Special Education and the Regular Education Initiative: Basic
Assumptions
ABSTRACT: The regular education initiative (REI) is a thoughtful
response to identified
problems in our system for educating low-performing children, but
it is not a detailed blueprint
for changing the system. Educators must achieve consensus on what
the REI actually proposes.
The authors infer from the REI literature five assumptions
regarding the roles and
responsibilities of elementary regular classroom teachers,
concluding that these teachers and
specialists form a partnership, but the classroom teachers are
ultimately in charge of the
instruction of all children in their classrooms, including those
who are not succeeding in the
mainstream. A discussion of the target population and of several
partnership models further
delineates REI issues and concerns. * Our purpose in this article
is to contribute to the national dialogue about the regular education
initiative (REI). We identify what we view as one set of assumptions
underlying the initiative and examine their implications for two central
issues: (a) the target population to be served and (b) the nature of the
classroom partnership between general education and specialized services
in educating that population. We also test our assumptions on several
partnership models and conclude the article by raising certain issues
that warrant further examination.
We hope that our analysis will stimulate discussion within the
educational community about the meaning of the REI and, for now at
least, deflect attention from value judgments about whether the
initiative itself is good or bad, until there is some consensus about
what the REI actually is. We invite others to continue this
conversation, sharing their agreement or disagreement with our
perceptions.
BACKGROUND
Problems in instructing low-achieving children are as old as
education. In recent years, the educational community, from policy
makers to parents, has increasingly focused attention and concern on one
segment of the educational universe--that is, what Wang, Reynolds, and
Walberg (1987) have called the "second system," that
aggregation of categorical programs designed to improve our public
schools' services to children who have difficulties learning in the
mainstream. Serious problems identified in this second system range from
what happens to individual children (e.g., unacceptable progress and
improper classification) to what happens to the entire public school
system (e.g., fragmentation, wasted resources, and loss of local
control).
In her article, "Educating Students with Learning Problems: A
Shared Responsibility," Will (1986) cited four main problems with
the current system of special education: 1. Services for special and
remedial children
seem hopelessly fragmented in distinct
categorical programs. This fragmentation
not only impairs the programs'
effectiveness, but also causes children who need
services to fall through the cracks created
between the separate programs. 2. Special and regular education
operate as a
dual system in which the responsibility for
educating students with learning problems
falls to the special programs, while the role
of classroom teachers and building
administrators is weakened. Special programs often
remove students from regular classrooms for
services and fail to coordinate their
instruction with that of the regular classroom. 3. Students in
special programs who are
segregated from nonhandicapped peers may
be stigmatized, suffering negative
consequences ranging from lowered self-esteem
to unhealthy attitudes toward learning. 4. Rigid eligibility
requirements associated
with special programs create conflicts
between parents and school personnel, who
may disagree about a student's placement
in a particular program.
Will proposed several solutions for these problems, all of which
are designed to serve students effectively in the regular classroom.
Among the proposed solutions are (a) returning administrative control to
school principals for managing and coordinating categorical services;
(b) increasing instructional time; (c) providing a support system for
teachers, including building-based support teams, team teaching, and
inservice training; and (d) using new approaches, such as
curriculum-based assessment, cooperative learning, and personalized
curricula.
Gartner and Lipsky (1989), Lilly (1986), Reynolds, Wang, and
Walberg (1987), Stainback and Stainback (1984), and Wang, Reynolds, and
Walberg (1986) have taken similar positions. Collectively, these authors
present an argument that has been referred to as the regular education
initiative, or REI. Whole issues of special education journals have been
devoted to this topic. A TED-CEC (1986) task force reviewed the
published work constituting the REI and identified over 250 questions
that must be addressed before the initiative becomes operational. It is
clear from the attention generated by the REI that there is both
large-scale agreement that the way we educate low-achieving children is
seriously flawed and large-scale disagreement about how to make it
better.
From our reading of the REI literature, it appears that although
there is enormous validity in the many thoughtful responses to the
initiative, they are somewhat premature. They are based on the belief
that the REI is a well-defined plan, fixed in amber, that will be
visited upon the field of education without adequate analysis of its
implications; careful review of its feasibility; reality checks with
general education (Kameenui, 1989); and enough attention to the specific
demands of certain settings, such as secondary schools (Schumaker &
Deshler, 1988), and certain populations, such as students classified as
behavior-disordered (Braaten, Kauffman, Braaten, Polsgrove, &
Nelson, 1988). In some instances, critics have reacted to specific
intervention models as though they were the REI; most notably, because
Wang and colleagues have been among the most prominent REI proponents,
their specific model, the Adaptive Learning Environments Model (ALEM),
has been considered the only model being propounded.
