integration of students with moderate learning difficulties

This article was downloaded by: [University of Kiel]On: 05 November 2014, At: 04:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Special NeedsEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rejs20

Integration of students withmoderate learning difficultiesPhillip WilliamsPublished online: 09 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Phillip Williams (1993) Integration of students with moderatelearning difficulties, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 8:3, 303-319, DOI:10.1080/0885625930080309

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0885625930080309

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rejs20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0885625930080309

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0885625930080309

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 8, No. 3 (1993) 303

Integration of students with moderatelearning difficulties

PHILLIP WILLIAMSAddress for correspondence:

Enter. Prof. Phillip Williams, School of Education,

University College of North Wales, Bangor, LL57 2UW, UK

ABSTRACT

After a discussion of the main concepts used, the differing policies and practicesin a selection of countries are examined briefly. Research studies comparing theacademic and social outcomes of integrated and segregated education do not offerunequivocal conclusions: as much depends on the kind of educational programmeas on the setting. An examination of the conditions for effective integration showsthat successful programmes place emphasis on some or all of three key features,viz. the curriculum, team teaching and support personnel. Research on attitudestowards integration leads to the conclusion that teachers are broadly positive inprinciple but less so in practice. But if teachers are given adequate support andimproved skills, then a segregative tradition can be modified.

INTRODUCTION

'In the pantheon of educational mythology, the angels are on the side of theintegration of the handicapped, and the devils are segregationists ...' (Young andWilliams, 1986, p. vii). Integration has been the special education catchword inrecent years and Mittler (1985) described the fervour for integration in the UKas approaching a religious revival. This is a very different situation from thatexisting in the 1960s, when Robinson and Robinson (1965) could write that thepresence of retarded children in regular classes in the USA was tolerated (sic!)only because space in special classes was not available.

This change in sentiment has led many writers to believe that integration forchildren with special needs is a modern development. Yet this is not so. Cole's(1989) historical study points out that in both Europe and North America, theintegration-segregation issue has been debated for over a century, with powerfuladvocacy on both sides. Many will argue that this debate has been fiercest mostrecently, and there is some support for this view in the growth of publicationsconcerned with integration. Figure 1 charts the growth in the number of publicationscatalogued under the integration (now 'mainstreaming') heading in the BritishEducation index over the last ten years.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

304 European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 8, No. 3 (1993)

Figure 1: Growth of publications on integration (single source)*

What do we understand by integration? The UNESCO (1988) survey pointed outsome of the different meanings attached to the word. Thus in Germany, integrationis said to include special school provision on the grounds that this is educationaiming at preparation for adult life, whereas in Finland, integration implies acommon education system catering for all. In countries such as the USA, Canadaand Australia, integration usually covers special classes attached to ordinary schools,whereas placing pupils with special needs in the regular classroom is known asmainstreaming. These are examples of major differences in usage, which meanthat national statistics on integration have to be interpreted with care.

In this paper we shall avoid discussing different philosophies of integration andconcentrate on integration as an aspect of educational organization. Here, manyauthors have listed various kinds of arrangements commonly in use under thegeneral rubric of integration. For example, Hegarty (1987) offered a continuumof seven possibilities, listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Continuum of integration arrangements

1. Pupils with special needs fitted into existing arrangements.2. Mainstream placement with specialist support provided within the class.3. Mainstream placement and withdrawal for specialist work.4. Mainstream placement, attending special centre part-time.5. Special centre placement, attending mainstream class part-time.6. Special centre full-time.7. Special school part-time, ordinary school part-time.

(from Hegarty (1987), p. 80)

50

40 •

I 30 •

No. ofpublications

20 • _ _ ^ _ _

10 -

0 I 1 I I I I I I I 11980 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89

Year • . B r i t i s h E d u c a t i o n | n d e x

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Integration of students with moderate learning difficulties 305

Note that Hegarty pointed out that any such listing is an arbitrary way ofcategorizing a complex reality. Nevertheless it is useful, and in the discussion whichfollows we shall regard 1 and 2 as full integration, or mainstreaming, 3 and 4 aswithdrawal arrangements (USA: pull-out), and 5-7 as partial integration.

