This study compared three levels of inclusion (special education-only, integrated special education, and mainstream placements) on cognitive and language development of preschool children with disabilities. Results are reported for 66 children randomly assigned to one of three classroom ratios. Overall, treatments did not differ significantly, but an analysis of pre- to postgains revealed that one treatment, integrated special education, produced gains that significantly exceeded the rate of normal development. Aptitude X Treatment interactions indicated relatively higher functioning children with disabilities benefited more from integrated special education placement, while relatively lower functioning children benefitted more from special education-only classes and mainstream classes. Results replicate previous findings that different levels of inclusion produce differential benefits for higher and lower functioning students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckerW. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged—What we have learned from field research.Harvard Educational Review, 47, 518–543.
2.
BeckerW. C., EngelmannS., & ThomasD. R. (1975). Teaching 2: Cognitive learning and instruction.Chicago: Science Research Associates.*
3.
BlankM., RoseS. A., & BerlinL. J. (1978). Preschool language assessment instrument: The language of learning in practice.Orlando, FL: Grune & Stratton.*
4.
BrickerD. (1995). The challenge of inclusion.Journal of Early Intervention, 19(3) 179–194.
5.
BuysseV., & BaileyD. B. (1993). Behavioral and developmental outcomes in young children with disabilities in integrated and special education-only settings: A review of comparative studies.The Journal of Special Education, 26(4), 434–461.
6.
ColeK. N., DaleP. S., MillsP. E., & JenkinsJ. R. (1993). Interaction between early intervention curricula and student characteristics.Exceptional Children, 60, 17–28.
7.
ColeK. N., MillsP. E., DaleP. S., & JenkinsJ. R. (1991). Effects of preschool integration for children with disabilities.Exceptional Children, 58, 36–45.
8.
ColeK. N., MillsP. E., DaleP. S., & JenkinsJ. R. (1996). Preschool language facilitation methods and child characteristics.Journal of Early Intervention, 20(2), 113–131.
9.
DrummondW. T. (1989). Enterprise method. Unpublished manuscript.
10.
FewellR. R., & OelweinP. L. (1990). The relationship between time in integrated environments and developmental gains in young children with special needs.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10(2), 104–116.
11.
FuchsD., & FuchsL. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform.Exceptional Children, 60, 294–309.
12.
GlassG. V., McGawB., & SmithM. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.*
13.
GuralnickM. J. (1990). Major accomplishments and future directions in early childhood mainstreaming.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10(2), 1–17.
14.
JenkinsJ. R., OdomS. L., & SpeltzM. L. (1989). Effects of social integration on preschool children with handicaps.Exceptional Children, 55, 420–428.
15.
JenkinsJ. R., SpeltzM. L., & OdomS. L. (1985). Integrating normal and handicapped preschoolers: Effects on child development and social interaction.Exceptional Children, 52, 7–17.
16.
LamoreyS., & BrickerD. (1993). Integrated programs: Effects on young children and their parents. In PeckC., OdomS., & BrickerD. (Eds.), Integrating young children with disabilities into community programs: Ecological perspectives on research and implementation, (pp. 39–64). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.*
17.
MacMillanD. L., GreshamF. M., & FornessS. R. (1996). Full inclusion: An empirical perspective.Behavioral Disorders, 22(2), 145–159.
18.
McCarthyD. (1972). McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities.New York: The Psychological Corporation.*
19.
OdomS. L., & McEvoyM. (1988). Integration of young children with handicaps and normally developing children. In OdomS. L., & KarnesM. B. (Eds.), Early intervention for infants and children with handicaps: An empirical base (pp. 241–267). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.*
PeckC. A. (1995). Some further reflections on the difficulties and dilemmas of inclusion.Journal of Early Intervention, 19(5), 197–199.
22.
PedhazurE. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.*
23.
RuleS., StowitschekJ. J., InnocentiM., StriefelS., KilloranJ., SwezeyK., & BoswellC. (1987). The social integration program: An analysis of the effects of mainstreaming handicapped children into day care centers.Education and Treatment of Children, 10(2), 175–192.
24.
SalisburyC. L., & VincentL. J. (1990). Criterion of the next environment and best practices: Mainstreaming and integration 10 years later.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10(2), 78–89.
25.
SattlerJ. M. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Author.*
26.
StrainP. S. (1995). The challenge of inclusion: Points well-taken and related challenges.Journal of Early Intervention, 19(3), 195–196.
27.
WaryasC., & Stremel-CampbellK. (1984). Communication training program.New York: Teaching Resources.*
28.
ZigmondN., JenkinsJ., FuchsD., DenoS., & FuchsL. S. (1995). When students fail to achieve satisfactorily: A reply to McClesky and Waldron.Phi Delta Kappan, 77(4), 303–306.
29.
ZigmondN., JenkinsJ., FuchsL. S., DenoS., FuchsD., BakerJ. N., JenkinsL., & CouthinoM. (1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies.Phi Delta Kappan, 76(7), 531–540.