We see the REI somewhat differently. Proponents of the REI have
forcefully articulated the problems that are the source of this
initiative. However, beyond a call for a partnership (which is not
spelled out) and less restrictive, more mainstreamed, education for
at-risk students and those with disabilities, the REI is largely without
definition. As Pugach and Johnson (1988) wrote, "It [the REI] is
now part of our jargon with little consideration of its meaning and the
assumptions it embraces." Even the target population of this
initiative has never been clearly specified. In our view, the REI is an
impressionistic sketch, drawing in broad strokes both the nature of the
problems requiring attention and possible solutions. It is not an
architectural blueprint.
We believe the REI offers a provocative way to focus our thinking
about better ways to organize and provide services even though it is not
a carefully detailed plan that specifies the bricks and mortar, the
building schedule, the use of resources, and the personnel needed to
build a structure. Based on this view, it is also clear that the REI
could eventually be expressed in many ways, incorporating combinations
and permutations of the best that the field has to offer in effective
services. But we are a long way from even laying the foundation for this
effort.
Even before asking critical questions about the eventual REI
structure, we must look carefully at the assumptions underlying the REI.
Large policy questions, operational issues, and even microeconomic
analysis should be deferred until the educational community agrees that
it understands what the REI actually is, based on its underlying
assumptions. That is necessary because, first, without understanding the
assumptions, it is impossible to know what questions to ask. Second, no
matter what form the REI eventually takes throughout the educational
system, its foundation will govern what the structure looks like and how
it operates.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF REGULAR CLASSROOM TEACHERS
We have attempted to identify and discuss one set of assumptions,
those governing expression of the REI at its most basic level--that is,
the classroom and school. Specifically, we focus on the responsibilities
of the elementary school regular classroom teacher; these assumptions
are based on our reading of the REI literature, which disclosed two
major themes.
Coordinating Support Programs at the School Level
In an effort to reduce duplication and wasted resources, coordination
of support programs can eliminate the confusion created by categorically
organized services. We examined elements of this theme in a recent
article, concluding that students served in many of the categorical
programs have similar enough instructional needs to justify a unified,
consolidated program of services for low-achieving students (Jenkins,
Pious, & Peterson, 1988).
Educating Students in General Education Classrooms
Just as the REI would return to building principals authority for
distributing resources, it returns to classroom teachers responsibility
for educating children with learning problems.
The assumptions that we detail here are never explicitly stated in
the literature on the REI. Rather, they are inferences drawn from
reading the literature cited earlier. We recognize that others may not
agree with these inferences, but our purpose is to flesh out the
assumptions that underlie this initiative and to work toward a consensus
about classroom teachers' responsibilities under the REI and how
these differ from traditional practice. In general, we can infer from
the REI literature that regular classroom teachers are charged with
responsibility for the following: 1. Educating all students assigned to
them.
Both parents and professional educators
assume that when a student is assigned to a
classroom, the classroom teacher
automatically incurs primary responsibility for the
student's education. Although many parties
have a role in a child's education, the
classroom teacher has the ultimate
responsibility. Academic learning is first, of course;
but there are secondary responsibilities as
well. Normally developing students fall at
different points along a broad range of social
and emotional development. Those with less
social and emotional maturity exhibit
behaviors that interfere with their own and their
classmates' learning and lead to
unsatisfactory interpersonal relationships. Teachers
are expected to manage the behavior of
children as long as it falls within the broad
range of behaviors found in typically diverse
classrooms. 2. Making and monitoring major instructional
decisions for all the students in their class.
Major decisions include what to teach, when
to teach, and how to teach. Some states and
local school districts provide guidelines
about the content, materials, and sequence
of instruction; but it is the classroom teacher
who makes not only most of the major but
also the day-to-day decisions--even if an
aide, a volunteer, or another student actually
delivers instruction. For children who are
not succeeding, the teacher's responsibility
begins with identifying those who need
help, obtaining additional assessment
information, and, with specialists, developing a
remedial plan that includes long-range and
intermediate goals. The classroom teacher
is responsible for selecting the curriculum
materials of instruction and making
instructional decisions, including who will teach
lessons, what content will be covered at
what pace, and how often the child's
progress will be measured. The teacher is
expected to monitor progress and adjust the
child's program based on these data. The
framework for these decisions is found in
the developmental curriculum of the regular
classroom. 3. Providing instruction that follows a normal
developmental curriculum. Normal
developmental curricula in the basic skills areas are
designed to bring students to a level of adult
competence. Designers of normal
developmental curricula do not always agree on the
particulars (e.g., sequence, materials, and
tasks), but each curriculum provides a
sequence of lessons designed so that
students who attain the learning objectives will
eventually reach a point of adult proficiency
or competence. The teacher's role is to
implement the developmental curriculum,
adapting its particulars when children's
progress is discrepant from what is normally
expected and seeking help with these
adaptations from specialists. 4. Managing instruction for diverse
populations. Classrooms are heterogeneous;
typically, they contain students whose
achievement levels vary by at least one grade level.
