapiro, J.P., Loeb, P., Bowermaster, D., et al. Separate and unequal: How special education
programs are cheating our children and costing taxpayers billions each year. U.S. News and
World Report. December 13, 1993, at 46–49, 54–56, 60.
3. Fuchs, D., and Fuchs, L.S. What’s “special” about special education? Phi Delta Kappan
(March 1995) 76,7:522–30.
4. Deno, E. Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children (1970) 37:229–37.
Deno coined the term “cascade of services,” now generally referred to as the “continuum of
services.”
5. Office of Special Education Programs. Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act: Sixteenth annual report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, 1994.
6. Current data show a very slight increase in the percentage of special education students
served either totally in general education classes or in general education and special educa-
tion resource rooms, from 69.0% in the 1985–86 school year to 71.2% in 1991–92.
Concomitantly, there is a very slight decrease in the percentage of students served in sepa-
rate special education classes, from 24.4% in 1985–86 to 23.5% in 1991–92.
7. Vaughn, S., and Schumm, J.S. Responsible inclusion for students with learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities (May 1995) 28,5:264–70. Additions made by A. Hocutt for this
publication.
8. The Association for persons with Severe Handicaps. TASH resolutions and policy statement.
Seattle, WA: TASH, 1991.
9. Council for Exceptional Children. CEC policy on inclusive schools and community settings.
Reston, VA: CEC, 1993.
10. Council of Administrators for Special Education. Position article on delivery of services to students
with disabilities. Albuquerque, NM: CASE, 1994.
11. National Association of State Boards of Education. Special education: New questions in an era of
reform. Alexandria, VA: NASBE, 1993.
12. National Education Association. Appropriate inclusion. Washington, DC: NEA, 1994.
13. Consumer Action Network of, by, and for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Americans. Position
statement on full inclusion. Washington, DC: Consumer Action Network, 1994.
14. Council for Learning Disabilities. Concerns about the full inclusion of students with learning dis-
abilities in regular education classrooms. Washington, DC: CLD, 1993.
15. Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children. Inclusion: What
does it mean for students with learning disabilities? Reston, VA: DLD, 1996.
16. Learning Disabilities Association of America. Position article on full inclusion of all students with
learning disabilities in the regular education classroom. Washington, DC: LDAA, 1993.
17. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. A reaction to full inclusion: A reaffirmation
of the right of students with learning disabilities to a continuum of services. Washington, DC:
NJCLD, 1993.
18. American Council of the Blind, et al. Full inclusion of students who are blind and visually
impaired: A position statement. Washington, DC: ACB, 1993.
19. American Federation of Teachers. American Federation of Teachers resolution: Inclusion of students
with disabilities. Washington, DC: AFT, 1993.
20. National Education Association, Council for Exceptional Children, and American
Association of School Administrators. NEA-CEC-AASA statement on the relationship between spe-
cial education and general education. Washington, DC: NEA-CEC-AASA, 1987.
21. Baker, J.M., and Zigmond, N. Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate stu-
dents with learning disabilities? Exceptional Children (1990) 56,6:515–27.
22. Vaughn, S., and Schumm, J.S. Classroom ecologies: Implications for inclusion of students
with learning disabilities. In Research on classroom ecologies: Implications for inclusion of children
with learning disabilities. D. Speece and B.K. Keogh, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1996.
23. Zigmond, N., Levin, E., and Laurie, T.E. Managing the mainstream: An analysis of teacher
attitudes and student performance in mainstream high school programs. Journal of Learning
Disabilities (1985) 18,9:535–41.
24. Semmel, M.I., Abernathy, T.V., Butera, G., and Lesar, S. Teacher perceptions of the regular
education initiative. Exceptional Children (1991) 58,1:9–24.
25. Schumm, J.S., and Vaughn, S. Planning for mainstreamed special education students:
Perceptions of general classroom teachers. Exceptionality (1992) 3,2:81–98.
26. Lloyd, J.W., Kauffman, J.M., Landrum, T.J., and Roe, D.L. Why do teachers refer pupils for
special education? An analysis of referral records. Exceptionality (1991) 2,3:115–26.
27. Algozzine, B., Christenson, S., and Ysseldyke, J.E. Probabilities associated with the referral to
placement process. Teacher Education and Special Education (1982) 5:19–23.
28. Shinn, M.R., Tindal, G.A., and Spira, D.A. Special education referrals as an index of teacher
tolerance: Are teachers imperfect tests? Exceptional Children (1987) 54,1:32–40.
29. Gerber, M.M., and Semmel, M.K. Teacher as imperfect test: Reconceptualizing the referral
process. Educational Psychologist (1984) 29,3:137–48.
