This article summarizes lessons learned from a formative evaluation of one attempt to implement inclusion of students with mild to moderate mental impairment (MMMI) in general classes in a suburban middle school. We compared the process and outcomes of this attempt with intentions of key players, results of school-change research, and considerations of treatment integrity and social validity. Results of a statistical analysis of peer attitudes were used as additional outcome data. Although full inclusion was not successfully implemented during the year of evaluation, several lessons were learned, which can be applied to other attempts to implement inclusion at the middle school level.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BermanP.McLaughlinM. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. 8. Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 159 289).
2.
BogardusE. (1925). Measuring social distances. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 216–226.
3.
BogardusE. (1932). A social distance scale. Sociology and Social Research, 17, 265–271.
4.
BraatenS.KauffmanJ. M.BraatenB.PolsgroveL.NelsonC. M. (1988). The regular education initiative: Patent medicine for behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 55, 21–27.
5.
DenoE. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37, 229–237.
6.
Education of All Handicapped Children Act, Pub. L. No. 94-142, sec. 612, 5, B (1975).
7.
FoxN. (1994). A formative evaluation of inclusion in a suburban middle school (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 908A.
8.
FuchsD.FuchsL. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294–309.
9.
FullanM.StiegelbauerS. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
10.
FullanM.MilesM. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 744–52.
11.
GormanT.RoseM. (1994). Inclusion: Taking a stand. American Teacher, 78(6), 9–12.
12.
GottliebJ. (1981). Mainstreaming: Fulfilling the Promise?American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 115–126.
13.
GottliebJ.CormanL.CurciR. (1984). Attitudes toward mentally retarded children. In JonesR. L. (Ed.), Attitudes and attitude change in special education: Theory and practice (pp. 143–156). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 249 694).
14.
HocuttA. M.MartinE. W.McKinneyJ. D. (1991). Historical and legal context of mainstreaming. In LloydJ. W.SinghN. N.ReppA. C. (Eds.), The regular education initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models (pp. 17–28). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
15.
HorneM. (1981). Assessment of classroom status: Using the Perception of Social Closeness Scale, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 200 616).
16.
HubermanA. M.MilesM. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improvement works. New York: Plenum Press.
17.
JohnsonA. (1987). Attitudes toward mainstreaming: Implications for inservice training and teaching the handicapped. Education, 107, 229–233.
18.
JohnsonD.JohnsonR.MaruyamaG. (1983). Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research, 53, 5–54.
19.
KaufmanM. J.GottliebJ.AgardJ. A.KukicM. (1975). Mainstreaming: Toward an explication of the construct. In MeyenE. L.VergasonG. A.WhelanR. J. (Eds.), Alternatives of teaching exceptional children (pp. 35–54). Denver: Love.
20.
LipskyD. K.GartnerA. (1990). Students as instructional agents. In StainbackW.StainbackS. (Eds.), Support systems for educating all students in the mainstream (pp. 81–94). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
21.
MaddenN.SlavinR. (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps: Academic and social outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 53, 519–569.
22.
McConnellS. R.OdomS. L. (1986). Sociometrics: Peer-referenced measures and the assessment of social competence. In StrainP. S.GuralnickM. J.WalkerH. M. (Eds.), Children's social behavior (pp. 215–284). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
23.
MilesM. (1987). Practical guidelines for school administrators: How to get there. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association annual meeting. (Fullan, 1991).
OsgoodC.SuciG.TannenbaumP. (1967). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL.: University of Illinois Press.
26.
PerskeR. (1988). Circles of friends: People with disabilities and their friends enrich the lives of one another. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
27.
SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (1988). Implementing the Regular Education Initiative in secondary schools: A different ball game. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 36–42.
28.
SiegelS. (1956). Nonparametic statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
StakeR. E. (1967). The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68, 523–540.
30.
ThurstoneL.ChaveE. (1929). The measurement of attitude. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
31.
U.S. Department of Education (1993). Fifteenth annual report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 363 058).
32.
U.S. Department of Education. (1995). Digest of Educational Statistics 1995Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 393 321).
33.
VandercookT.YorkJ.ForestM. (1989). The McGill action planning system (MAPS): A strategy for building the vision. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 41–53.
34.
WangM. C. (1981). Mainstreaming exceptional children: Some instructional design and implementation considerations. Elementary School Journal, 81, 195–221.
35.
YorkJ.DoyleM. B.KronbergR. (1992). A curriculum development process for inclusive classrooms. Focus on Exceptional Children, 25 (4), 1–16.
