This article examines the instructional and political validity of current educational policy regarding categorical programs for low-achieving elementary school students. A widely recognized problem in the categorical organization of services for these students is fragmentation at all levels. Attempts to reduce that fragmentation by unifying the categorical programs must address three issues each in the realms of instructional and political validity. Among the instructional validity issues are questions about the, similarities and differences between learning disabled and remedial students in instructional levels, learning rates, and “learning styles.” Data from two studies suggest that the similarities in instructional level and learning rates are greater than the differences. The political issues requiring resolution before implementation of a unified system are protection and equitable distribution of resources, participation in decision making, and protection of jobs. Benefits of a unified system and issues that policy makers must address are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArterJ. A., & JenkinsJ. R. (1977). Examining the benefits and prevalence of modality considerations in special education. Journal of Special Education, 11, 281–298.
2.
ArterJ. A., & JenkinsJ. R. (1979). Differential diagnosis-prescriptive teaching: A critical appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 49, 517–555.
3.
BirmanB. F. (1979). Case studies in overlap between Title I and P.L. 94–142 services for handicapped students. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Research Report EPRC 26. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
4.
CandlerA. C.JohnsonN. L., & GreenC. (1983). The differences among children with learning problems. Education, 104, 219–223.
5.
DenoS. L.MirkinP. K., & ChiangB. (1982). Identifying valid measures of readingExceptional Children, 49(1), 36–45.
6.
FaganT. (1987). Personal communication.
7.
FelixN.HertleinJ. C.McKennaD., & RaybornR. (1987). Combining categorical program services can make a major difference. KAPPAN, 68(10), 787–788.
8.
FuchsL., & DenoS. L. (1981). A comparison of reading placements based on teacher judgment, standardized testing, and curriculum-based assessment. (Research Report No. 56) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute of Research on Learning Disabilities.
9.
HaynesM. C. & JenkinsJ. (1986). Reading instruction in special education resource rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 161–190.
10.
JenkinsJ. R.PetersonD. L., & SchragJ. (1988, in preparation). Similarities and differences between remedial and special education students. Seattle: Experimental Education Unit, University of Washington.
11.
KavaleK. A., & FornessS. R. (1987). Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching. Exceptional Children, 54(3), 228–239.
12.
LeinhardtG.BickelW., & PallayA. (1982). Unlabeled but still entitled: Toward more effective remediation. Teachers College Record, 84(2), 391–422.
13.
LloydJ. W. (1984). How should we individualize instruction, or should we?Remedial and Special Education, 5(1), 7–15.
14.
MarstonD. (1987). Does categorical teacher certification benefit the mildly handicapped child?Exceptional Children, 53(5), 423–431.
15.
MarstonD. & MagnussonD. (1985). Implementing curriculum based measurement in special and regular education settings. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 266–276.
16.
McGill-FranzenA. (1987). Failure to learn to read: Formulating a policy problem. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 475–490.
17.
MorsinkC. V.ThomasC., & Smith-DavisJ. (1987). Noncategorical programs: Process and outcomes. In WangM. C.ReynoldsM. C., & WalbergH. J. (Eds.), The handbook of special education: Research and practice (pp. 287–312). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
18.
O'SheaL. J., & VacanteG. (1986). A comparison over time of relative discrepancy scores of low achievers. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 253–259.
19.
ReynoldsM. C. & WangM. C. (1983). Restructuring “special” school programs: A position paper. Policy Studies Review, 2(1), 189–212.
20.
ReynoldsM. C.WangM. C., & WalbergH. J. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53(5), 391–398.
21.
ShinnM. R.TindalG. A.SpiraD., & MarstonD. (1987). Practice of learning disabilities as social policy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10(1), 17–28.
22.
ShinnM. R.YsseldykeJ. E.DenoS. L., & TindalG. A. (1986). A comparison of differences between students labeled learning disabled and low achieving on measures of classroom performance. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19(9), 545–552.
23.
SlavinR. E. (1987a). A theory of school and classroom organization. Educational Psychology, 22(2), 89–108.
24.
SlavinR. E. (1987b). Grouping for instruction in the elementary school. Educational Psychologist, 22(2), 109–127.
25.
StainbackW., & StainbackS. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51(2), 102–111.
26.
WillM. (1986). Educating students with learning problems—a shared responsibility. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, U.S. Department of Education.
27.
YsseldykeJ. E. (1973). Diagnostic-prescriptive teaching: The search for aptitude-treatment interactions. In MannL. & SabatinoD. (Eds.) The first review of special education. Philadephia: JSE Press.
28.
YsseldykeJ. E.AlgozzineB.ShinnM. R., & McGueA. (1982). Similarities and differences between low achievers and students classified as learning disabled. Journal of Special Education, 16, 73–85.
