Full Inclusion of Students with Mild Disabilities: A Question of External Validity

Abstract

Much attention in the professional literature is paid to the educational approach known as full inclusion (previously referred to as the regular education initiative [REI]). Full inclusion means that students with mild disabilities-learning disabilities, behavior disorders, or mild mental retardation-are placed full time in regular classes. In this arrangement, the regular, or education, classroom teacher rather than the special education teacher has primary responsibility for educating students with disabilities. General education teachers are supposed to receive training, special materials, and support services regarding the education of those students. And whereas formerly, according to the consulting teacher model, the special education teacher was considered the expert who helped the regular teacher, the current approach emphasizes collaboration, with both special and regular educators acting on an equal basis. Although relatively few general educators have advocated full inclusion, special educators have written in support of that approach (Gartner and Lipsky 1989; Lilly 1986; Reynolds, Wang, and Walberg 1987; Stainback and Stainback 1984; Wang, Reynolds, and Walberg 1986). Additionally, there has been considerable funding of model programs to demonstrate the effectiveness of full inclusion, or the REI (Kauffman et al. 1990). It is also significant that a former assistant secretary of education for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, Madeleine Will, was a vocal proponent of the REI (Will 1986). Considerable opposition to full inclusion does exist, however. Hallahan et al. (1988), for example, questioned the research base for full-service delivery in regular classrooms. They concluded that many questions remain