Editor's Comment: In the last issue of RASE (11:3, March/April 1990), we explored the Regular Education Initiative from the perspectives of several prominent general educators. These perspectives were written by Russell Gersten and John Woodward, Lvnne Miller, Dolores Ditrkin, Allan Glatthorn, Beverly Showers, Robert Slewin, and Susan Loncks-Horsley and Deborah Roody. These were followed by two commentaries-by Edward Kameenui and Anne McGill-Franzen and Richard Allington. Following are three more commentaries on those papers, by Melvyn Semmel and Michael Gerber, Robert Slaiin, and Allan Glattborn.-LI
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Dunn, L.J. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 35, 5–22.
2.
Gerber, M.M. (1989). The new “diversity” and special education: Are we going forward or starting again? California Public Schools Forum, 3, 19–31.
3.
Gerber, M.M., & Semmel, M.I. (1984). Teacher as imperfect test: Reconceptualizing the referral process. Educational Psychologists, 19, 1–12.
4.
Gerber, M.M., & Semmel, M.I. (1985). Microeconomics of referral and reintegration: A paradigm for evaluation of special education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 11, 13–29.
Semmel, M.I. (1986, May). Special education in the year 2000 and beyond: A proposed action agenda for addressing selected ideas. In H. Prehm (Ed.), The future of special education. Proceedings of the Council for Exceptional Children Symposium.
7.
Semmel, M.I., Abernathy, T., Butera, G., & Lesar, S. (1990). Regular and special education teachers' attitudes related to reform of education for handicapped children: The Regular Education Initiative (RFI). (Research Report 90.1). Santa Barbara: University of California, Special Education Research Laboratory, Reston, VA.
8.
Tobias, S. (1989). Another look at research on the adaptation of instruction to student characteristics. Educational Psychologist, 24, 213–227.