Many classrooms include students whose
achievement levels differ well beyond two
grade levels. Jenkins, Jewell, and Leicester
(1990) reported that students' reading
proficiency in fourth-grade classrooms varied
by a factor of 5. That is, the best reader in
the classroom was five times more proficient
than the worst reader. Similary, Jenkins,
Pious, and Peterson (1990) found that
fourth-grade teachers across 19 schools
reported that reading ability in their
classrooms spanned an average of 5.5 grade
levels, ranging from an average low of
mid-second grade to an average high of
beginning eighth-grade reading. Such
variation in achievement has always been
present and likely will continue; schools are
expected to educate despite the problems
posed by heterogeneity. Teachers are
encouraged to manage diversity by forming
more homogeneous groups, by providing
individualized help when necessary, or by
seeking additional instructional resources. 5. Seeking, using, and
coordinating assistance
for students who require more intense
services than those provided to their peers.
This assistance may come from other
classroom teachers and support staff, such
as remedial and special educators and school
psychologists. U.S. educational policy
reflects extraordinary sensitivity to the needs
of individuals with learning problems. Over
the years, federal, state, and local education
agencies have created a host of special
programs to assist students with special
needs. Although these programs have
traditionally operated outside of the classroom,
the thrust of the REI is to bring their services
into the mainstream setting. In the words of
Will (1986), ". . . we need to visualize a
system that will bring the program to the
child rather than one that brings the child
to the program".
According to the assumptions that we have read into the REI, the
essence of the initiative is the authority and responsibility given the
classroom teacher for educating all students assigned to him or her.
Even though the teacher calls on and coordinates support from
specialists, he or she is in charge. This has significant implications
for two critical issues: Who should be educated in the regular
classroom? What is the nature of the partnership between regular and
special education?
WHICH STUDENTS ARE MOST APTLY SERVED IN THE REGULAR CLASSROOM?
Given the regular teacher's responsibilities, we will attempt to
identify the target group for services in his or her classroom, drawing
on several hints in the literature. The program fragmentation lamented
by Will (1986) and Reynolds et al. (1987) suggests that many children
who are recipients of services from various special programs are a
target group for the REI. Categorical programs include, most
prominently, special education and Chapter I, but bilingual, migrant,
and various remedial education programs also have been mentioned.
Definitions
Will (1986) referred to "children who are having learning
difficulties, including those who are learning slowly; those with
behavioral problems; those who may be educationally disadvantaged; and
those who have mild specific learning disabilities, and emotional
problems; and perhaps, as we improve our knowledge, those with more
severe disabilities". Wang, et al. (1987) referred to children
"at risk of being placed in special, compensatory, and other
categorical programs," and children "who do not prosper in the
regular education system". Reynolds et al. (1987) described
students who are "difficult to teach," and "require
greater than usual educational support". They excluded from
participation in the REI "children who are deaf, blind, severely
disturbed, or deeply retarded in cognitive development". Stainback
and Stainback (1984) and Gartner and Lipsky (1989) indicated that all
children, no matter how severe their handicaps, should be served in one
consolidated educational system.
Although somewhat lacking in precision, the student descriptions,
along with the listing of various categorical programs, provide a
reasonably clear picture of the upper end of the student population
targeted in this initiative (that is, the students exhibiting less
severe problems in learning or behavior). In regard to learning, the
picture is of students who are not on grade level, likely somewhere
below the 40th percentile on achievement measures, and progressing at a
slow enough rate to prompt regular classroom teachers to seek
assistance. The picture includes students who are eligible for federal,
state, and local remedial or compensatory education programs, students
whom a teacher might consider for referral to special education, and
students who have been referred and found eligible for special education
services. In regard to social and emotional problems, the upper end of
the REI population includes students whose behavior is sufficiently
disturbing and objectionable to prompt teachers to undertake a
deliberate effort either to teach more appropriate behavior or to manage
the problem through behavioral or environmental modifications.
Much more precision about the upper end of the REI target
population is impossible because both local and state education agencies
vary greatly in their provision of special programs. Many states fund
their own remedial assistance programs, as do some individual school
districts. Thus the achievement level needed for students to qualify for
"special services" will vary from locale to locale, as will
the achievement level of the "unserved" special needs
population. The idea is to help schools work more effectively with
students who might be at risk for failure. Thus attempts to establish
quantifiable criteria for the upper end of the REI target group would be
not only an unnecessary and wasted effort, but probably also a futile
one.
