In this study, I define and analyze three conflicting positions that constitute the Regular Education Initiative in light of 24 federal and state court decisions. These cases either have established legal precedents in the field of special education law or have raised issues that educators must consider when proposing changes within an educational setting that is itself subject to numerous legal constraints. I conclude that compared to its counterparts, the “Little Change Model” complies with more of these standards (e.g., due process, limited funding, equal access, duplication of services, and quality of education). Of the two remaining positions, the “Extreme Change Model,” which includes the concept known as “full inclusion,” appears to be the least compliant.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Algozzine, B., Maheady, L., Sacca, K. C., O'Shea, L., & O'Shea, D. (1990). Sometimes patent medicine works: A reply to Braaten, Kauffman, Braaten, Polsgrove, and Nelson. Exceptional Children, 56, 552–557.
2.
A. W. v. Northwest R-1 School District, 813 E. 2d 158 (8th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 847 (1987).
3.
Barnett v. Fairfax County School Board, 721 F. Supp. 757 (E. D. Va. 1989), aff'd, 927 F.2d 146 (1991).
4.
Biklen, D. (1985). Getting started. In D. Biklen (Ed.), Achieving the complete school (pp. 1–29). New York: Teachers College.
5.
Biklen, D., & Zollers, N. (1986). The focus of advocacy in the LD field. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 579–586.
6.
Board of Education v. Human Rights Commission, 385 S.E. 2d 637 (W. Va. 1989).
7.
Braaten, S., Kauffman, J. M., Braaten, B., Polsgrove, L., & Nelson, C. M. (1988). The Regular Education Initiative: Patent medicine for behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 55, 21–27.
8.
Brookhart v. Illinois State Board of Education, 697 F.2d 179 (7th Cir. 1983).
9.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
10.
Bryan, J. H., & Bryan, T. H. (1988). Where's the beef? A review of published research on the Adaptive Learning Environments Model. Learning Disabilities Focus, 4(1), 9–14.
11.
Byrnes, M. (1990). The Regular Education Initiative debate: A view from the field. Exceptional Children, 56, 345–349.
12.
Carnine, D. W., & Kameenui, E. J. (1990). The general education initiative and children with special needs: A false dilemma in the face of true problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 141–148.
13.
Clevenger v. Oak Ridge School Board, 744 F.2d 514 (6th Cir. 1984).
14.
Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education, 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989).
15.
Debra P. v. Turlington, 644 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1981), also 730 F.2d 1405 (11th Cir. 1984).
16.
Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 930 (1961).
17.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1991). Framing the REI debate: Abolitionists versus conservationists. In J. W. Lloyd, N. N. Singh, & A. C. Repp (Eds.), The Regular Education Initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models (pp. 241–255). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
18.
Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1989). The yoke of special education: How to break it.Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the Economy.
19.
Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1990). Rethinking the Regular Education Initiative: Focus on the classroom teacher. Remedial and Special Education, 11(3), 7–16.
20.
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975).
21.
Greer, J. V. (1988). No more noses to the glass. Exceptional Children, 55, 294–296.
22.
Hallahan, D. P., Keller, C. E., McKinney, J. D., Lloyd, J. W., & Bryan, T. (1988). Examining the research base of the Regular Education Initiative: Efficacy studies and the Adaptive Learning Environments Model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 29–35.
23.
Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
24.
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984).
25.
Jenkins, J., Pious, C. G., & Jewell, M. (1990). Special education and the Regular Education Initiative: Basic assumptions. Exceptional Children, 56, 479–491.
26.
Jenkins, J. R., Pious, C. G., & Peterson, D. L. (1988). Categorical programs for remedial and handicapped students: Issues of validity. Exceptional Children, 55, 147–158.
27.
Kaelin v. Grubbs, 682 F.2d 595 (6th Cir. 1982).
28.
Kauffman, J.M. (1989). The Regular Education Initiative as Reagan-Bush education policy: A trickle-down theory of education of the hard-to-teach. The Journal of Special Education, 23, 256–278.
29.
Kauffman, J. M., Gerber, M. M., & Semmel, M.I. (1988). Arguable assumptions underlying the Regular Education Initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 6–12.
30.
Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. L. (1989). An historical perspective on our history of service to mildly handicapped and at-risk students. Remedial and Special Education, 10(6), 12–14.
31.
Kruelle v. New Castle City School District, 642 F.2d 687 (3d Cir. 1971).
32.
Lachman v. Illinois State Board of Education, 852 F.2d 290 (7th Cir. 1988).
Mark A. v. Grant Wood Area Education Agency, 795 F.2d 52 (8th Cir. 1986).
35.
Matta v. Board of Education, 731 F. Supp. 253 (S. D. Ohio 1990).
36.
Mesinger, J. F. (1985). Commentary on "A Rationale for the Merger of Special and Regular Education" or, is it now time for the lamb to lie down with the lion?Exceptional Children, 51, 510–512.
37.
Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866, (D. C. DC 1972).
38.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
39.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (E. D. Pa. 1971).
40.
Petition of Tobias, 386 N.Y.S. 2d 735 (1976).
41.
Rapp, J. A. (1992). Education law.New York: Matthew Bender.
42.
S-1 v. Turlington, 635 F.2d 342 (5th Cir. 1981).
43.
Schumaker, J., & Deshler, D. (1988). Implementing the Regular Education Initiative in secondary schools: A different ball game. Journal of Learning Disabilities21, 36–42.
44.
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51, 102–111.
45.
Stemple v. Board of Education of Prince George's City, 623 F.2d 893 (4th Cir. 1980).
46.
Tokarick v. Forest Hills School District, 665 F.2d 443 (3d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1121 (1982).
47.
Wang, M. C., & Reynolds, M. C. (1986). "Catch 22" and disabling help: A reply to Alan Gartner. Exceptional Children, 53, 77–79.
48.
Wang, M. C., Reynolds, M. C., & Walberg, H.J. (1989, September). Who benefits from segregation and murky water?Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 64–67.
49.
Wang, M. C., Rubenstein, J. L., & Reynolds, M. C. (1985). Clearing the road to success for students with special needs. Exceptional Leadership, 43, 62–67.
50.
Weiner, R., & Hume, M. (1987)… . and education for all.Alexandria, VA: Capitol Publications.
51.
Will, M. C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems. A shared responsibility. A report to the secretary.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
