Clinical criteria for mainstreaming mildly handicapped children

Abstract

Although integrating handicapped children into regular classrooms has become well established educational practice, the clinical decision to mainstream a given child should be based on systematic consideration of several factors. Among these are age, pervasiveness and degree of handicap, curriculum, social skills, class size, teacher competency, and family resources. These criteria are discussed, along with various approaches to, and the pertinent evidence for and against, mainstreaming.

Mainstreaming in Rural Communities: An Analysis of Case Studies in Queensland Schools

“…In rural areas, lack of support may be rationalized by recourse to the assertion that "country teachers can cope"; again, the case study of John illustrates the perils of routinely accepting the myth of the country teacher's ability to cope. In the absence of skilled, specialist support, enthusiasm may not be sufficient to ensure successful mainstreaming (Forness, 1979;Hudson & Clunies-Ross, 1984;Knoff, 1984). The net result of the sincere but unskilled efforts of school staff, family and community apparently posed an even more complex set of problems to solve, including the need for John's family to move to Brisbane.…”

“…In particular, teacher, peer, family and community attitudes all may influence the process of mainstreaming (see, for example, Alexander & Strain, 1978;Guerin, 1979;Tomlinson, 1982). Finally, it is possible to identify factors within the school setting and the educational system itself which influence the mainstreaming process, including class size (Forness, 1979), the ratio of disabled children to able-bodied peers (Hegarty, 1985), the availability of individualized instruction (Madden & Slavin, 1983), the extent of support for the class teacher (Ammen, 1984;Hegarty, 1985;Knoff, 1984), and the existence of alternative educational placement.…”

Effects of Public Policy at the State Level: California's Impact on MR, LD, and ED Categories

“…The real villain was not the IQ tests, but the lack of flexible alternative provisions in California for children who needed special individualized approaches or other help in regular classrooms. Difficulties in both special education referral procedures and instructional factors inherent in regular classrooms have long been apparent in regard to mildly retarded students in California and elsewhere (Forness, 1972(Forness, , 1979. In fact, Meyers, MacMillan, and Yoshida (1978) have argued that IQ testing by California school psychologists during the Larry P. era was professionally sound and undeserving of the libelous implications of that trial.…”