Sink or Swim in the Mainstream

Abstract

Looking back, we are outraged at the way exceptional children of the past were totally segregated from regular classroom experiences. In view of this practice, few of us would fail to embrace the mainstreaming philosophy. Not only has it received wide acceptance, but its guiding principle-which stipulates that exceptional children should be provided with the least restrictive educational placementhas been promulgated in federal legislation (P. L. 94-142) aimed at upgrading the quality of services to the handicapped. Despite its widespread growth and popularity, mainstreaming in the public schools has evidenced a number of problems, most of which are inherent in the translation of mainstreaming theory into practice. The shortcomings, discussed below, are evident in the way many public schools fail to supply a full range of special placement options, over-rely on consultation and resource programs, and fail to furnish adequate special education instruction in the regular class setting. Mainstream models have proposed various forms of special educational intervention, such as consultation by a specialist with the regular classroom teacher, part-time participation in a resource room with a special education teacher and/ or special instructional materials, half-day special class placement, and full-time special class placement. (1 and 3) Unfortunately, sufficient funds are seldom available to finance a full range of special education options that extend across twelve grades, numerous schools, and several areas of exceptionality, including educable mental retardation, learning disabilities, and emotional disturbance. As a result, the child is provided with whatever program exists, rather than with the kind he needs.