Descriptions like "difficult to teach" and "require
greater than usual educational support" are broad enough to include
students with very mild needs, as well as students whose needs are at
the severest levels imaginable. Indeed, Will's description of
students with learning problems leaves the door open for including more
severely handicapped students in the partnership effort. Although
Reynolds et al. (1987) excluded the most severely handicapped students
from their proposal, Gartner and Lipsky (1989) and Stainback and
Stainback (1984) included them. Disagreement among REI proponents about
inclusion of students with severe disabilities points out the
ambiguities in both the intent and nature of this initiative.
Our approach to determining the REI student population is to rely
on the five assumptions about regular education classroom
responsibilities that we have derived.
Under the REI, classroom teachers are responsible for teaching,
with help, any student whose educational program is based on a
developmental curriculum. In elementary schools, students are expected
to pursue a universal developmental curriculum focusing on reading,
writing, and arithmetic. In secondary schools, there is greater
curricular diversity, where students' interests and talents play a
more pronounced role in selecting a course of study. But even secondary
schools require specific courses for graduation. These courses could be
construed, at a minimum, to constitute a universal developmental
curriculum.
Using the Assumptions to Define the Target Group
What do our assumptions about the responsibilities of regular
classroom teachers suggest? They establish the benchmarks for
determining which students should be educated in regular classrooms. If
teachers are responsible for educating all students who are assigned to
a developmental curriculum, even students who learn slowly and require
special assistance, then only students who are following a developmental
curriculum should be assigned to the regular classroom.
We believe that the intent of the REI is to empower classroom
teachers and hold them responsible for the education of all students in
their program, to give them the authority and assistance needed to
educate a diverse population in the ordinary curriculum of the common
school. Under this framework, the classroom teacher is in charge, making
instructional decisions, requesting assistance, assigning instructional
duties to support personnel, collaborating with other professionals
(e.g., additional reading teachers and social skills trainers) who work
in the classroom. The teacher is in charge of orchestrating the major
elements of his or her students' education. How would this apply to
handicapped students?
Students With Mild Disabilities.
1. Students with learning disabilities and mild
mental retardation. Students currently
classified as having a learning disability or
having mild to moderate mental retardation
would receive all instructional services in
the regular classroom, if their Individualized
Education Programs (IEPs) call for a normal
developmental curriculum. That is, students
whose multidisciplinary team judges them
to have a reasonable chance of attaining
minimal competency in the basic skills -- reading,
writing, spelling, and arithmetic -- by
the time they leave school would be
educated in a developmental curriculum and
automatically retain membership in the
regular classroom. But what if, in the team's
judgment, the student requires additional,
supplemental instruction beyond that
ordinarily given to average-achieving students,
or requires instruction at a different pace,
or from a developmental curriculum
different from that used by the majority of regular
students in the class? In these cases, the
team (which includes the child's teacher)
would inform the building principal that
additional resources are needed for this
student. No matter what resources were
added (e.g., a remedial reading teacher), the
classroom teacher would still make the
major instructional decisions, monitor
progress, and maintain responsibility for
providing a program aimed at ensuring that
students achieve the goals and objectives
agreed on by the multidisciplinary team.
On the other hand, if the team decides
that a child is very unlikely to achieve
minimal competency, for example in
reading (this is a major decision and presumably
would be arrived at only when the child had
failed to make reasonable progress under
strong instructional conditions), it might
recommend a nondevelopmental
curriculum, one that focused, for example, on a
limited, functional reading vocabulary or
possibly included no reading instruction at
all. With that decision, the child is placed
in a separate program (at least for reading)
taught by a special education teacher who
assumes primary responsibility for the child's
education. 2. Students with emotional and behavioral
handicaps. Under the REI, the majority of
students who have behavior or conduct
disorders would remain in regular
classrooms. Sometimes classroom teachers would
need advice on how to help a student
overcome a conduct problem, a social skills
deficit, or a problem involving classroom
work habits or attention. Formal procedures
for obtaining help in problem solving must
be available for teachers to access other
professionals such as teaching colleagues
(Pugach & Johnson, 1988), behavior
consultants (Fuchs et al., 1989), or building-level
support teams (Chalfant, Pysh, &
Moultrie, 1979). If students are identified
who require intensive, direct social skills
instruction, then the principal, who is
responsible for managing resources, might
acquire an instructional program and related
training for the classroom teacher or locate
and bring expert help to the classroom.
In some circumstances, a student's
social and emotional development may be
so extraordinary discrepant from the norm that he or she requires
a comprehensive nontraditional program. As in those situations where an
academic deficit is severe, a multidisciplinary team would examine the
evidence that a student's social and emotional development is so
seriously off course that the student cannot succeed in the regular
classroom, despite outside consultation for the classroom teacher and
direct skill instruction for the student. Under these circumstances, a
multidisciplinary team would recommend placement outside of the
mainstream.