30. Cooper, D.H., and Speece, D.L. Maintaining at-risk children in regular education settings:
Initial effects of individual differences and classroom environments. Exceptional Children
(1991) 57,2:117–26.
31. Campbell, N.J., Dobson, J.E., and Bost, J.M. Educator perceptions of behavior problems of
mainstreamed students. Exceptional Children (1985) 51:298–303.
32. Hocutt, A.M., Cox, J.L., and Pelosi, J. The identification and placement of learning disabled, men-
tally retarded, and emotionally disturbed students: Phase I report. Research Triangle Park, NC:
Research Triangle Institute, 1984.
33. Semmel, M.I., Abernathy, T.V., Butera, G., and Lesar, S. Teacher perceptions of the regular
education initiative. Exceptional Children (1991) 58,1:9–24.
34. Rosenshine, B.V. Teaching functions in instructional programs. Elementary School Journal
(1983) 83,4:335–52.
35. Gersten, R., Walker, H., and Darch, D. Relationship between teachers’ effectiveness and
their tolerance for handicapped students. Exceptional Children (1988) 54,5:433–38.
36. Landrum, T.J., and Kauffman, J.M. Characteristics of general education teachers perceived
as effective by their peers: Implications for inclusion of children with learning and behav-
ioral disorders. Exceptionality (1992) 3,3:147–63.
37. Nelson, D.M., and Pearson, C.A. Integrating services for children and youth with emotional/behav-
ioral disabilities. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, 1991.
38. Hocutt, A., Martin, E., and McKinney, J.D. Historical and legal context of mainstreaming. In
The Regular Education Initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models. J.W. Lloyd,
N.N. Singh, and A.C. Repp, eds. Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Publishing Company, 1991.
39. Kauffman, J.M., Gerber, M.M., and Semmel, M.I. Arguable assumptions underlying the
Regular Education Initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities (1988) 21:6–12.
40. Gersten, R., Woodward, J. Rethinking the regular education initiative: Focus on the class-
room teacher. Remedial and Special Education (1990) 11,3:7–16.
41. Ysseldyke, J., O’Sulllivan, P.J., Thurlow, M., and Christenson, S. Qualitative differences in
reading and math instruction received by handicapped students. Remedial and Special
Education (1989) 10,1:14–20.
42. Kaufman, M., Agard, T.A., and Semmel, M.I. Mainstreaming: Learners and their environment.
Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books, 1985.
43. Ysseldyke, J.E., Christenson, S.L., Thurlow, M.L., and Bakewell, D. Are different kinds of
instructional tasks used by different categories of students in different settings? School
Psychology Review (1988) 1,81:305–11.
44. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., and Bishop, N. Teacher planning for students with learning disabili-
ties: Differences between general and special educators. Learning Disabilities: Research and
Practice (1992) 7,3:120–28.
45. Deno, S., Maruyama, G., Espin, C., and Cohen, C. Educating students with mild disabilities
in general education classrooms: Minnesota alternatives. Exceptional Children (1990)
57,2:150–61.
46. Gottlieb, J., Alter, M., and Gottlieb, B.W. Mainstreaming academically handicapped children
in urban schools. In The Regular Education Initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues,
and models. J.W. Lloyd, N.N. Singh, and A.C. Repp, eds. Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Publishing
Company, 1991.
47. Ysseldyke, J.E., Thurlow, M.L., Christenson, S.L., and McVicar, R. Instructional grouping
arrangements used with mentally retarded, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, and
nonhandicapped elementary students. Journal of Educational Research (1988) 81:305–11.
48. Keller, C.E., McKinney, J.D., and Hallahan, D.P. Comparisons between beginning general
and special education teachers. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1989.
49. Nowacek, E.J., McKinney, J.D., and Hallahan, D.P. Instructional behaviors of more and less
effective beginning regular and special educators. Exceptional Children (1990) 57,2:140–49.
50. Lipsky, D.K., and Gartner, A. The current situation. In Beyond separate education: Quality educa-
tion for all. D.K. Lipsky and A. Gartner, eds. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 1989.
51. Sheehan, R., and Keogh, B.K. Approaches to evaluation in special education. In Advances in
special education. Vol. 4. B.K. Keogh, ed. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1984.
52. Epps, S., and Tindal, G. The effectiveness of differential programming in serving students
with mild handicaps: Placement options and instructional programming. In The Handbook of
Special Education. Vol. 1. M.C. Wang, M.C. Reynolds, and H.J. Walberg, eds. New York:
Pergamon Press, 1987.
53. Stainback, S., and Stainback, W. Integration of students with mild and moderate handicaps.
In Beyond separate education: Quality education for all. D.K. Lipsky and A. Gartner, eds.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 1989.
54. Hallahan, D.P., Keller, C.E., McKinney, J.D., et al. Examining the research base of the regu-
