This Study Analyzed National Program Record Data to Determine the Extent to which Students with Various Disabilities have been Integrated into General Public Schools, Since 1977, and General Education Classrooms, Since 1985. The Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Mandate, Historical Origins of LRE, Recent LRE Initiatives, Including the Regular Education Initiative, and Relevant Research are Discussed. The Utility and Reliability of the Data are also Examined. Results Indicate that, Overall, Increases in Placements within General Public Schools have Occurred for Most Students with Disabilities. Increased Placements in General Education Classrooms have also Occurred and have been Even More Pronounced. Integration Patterns, However, have Varied Substantially Across Disabilities; Possible Reasons for these Differences are Presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Algozzine, B., & Korinek, L. (1985). Where is special education for students with high prevalence handicaps going?Exceptional Children, 51, 388–394.
2.
Berres, M.S., & Knoblock, P. (1987). Program models for mainstreaming: Integrating students with moderate to severe disabilities. Rockville, MD: Aspen.
3.
Brinker, R. P., & Thorpe, M. E. (1985). Some empirically derived hypotheses about the influence of state policy on degree of integration of severely handicapped students. Remedial and Special Education, 6(3), 18–26.
4.
Danielson, L. C., & Bellamy, G. T. (1989). State variation in placement of children with handicaps in segregated environments. Exceptional Children, 55, 448–455.
5.
Davis, W. E. (1989). The Regular Education Initiative debate: Its promises and problems. Exceptional Children, 55, 440–446.
6.
Decision Resources Corporation. (1989). Threats to comparability in OSEP state-reported placement data. Washington, DC: Author.
7.
Dempsey, S. (1992, April). “Flat” vs. “weighted” reimbursement formulas: A longitudinal analysis of statewide special education funding practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
8.
Deno, S., Maruyama, G., Espin, C., & Cohen, C. (1990). Educating students with mild disabilities in general education classrooms: Minnesota alternatives. Exceptional Children, 57, 150–161.
9.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1988). Evaluation of the adaptive learning environments model. Exceptional Children, 55, 115–127.
10.
Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367–395.
11.
Gelzheiser, L. M. (1987). Reducing the number of students identified as learning disabled: A question of practice, philosophy, or policy?Exceptional Children, 54, 145–150.
12.
Gerber, M. M. (1984). Is Congress getting the full story?Exceptional Children, 51, 209–224.
13.
Hallahan, D. P., Keller, C. E., McKinney, J. D., Lloyd, J. W., & Bryan, T. (1988). Examining the research base of the Regular Education Initiative: Efficacy studies and the adaptive learning environments model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 29–35, 55.
14.
Hamre-Nietupski, S., Nietupski, J., & Maurer, S. (1990). A comprehensive state education agency plan to promote the integration of students with moderate/severe handicaps. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 106–113.
15.
Jenkins, J. R., & Heinen, A. (1989). Students' preferences for service delivery: Pull-out, in-class, or integrated models. Exceptional Children, 55, 516–523.
16.
Leone, P. E., McLaughlin, M.J., & Meisel, S. M. (1992). School reform and adolescents with behavior disorders. Focus on Exceptional Children, 25(1), 1–16.
17.
Lilly, M.S. (1986). The relationship between general and special education: A new face on an old issue. Counterpoint, 6(1), 10.
18.
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.
19.
McLaughlin, M.J., & Owings, M. R. (1993). The use of extant national data bases to study the relationships among states' fiscal and demographic features and the implementation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Exceptional Children, 59, 247–261.
20.
McLaughlin, M. J., & Warren, S. H. (1992). School restructuring and students with disabilities: Issues and options. College Park, MD: Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth.
21.
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).
22.
Newman, R. K., & Simpson, R. L. (1983). Modifying the least restrictive environment to facilitate the integration of severely emotionally disturbed children and youth. Behavioral Disorders, 8, 103–112.
23.
Noel, M. M., & Fuller, B. C. (1985). The social policy construction of special education: The impact of state characteristics on identification and integration of handicapped children. Remedial and Special Education, 6(3), 27–35.
24.
Patrick, J. L., & Reschley, D.J. (1982). Relationship of state educational criteria and demographic variables to school-system prevalence of mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 351–360.
25.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. Pa. 1971), Consent Agreement.
26.
Polloway, E. A., & Smith, J. D. (1983). Changes in mild mental retardation: Population, programs, and perspectives. Exceptional Children, 50, 149–159.
27.
Putnam, J. W., & Bruininks, R. H. (1986). Future directions in deinstitutionalization and education: A delphi investigation. Exceptional Children, 53, 55–62.
28.
Reynolds, M. C., Wang, C., & Walberg, H.J. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391–398.
29.
Sailor, W. (1991). Special education in the restructured school. Remedial and Special Education, 12(6), 8–22.
30.
Sailor, W., Gee, K., Goetz, L., & Goetz, N. (1988). Progress in educating students with the most severe disabilities: Is there any?Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 87–99.
31.
Schultz, A. C., Osborne, S. S., & McKinney, J. D. (1990). Academic outcomes for students with learning disabilities in consultation and resource programs. Exceptional Children, 57, 162–172.
32.
Sloan, L., Denny, R. K., & Repp, A. C. (1992). Integration in the schools: Practices in the United States. Dekalb, IL: Educational Research Services Center.
33.
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51, 102–111.
34.
Stainback, W., Stainback, S., Courtnage, L., & Jaben, T. (1985). Facilitating mainstreaming by modifying the mainstream. Exceptional Children, 52, 144–152.
35.
Steppe-Jones, C. (1987). Deinstitutionalization. In C. R. Reynolds & L. Mann (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education (pp. 466–467). New York: Wiley.
36.
Thousand, J. S., & Villa, R. A. (1990). Strategies for educating learners with severe disabilities within their local home schools and communities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23(3), 1–10.
37.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (1990). Twelfth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Education of the Handicapped Act. Washington, DC: Author.
38.
Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H.J. (1988). Four fallacies of segregationism. Exceptional Children, 55, 128–137.
39.
Will, M. (1986). Educating students with learning problems---A shared responsibility. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education.
40.
Williams, W., Fox, W., Christie, L., Thousand, J., Conn-Powers, M., Carmichael, L., Vogelsberg, R. T., & Hull, M. (1986). Community integration in Vermont. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11, 294–299.
41.
York, J., & Vandercook, T. (1990). Strategies for achieving an integrated education for middle school students with severe disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 11(5), 6–16.