Severely Handicapped Students. We believe that with sufficient
personnel and material resources, it would be possible to deliver an
appropriate instructional program in the regular classroom to any
students, no matter what their curriculum goals, no matter how severe
their handicap, with the possible exception of students who are given to
extreme violence and aggression. But that in our view is not the intent
of the REI. It would not be fair to regular classroom teachers (or their
students) to hold them responsible for teaching all possible skills, for
example, basic discriminations, mobility, self-care, community living,
sign language, speech reading, and Braille reading. Students requiring
these services would be placed in special classes. The line needs to be
drawn somewhere to protect teachers from unrealistic demands and to
assure parents of normally achieving students that their children will
prosper.
THE ISSUE OF PARTNERSHIP
The assumptions we have identified have implications for a second
major issue: the partnership between regular education and "second
system" specialized services. Nothing in the REI is more
impressionistic, or poorly defined, than the call for a partnership
between these two sets of service providers. It is here that REI
proponents must give the most careful, precise framing to the initiative
so that people know what exactly is meant and what can be debated. At
the moment, there are only drifts of ideas. According to Will (1986):
The heart of this commitment is the search for
ways to serve as many . . . children [with
learning problems] as possible in the regular
classroom by encouraging special education
and other special programs to form a
partnership with regular education. The objective of
the partnership for special education and the
other special programs is to use their
knowledge and expertise to support regular
education in educating children with learning
problems.
Although it is possible to read an infinity of operational meanings
into this statement, Wang and Walberg (1988) have narrowed the range of
options considerably by stating: "But neither the paper by . . .
Will . . . nor our writings call for `merging' categorical programs
under the `aegis of general education.' ... The GEI [REI] is not
aimed at eliminating or subordinating special education services".
It is possible to view partnerships in terms of broad systems
having equal or shared power, without subordination; for instance, at
the state level, the person responsible for general education and the
person responsible for special services might be of equal rank, with
equal power in the state structure. Further, special education is not
necessarily subordinate in a school setting where special education
teachers work outside the regular classroom and are in charge of their
own defined areas of responsibility. However, it is far from easy to
visualize an equal partnership between classroom teachers and
specialists when the educational setting is the mainstream classroom,
where questions about ownership of problems and hegemony are paramount.
Is it possible to support general education without being in a
subordinate role? More broadly, if one system is supposed to support
another, is it not fair to assume that the system being supported takes
precedence over others? The very vagueness of the REI language, and what
we see as possible contradictions among its proponents, have caused us
to reflect on the nature of partnerships and what we derive about
partnerships from the REI.
In general education, some partnership models include team
teaching, in which teachers share responsibility for a group of students
in a subject area, and cross-class grouping, in which responsibility for
certain students shifts depending on the grouping arrangement. Both in
team teaching and in cross-class grouping, one teacher takes primary
responsibility for a group of students for a specified period or subject
area. In other sectors, one might consider such partnerships as
job-sharing, where two people stake out certain areas of responsibility
within one role; or a law firm where partners may prepare for a trial
together but one individual retains overall responsibility; or a
business where executives who have their own zones of authority
collaborate on a common enterprise and report to the chief executive
officer.
If, as we read it, the REI assumes that the main setting for
instruction is the regular classroom, and if the initiative calls for
more than merely reducing or eliminating pull-out programs, its very
essence involves the question of who does what in the classroom and,
even more important, who is finally responsible and accountable for the
well-being of everyone in that setting. We do not see
"in-class" or "pull-in" services (Jenkins &
Heinen, 1989), which simply transport resource programs into regular
classrooms, as instances of REI models. When resource personnel come
into the classroom to deliver the same instruction they would have
delivered in the resource room, they have not formed a new partnership
with regular educators. They have merely changed the location of
instruction, retaining the same partnership (or lack of it) that
currently exists between regular and resource teachers.
Likewise, certain team teaching arrangements would seem to fall
outside of the REI. For example, if a specialist were to take full or
primary responsibility for a subgroup's reading instruction, even
if the instruction occurred within the regular classroom, the situation
is virtually identical to traditional pull-out programs where the
classroom teacher has transferred responsibility to a resource or
remedial teacher.
As our assumptions about the classroom teacher's
responsibilities indicate, it is clearly the classroom teacher, not the
specialist, who is responsible for the progress of all students. In even
the most collaborative consultation models, the classroom teacher can
decide whether or not to use the procedures or materials recommended,
and thus ultimately makes the critical instructional decisions.
