The purpose of this paper is to discuss a number of policy issues associated with proposals by proponents of the Regular Education Initiative to reform special education practice by creating a more integrated system of general education that better serves mildly handicapped and “other special needs” students in mainstream settings. The paper focuses on five issues and concerns with the specific proposals offered by Reynolds, Wang, and Waiberg, including (a) the clarity of goals and objectives, (b) potential conflicts in the values driving educational policy, (c) arguable assumptions about political and practical feasibility, and (d) the adequacy of the evidence to support recommended changes from a policy perspective. It is concluded that additional research and policy analysis are needed to provide a better understanding of the implications and consequences of various proposals associated with the Regular Education Initiative and to identify alternative solutions that might achieve constructive changes within the broad boundaries of present policy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbergJ.Y.PyechaJ.N.SchulteS.T.HocuttA.M.YinR.K., & ScottA. (May , 1988). A case study of the application of noncategorical special education in two states. Final Report, Report No. RTI/3727-12/01FR.Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
2.
BiklenD., & ZollersN. (1986). The focus of advocacy in the LD field. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19,579-586.
3.
CarlbergC., & KavaleK. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 14, 295–309.
4.
ChalfantJ. (1987). Providing services to all students with learning problems: Implications for policy and programs. In VaughnS. & BosC.S. (Eds.), Research in learning disabilities: Issues and future directions (pp. 239–251). Boston: College-Hill Press.
5.
FuchsD., & FuchsL.S. (in press). An evaluation of the Adaptive Learning Environments Model. Exceptional Children.
6.
GartnerA., & LipskyD.K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367–385.
7.
GerberM.M., & SemmelM.l. (1984). Teacher as imperfect test: Reconceptualizing the referral process. Educational Psychologist, 19, 137–148.
8.
GerstenR.WalkerH., & DorchC. (1988). Relationships between teachers’ effectiveness and their tolerance for handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 54, 433–438.
9.
HallahanD. RKauffmanJ.M.LloydJ.W., & McKinneyJ.D. (1988). Questions about the Regular Education Initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 3–5.
10.
HallahanD.P.KellerC.E.McKinneyJ.D.LloydJ.W., & BryanT. (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.
11.
HobbsN. (1975). The futures of children.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
HobbsN. (1980). An ecologically oriented service-based system for classification of handicapped children. In SalzmeyerE.AntrobusJ. & GliakJ. (Eds.), The ecosystem of the risk child.New York: Academic Press.
13.
KauffmanJ.M.GerberM.M., & SemmelM.I. (1988). Arguable assumptions underlying the Regular Education Initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 6–11.
14.
LillyS. (1986, March). The relationship between general and special education: A new face on an old issue. Counterpoint, p. 10.
15.
LloydJ.W. (in press). Direct academic interventions in learning disabilities. In M.WangC., M.ReynoldsC., & WalbergH. (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice.New York: Pergamon.
16.
LloydJ.W.CrowleyJ. RKohlerF.W., & StrainP.S. (1988). Redefining the applied research agenda: Cooperative learning, preferral, teacher consultation, and peer-mediated interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 43–52.
17.
LloydJ.W.KellerC.E.KauffmanJ.M., & HallahanD.P. (1988, January). What will the Regular Education Initiative require of general education teachers? Report prepared for the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S Department of Education.
18.
MartinE.W. (1987). Learning disabilities and public policy: A role for research workers. In VaughnS. & BosC.S. (Eds.), Research in learning disabilities: Issues and future directions (pp. 202–214). Boston: College-Hill Press.
19.
McKinneyJ.D., & HocuttA.M. (1988). The need for policy analysis in evaluating the Regular Education Initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 12–18.
20.
MoroneyR. (1981). Policy analysis within a value theoretical framework. In HaskinsR. & GallagherJ. (Eds.), Models for analyses of social policy (pp. 78–101). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
21.
ReynoldsM., & WangM.C. (1983). Restructuring “special” school programs: A position paper. Policy Studies Review, 2, 189–212.
22.
ReynoldsM.C.WangM.C., & WalbergH.J. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391–398.
23.
SchumakerJ.B., & DeshlerD.D. (1988). Implementing the Regular Education Initiative in secondary schools: A different ball game. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 36–42.
24.
ShepardL. (1987). The new push for excellence: Widening the schism between regular and special education. Exceptional Children, 53, 327–329.
25.
StainbackW., & StainbackK. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51, 102–111.
26.
VaughnS., & BosC. (Eds.). (1987). Research in learning disabilities: Issues and future directions.Boston: College-Hill Press.
27.
WangM.C., & BakerE.T. (1985-86). Mainstreaming programs: Design features and effects. The Journal of Special Education, 19, 503–521.
28.
WangM.C.ReynoldsM., & WalbergH.J. (Eds.). (1987). The handbook of special education: Research and practice (Vol. 1). Oxford: Pergamon.
29.
WeintraubF.AbesonA.BallardJ., & LaVorM. (Eds.). (1976). Public policy and the education of exceptional children.Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
30.
WillM.C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52, 411–415.
