See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304833399

Mainstreaming Students with Learning Disabilities: Are We

Making Progress?

Article · May 1994

DOI: 10.1177/001440299406000604

CITATIONS READS

24 1,135

2 authors, including:

James Mcleskey
University of Florida
79 PUBLICATIONS   1,718 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by James Mcleskey on 11 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Exceptional Children, Vol. 60, No.6, pp. 508-517.
© 1994 The Council for Exceptional Children

Mainstreaming Students with

Learning Disabilities:
Are We Making Progress?
JAMES MCLESKEY
DEBRA PACCHIANO
Indiana University

ABSTRACT: This study investigated placementpracticesforstudents with learning disabilities over

the past II years, as reported in the Annual Reports to Congress on the Implementation of PL
94-142. From 1979 to 1989, the placement rate for students with learning disabilities being
educated in restrictive, separate-class settings almost doubled. Moreover, the proportion of all
students with learning disabilities served in separate-class settings increased 4.4%. Little progress
is being made toward mainstreaming students with learning disabilities. The article discusses
implications ofthese findings for reform in the provision ofspecial education services.

o For more than 20 years, many professionals in
special education have accepted as axiomatic the
need to educate most students with mild disabil-
ities (i.e., learning disabilities, mild mental retar-
dation, and behavior disorders) in typical
classroom settings. Dunn (1968), in questioning
whether special education for students with mild
retardation was justifiable, concluded that these
students were better educated in general educa-
tion classrooms. Since that time, efficacy studies
have provided further support for the education
of students with mild learning and behavior dis-
abilities in typical classroom settings (Madden &
Slavin, 1983). Though some reviews of the effec-
tiveness of special education class placements
have concluded that certain students may benefit
from highly structured resource programs (Carl-
berg & Kavale, 1980; Leinhardt & Pallay, 1982;
Madden & Slavin, 1983), there seems to be an
emerging consensus that most services for stu-
dents with mild disabilities should be provided in
typical classroom settings. As Madden and
Slavin stated:
There is little evidence that self-contained
special education is superior to placement in
regular classes in terms of increasing the
academic performance of Mildly Academically
Handicapped students, and the best evidence is
that, in general, it is regular class placement with
appropriate supports that is better for the
achievement of these students. (p. 555)
Public Law 94-142 recognized and supported
this need for the education of students with dis-
abilities in regular classroom settings, by creating
a "presumption in favor of educating children
with handicaps in regular education environ-
ments" (Danielson & Bellamy, 1989, p. 448).
This law stipulates that each public agency shall
ensure:
1) That to the maximum extent appropriate,
handicapped children, including those in public
or private institutions or other care facilities, are

