The debate on how to best deliver educational services to students with disabilities continues without substantial research on model efficacy. This study compared the inclusion only, pull-out only, and combined services models for a sample of elementary students with mild disabilities. Results indicate that teacher satisfaction and student progress in reading were significantly greater for the combined services model. These data support renewed commitment to the continuum of services. Reasons for the success of the combined services model are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Federation of Teachers. (1993). Draft AFT position on inclusion. (Available from American Federation of Teachers, 555 New Jersey Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001)
2.
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. (1991, July). TASH resolutions and policy statement. (Available from The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11201 Greenwood Ave., Seattle, WA 98133)
3.
Baker, E. T., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1994–1995, December/January). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership, 52, pp.33–35.
4.
Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for students with learning disabilities: Themes and implications from the five cases. The Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 163–180.
5.
Council for Learning Disabilities. (1993). Concerns about the full inclusion of students with learning disabilities in regular education classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 126.
6.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
7.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1995). What's “special” about special education.Kappan, 76, 522–530.
8.
Kauffman, J. M. (1994). Places of change: Special education's power and identity in an era of educational reform.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 610–618.
9.
Kirk, R. E. (1968). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral services. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
10.
Learning Disabilities Association of America. (1993). Position paper on full inclusion of all students with learning disabilities in the regular education classroom.LDA Newsbrief, 28(2).
11.
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1987). Capable of achievement and worthy of respect: Education for handicapped students as if they were full-fledged human beings.Exceptional Children, 54, 69–74.
12.
Marston, D. (1987–1988). 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.
13.
Marston, D., & Heistad, D. (1994). Assessing collaborative inclusion as an effective model for the delivery of special education services.Diagnostique, 19, 51–67.
14.
Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1988). Curriculum-based measurement: District level implementation. In J. Graden, J. Zins, & M. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 137–172. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
15.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1993). A reaction to Full Inclusion: A reaffirmation of the right of students with learning disabilities to a continuum of services.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 596.
16.
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. (1990). SPSS for the Macintosh ® 4.0. Chicago: SPSS, Inc..
17.
Tindal, G. (1985). Investigating the effectiveness of special education: An analysis of methodology.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 101–112.
18.
Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1995). Responsible inclusion for students with learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 264–270.