The Role of Specialists in the REI Partnership
If the regular classroom teacher's role under the REI comprises
the responsibilities we have identified, what, then, is the role of the
specialist? As we read it, the REI implies a distinction between two
types of specialists: (a) specialists who support the regular classroom
teacher and (b) special teachers who function as classroom teachers for
exceptional children in special classrooms. Stated differently, the REI
identifies support specialists who, along-side classroom teachers,
assist students with learning problems in the mainstream, and special
classroom teachers who work in their own classrooms with students who
fall outside of the REI framework. Under the REI, support specialists
provide instruction to students with special needs in general education
classrooms, not in their own classrooms.
If the assumptions we have derived correctly represent the REI, the
traditional role of teachers regarding external specialists would
require redefinition under this initiative. Classroom support personnel
(such as resource teachers, learning disabilities specialists, reading
specialists, and behavior specialists) would no longer take
responsibility for particular students because classroom teachers would
maintain responsibility for educating all students in their classrooms.
Just as the homeowner, not the architect or carpenter, is in charge
of remodeling a home, the teacher, not the specialist, is in charge of
the classroom. The homeowner approves the plan, keeps an eye on how the
work is progressing, and makes any important decisions that are likely
to affect the outcome of the project. When problems arise, the architect
or carpenter may suggest solutions, but the homeowner retains the final
authority. After all, the homeowner, not the carpenter, will be living
in the home. The homeowner refrains from telling the carpenter how to
hammer the nails or use a saw, but regularly inspects the quality of the
workmanship, checks on progress and timeliness, and oversees the
selection of materials used in construction.
At the same time (to continue the analogy), most homeowners would
be unwise to take on supervising and managing the building of a
skyscraper. They lack the background and knowledge to take charge of
such a project. A supervisor or general contractor with the proper
background is needed for this type of building project. Likewise,
credentialed classroom teachers have been certified to teach basic
skills in a developmental curriculum. Typically, they do not possess the
background needed for more specialized, nontraditional curricula, nor
should they be held accountable for a nontraditional education. Instead,
specialists in nontraditional education such as special education
classroom teachers are responsible for instruction in mobility, signing,
speech reading, and functional academic skills for students who fall
outside the boundaries of the REI.
Although partnership is generally considered a good educational
strategy, it is a very poorly defined term. And, as noted by Greer
(1989), ". . . not all partnerships work, too few work well, and
many are superficial, both in their conception and execution". We
read the spirit of the REI as follows: the classroom teacher and the
specialist form a partnership in terms of instruction, but the classroom
teacher is ultimately in charge. This does not mean that the support
partner's role is necessarily downgraded or undervalued. Certainly
the support teacher's role is critical; the specialist contributes
importantly and directly to students' success. If we are wrong in
this reading of the REI, then there is the strong possibility that the
initiative propounds something that is little different from what now
exists in most elementary schools, where responsibility is divided and
problems of ownership are pervasive.
An analysis within the general issue of partnership may help to
clarify this difficult concept. Here, we examine several model
partnerships of shared responsibility to identify their proximity to the
REI, keeping in mind our reading of the initiative.
Existing Models of Partnership Between Special and Regular
Education
Where do specific models fall on the continuum between traditional
practices and the REI? In our view, the issue goes beyond where
instruction occurs, although the self-contained classroom is clearly the
emblematic example of the historical division of responsibilities. For
purposes of this analysis, however, we anchor traditional practices in
the resource room rather than the self-contained classroom, because, at
least on paper, there is some expectation that the regular classroom
teacher and resource room teacher will share responsibility for a given
child. Unfortunately, what happens in practice is often very different:
the classroom teacher is not only not in charge, but may be so distanced
from what is happening in the resource room as to be outside the
decision-making process. As noted by Allington and Johnston (1986),
Haynes and Jenkins (1986), and others, the lack of congruence between
the two settings can be found in their use of different curricula, the
two teachers' failure to consult on planning, and a general lack of
information about what goes on in the other setting. But some of the
same elements can be found in cases where instruction by support
teachers occurs within the regular classroom, as in some pull-in
programs. The key questions one must ask focus on the issue: Who's
in charge?
Numerous service-delivery models have been developed over the years
to strengthen the capacity of general education to deal with student
diversity. These models vary significantly in the way classroom and
support personnel share instructional responsibility for special
education students. Some of the newer models clearly embody the spirit
of the efforts to reform the general education system, along lines
consistent with the REI.
Consultation Models. These models include prereferral intervention
programs like Teacher Assistance Teams (Chalfant et al., 1979) and
Mainstream Assistance Teams (Fuchs et al., 1989), as well as consultant
teacher programs like the Consulting Teacher (Egner & Lates, 1975;
McKenzie, 1972; McKenzie et al., 1970) and the Resource/Consulting
Teacher (Idol-Maestas, 1981; 1983; Idol-Maestas, Lloyd, & Lilly,
1981). Consultation models are based on notions of shared
responsibility; that is, specialists and classroom teachers collaborate
in efforts to assist students who have learning or behavior problems. In
summarizing research supporting consultant models, Nevin and Thousand
(1987) concluded: "Teachers in schools with a consulting teacher
assumed more direct roles and engaged in more direct activities with
handicapped learners' referral, assessment, curriculum development,
implementation of teaching/learning activities, and evaluation when
compared to their counterparts". We believe that these consultation
models are designed to empower regular classroom teachers to deal with
student diversity in ways that are consistent with the REI.