508 May 1994

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN (CEC) on July 11, 2016
 educated with children who are
handicapped, and
2) That special classes, separate schooling or
other removal of handicapped children from the
regular educational environment occurs only
when the nature or severity of the handicap is
such that education in regular classes with the
use of supplementary aids and services cannot
be achieved satisfactorily. (Section 612(5)B of
P.L. 94-142)
According to Carlberg and Kavale (1980),
"The 1960s saw the forefront of the move-
ment ... away from segregated self-contained
practices. Although some have dissented ...
there has been a marked decline in the growth of
special classes in the 1970s" (p. 295). Reiff,
Evans, and Cass (1991) further noted: "Since the
implementation of P.L. 94-142 in the mid-1970s,
students with disabilities have entered general
education classrooms in increasing numbers" (p.
56). Finally, Singer (1988) argued: "Although
some states and school districts still prefer sepa-
rate-class placements for some groups of stu-
dents, most mildly and moderately handi-
capped children actually are substantially
mainstreamed" (p. 413). The implication of these
statements is that things are getting better; more
students are being mainstreamed; and fewer and
fewer students are being educated in restrictive,
self-contained or separate classes.
In more recent years, a renewed effort to edu-
cate students with mild disabilities in regular
classroom settings has been launched, under the
general title of the regular education initiative
(REI). This movement calls for a shared respon-
sibility between regular and special education in
addressing the needs of students with disabilities
in typical classroom settings (Will, 1986). Propo-
nents of the REI argue that there is significant
room for improvement in the provision of special
education services and that a primary obstacle to
higher quality programs is the restrictive settings
in which services are provided (Gartner &
Lipsky, 1989; Reynolds, Wang, & Walberg,
1987; Stainback & Stainback, 1984; Will, 1986).
The movement toward mainstreaming stu-
dents with mild disabilities is especially relevant
for students with learning disabilities. When
Dunn (1968) first questioned the use of special
classes for students with mild retardation, there
were very few students labeled with learning dis-
abilities in the United States. Over the past 20
years, the identification of these students has in-
Exceptional Children
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN (CEC) on July 11, 2016
not creased at a dramatic rate (Algozzine & Korinek,
1985). The great majority of students with learn-
ing disabilities are perceived as having mild or
"judgmental" disabilities (Reynolds et al., 1987).
Coles (1978) went so far as to assert that learning
disabilities are a way of blaming a group of stu-
dents for the failure of the schools. Further, Pop-
lin (1988) stated: "The major goal of the 1970s
(and 1980s) was (is) the successful integration of
students with learning disabilities into the regular
classroom" (p. 392). Certainly, if any group of
students with disabilities should be educated in
typical classroom settings, it is students with
learning disabilities.
Although mainstreaming is a critical issue for
all students with disabilities, students labeled
with learning disabilities were the focus of this
study for two reasons. First, data sources (e.g.,
federal reports) often do not differentiate students
with mild or severe disabilities when categoriz-
ing students with emotional disabilities and men-
tal retardation, and many of these students are ed-
ucated outside of typical school settings (e.g.,
separate schools) (Danielson & Bellamy, 1989).
In contrast, almost all of these students with LD
(98.5% during 1989-90) are educated in typical
school settings.
Second, there is widespread agreement that
students with learning disabilities should be edu-
cated for most of the school day in a typical class-
room setting (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980; Epps &
Tindal, 1987; Leinhardt & Pallay, 1982; Madden
& Slavin, 1983). Although some researchers
have suggested that well-structured pullout pro-
grams may be beneficial for these students (Carl-
berg & Kavale, 1980), no support in the profes-
sional literature was found for educating these
students in self-contained or separate-class set-
tings.
Because many researchers, over the past two
decades, have called for the mainstreaming of
students with learning disabilities, one would an-
ticipate that increasing numbers of these students
are being educated in typical classroom settings
and that few students are being educated in self-
contained or separate-classroom settings. Very
limited data are available concerning these is-
sues, however. This investigation was designed
to address this shortcoming by examining trends
in placement settings for students with learning
disabilities since shortly after the implementation
ofP.L. 94-142.
509
 FIGURE 1
Definitions of Selected Placement Categories Used in the Reports to Congress by the
Office of Special Education Programs

Regular Class includes students who receive a majority of their education in a regular class
and receive special education and related services for less than 21% of the school day. It
includes children placed in a regular class and receiving special education within the regular
class as well as children placed in a regular class and receiving special education outside
the regular class.

Resource Room includes students who receive special education and related services for
21 to 60% of the school day. This may include resource rooms with part-time instruction in
the regular class.

Separate Class includes students who receive special education and related services for
more than 60% of the school day. Students may be placed in self-contained special class-
rooms with part-time instruction in regular classes or placed in self-contained classes full-
time on a regular school campus.