lar education initiative: Efficacy studies and the Adaptive Learning Environments Model.
Journal of Learning Disabilities (1988) 21,1:29–35.
55. Heller, K.A., Holtzman, S.H., and Messick, S. Placing children in special education: A strategy for
equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1982.
56. Carlberg, C., and Kavale, K. The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for excep-
tional children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Special Education (1980) 14:295–309.
57. Wang, M.C., and Baker, E.T. Mainstreaming programs: Design features and effects. Journal of
Special Education (1985–86) 19,4:503–26.
58. Sindelar, P.T., and Deno, S.L. The effectiveness of resource programming. Journal of Special
Education (1979) 12:17–28.
59. Leinhardt, G., and Pallay, A. Restrictive educational settings: Exile or haven? Review of
Educational Research (1982) 52,4:557–78.
60. Marston, D. The effectiveness of special education: A time-series analysis of reading perfor-
mance in regular and special education settings. Journal of Special Education (1987–88)
27:466–80.
61. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., and Fernstrom, P. A conservative approach to special education
reform: Mainstreaming through transenvironmental programming and curriculum-based
measurement. American Education Research Journal (1993) 30:149–77.
62. Donahoe, K., and Zigmond, N. Academic grades of ninth-grade urban learning-disabled
students and low-achieving peers. Exceptionality (1990) 1,1:17–28.
63. Zigmond, N., and Kerr, M.M. Managing the mainstream: A contrast of the behaviors of
learning disabled students who pass their assigned mainstream courses and those who fail.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association.
Chicago, IL, 1985.
64. Wang, M.C., and Birch, J.W. Effective special education in regular classes. Exceptional Children
(1984) 50:391–98.
65. Bear, G.G., Clever, A., and Proctor, W.A. Self-perceptions of nonhandicapped children and
children with learning disabilities in integrated classes. Journal of Special Education (1991)
24,2:409–26.
66. Renick, M.J., and Harter, S. Impact of social comparisons on the developing self-perceptions
of learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology (1989) 81:631–38.
67. Coleman, J.M. Self concept and the mildly handicapped: The role of social comparisons.
Journal of Special Education (1983) 17:37–45.
68. Kauffman, J.M., Lloyd, J.W., and McGee, K.A. Adaptive and maladaptive behavior: Teachers’
attitudes and their technical assistance needs. Journal of Special Education (1989) 23,3:85–200.
69. Wagner, M. Outcomes for youths with serious emotional disturbance in secondary school
and early adulthood. The Future of Children (Summer/Fall 1995) 5,2:90–112.
70. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Fernstrom, P., and Hohn, M. Toward a responsible reintegration of
behaviorally disordered students. Behavioral Disorders (1991) 16:133–47.
71. Swanson, J.M., McBurnett, K., Wigal, T., et al. The effect of stimulant medication on ADD
children: A “review of reviews.” Exceptional Children (1993) 60:154–62.
72. Lowenbraun, S., and Thompson, M. Environments and strategies for learning and teaching.
In Handbook of special education: Research and practice. Vol. 3. M.C. Wang, M.C. Reynolds, and
H.J. Walberg, eds. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1989.
73. Pflaster, G. A factor-analysis of variables related to academic performance of hearing-
impaired children in regular classes. Volta Review (1980) 82,2:71–84.
74. Liben, L.S. Developmental perspectives on the experiential deficiencies of deaf children.
Deaf children: Developmental perspectives. New York: Academic Press, 1978.
75. Brinker, R.P., and Thorpe, M.E. Features of integrated educational ecologies that predict
social behavior among severely mentally retarded and nonretarded students. American
Journal of Mental Deficiency (1986) 91,2:150–59.
76. Thousand, J.S., and Villa, R.A. Strategies for educating learners with severe disabilities within
their local home schools and communities. Focus on Exceptional Children (1990) 23,3:4–24.
77. Affleck, J.Q., Madge, S., Adams, A., and Lowenbraun, S. Integrated classroom versus
resource model: Academic viability and effectiveness. Exceptional Children (1988)
54,4:339–48.
78. Bear, G.G., and Proctor, W.A. Impact of a full-time integrated program on the achievement
of nonhandicapped and mildly handicapped children. Exceptionality (1990) 1,4:227–37.
79. Baker, J., and Zigmond, N. Mainstreaming learning disabled students: The impact on regular edu-
cation students and teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Education Research Association. Boston, MA, 1990.
80. York, J., Vandercook, T., Macdonald, C., et al. Feedback about integrating middle school
students with severe disabilities in general education classes. Exceptional Children (1992)
58,3:244–58.
81. Semmel, M.I., Gerber, M.M., and Macmillan, D.L. Twenty-five years after Dunn’s article: A
legacy of policy analysis research in special education. The Journal of Special Education (1994)
27:481–95.
82. Carter, J., and Sugai, G. Survey on prereferral practices: Responses from state departments