Direct-Service Models. These models include the Adaptive Learning
Environments Model (Wang, 1980; 1981; Wang, Gennari, & Waxman,
1985), the Integrated Classroom Model (Affleck, Madge, Adams, &
Lowenbraun, 1988), the Co-Teaching/Team Teaching Model (Budoff, 1988a,
1988b), and the Mount Vernon Model (Jenkins & Jenkins, 1989) as well
as others. Direct-service models have been developed to educate special
and remedial education students within the general education classroom.
In each model, the general education teacher is supported by additional
professional or paraprofessional personnel to implement instructional
programs for special-needs students in the mainstream. However, the
classroom teacher in each of these models maintains the primary
responsibility for the instructional program of all students assigned to
his or her charge.
Although teachers may receive help from specialists and even
delegate some teaching to them, they are still in charge: the teacher
makes and monitors the instructional decisions, implements the
prescribed curriculum, and makes the necessary adjustments in the
programs based on data to improve student outcomes.
Several consultation and direct service approaches currently in use
seem to fall within the framework of the REI as defined by the five
assumptions. They are distinct from traditional approaches because of
the authority and responsibility given classroom teachers, not just
location of services.
PROBLEMS WITH THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE REI
This interpretation is not without flaws, in particular a lack of
quantitative rigor and a precise definition of developmental curriculum.
Children's right to an appropriate education in the least
restrictive environment could be abused (Kauffman, 1989). Further, this
approach raises questions about the capability of the current
educational system to accommodate these changes.
Qualitative Versus Quantitative Judgments
The approach to identifying students who fall within the REI is
qualitative rather than quantitative. It avoids specifying achievement
levels or social-emotional development levels that would be used by
multidisciplinary teams to recommend a student's placement outside
of the regular classroom.
However, there are two reasons to recommend this approach. First, a
precise, valid, quantitative solution is impossible given our current
level of sophistication either in measuring achievement and
social-emotional development, or in predicting future performance based
on those measurements. Second, circumstances differ in every case
depending on the number and talents of service providers (teachers,
specialists, and consultants), the student's willingness to
participate, and the student's family characteristics and living
conditions outside of school.
Given the complexity of the decision making, we would rather trust
the judgment of thoughtful professionals than resort to a simple formula
that could be reliably applied, but that is blind to other important
considerations. Moreover, the system allows for the provision of special
services to children in regular classes--without necessarily labeling or
classifying them as disabled. Removal from the regular classroom would
occur only when children could not be helped by the classroom teacher
and a cadre of support personnel. We do not see the REI as an attempt to
dilute services, but to place them under the auspices of the classroom
teacher.
Developmental Curriculum
A basic tenet of this interpretation of the REI is that classroom
teachers are responsible for the education of every child whose course
of studies can be accommodated by a developmental curriculum. Would
professionals be able to reach agreement on which curricula are
developmental and which are not? To do this, they would first need to
define basic skills levels that satisfy minimum competency or
"adult" functioning. Second, they would need to examine the
graded tasks of the curriculum and judge whether a student who
accomplished these tasks is likely to have achieved minimum competency.
According to these two criteria, virtually all commercial basal reading
programs would qualify as developmental curricula.
One example of a nontraditional (i.e., nondevelopmental) curriculum
is the Edmark Reading Program, which targets a limited sight vocabulary
for instruction. General education classrooms do not use such programs,
whose scope is seriously restricted, because such programs are not
designed to produce proficient, competent (i.e., adult) readers. One
possible test for judging whether a curriculum qualifies as
developmental is to note whether general education classrooms use it.
Most reading and math instructional programs that are currently used in
special and remedial education would qualify as developmental because
they pass two tests: (a) they include graded tasks which, if
accomplished by the student, will result in at least a minimum
competency level, and (b) they are the same programs that tend to be
used in general education classrooms. Parenthetically, we must add that
teachers must modify or adapt most developmental curricula if they are
to be used successfully with remedial and special education students;
but even with modification they are developmental curricula.
A related problem involves the judgment that a student should not
follow a developmental curriculum, but one that has a more limited
scope. Currently, most professionals try to step around this decision.
It seems clear, however, that for some students, especially those with
"moderate" cognitive disabilities, a developmental basic skill
curriculum has not been effective. Failure to make the hard decision--to
place a student in a nondevelopmental curriculum--probably does
considerable harm. Whenever in doubt, however, teams should place
students in a developmental curriculum, rather than arbitrarily stunt
growth by limiting exposure to learnable skills.
