What makes Special Education Special? Evaluating Inclusion Programs with the Pass Variables

Abstract

Zigmond and Baker's analysis of case studies of inclusion of students with learning disabilities in elementary classrooms reveals that little “special” education was being provided to those students. But what makes special education special? We have evaluated these case study reports with a set of variables that are essential for success in special education settings—the PASS variables: Prioritized objectives; Adapted methods, materials, and environments; SCREAM (an acronym for effective teacher presentation variables); and Systematic monitoring of progress. The cases described by Zigmond and Baker reveal substantial shortcomings in each of these variables. Further, these shortcomings do not appear to be the result of insincere teachers or ineffective teaching abilities, but rather appear to be an unavoidable consequence of the inclusion programs themselves. Perhaps many of the teachers involved in these settings reported that they were successful because they lacked the type of information that might have provided a more realistic, and perhaps less optimistic, evaluation of the effectiveness of the inclusion settings. Important learning objectives for students with learning disabilities should not be sacrificed in the attempt to accommodate all learners in the same setting.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brigham, F. J. , Scruggs, T. E. , & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). The effect of teacher enthusiasm on the learning and behavior of learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7, 68–73.

Brophy, J. E. , & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan.

Centra, N. A. (1990). A qualitative study of high school students in a resource program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.

Fuchs, D. , Fuchs, L. S. , & Fernstrom, P. (1993). A conservative approach to special education reform: Mainstreaming through transenvironmental programming and curriculum-based measurement. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 149–177.

Haynes, M. C. , & Jenkins, J. R. (1986). Reading instruction in special education resource rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 161–190.

Jenkins, J. R. , & Heinen, A. (1989). Students' preferences for service delivery: Pull-out, in-class, or integrated models. Exceptional Children, 55, 516–524.

Marston, D. (1987–88). The effectiveness of special education: A time series analysis of reading performance in regular and special education settings. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 13–26.

Mastropieri, M. A. , & Scruggs, T. E. (1992). Effective mainstreaming strategies for mildly handicapped students. Elementary School Journal, 92, 389–409.

Mastropieri, M. A. , & Scruggs, T. E. (1993). A practical guide for teaching science to students with special needs in inclusive settings. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

10.

Mastropieri, M. A. , & Scruggs, T. E. (1994a). Effective instruction for special education (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

11.

Mastropieri, M. A. , & Scruggs, T. E. (1994b). Text versus hands-on science curriculum: Implications for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15(2), 72–85.

12.

Padeliadu, S., & Zigmond, N. (in press). Perspectives of students with learning disabilities on special education placement. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice.

13.

Rudenga, E. A. V. (1992). Incompatibility? Ethnographic case studies oflearning disabled” students in a whole language classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

14.

Scruggs, T. E. , & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994a). Refocusing microscope activities for special students. Science Scope, 17, 74–78.

15.

Scruggs, T. E. , & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994b). Variables associated with successful mainstreaming in elementary science classes: A qualitative analysis of three reputational cases. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 785–811.

16.

Scruggs, T. E. , & Richter, L. (1988). Tutoring learning disabled students: A critical review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 274–286.

17.

Ysseldvke, J. E. , Christenson. S. L. , Thurlow, M. L. , & Skiba, R. (1987). Academic engagement and active responding of mentally retarded, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, and nonhandicapped elementary students (Research Report No. 4). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Instructional Alternatives Project. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 293264)

18.

Ysseldyke, J. E. , O'Sulhvan, P.J. , Thurlow, M. L. , & Christenson, S. L. (1989). Qualitative differences in reading and math instruction received by handicapped students. Remedial and Special Education, 10(1), 14–20.

19.

Zigmond, N. & Baker, J. M. (1994). Is the mainstream a more appropriate educational setting for Randy? A case study of one student with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 108–117.

20.

Zigmond, N. , Jenkins, J. , Fuchs, L. , Deno, S. , Fuchs, D. , Baker, J. N. , Jenkins, L. , & Coutinho, M. (1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 531–535.