METHOD porting forms. Standard forms for the collection

Data Sources
Data for this investigation were taken from the
Annual Reports to Congress on the Implementa-
tion ofPL. 94-142 prepared by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, over the past 11 years. According to
these reports, the overwhelming majority of stu-
dents with learning disabilities (98.5% in 1989-
90) are placed in one of three placement settings
for special education services. These settings are
a regular classroom, resource room, or a separate
class. Figure 1 presents the definitions for each
of these settings from the Fourteenth Annual Re-
port to Congress on the Implementation of PL.
94-142 (1992).
Danielson and Bellamy (1989) provided a de-
scription of the data-collection procedures for the
Annual Reports to Congress. They indicated that
states are required to report yearly to the Office
of Special Education Programs regarding the ser-
vices they provide to students with disabilities.
Danielson and Bellamy further note that although
the reporting of placement data by states over the
past decade has been relatively consistent, cau-
tion should be exercised in interpreting the data
because of alterations that have been made in re-
of these data have been used since 1984-85.
Trustworthiness of the Data
Data for this investigation were collected inde-
pendently by two data collectors from the Annual
Reports to Congress. Following data collection,
a reliability check was conducted. Discrepancies
were resolved by having a third person indepen-
dently check the data from the Annual Reports to
Congress. This procedure was continued until
100% agreement was achieved for the data.
It should be further noted that during data col-
lection, two issues arose that should be consid-
ered when interpreting the data reported in this
investigation. First, until 1986-87, data available
from the Annual Reports to Congress concerning
placement settings were reported for students
with learning disabilities with ages ranging from
3 to 21 years. For the years 1987-88 through
1989-90, this age range was changed; and data on
placement settings were reported only for stu-
dents with learning disabilities with ages ranging
from 6 to 21 years.
Two factors suggest that this change had only
a slight influence on the data reported in this in-
vestigation. First, a very small proportion (ap-
proximately 7%) of all students with disabilities
were between the ages of 3 and 5 during the years

510 May 1994

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN (CEC) on July 11, 2016
covered by this investigation. Second, data re-
ported in the Twelfth Annual Report to Congress
(1990) for the 1987-88 school year on all disabil-
ity categories allow for some comparison of the
relative proportion of students ages 3-5 who were
placed in more restrictive, separate-class settings,
as compared to students ages 6-21. These data re-
veal that a slightly higher proportion of the youn-
ger students from all disability categories were
placed in more restrictive, separate-class settings
(i.e., 28.5% of students ages 3-5 vs. 24.8% of stu-
dents ages 6-21). This difference influenced the
overall proportion of students (i.e., ages 3-21)
from all disability categories in separate classes
for the 1987-88 school year by approximately
.5%. Thus, although this change in the reporting
of data for the 1987-88 through 1989-90 school
years had an influence on the data reported in this
investigation, the impact was likely very slight
(i.e., less than 1%).
A second issue noted during data collection
related to the reporting of placement settings for
students with disabilities. Whereas more recent
Annual Reports to Congress have provided data
for regular, resource, and separate classes, prior
to 1984-85 data for students with learning dis-
abilities were reported in only a regular class and
a separate classroom. These early Annual Reports
to Congress do not clearly define these settings,
but the consistent trend in the reported data be-
fore and after this change was made (see Figure
2) seems to indicate that prior to 1984-85, data
for students who were served in either a resource
or regular class setting (as defined in Figure 1)
were combined and designated as a regular-class
placement. Reports on students served in sepa-
rate-class settings have remained the same. Thus,
to maintain consistency, regular- and resource-
class data are combined for analyses of data from
the past 11 years.
In sum, the findings regarding the trustworthi-
ness of the data reported in this investigation lead
to the conclusion that caution should be exercised
when interpreting these data. It is especially im-
portant to note that the absolute figures reported
in this investigation should be considered accu-
rate approximations, not absolutely precise data.
Trends in the data across time should be consid-
ered a more reliable indication of placement prac-
tices than the data reported in any single year.
Exceptional Children
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN (CEC) on July 11, 2016
Cumulative Placement Rate
Because the overall student population, as well
as the identification rate for students with learn-
ing disabilities, has changed over the past 11
years, we used a standardized format to compare
placement rates for this investigation. To make
these comparisons, Danielson and Bellamy
(1989) recommended the use of a cumulative
placement rate (CPR), which is computed by di-
viding the number of students with learning dis-
abilities served in a particular setting by the total
school-age population. This figure is then multi-
plied by 1 million, to provide the rate of students
with learning disabilities who are placed in a
given setting, per million school-aged students.
Thus the CPR provides a statistic that is compa-
rable to the incidence of students with learning
disabilities who are served in a particular educa-
tional setting, while controlling for changes in the
overall student population over time.
For this investigation, we reported CPRs for
separate-class settings and for combined regular-
class and resource settings. Data from the less re-
strictive settings (i.e., regular and resource set-
tings) are somewhat difficult to interpret for
students with learning disabilities. This difficulty
arises because higher identification rates reflect,
in general, the dramatic increase in the identifi-
cation of students with milder learning disabili-
ties, who are most often placed in less restrictive
settings (Danielson & Bellamy, 1989). Thus, in-
creases across the past 11 years in the placement
rate of students with learning disabilities in reg-
ular/resource settings are strongly influenced by
the rising identification rates for these students.
In contrast to the data from less restrictive set-
tings, data collected regarding students placed in
more restrictive settings (i.e., separate classes)
are more easily interpreted-because few stu-
dents with learning disabilities (1.5% of all stu-
dents with learning disabilities in 1989-90) are
placed in settings that are more restrictive than
the separate class (e.g., separate school or resi-
dential facility). Thus, students with the most se-
vere learning disabilities tend to be placed in sep-
arate settings. Further, as Danielson and Bellamy
(1989) have noted, "By examining the proportion
of students served in more segregated settings,
one can draw conclusions about use of less seg-
regated environments" (p. 451). We thus used
CPRs for separate-class placements as the prin-
cipal criterion for looking at placement practices
for students with learning disabilities. We also
511
 FIGURE 2
Trends in Placement for Students with Learning Disabilities in Regular/Resource and
Separate Classrooms Over the Past 11 Years