of education. Exceptional Children (1989) 55,4:298–302.
83. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Dulan, J.U., et al. Where is the research on consultation effectiveness?
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation (1992) 3,2:151–74.
84. Chalfant, J.C., Pysh, M.V., and Moultrie, R. Teacher assistance teams: A model for within-
building problem solving. Learning Disability Quarterly (1979) 2,3:85–96.
85. Johnson, L.J., and Pugach, M.C. Peer collaboration: Accommodating students with mild
learning and behavior problems. Exceptional Children (1991) 57,5:454–61.
86. Fuchs, D., and Fuchs, L.S. Exploring effective and efficient prereferral interventions: A com-
ponent analysis of Behavioral Consultation. School Psychology Review (1989) 18:260–83.
87. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., and Bahr, M.W. Mainstream assistance teams: A scientific basis for the
art of consultation. Exceptional Children (1990) 57,2:128–39.
88. Buffmire, J.A. Special education delivery alternatives: Change over time in teacher ratings, self-image,
perceived classroom climate, and academic achievement among handicapped and non-handicapped
children. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 140 565. Salt Lake City, UT:
Southwest Regional Resources Center, 1977.
89. Miller, T.L., and Sabatino, D.A. An evaluation of the teacher consultant model as an
approach to mainstreaming. Exceptional Children (1978) 45:86–91.
90. Schulte, A.C., Osborne, S.S., and McKinney, J.D. Academic outcomes for students with
learning disabilities in consultation and resource programs. Exceptional Children (1990)
57,2:162–72.
91. Cantrell, R.P., and Cantrell, M.L. Preventive mainstreaming: Impact of a supportive services
program on pupils. Exceptional Children (1976) 42:381–86.
92. Knight, M.F., Meyers, H.W., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P., et al. A four-year evaluation of consulting
teacher service. Behavioral Disorders (1981) 6:92–100.
93. White, W.A.T. A meta-analysis of the effects of Direct Instruction in special education.
Education and Treatment of Children (1988) 11:364–74.
94. Gersten, R., Carnine, D., and Williams, P. Measuring implementation of a structured educa-
tional model in an urban setting: An observational approach. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis (1982) 4,1:67–79.
95. Slavin, R.E., and Stevens, R.J. Cooperative learning and mainstreaming. In The Regular
Education Initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues and models. J.W. Lloyd, N.N. Singh,
and A.C. Repp, eds. Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Publishing Company, 1991.
96. Slavin, R.E. Team assisted individualization: Cooperative learning and individualized instruc-
tion in the mainstreamed classroom. Remedial and Special Education (1984) 5,6:33–42.
97. Slavin, R.E., Stevens, R.J., and Madden, N.A. Accommodating student diversity in reading
and writing instruction: A cooperative learning approach. Remedial and Special Education
(1988) 9,1:60–66.
98. Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R.T. Learning together and alone, 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1987.
99. Madden, N.A., and Slavin, R.E. Effects of cooperative learning on the social acceptance of
mainstreamed academically handicapped students. Journal of Special Education (1983)
17,2:171–82.
100. Research Triangle Institute. Approaches and options for integrating students with disabilities.
Longmont, CO: Sopris West, 1993.
101. Cook, S.B., Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., and Casto, G.C. Handicapped students as
tutors. Journal of Special Education (1985–86) 19,4:483–91.
102. Hallahan, D.P., and Bryan, T.H. Learning disabilities. Handbook of special education. J.M.
Kauffman and D.P. Hallahan, eds. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981.
103. Deshler, D.D., and Schumaker, J.B. An instructional model for teaching students how to
learn. In Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students.
J.E. Zins and M.J. Curtis, eds. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists,
1988, pp. 391–412.
104. Bulgren, J.A., Schumaker, J.B., and Deshler, D.D. Effectiveness of a concept teaching routine
in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level mainstream classes.
Learning Disability Quarterly (1988) 11,1:3–17.
105. Anderson-Inman, L. Bridging the gap: Student-centered strategies for promoting the trans-
fer of learning. Exceptional Children (1986) 52:562–72.
106. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., and Fernstrom, P. Case-by-case reintegration of students with learning
disabilities. Elementary School Journal (1992) 92,3:261–82.
107. Fuchs, D., Kempsey, S., Roberts, H., and Kintsch, A. School reintegration. In Best practices in
school psychology. Vol. 3. J. Grimes and A. Thomas, eds. Washington, DC: National Association
of School Psychologists, 1996, pp. 879–92.
108. Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L., et al. Special education in restructured schools: Findings
from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan (1995) 76,7:531–40.

