The Regular Education Initiative as Reagan-Bush Education Policy

Abstract

Proposals for radical reform or integration of special and general education, known as the regular education initiative (REI), are consistent with the Reagan-Bush administration's agenda for education. Such proposals represent a revolution in basic concepts related to the education of handicapped students which have provided the foundation of special education for over a century. As a political strategy, the REI is consistent with the Reagan-Bush tendency to focus on a small number of highly emotional issues which d.stract attention from deeper analysis, in this case the issues of integration, norliabeling, effic'ency, and excellence. The REI is a flawed policy initiative which does not have the support of critical constituencies. Moreover, it rests on illogical premises, ignores the issue of specificity in proposed reforms, and reflects a cavalier attitude toward experimentation and research. Because the REI represents the po:icy preferences of a popular administration, it is not a dead issue. If meaningful reforms are to be achieved, however, several :..i. 'nges in direction are necessary: obtaining the support of critical constituencies, increasing attention to the effectiveness of educational strategies rather than the place in which they are implemented, and focusing efforts on incremental improvements in the current system. Initiative 3 The Regular Education Initiative as Reagan-Bush Education Policy: A Trickle-Down Theory of Education of the Hard-to-Teach Proposals for radical restructuring of special and general education, now generally knov a as the regular education initiative (REI), suggest a dramatic shift in policies governing the treatment of students with special needs. Federal education policy has been altered substantially by the Reagan-Bush administration, and these policy changes will be felt well beyond the Reagan years (Astuto & Clark, 1988; Clark & Astuto, 1988; Verstern, 1987; Verstegen & Clark, 1988). Special education has so far successfully resisted consolidation strategies, one of the hallmarks of Reagan-Bush attempts to reduce federal expenditures for social pr. .ms. The REI is, however, consistent with the Reagan-Bush policy objectives of reducing federal influence and expenditures for education, which have resulted in declining federal support for programs designed to ensure equity in education of the disadvantaged and handicapped. I will show that it is, in fact, consistent with the conservative agenda for economic and social reforms. One of the primary hypotheses on which the REI is based is that students with disabilities would be best served by the improvement of education for all students such that students of every description are fully integrated into regular classes, no student is

Teacher Perceptions of the Regular Education Initiative

“…Those advocating general school reform by increasing academic press in instruction and academic excellence among pupils are likely to be at odds with proponents of integrating students with mild disabilities into regular classrooms on a full-time basis. The proposed REI, full-integration model places expectations on teachers that are in direct opposition to the press for academic excellence characterizing the general school reform movement <Kauffman, 1989;Zigmond, et <II., in press). The emphasis on higher achievement scores brought on by the effective schools movement may dampen the enthusiasm of service providers for implementing a full-time mainstreaming model.…”

“…However, beyond the rhetoric of academicians, little empirically oriented attention has been focused on the views ofthese educators. Kauffman et al (1988) specifically expressed concern for the lack of input from regular teachers: Singer (1988), Kauffman (1989), and others have also observed that "key constituencies" have not been adequately considered by REI enthusiasts. However, Coates (1989) recently reported some preliminary data on regular class teachers' perceptions of issues surrounding REI.…”

“…Findings, drawn from mail surveys of a sample of teachers from Iowa, suggested that regular teachers did not express negative assessments of current resource pullout programs and were not particularly supportive of REI. Kauffman (1989) and others have observed that very little comment, research or "initiative" related to issues concerning REI has emanated from the regular education community. However, the work of Margaret Wang and her associates (Wang, 1980;Wang & Birch, 1984;Wang, Peverly, & Randolph, 1984;Wang & Walberg, 1983a, 1983b has been a welcome exception.…”

On Cultural Politics in Special Education: Is Much of It Justifiable?

“…It is a potential solution to the extent that it focuses attention on effective instruction of those who are particularly hard to teach. Its potential as a solution is not enhanced by restructuring schools, pretense that the mathematics of statistical distributions do not apply to learning or learning problems, or a focus on something other than instruction (see Kauffman, 1989Kauffman, , 2010Kauffman & Lloyd, 2017). It is designed for those students who are not well served in general education; it has been and must be different from general education, even when general education is very good (Zigmond & Kloo, 2017).…”

An Examination of Student Perceptions of Regional Safe School and Public School Services

“…Kauffman and Hallahan (1990) pointed out that there was no one answer to the placement question, that teacher education must remain specialized in order for special education to exist, and that the answer to the problems of special education was to become more effective across settings. Kauffman (1989) made a number of other arguments against the REI, noting that, "the most important equity issue is the quality of instruction, not the place of instruction (p. 258). In addition, Kauffman pointed out that students with disabilities had already been unsuccessful in general education, the setting recommended by proponents of the initiative.…”