.-25
en
"'0
c::
Cll
en
520

-
s:
I-
c::
o
s== 15

-c::
CD
E
5
CD
~
c:::
o
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Year

• Regular/Resource ~ Separate Class

examined placement in regular and resource set-
tings, but these data must be interpreted with cau-
tion.
RESULTS
Table I summarizes the trends in the CPR for stu-
dents with learning disabilities in regular/re-
source and separate-class settings over the past
II years, while Figure 2 provides a visual sum-
mary of this information. These data are taken
from the 50 states; Washington, DC; and insular
areas (e.g., Puerto Rico and Guam).
Over the past 11 years, there have been signif-
icant increases in the number of students with
learning disabilities placed in both separate and
regular/resource settings. In 1979-80, the CPR in
separate classes for these students was 3,472 per
million students. By 1989-90, the CPR in sepa-
rate classes for these students increased to 6,581
per million students. These data indicate that the
number of students with learning disabilities who
are educated in separate classes increased by 90%
over the past 11 years, while controlling for
changes in the overall school population.
These increases are also reflected in an in-
crease in the proportion of all students with learn-
ing disabilities who are educated in separate set-
tings (see Table 2 and Figure 3). In 1979, 17.3%
of all students who were labeled with learning
disabilities were served in separate-class settings.

512 May 1994

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN (CEC) on July 11, 2016
 TABLE 1
Trends in Placement of Students with Learning Disabilities in RegularlResource and
Separate-Class Settings Over the Past 11 Years

Regular and Resource Separate Class

Year Number Placement Rate Number Placement Rate
1979 I, 119,557 16,259 239,073 3,472
1980 1,246,737 18,345 281,528 4,142
1981 1,297,126 18,861 302,138 4,394
1982 1,357,831 20,012 354,300 5,222
1983 1,388,854 20,551 379,869 5,641
1984 1,413,473 21,070 382,842 5,704
1985 1,444,461 21,612 394,482 5,902
1986 1,467,340 21,990 412,717 6,185
1987 1,467,719 22,040 415,263 6,236
1988 1,537,795 23,002 415,004 6,207
1989 1,572,667 23,317 443,837 6,581

