Many K–Grade 12 students with disabilities (SWDs) in the United States spend a large portion of their school day in general classrooms because of a prevailing view that they are more appropriately challenging and beneficial than other educational placements. We questioned this belief by exploring a “dosage” hypothesis: The more time SWD are in general classrooms the better they do academically. We assembled a database spanning 1998 to 2015, inclusive. For 9 of these years, we found both Office of Special Education Program’s placement data and National Center for Education Statistics’ reading data. We ran multilevel growth models to describe trends across time for the placement and reading data. Findings indicated a steadily increasing trend for general class placement and a positive but decelerating trend for reading performance, which together produced a widening placement–performance gap after 2007. Among 10 states/jurisdictions with the strongest positive trends for general class placement, there was no uniform pattern of reading performance across years. In short, we found little corroboration of a dosage hypothesis.
AgranM.BrownF.HughesC.QuirkC.RyndakD. (2014). Equity and full participation for individuals with severe disabilities: A vision for the future. Brookes Publishing.
2.
BillingsleyB.BettiniE. (2019). Special education teacher attrition and retention: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 697–744. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319862495
3.
Binks-CantrellE.WashburnE.JoshiR.HougenM., (2012). Peter effect in the preparation of reading teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(6), 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.601434
4.
BleibergJ. (2021, January-February). Does the Common Core have a common effect? An exploration of effects on academically vulnerable students.AERA Open, 7(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211010727
5.
CarnineD. W.SilbertJ.Kam’enuiE. J.SlocumT. A.TraversP. A. (2017). Direct instruction reading (6th ed.). Pearson.
6.
ClemensN.FuchsD. (2021). Commercially-developed tests of reading comprehension: Gold standard or fool’s gold?Reading Research Quarterly, 57(2), 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.415
7.
Commission on the Education of the Deaf. (1988, February). Toward equality: Education of the deaf. U.S. Government Printing Office.
8.
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities. (2019). Least restrictive environment: A requirement under IDEA statement of principles from the Education Task Force of the Citizens with Disabilities.
9.
Council for Exceptional Children. (1993, April). Statement on inclusive schools and communities.
Darling-HammondL.SutcherL.Carver-ThomasD. (2018, October18). Teacher shortages in California: Status, sources, and potential solutions [Technical report]. Learning Policy Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
EdgertonA. K.FuchsD.FuchsL. (2020). New standards and old divides: Policy attitudes about college- and career-ready standards for students with disabilities. Teachers College Record, 122(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812012200107
14.
EdyburnD. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/25701429
15.
FlorianL. (2019). On the necessary co-existence of special and inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(7–8), 691–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1622801
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60(4), 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299406000402
18.
FuchsD.FuchsL.S.MathesP.G.SimmonsD.C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163346
19.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.WehbyJ.SchumacherR. F.GerstenR.JordanN. C. (2015). Inclusion versus specialized intervention for very-low-performing students: What does access mean in an era of academic challenge?Exceptional Children, 81, 134–157.https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914551743
GoldsteinD. (2019, January20). W. Virginia teachers walk out again. New York Times, p. A15.
23.
HanfordE. (2018, October28). Reading the wrong way. New York Times, p. A6.
24.
HanfordE. (2020, October16). Influential literacy expert Lucy Calkins is changing her views. ehanford@apmreports.org
25.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. J.RivkinS. G. (2002). Inferring program effects for special education populations: Does special education raise achievement levels for students with disabilities?Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(4): 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465302760556431
26.
HurwitzS.CohenE. D.BreaB. L. (2021). Special education is associated with reduced odds of school discipline among students with disabilities. Educational Researcher, 50(2), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20982589
27.
HurwitzS.PerryB.CohenE. D.SkibaR. (2020). Special education and individualized academic growth: A longitudinal assessment of outcomes for students with disabilities. American Educational Research Journal, 57(2), 576–611. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219857054
KauffmanJ. M. (1989). The regular education initiative: A trickle-down theory of education of the hard-to-teach. Journal of Special Education, 23, 256–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698902300303
31.
KauffmanJ. M.HallahanD.P. (2005). The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon (2nd ed.). Pro-Ed.
32.
KaufmanM. J.KameenuiE. J.BirmanB.DanielsonL. (1990). Special education and the process of change: Victim or master of educational reform?Exceptional Children, 57(2), 109–115. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A10355341/ITOF
33.
