Full inclusion as a service delivery model for all students with disabilities has generated significant recent controversy. In this study, questionnaires were sent to a sample of special educators, general educators, and administrators in rural, mid-western K-12 school districts. The subjects were asked to respond to four statements relating to inclusion. The analyses of variances of the group responses indicated a very cautious attitude toward full inclusion among all of the subjects in this study. The implications of the findings for K-12 professionals are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerJ., & ZigmondN. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities?Exceptional Children, 56, 515–526.
2.
BarlettC. (1994, March). Developing medical and educational partnerships in school settings to meet health-related and educational needs of students who are medically fragile: How can rural schools catch that elusive rainbow? In MontgomeryD. (Ed.), Rural Partnerships: Working Together. Proceedings of the 14th Annual National Conference of American Council on Rural Special Education (ACRES), Austin, TX.
3.
BattlesB. (1994, April). Inclusion: Exceeding expectation through collaboration in a rural Vermont school. Paper presented at the 72nd Annual International Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Denver, CO.
4.
BiklenD. (1985). Achieving the complete school.New York: Columbia University Press.
5.
BiklenD., LehrS., SearlS., & TaylorS. (1987). Purposeful integration … inherently unequal [Manual prepared by the Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University] (Available from Technical Assistance for Parent Programs Project, 312 Stuart Street, Boston, MA 02116).
6.
CarrM. (1993). A mother's thoughts on inclusion.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 590–592.
7.
CatesD. & YellM. (1994). Service delivery models and students with emotional disabilities and behavior disorders: A rural perspective. In MontgomeryD. (Ed.), Rural partnerships: Working together. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of American Council on Rural Special Education (ACRES). Austin, TX.
8.
Division of Learning Disabilities. (1993, April).Statement on inclusive schools and communities.Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
9.
FishkinA., & SullivanM. (1993, March). Reforming special education. In MontgomeryD. (Ed.), Rural America: Where All Innovations Begin. Proceedings of the 14th Annual National Conference of American Council on Rural Special Education (ACRES), Austin, TX.
10.
FuchsL., FuchsD., & BishopN. (1992). Teacher planning for students with learning disabilities: Differences between general and special educators.Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7, 120–128
KaufmanR. (1994, March). An exit interview: The culminating reflective experience. In MontgomeryD. (Ed.), Rural partnerships: Working together. Proceedings of the 14th Annual National Conference of American Council on Rural Special Education (ACRES). Austin, TX.
13.
KauffmanJ., LloydJ., BakerJ., & RiedelT. (1995). Inclusion of all students with emotional or behavior disorders? Let's think again.Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 542–546.
14.
Learning Disabilities Association of America (1993, January). Position paper on full inclusion of all students with learning disabilities in the regular education classroom.Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
15.
LeinhardtG., & PallayA. (1982). Restrictive educational settings: Exile or haven?Review of Educational Research, 52, 557–578.
16.
LipskyD., & GartnerA. (1991). Restructuring for quality. In LloydJ. W., ReppA. C., & SinghN. N. (Eds.), The Regular Education Initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models (pp. 43–56). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Press.
17.
PassaroP. (1994). Using mastery learning to facilitate the full inclusion of students with the most intense educational needs within rural schools.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 13, 31–39.
18.
ReganickK. (1993).Full inclusion: Analysis of a controversial issue. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 366 145).
19.
Siegel, & Moore (1994, April). Regular education teachers' attitudes toward their identified gifted and special education students. Paper presented at the 72nd Annual International Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Denver, CO.
20.
StainbackS., & StainbackW. (1988). Educating students with severe disabilities in regular classes.Teaching Exceptional Children, 21, 16–19.
21.
StainbackS., & StainbackW. (1991). Rationale for integration and restructuring: A synopsis. In LloydJ. W., ReppA. C., & SinghN. N. (Eds.), The Regular Education Initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models (pp. 225–239). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Press.
22.
StainbackS., & StainbackW. (1992). Teaching in inclusive classroom communities: Curriculum design, adaptation and delivery.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
23.
StainbackS., StainbackW., & ForestM. (1989). Educating all students in the mainstream of regular education.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
24.
StolerR. (1992). Perceptions of regular education teachers toward inclusion of all handicapped students in their classrooms.Clearing House, 66, 60–62.
25.
StrullyJ. (1986).Our children and the regular education classroom: Or why settle for anything less than the best? Paper presented to the 1986 annual conference of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, San Francisco, CA.
26.
TurnbullH., & TurnbullA. (1990). The unfulfilled promise of integration: Does Part H ensure different rights than Part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act?Topics in Early Childhood Education, 10 (2), 33–47.
27.
United States Department of Education. (1993). Fifteenth annual Report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.Washington, DC: Author.