This proportion continued to increase through
most of the 1980s, before declining slightly in
1988 to 20.8%, then increasing again in 1989-90
to 21.7% (see Table 2). This represents an in-
crease over the past 11 years of approximately
4.4% in the proportion of all students with learn-
ing disabilities who are served in separate set-
tings.
Data on the placement of students with learn-
ing disabilities in regular/resource classes also re-
vealed significant growth over the past 11 years.
In 1979, the CPR for students with learning dis-
abilities in regular/resource settings was 16,259
per million students. By 1989, this placement rate
had increased by 43% to 23,317. Though these
data indicate that the number of students placed
in regular/resource classes throughout the 1980s
increased significantly, the proportion of all stu-
dents with learning disabilities who were placed
in regular/resource settings decreased during this
time (see Figure 3 and Table 2). As Table 2
shows, the proportion of students with learning
disabilities educated in regular/resource classes
declined from 81.1% in 1979-80 to 76.8% in
1989-90. This represents a decrease of approxi-
mately 4.3% over the past 11 years in the propor-
tion of all students with learning disabilities who
are placed in regular/resource settings.
Finally, data for both resource/regular class
and separate-class placements show that the iden-
tification rate for students with learning disabili-
ties, as a proportion of the total school aged pop-
ulation, increased dramatically over the past 11
years. Combining the increases in regular/re-
source and separate-setting CPRs indicates that
52% more students were being labeled with
learning disabilities and educated in these set-
tings in 1989 than in 1979.
DISCUSSION
This investigation provides a surprising picture
of the progress made toward mainstreaming stu-
dents with learning disabilities over the past 11
years. In contrast to conventional wisdom (Carl-
berg & Kavale, 1980; Reiff et al., 1991; Singer
1988), during this time we have moved toward
educating increasing numbers of students with
learning disabilities in more rather than less re-
strictive settings. This is vividly illustrated by the
fact that from 1979 to 1989, the number of stu-
dents with learning disabilities who were pro-
vided services in separate classes almost
doubled, after controlling for changes in the over-
all student population. Some students in these set-
tings may spend as much as 40% of their school
day in the regular class, but some may spend no
time at all there. Moreover, the proportion of all
students with learning disabilities who were
served in separate settings increased approxi-
mately 4.4% during this time. This dramatic in-
crease has occurred even though no evidence
exists indicating that such restrictive settings are
beneficial for students with learning disabilities
(Carlberg & Kavale, 1980; Epps & Tindal, 1987;
Leinhardt & Pallay, 1982; Madden & Slavin,
1983); and ample evidence indicates that educa-

