Over the past two decades, research on the change process in education has converged on several conclusions that can fruitfully be applied to the Regular Education Initiative. This article discusses these conclusions, including the need for adequate time for change to occur; concrete models of innovations for teachers and administrators to adapt to their own situations; assistance and support that is tailored to the needs of teachers and administrators as the change process proceeds; opportunities for educators to be involved in decisions about the changes; and mandates that set clear direction and protect educators while they learn the new behaviors and procedures required by the change.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1975). Federal programs supporting educational change, vol. IV, The findings in review.Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp.
Crandall, D.P., & Associates (1982). People, policies, and practices: Examining the chain of school improvement, vols. 1-X. Andover, MA: The NETWORK, Inc.
4.
Emrick, J., Peterson, S., & Agarwala-Rogers, R. (1977). Evaluation of the National Diffusion Network.Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute.
5.
Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change.New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press.
6.
Gersten, R., Carnine, D., Zoref, L., & Cronin, D. (1986). A multifaceted study of change in seven inner-city schools. Elementary School Journal, 86, 257–276.
7.
Guskey, T.R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12.
8.
Gerber, M. (1988). Tolerance and technology of instruction: Implications for special education reform. Exceptional Children, 54, 309–314.
9.
Hall, G.E., & Hord, S.M. (1988). Change in schools: Facilitating the process.Albany, NY: State University of New York.
10.
Hall, G.E., & Loucks, S.F. (1978). Teacher concerns as a basis for facilitating and personalizing staff development. Teachers College Record, 80(1), 36–53.
11.
Huberman, M., & Miles, M.B. (1984). Innovation up close.New York: Plenum.
12.
Kauffman, J.M. (1989). The Regular Education Initiative as Reagan-Bush education policy: A trickle-down theory of education of the hard-to-teach. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
13.
Lloyd, J., Crowley, E., Kohler, F., & Strain, P. (1988). Redefining the applied research agenda: Cooperative learning, prereferral, teacher consultation, and peer-mediated interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 43–52.
14.
Loucks, S.F., & Hall, G.E. (1979). Implementing innovations in schools: A concerns-based approach.Austin: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.
Louis, K.S., Kell, D.G., Dentler, R.A., Corwin, R.G., & Herriott, R.E. (1984). Exchanging ideas: The communication and use of knowledge in education.Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
17.
Miles, M.B. (1983). Unraveling the mystery of institutionalization. Educational Leadership, 41(3), 42–46.
18.
Pugach, M. (1988). The consulting teacher in the context of educational reform. Exceptional Children, 55, 273–275.
19.
Reynolds, M.C., Wang, M.C., & Walberg, H. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391–398.
20.
Rogers, E.M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations.New York: Free Press.
21.
Rogers, E.M., & Shoemaker, M. (1981). The communication of innovations.New York: Free Press.
22.
Will, M.C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52, 411–415.