KirkS. A. (1964). Research in education. In StevensH. A.HeberR. (Eds.), Mental retardation: A review of research (pp. 57–99). University of Chicago.
34.
McMasterK. L.FuchsD. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievement of students with learning disabilities: An update of Tateyama-Sniezek’s review. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00037
35.
MonacoJ. (2012). Largest grant in KU history to assist schools with new education model. Lawrence Business Magazine.
National Center on Education and the Economy. (2020). The widening achievement gap in the U.S. NCEE. Newsletter@ncee.org
40.
National Council on Disability. (2018, February7). IDEA series: The segregation of students with disabilities.
41.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication N 00-4754). U.S. Government Printing Office.
42.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1993, January). A reaction to “full inclusion”: A reaffirmation of the right of students with learning disabilities to a continuum of services.
RTI Leadership Forum. (2010, December8). Michael Yudin—Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Strategic Initiatives, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education.
47.
SailorW. S.McCartA. B. (2014). Stars in alignment. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796914534622
48.
SchifterL.A. (2016). Using survival analysis to understand graduation of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 82(4), 479–496.
SchwartzA. E.HopkinsB. G.StiefelL. (2019, June). The effects of special education on the academic performance of students with learning disabilities (EdWorking Paper No. 19-86.) Annenberg, Brown University.
52.
ScruggsT. E.BrighamF. J.MastropieriM. A. (2013). Common Core Standards: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 28(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12002
53.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (1995). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 61, 312–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299606300106
54.
SemmelM. I.GottleibJ.RobinsonN. (1979). Mainstreaming: Perspectives in educating handicapped children in the public schools. In BerlinerD. (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 223–279). Peacock.
55.
Sherman, (2013, November12). LRP Publications.
56.
ShrinerJ. G.CartyS. J.RoseC. A.ShogrenK. A.KimM.TrachJ. (2013). Effects of using a web-based Individualized Educational Program decision-making tutorial. Journal of Special Education, 47, 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466912453940
57.
ShrinerJ. G.CartyS. J.ThurlowM. L.GoldstoneL. (2017). Teacher perspectives on the impact of standards and professional development on Individualized Educational Programs. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 30, 67–81.
58.
SkrticT. M. (1991). Behind special education: A critical analysis of professional culture and school organization. Love Publishing.
SlavinR. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What do we know, what do we need to know?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0004
61.
SongM.GaretM.YangR.AtkinsonD. (2022). Did states’ adoption options of more rigorous standards lead to improved student achievement? Evidence from a comparative interrupted time series study of standards-based reform. American Educational Research Journal, 59(3), 610–647. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211058460
62.
StainbackW.StainbackS. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51, 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298405100201
63.
StevensR. J.SlavinR. E. (1991). When cooperative learning improves the achievement of students with mild disabilities: A response to Tateyama-Sniezek. Exceptional Children, 57, 276–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299105700311
64.
TaylorS. J. (1988). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive environment. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 13, 41–53. https://doi.org/10.2511/Frpsd.29.4.218
65.
TheobaldR.GoldhaberD.GratzT.HoldenK.L. (2017). Career and technical education, inclusion, and postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities. Center for Education Data and Research. https://caldercenter.org/sites/default/files/WP%20177.pdf
66.
UNESCO and Ministry of Education and Science, Spain. (1994, June). The Salamanca Statement and framework for action on special needs education (ED-94/WS/18). Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and quality, Salamanca, Spain.
67.
WagnerM. (1991). Secondary school performance. In WagnerM.NewmanL.D’AmicoR.JayE. D.Butler-NalinP.MarderC.CoxR. (Eds.), Youth with disabilities: How are they doing? The first comprehensive report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (pp. 1–51). SRI International.
68.
WagnerM.MarderC.BlackorbyJ.CametoR.NewmanL.LevinePDavies-MercierE. (2003, November). The achievements of youth with disabilities during secondary school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. SRI International.
69.
WagnerM.NewmanL.CametoR.LevineP.GarzaN. (2006). An overview of findings from Wave 2 of the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. SRI International.
YudinM. K.MusgroveM. (2015, November15). Significant guidance document. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services.
73.
ZigmondN. (2003). Where should students with disabilities receive special education services? Is one place better than another?Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 193–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669030370030901
74.
ZigmondN.JenkinsJ.FuchsL. S.DenoS. L.FuchsD.BakerJ.JenkinsL.CoutinhoM. (1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 531–540. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A16765757/AONE
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