Exceptional Children 513

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN (CEC) on July 11, 2016
 TABLE 2 being identified with learning disabilities and
Percentage of All Students with Learning Disabili- placed in special education settings for up to 60%
ties Placed in Regular/Resource and Separate-
of the school day. There is little doubt that most
Class Setting Over the Past 11 Years
ofthese students present problems for their teach-
Class Setting ers and have difficulty progressing academically
(Gerber & Semmel, 1984; McLeskey & Wald-
Regular and
ron, 1991), but we might speculate that many of
Year Resource (%) Separate (%)
these difficulties could be managed in the regular
1979 81.1 17.3 classroom by providing additional resources to
1980 80.3 18.1 the classroom teacher through prereferral inter-
1981 79.8 18.6 ventions (Graden, Zins, & Curtis, 1988); school-
1982 78.2 20.4 based teams (Chalfant & Pysh, 1989); or in-class
1983 77.3 21.1 special education support (Affleck et aI., 1988;
1984 76.9 20.8 Bear & Proctor, 1990).
1985 77.1 21.1
1986 76.2 21.4
1987 76.7 21.7 CONCLUSION
1988 77.5 20.8 The data reported here indicate that little progress
1989 76.8 21.7 has been made since shortly after the passage of
Note: Percentages for each year do not add to 100% P.L. 94-142 toward mainstreaming students with
because placements in "other" settings (e.g., separate learning disabilities; but considerable amounts of
schools or residential facilities) are omitted. data from particular states, reported in the Annual
Reports to Congress, also suggest that such prog-
ress is quite possible. In several states (e.g.,
Idaho, Iowa, North Dakota, Oregon, South Da-
tion in less restrictive settings can result in aca- kota, and Vermont), for example, almost all stu-
demic and social benefits for these students dents with learning disabilities are provided
(Affleck, Madge, Adams, & Lowenbraun, 1988; services in typical classroom settings, with little
Bear & Proctor, 1990; Carlberg & Kavale, 1980; reliance on separate-class placement. Moreover,
Epps & Tindal, 1987; Leinhardt & Pallay, 1982; many recent articles in the professional literature
Madden & Slavin, 1983). have described models for the provision of high-
In a related finding, the number of students quality services in the regular classroom for these
with learning disabilities who are educated in students (e.g., Affleck et al., 1988; Bear & Proc-
regular/resource settings has increased dramati- tor, 1990).
cally over the past 11 years. This finding has Despite indications that mainstreaming large
likely contributed to the belief that we are making numbers of students with learning disabilities is
progress in mainstreaming students with learning possible, historical evidence indicates that sim-
disabilities. Indeed, more students labeled with ply posing a logical argument and providing ef-
learning disabilities are spending part of their fective models will not change educational prac-
school day in regular classes. Closer inspection tice (Sarason, 1982, 1990). If change is to occur,
reveals, however, that this finding simply reflects educators need to closely examine educational
an increase in the identification rate of students systems and related practices in various states to
with learning disabilities, rather than a change in begin to determine barriers to mainstreaming, as
placement practices. Thus, though it may be tech- well as factors that facilitate the education of stu-
nically correct that we currently mainstream dents with learning disabilities in nonrestrictive
more students with learning disabilities than ever settings.
before, many of these students likely would not Barriers to the education of students with
have been labeled at all in 1979. learning disabilities in regular classroom settings
When considered from this perspective, it is include the following:
alarming that the CPR for students with learning
• Funding patterns that favor more restrictive
disabilities placed in regular/resource settings in-
settings (Blackman, 1989; Tucker, 1989).
creased from 1979 to 1989 from 16,259 to
23,317. Increasing numbers of students who for- • Misunderstandings or misinterpretations re-
merly managed in typical classroom settings are garding the concepts of least restrictive envi-

514 May 1994

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN (CEC) on July 11, 2016
 FIGURE 3
Trends in Proportion of Students with Learning Disabilities in RegularlResource and
Separate Classrooms Over the Past 11 Years

100

90

80

70
Q)
60
-e
C)
ttl
c:
Q) 50
Q)
a.. 40
30

20

10

0
1979 1980 1981 1982198319841985 1986 198719881989
Year

• Regular/Resource ~ Separate Class

ronment and continuum of services (Taylor,
1988; Tucker, 1989).
• Increasingly higher standards of academic
competence in regular-class settings (Me-
Leskey, Skiba, & Wilcox, 1990).
• Teacher opposition to mainstreaming
(Semmel, Abernathy, Butera, & Lesar, 1991).
Ways to facilitate more mainstreaming are
bound up in recent efforts to reform regular edu-
cation. Though some of these reforms (e.g., com-
petency tests and higher academic standards)
have likely led to a greater gulf between regular
and special education (McLeskey et al., 1990),
more recent aspects of reform may offer the op-
portunity for increased cooperation. Sailor
(1991) suggested that reform in regular education
has moved from an emphasis on curricular re-
form and improved instructional techniques, to
an emphasis on school restructuring and site-
based management. Much ofthe restructuring lit-
erature focuses on facilitating the change process
within schools, as well as examining the willing-
ness of teachers to implement new programs and
techniques to serve all children within regular
classroom settings (Miller, 1990; Sizer, 1984).
This change in focus offers an excellent opportu-
nity for special educators to form a partnership
with regular education in addressing a shared ed-

