Two common assertions regarding the Regular Education Initiative are that general educators have neither the willingness nor the competence to serve students with handicaps. Illinois educators were Surveyed to examine their attitudes and perceived ability to work with students with handicaps. Teachers ranked specific types of resources necessary to facilitate integration of students with handicaps. Selected survey findings are presented, and implications for special education teacher educators are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Davis, W.E. (1989). The regular education initiative debate: lts promises and problems. Exceptional Children, 55, 440-446.
2.
Hartle, H. (1982). Teaching handicapped students in the regular classroom: State preservice certification requirements and program approval standards . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Special Education programs (ED/OSERS). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221 513)
3.
Hoover, J.J. (1986). The preparation of regular class elementary teachers for education of exceptional children: An emphasis upon knowledge, attitudes and skills. Educational Research Quarterly, 3, 2-7.
4.
Jones, S.D., & Messenheimer-Young, T. (1980). Content of special education courses for preservice regular education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12, 154-159.
5.
Kauffman, J.M. (1989). The Regular Education Initiative as Reagan-Bush education policy: A trickle-down theory of education of the hard-to-teach . The Journal of Special Education, 23, 256-278.
6.
Keogh, B.K. (1988). Improving services for problem learners: Rethinking and restructuring. Journal of Leaming Disabilities, 21(1), 19-22.
7.
Lieberman, L. (1985). Special education and regular education: A merger made in heaven? Exceptional Children, 51, 513-516.
8.
Lilly, M.S. (1982, April). Divestiture in special education: A personal point of view. Paper prepared for the President's Roundtable, International Council for Exceptional Children Convention, Houston.
9.
Lilly, M.S. (1986). The relationship between general and special education: A new face on an old issue. Counterpoint, 6(1), 10.
10.
Lilly, M.S. (1988). The Regular Education Initiative: A force for change in general and special education. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 253-260.
11.
McKinney, J., & Hocutt, A. (1988). The need for policy analysis in evaluating the regular education initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 21(1), 12-18.
12.
Mesinger, J. (1985). Commentary on "A rationale for the merger of special and regular education" or, Is it now time for the lamb to lie down with the lion? Exceptional Children, 51, 510-512.
13.
Myles, B.S., & Simpson, R.L. (1989). Regular educators' modification preferences for mainstreaming mildly handicapped children. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 479-489.
14.
O'Neil, J. (1988, September). How special should the special ed curriculum be?Curriculum Update, pp. 2-8.
15.
Pugach, M. (1987). Teacher education's empty set: The paradox of preparing teachers of learning disabilities. In B. Franklin (Ed.), Leaming disabilities: Dissenting essays (pp. 163-177). New York: Falmer Press.
16.
Shepard, L. (1987). The new push for excellence: Widening the schism between regular and special education. Exceptional Children , 53, 327-329.
17.
Singer, J. (1988). Should special education merge with regular education ? Educational Pblicy, 2, 409-424.
18.
Staff. (1988, October). The regular education initiative: Partnerships in achievement. RIMIS newsletter , 10(1), 1, 3.
19.
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1987). Integration versus cooperation: A commentary on "Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility." Exceptional Children, 54, 66-68.
20.
Wang, M.C., & Birch, J.W. (1984). Effective special education in regular classes . Exceptional Children, 50, 391-398.