Potential for Abuse
The proposed system gives a fair amount of discretion to classroom
teachers, principals, and multidisciplinary teams. These people will
sometimes arrive at bad decisions or may even deliberately abuse the
system to rid themselves of responsibility for students whom they find
unappealing because of race, physical characteristics, or personality.
Parent participation in decision making about obtaining additional
resources or about placement out of the regular classroom can serve as
one check. Careful selection of the multidisciplinary team and the
building-based support team can serve as another. The potential for
abuse under the REI, however, is no greater than what exists under the
current system.
Readiness for the REI
Many questions should be answered to determine whether a school is
ready for the REI. * To what extent do classroom teachers accept
the five responsibilities given them in this
analysis? * To what extent do principals have sufficient
knowledge about instruction and learning to
distribute resources across classrooms so that
students with special needs can be
accommodated and served effectively? * To what extent are
"specialists" (e.g.,
remedial reading and math teachers, and
learning disability teachers) able to
collaborate and communicate with classroom
teachers and relinquish to them final authority
regarding instructional decision making? * To what extent are
multidisciplinary teams
prepared to require hard evidence that
students have received high-quality direct
instruction from classroom teachers and
support staff? * Are multidisciplinary teams prepared to
decide that students will not develop
competency in basic skills during their school
career, and recommend that the students be
segregated from their regular classroom
peers? The main question, of course, is, How ready for the REI is
this country's educational system? Results of a recent study by
Jenkins and Leicester (1990) suggest that classroom teachers will need
assistance in developing and implementing specially designed instruction
for low achieving students. Many problems with the REI are foreseeable,
but that is no reason to reject the intiative. As Reynolds (1988)
reminds us, the current system is not without its own problems, many of
which are as serious as those presented by the REI.
CONCLUSION
According to the present analysis, the REI is built on five
critically important but, until now, implicit assumptions about the
responsibilities of regular classroom teachers. We have tried to make
those assumptions explicit, to put them in neon. Recognizing and
understanding the assumptions are essential if we are to determine who
the REI target population is and the readiness of the current
educational system to accommodate this initiative. The basic message of
the REI is that classroom teachers should be responsible for the
education of all students in their charge, and building principals
should be authorized to distribute resources for children who have
learning problems. Under the REI, teachers are given authority over all
instruction in their classrooms. In a sense, this is a heavy burden.
However, classroom teachers should not be (and cannot reasonably be)
made responsible for students who follow nontraditional curricula. There
are limits to the demands that can be placed on classroom teachers.
The REI would also change the role of specialists, such as remedial
reading and learning disability teachers. In the current system,
children receive instruction from specialists who operate independently
of the classroom. More often than not, communication between specialists
and classroom teachers about critical educational and instructional
matters is minimal, if not entirely absent (Allington & Johnston,
1986; Haynes & Jenkins, 1986). This would change under the REI,
because classroom teachers would be held responsible for students'
progress, and they could not afford to relinquish programs to others, no
matter how specialized their skills.
One final REI issue that will require full discussion by
professionals is the blurring of the distinction between regular
education on the one side, and special and remedial education on the
other. Should remedial and special education retain an identifiable
status within general education? Within Public Law 94-142, the concept
of specially designed instruction implies that services to students with
disabilities must be distinguishable from "non specially designed
instruction," or general education. In total mainstreaming models,
however, it is difficult to identify the specially designed
instruction--that is, the instruction unique to students with
disabilities. Other hard questions need to be answered here: * Does the
REI mean that all students in total
mainstreaming classes are receiving
specially designed instruction, and would
legally require an individual educational plan,
or does it mean that special education has
lost its identity? * Would any attempt to merge special
education within general education (Gartner &
Lipsky, 1989; Stainback & Stainback, 1984)
be blocked by the lobbies who have
succeeded in obtaining resources for students
with learning problems? * Alternatively, in a merged system, could
a
way be found to ensure that hard-won
resources were retained and that students
with learning and behavior problems
received those resources?
Our reading of the REI revealed five assumptions; some educators
certainly will disagree with this analysis. In any event, the REI's
assumptions about regular classrooms, whatever they are, must be made
explicit if this initiative is to be understood, tested, and evaluated.
Once understood, the REI can be put to the litmus test: Can REI models
match or improve on the educational outcomes of current programs for
regular students, as well as those at risk or those with disabilities?
JOSEPH R. JENKINS is Professor of Special Education; CONSTANCE G.
PIOUS is Coordinator of Publications, Experimental Education Unit; and
MARK JEWELL is a doctoral student in Special Education, University of
Washington, Seattle.