Exceptional Children 515

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN (CEC) on July 11, 2016
ucational agenda to better meet the needs of all
students, including those who are difficult to
teach (Miller, 1990).
Finally, to understate the patently obvious, all
is not well with the education of students with
learning disabilities in the United States. Increas-
ing numbers of students are being educated in set-
tings that are widely recognized, at the very least,
as ineffective and, at worst, as damaging to the
social and academic development of students
(Carlberg & Kavale, 1980; Epps & Tindal, 1987;
Leinhardt & Pallay, 1982; Madden & Slavin,
1983). Moreover, past attempts to mainstream
these students into increasingly unaccommodat-
ing settings have not worked, and likely will not
work in the future. The only hope for successfully
including students with learning disabilities in
typical classroom settings seems to be a restruc-
turing of regular-class settings. Considering the
data reported here, the recommendations of pro-
ponents of the regular education initiative (e.g.,
Reynolds et al., 1987; Will, 1986) and inclusive
school programs (Sailor, 1991; Stainback &
Stainback, 1990) seem timely and necessary. In-
deed, a major initiative to ensure that students
with mild disabilities are educated in appropriate,
nonrestrictive settings is long overdue.
REFERENCES
Affleck, J. Q., Madge, S., Adams, A, & Lowenbraun,
S. (1988). Integrated classroom versus resource
model: Academic viability and effectiveness. Excep-
tional Children, 54, 339-348.
Algozzine, B., & Korinek, L. (1985). Where is special
education for students with high prevalence handi-
caps going? Exceptional Children, 51,388-394.
Bear, G. G., & Proctor, W. A (1990). Impact of a full-
time integrated program on the achievement of non-
handicapped and mildly handicapped children.
Journal ofExceptionality, 1,227-238.
Blackman, H. (1989). Special education placement: Is
it what you know or where you live? Exceptional
Children, 55, 459-462.
Carlberg, C., & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of spe-
cial versus regular class placement for exceptional
children: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special
Education, 14, 295-309.
Chalfant, 1. c., & Pysh, M. V. (1989). Teacher assis-
tance teams: Five descriptive studies on 96 teams. Re-
medial and Special Education, 10(6),49-58.
Coles, G. (1978). The learning disabilities test battery:
Empirical and social issues. Harvard Educational
Review, 48,313-340.
516
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN (CEC) on July 11, 2016
Danielson, L., & Bellamy, T. (1989). State variation in
placement of children with handicaps in segregated
environments. Exceptional Children, 55, 448-455.
Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly
retarded-Is much ofitjustifiable? Exceptional Chil-
dren, 35, 5-22.
Epps, S., & Tindal, G. (1987). The effectiveness ofdif-
ferential programming in serving students with mild
handicaps: Placement options and instructional pro-
gramming. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, & H. J.
Walberg (Eds.), Handbook ofspecial education: Re-
search and practice. Vol. 1 (pp. 213-248). New York:
Pergamon.
Gartner, A, & Lipsky, D. K. (1989). Beyond special
education: Toward a quality system for all students.
Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367-395.
Gerber, M., & Semmel, M. (1984). Teacher as imper-
fect test: Reconceptualizing the referral process. Ed-
ucational Psychologist, 19,137-148.
Graden, J. L., Zins, J., & Curtis, M. (Eds.). (1988). Al-
ternative service delivery systems. Washington, DC:
National Association of School Psychologists.
Leinhardt, G., & Pallay, A (1982). Restrictive educa-
tional settings? Exile or haven. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 52,557-578.
Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. (1983). Mainstreaming
students with mild handicaps: Academic and social
outcomes. Review ofEducational Research, 53, 519-
569.
McLeskey, J., Skiba, R., & Wilcox, B. (1990). Reform
in special education: A mainstream perspective.
Journal ofSpecial Education, 24, 319-325.
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. (1991). The identifica-
tion of students with learning disabilities: The effects
of implementing statewide guidelines.' Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 24, 501-506.
Miller, L. (1990). The regular education initiative and
