An Analysis of One of the Cornerstones Of the Regular Education Initiative

Abstract

In recent years there have been calls to improve the interfacing of regular education and special education (Greenburg, 1987). Some of the advocates have proposed a merging of special education and regular education into one system (Lilly, 1986; Stainback & Stainback, 1984; Will, I 984, I 985). It is hard to look at the special education delivery systems and the legal concept of least restrictive environment and not to see that special and regular education are two parts of a system that must have a close working relationship and be more unified than they have been before. The purpose of this article, however, is not to debate the merits of the regular education initiative, or the interfacing of regular and special education. Instead we will look at one of its cornerstones, analyze• the problems inherent in its application, and express our concerns about its widespread implementation. BACKGROUND As Assistant Secretary of Education, Madeline Will has been the torch bearer for this movement. Will (1984, 1985) articulated the need for regular education and special education to be combined, with the local school principal being empowered as the instructional leader. Robson (in Greenburg, 1987) has suggested that this arrangement already has been approached in the job roles of principals. Will introduced her proposal for the Regular Education Initiative in speeches and in journal articles. Further, she established policy, including a National Task Force to Advance the Regular Education Initiative, to facilitate the interfacing of special education and regular education. Among its members is Margaret Wang. Although Will is generally considered to be the initiator of the concept, the influence of Wang and her associates, as revealed in the literature, was paramount in shaping Will's thinking. In fact, Wang's Adaptive Learning Environment Model (ALEM) is central to Will's regular education initiative movement (Wang & Reynolds, 1985). Development of the model was funded by both the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation and the National Follow Through Program (dealing with the education of disadvantaged children).

The Special/General Education Integration Initiative for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities

“…However, desiring or forecasting certain program outcomes and documenting achievement of such outcomes represent two different things. Anderegg and Vergason (1988) remind us that the research conducted by Wang (which has heavily influenced the REI), did not focus on children with disabilities and involved, for the most part, first and second graders. Fuchs and Fuchs (1988) signalled other cautions regarding the limitations of these often-cited foundation studies.…”

“…Along with these statements, a number of professionals have expressed specific concerns related to (a) the absence of sufficient empirical evidence to support such programmatic changes (Anderegg & Vergason, 1988;Fuchs & Fuchs, 1988;Kauffman, Gerber, & Semmel, 1988;Keogh, 1990;Martin, 1987;McKinney & Hocutt, 1988;Wagner, 1990;Wiederholt, 1989;; (b) the fear that the movement toward increased integrated services through increased general education placements will cause students with specific learning disabilities (and other disabling conditions) to be unserved or inadequately served (Lerner, 1987); and (c) doubts regarding the extent that general education teachers can and will accommodate the special needs of students with learning disabilities with increased integration (Bryan, Bay, & Donahue, 1988;Byrnes, 1990;Kauffman et al, 1988;Lieberman, 1985;McKinney & Hocutt, 1988). It is fair to say that recent integration initiatives have generated much debate, along with a call for closer scrutiny of this dramatic policy shift.…”

The Regular Education Initiative as Reagan-Bush Education Policy

“…(2) referrals to and placements in special education programs are out of control, (3) the stigma of identification for special education outweighs the benefits, (4) students seldom or never exit special education, or (5) tested alternatives to the current system are available (see Anderegg & Vergason, 1988;Braaten et al, 1988;Bryan, Bay, & Donahue, 1988;Carnine & Kameenui, 1989;CCBD, 1989;Fuchs & Fuchs, 1988aGerber, 1988;Hallahan, Keller, McKinney, Lloyd, & Bryan, 1988;Kauffm-n, 1987Kauffm-n, , 1988aKauffm-n, , 1988bKauffm-n, , 1989Kauffman, Gerber, & Semmel, 1988;Kauffman & Pullen, 1989;Keogh, 1988;Lieberman, 1985;Lloyd, Crowley, Kohler, & Strain, 1988;Mc-Kinney & Hocutt, 1988;Mesinger, 1985;Schumaker & Deshler, 1988;Singer, 1988;Vergason & Anderegg, in press). Indeed, these conclusions can be reached only by ignoring research supporting opposite conclusions.…”