This study examined educational practices in regular education classes in grades K-5 to determine changes required to facilitate a full-time mainstreaming program for students with learning disabilities. Data collected during the planning year of a mainstreaming project permitted a detailed analysis of the elementary school and the extent to which it accommodated individual differences. Data from informal and structured observations, interviews, and surveys of students, parents, and teachers suggested that fundamental changes in instruction are necessary for the regular education initiative to work in this school.

No abstract

Co‐teaching is a popular strategy for implementing the inclusion of students with disabilities within secondary general education classrooms. However, we have little data regarding its effectiveness under routine conditions of educational practice. This study examined whether there was an “additive effect” of the special education teacher on the instructional experiences of students with disabilities as compared with the experiences of the same students taught by only the general education teacher under routine conditions. Observers used time sampling methods to document how students with disabilities spent their time in 11 middle school co‐taught classes. Statistically significant differences were found for targeted students in terms of general education teacher interaction and individual instruction. General education teachers spent significantly less time with students with disabilities when the special education teacher was present. In addition, students with disabilities received significantly more individual instruction when the special education teacher was present. However, these differences were of limited practical significance.

The question of where special education students should be educated is not new. In this article, the author reviews research studies and research reviews that address this question. She argues that research evidence on the relative efficacy of one special education placement over another is scarce, methodologically flawed, and inconclusive. She also states that “Where should students with disabilities be educated?” is the wrong question to ask, that it is antithetical to the kind of individualized planning that should be embodied in decision making for and with students with disabilities, and that it fails to specify where, for what, and for whom. The author calls for new ways of thinking about the problem and of conducting research so that progress can be made on improving results for students with disabilities.

The authors compared the influence of text difficulty-reading-level matched or grade-level matched-on the growth of poor readers' reading ability over 18 weeks of 1-to-1 tutoring. Forty-six 3rd-5th graders, including 25 with disabilities, were assigned randomly to 1 of 2 tutoring approaches or a control condition. Significant differences favored tutored children. Between approaches, the only significant difference was oral reading fluency, which favored students who read material at their reading level. Students who began with lower fluency made stronger gains in text matched to reading level; students with higher fluency profited from both treatments. When the 3 groups were combined, fluency was the strongest contributor to reading comprehension outcomes.