This paper presents the preliminary results of an ongoing study comparing three different forms of academic integration: (a) special classes using a functional curriculum, (b) special classes using a traditional curriculum, and (c) regular classes. S's are 25 boys and 16 girls, aged 6 to 10, having measured I.Q.'s from 25 to 55. At the completion of Year 1, no significant inter-group differences appeared for measurements of cognitive variables (i.e. the Key Math Diagnostic Arithmetic Test, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised, the Harvey Scale of Development, or in functional behaviors (AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale: School Edition, parents’ reports)). However, differences were found for teachers’ subjective evaluations. Teachers of regular classes reported more behavioral change in their students who have a handicap and reported receiving more initial contacts from parents of these students. Conclusions and implications are discussed briefly.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlmondP., RodgersS., & KrugA. (1979). Mainstreaming: A model for including elementary students in the severely handicapped classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 11, 135–139.
2.
BiklenD. (1985). Achieving the complete school: Strategies for effective mainstreaming. New York: Teachers College Press.
3.
BrickerD. A. (1978). A rationale for the integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped preschool children. In GuralnickM. (Ed.), Early intervention and the integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Baltimore: University Parks Press.
4.
BrinkerR. P., & ThorpeM. E. (1984). Integration of severely handicapped students and the proportion of IEP objectives achieved. Exceptional Children, 51, 168–175.
5.
BrownL., BranstonM. B., Hamer-NietupskiS., JohnsonF., PumpianI., CertoN., GruenewaldL. (1979). A strategy for developing chronological age appropriate and functional curricular content for severely handicapped adolescents and young adults. Journal of Special Education, 13, 81–90.
6.
BrownL., BranstonM. B., Hamer-NietupskiS., JohnsonF., WilcoxB., & GruenewaldL. (1979). A rationale for comprehensive longitudinal interactions between severely handicapped students and nonhandicapped students and other citizens. AAESPH Review, 4, 3–14.
7.
BrownL., FordA., NisbetJ., SweetM., Donnel-lanA., & GrunewaldL. (1983). Opportunities available when severely handicapped students attend chronological age appropriate regular schools. The Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 8, 16–24.
8.
BrownL., LongE., Udvari-SolnerA., DavisL., Van DevonP., AhlgrenC., JohnsonF., GruenewaldL., & JorgensenJ. (1989). The home school: Why students with severe intellectual disabilities must attend the schools of their brothers, sisters, friends and neighbors. The Journal of the Association for People with Severe Handicaps, 14, 1–7.
9.
BrownL., NisbetJ., FordA., SweetM., ShiragaB., & LoomisR. (1982). The critical need for nonschool instruction in educational programs for severely handicapped students. In BrownL., NisbetJ., FordA., SweetM., ShiragaB. & GrunewaldL. (Eds), Educational programs for severely handicapped students (Vol. XII, pp. 17–30). Madison: Madison Metropolitan School District.
10.
BrownL., ShiragaB., RoganP., YorkJ., ZanellaK., McCartyE., LoomisR., & Van DeventerP. (1985). The “Why question” in educational programs for students who are severely intellectually disabled. In BrownL., ShiragaB., YorkJ., Udvari SolnerA., Zanella AlbrightK., RoganP., McCarthyE. & LoomisR., Educational programs for students with severe intellectually disabilities (Vol. XV, pp. 17–42). Madison: Madison Metropolitan School District.
11.
BrownL., ShiragaB., YorkJ., ZanellaK., & RoganP. (1984a). The discrepancy analysis technique in programs for students with severe handicaps. In BrownL., ShiragaB., YorkJ., SweetM., ZanellaK., RoganP. & LoomisR., Educational programs for students with severe intellectually disabilities (Vol. XIV, pp. 43–48). Madison: Madison Metropolitan School District.
12.
BrownL., ShiragaB., YorkJ., ZanellaK., & RoganP. (1984b). Ecological inventory strategies for students with severe handicaps. In BrownL., ShiragaB., YorkJ., SweetM., ZanellaK., RoganP. & LoomisR., Educational programs for students with severe intellectually disabilities (Vol. XIV, pp. 33–42). Madison: Madison Metropolitan School District.
13.
BrownL., SweetM., ShiragaB., YorkJ., ZanellaK., & RoganP. (1984c). Functional skills in programs for students with severe handicaps. In BrownL., ShiragaB., YorkJ., SweetM., ZanellaK., RoganP. & LoomisR., Educational programs for students with severe intellectually disabilities (Vol. XIV, pp. 49–54). Madison: Madison Metropolitan School District.