Effectiveness of Special Education: Is Placement The Critical Factor?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effectiveness of Special Education: Is Placement The Critical Factor?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effectiveness of Special Education: Is Placement The Critical Factor?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

77

“segregation”). As noted by Fuchs and Fuchs,3 such articles in the media

Full Continuum of Educational Services

Level IV Full-time attendance in special education class

Level V Special schools

Level VI Homebound instruction

Level VII Instruction in hospital or domiciled settings

Percentage of All Students Ages 6 through 21 with Disabilities

■ Regular Class includes students who receive the majority of their

■ Resource Room includes students who receive special education and

■ Separate Class includes students who receive special education and

■ Separate School includes students who receive special education and

■ Residential Facility includes students who receive education in a public or

■ Home/Hospital Environment includes students placed in and receiving

How Special Education Differs from General Education

special education students, for example,

Teacher Monitoring of Student Progress

© Evan Johnson/Impact Visuals

Student-Teacher Interaction A follow-up study49 with different general

teachers from the perspective of the effec- Caveats Concerning Research

Factors Affecting Outcomes for Special Education Students

intensive use of resources appeared to be advantage but suffer regarding self-concept

ing approaches, which promoted students’ Nondisabled elementary students have

Interventions Designed to Promote Inclusion

Two models have shown positive acade- Peer Tutoring

Transenvironmental Programming students with disabilities in general educa-

You might also like