REI: Revisited … Again

Abstract

REI: Revisited . . . Again * The regular education initiative (REI) is an ongoing professional discussion that must continue in every educational forum for many years to come. I wanted to respond to William Davis's article (The regular education initiative debate: Its promises and problems, Exceptional Children, 55, 440-446), but my larger purpose is to maintain a continuously evolving discourse on this extremely important policy and program issue. is unfortunate that within a short period of time, the meaning of REI is becoming murky. Because of a lack of involvement of local education agencies, principals, teachers, parents, consumers, and others (all well described by Davis), people are using the term REI and not knowing that their own sense of what it means is different from that of others. This is true even among special educators themselves. A case in point is the idea of the merger of regular education and special education, as proposed by Stainback and Stainback (1984). This article is often cited in discussions of REI, especially in the context of one system for all. In another article--often cited as the major federal government push behind REI--Will (1986) stated, It does not mean the consolidation of special education in regular . . does mean that programs must be allowed to establish a partnership with regular education. These statements certainly do not seem to imply a merger, yet the Will and Stainback and Stainback articles have been reinforcing one another for several years. Davis, in commenting on my previous response to the merger idea (Lieberman, 1985), suggested that my analogy of a wedding to which the bride was not invited breaks down because the wedding has already occurred. This is correct, and I value Davis's assessment. The educational system is one system, with special education services playing a role as one aspect of the system. Of course Davis's point also suggests that the idea of merger proposed by Stainback and Stainback (1984) is likewise phony because one system already exists. Now there enters a third REI interpretation: Some educators would fully integrate or mainstream any and all children into regular classrooms regardless of condition, disability, fragility, vulnerability, or need. They would argue that students' greatest need is to be in a regular class. Perhaps Biklen, Bogdan, Ferguson, Searl, and Taylor (1985) would be part of this group. When educational administrators, teachers, and psychologists ask me what I think of REI, I have to ask which of the different perspectives they want an opinion on. Some people who believe in one educational system think that children with profound retardation should not be in regular classrooms. Others who believe the same thing think that everybody should be in regular classrooms. Some believe that REI means doing away with special schools, but not special programs. Sometimes the term regular education initiative, taken at face value, appears contrived and concocted. The term itself gives rise to the following scenario. A special educator (someone with either job-related or professional stature) woke up one day and decided that classroom teachers and administrators were not doing enough on behalf of disabled and handicapped students, the vast majority of whom were already spending the major portion of their school time in regular classrooms. Hence an initiative or push in the direction of doing more seemed like a good idea. …