school reform: Lessons from the mainstream. Reme-
dial and Special Education, 11(3), 17-22.
Poplin, M. (1988). The reductionistic fallacy in learn-
ing disabilities: Replicating the past by reducing the
present. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 389-
400.
Reiff, H. B., Evans, E. D., & Cass, M. (1991). Special
education requirements for general education certifi-
cation: A national survey of current practices. Reme-
dial and Special Education, 12, 56-60.
Reynolds, M. C., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. C.
(1987). The necessary restructuring of special and
regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391-
398.
Sailor, W. (1991). Special education in the restructured
school. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 8-22.
Sarason, S. B. (1982). The culture of school and the
problem ofchange (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of edu-
cational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
May 1994
 Semmel, M. I., Abernathy, T. V., Butera, G., & Lesar,
S. (1991). Teacher perceptions of the regular educa- PC ACCESS
tion initiative. Exceptional Children, 56, 9-24.
• LOW VISION
Singer, J. (1988). Should special education merge with
regular education? Education Policy, 2, 409-424. • ADAPTED ACCESS
Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace's compromise. Boston: • ENVIRONMENTAL
Houghton Mifflin. CONTROL
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1984). A rationale for • AUGMENTATIVE
the merger of special and regular education. Excep-
tional Children, st.
102-111.
COMMUNICATION
Choose from 10 different software
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (Eds.). (1990). Support solutions for physically and visually
networksfor inclusive schooling: interdependent in- challenged individuals. Whether you
tegrated education. Baltimore: Brookes. require switch access, have limited
Taylor, S. (1988). Caught in the continuum: A critical keyboarding ability, low vision, or want
analysis of the principle of the least restrictive envi- control of your environment, MSI has
ronment. Journal ofthe Association for Persons with DOS or Windows environment solutions.
Severe Handicaps, 13,41-53.
Call 1-800-828-2600 and
Tucker, J. (1989). Less required energy: A response to
request HandiWARE,
Danielson and Bellamy. Exceptional Children, 55,
456-458. MAGic, or TEAM
information.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Edu-
cation and Rehabilitative Services. (1990). Twelfth Microsystems Software, Inc.
annual report to Congress on the implementation of 600 Worcester Road. Framingham MA 01701
the Education ofthe Handicapped Act. Washington, (508) 879·9000 FAX (508) 626-8515
DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Edu-
cation and Rehabilitative Services. (1992).
Fourteenthannual report to Congress on the imple-
mentation ofthe individuals with Disabilities Educa-
tionAct. Washington, DC: Author.
Will, M. (1986). Educating children with learning
problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Chil-
dren, 52, 411-415.
International Conference Sheraton Centre
August 24· 27, 1994 Toronto, Canada
ABOUT THE AUTHORS This four day event will provide a forum for teachers, parents,
school administrators, policy makers, researchers and others
to share information and perspectives on inclusive education.

JAMES MCLESKEY (CEC #70), Associate Key topics: Theoretical Perspectives; Practical Examples;
Transition to Inclusive Schools; Current Research.
Professor, Department of Curriculum and
Instruction, and DEBRA PACCHIANO (CEC Registration: Professionals
$350.00·$475.00 (Canadian Funds)
MD Federation), Doctoral Student, Department
CACL Membership
of Counseling and Educational Psychology, $250.00·$325.00 (Canadian Funds)
Indiana University, Bloomington. For more Information and Registration, please contact:
Excellence and Equity in Education 1994
Canadian Association for Community Living
Kinsmen Building, York University, 4700 Keele Street,
Address correspondence to James McLeskey at North York, Ontario M3] 1P3 Canada
Indiana University, 201 N. Rose, Bloomington, Phone: (416) 661·961 I Fax (416) 661·5701
IN 47405. Telephone: (812) 856-8157. TDD: (416) 661·2023

Manuscript received April

accepted March 1993.

Exceptional Children
1992; revision
• •••• 517

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN (CEC) on July 11, 2016
View publication stats