14.
BrownL., ShiragaB., YorkJ., ZanellaK., & RoganP. (1984d). A life space analysis strategy for students with severe handicaps. In BrownL., ShiragaB., YorkJ., SweetM., ZanellaK., RoganP. & LoomisR., Educational programs for students with severe intellectually disabilities (Vol. XIV, pp. 23–32). Madison: Madison Metropolitan School District.
15.
BrownL., ShiragaB., YorkJ., ZanellaK., & RoganP. (1984e). Skills transfer in programs for students with severe handicaps. In BrownL., ShiragaB., YorkJ., SweetM., ZanellaK., RoganP. & LoomisR., Educational programs for students with severe intellectually disabilities (Vol. XIV, pp. 49–54). Madison: Madison Metropolitan School District.
16.
CassieJ. (1977). Housing mentally retarded students in a regular school. St. Catharine's, Ontario: An Informal Publication of O.I.S.E. Niagara Center.
17.
ConnollyA. J., NachtmanW., & PritchettE. M. (1976). Keymath Diagnostic Arithmetic Test. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Service.
18.
DowningC. (1978). The trainable retarded class and the open space school. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 13, 64–65.
19.
DunnL. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded—is much of it justifiable?Exceptional Children, 35, 5–24.
FoxcroftR. (1977). Integration of trainable mentally retarded students: The Portage View mode. Special Education in Canada, 51, 4–7 and 26.
22.
Gaylord-RossR. S., & HolvoetJ. F. (1984). Strategies for educating students with severe handicaps. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
23.
GearheartB. R. (1980). Special education for the 80's. St-Louis: C.V. Mosby.
24.
GerstenR., & HauserC. (1984). The case for impact evaluations in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 16–24.
25.
GomesM. (1981). Social interaction between severely handicapped and nonhandicapped students in segregated and integrated settings. San Francisco: San Francisco State University.
26.
GoodletG., & RempelE. (1981). Establishment of classes for the trainable mentally retarded in elementary schools: Follow-up after two years. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles.
27.
HandlineM. F., & MurrayC. (1984). Integrating severely handicapped children into regular public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 273–276.
28.
HarveyM. (1984). L'échelle de développement Harvey. [The Harvey Scale of Development]. Montréal: Behaviora.
29.
HudsonA., & Clunies-RossG. (1984). A study of the integration of children with intellectual handicaps into regular schools. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 3, 165–177.
30.
JacksonO. (1979). A report on the integration project for the trainable mentally retarded. Hamilton, Ontario: Hamilton Board of Education.
31.
LambertN., WindmillerM., TharingerD., & ColeL. (1981). AAMD Adaptative Behavior Scale, School Edition. Washington: American Association on Mental Retardation.
32.
McCarthyE. F. (1987). Integration of students with severe disabilities in the Madison Metropolitan School District. In BerresM. S. & KnoblockP. (Eds.), Program models for mainstreaming: Integrating students with moderate to severe disabilities (pp. 83–104). Rockville, MA: Aspen.
Ministère de l'Éducation du Québec (1989). Effectifs E.D.A.A.—1988-90. [Statistical report on special students: 1988-89]. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.
35.
O'NeilG. P., & DeBruynJ. (1984). The integration of trainable mentally retarded children in North American schools: An assessment of past and present programs. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 8, 1–10.
PoormanC. (1980). Mainstreaming in reverse with a special friend. Teaching Exceptional Children, 12, 136–142.
38.
Saint-LaurentL., ChampouxL., & LitalienR. (1989). Recension des projets pilotes québécois au niveau primaire. [Review of pilot projects in elementary schools in the province of Quebec]. Ste-Foy: Centre de recherche sur les services communautaires, Université Laval.
39.
SemmelM., GottliebJ., & RobinsonN. (1979). Mainstreaming: Perspectives on educating handicapped children in the public schools. In BerlinerD. (Ed.), Review of Research in Education: VI (pp. 223–279). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
40.
TermanL. M., & MerrillM. A. (1960). Echelle d'intelligence Stanford-Binet: Manuel de la 3ième révision. Formes L-M. Edition expérimentale. [Stanford-Binet intelligence scale: Manual for the third Revision. Form L-M]. (Adaptation by Jean-Marc Chevrier). Montréal: Institut de recherches psychologiques.
41.
WangM., & BirchJ. (1984). Comparison of a full-time mainstreaming program and a resource room approach. Exceptional Children, 51, 33–40.