The other definitional issue is the meaning of 'moderate learning difficulties',hereinafter mid.

Interpreting the literature of varying educational systems in terms of mid isneither easy nor exact. For this review, the aim will be to follow Buckland andCroll's (1987) usage. They described children with mid as those who are notusually identified until they are at school, sometimes after a few years there, andwho are identified because of a failure to keep pace with the demands of theordinary school system. The first point differentiates this group from those withsevere and profound learning difficulties, whereas the second helps to differentiatethem from children whose difficulties are primarily identified through sensory,physical or behavioural considerations. To this view a third point can be added:these are children whose learning difficulties are general, rather than specific to aparticular curriculum area, thus differentiating them from children with specificlearning difficulties.

The discussion which follows will focus on these children - roughly 2 per centof the school population, with general learning difficulties, usually identified forthis reason in the first few years at school.

This group possesses two additional characteristics (e.g. Rutter, Tizard andWhitmore, 1970). First, although they are referred primarily for learning difficulties,they do show a relatively high incidence of associated difficulties, particularlyspeech problems and emotional and behavioural disorders. This point has clearrelevance for service delivery.

Second, virtually every investigation reveals a higher than expected prevalenceof homes where the breadwinner works in low-status occupations. Many of theparents of these children are neither well paid nor well educated: they may notown the cars and telephones that make for easy contact with their children'sschools and they themselves may not be very articulate. This point has relevanceto the parental lobby for improved services, which may not be as strong as inother sectors of special education.

Given these considerations, what are the current policies for integrating thisgroup of children?

CURRENT POLICIES

Not only are there marked differences between countries in the arrangements forintegrating children with mid, there are also marked differences within countries.For example, while the Swiss position has been described as broadly segregative(Gaylord-Ross, 1987), there are marked differences between the cantons (Bernathand Kayser, 1991). Singer and Butler (1987) described similar variations withinthe USA, and Upton and Beasley (1989) described four local education authoritiesin Wales, operating under identical legislation, in which the proportion of secondarychildren with mid being educated in the mainstream varied from less than 1 percent to over 33 per cent.

Most countries have education policies supporting integration. The UNESCO(1988) survey stated that integration was a declared policy in 75 per cent of thefifty-eight countries providing usable responses. (Yet only 55 per cent claimed that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14


education was compulsory for all!). There follow some examples of variations inthe practice of integration.

Italy is often quoted as an example of an education system where mainstreamingfor all has occurred (e.g. Adams, 1990). Yet even in the Italian legislation, whichembodies the right to education in the mainstream for all, there is a clause whichimplies that integration must be to the child's advantage, i.e. notwithstanding thegeneral principle, there are exceptions (OECD-CERI, 1981). An exclusion principleof this sort appears in most systems which espouse integration: for example Norway,wedded to the view of a common school for all, still uses the criterion of 'thegood of the child' in deciding whether a special school should be used or not.

In the USA, most children with mid (educable mental retardation) are taughtfor at least part of the day in a regular classroom, for the 1975 Public Law 94-142,together with subsequent legislation, accelerated the move from separate classesinto withdrawal arrangements or full mainstreaming. Yet Singer and Butler (1987)note signs of a more recent trend towards less integration, though they add thatit might in part be accounted for by different classification thresholds. At the sametime, the USA has a strong body of opinion, exemplified by the Regular EducationInitiative (Lowenthal 1989; Stainback and Stainback, 1984), which argues for thecomplete demise of the special education sector and the education of all childrenin the mainstream.

Sweden is another example of a country where change is occurring. At the endof the 1970s, most children with mid were educated in special classes in theordinary school (Soder, undated). A decade later, Walton, Emanuelsson andRosenquist (1990) could write that Sweden is moving towards eliminating allself-contained classrooms in the public school system.

In the Republic of Ireland, the dominant development over the last fifteen yearshas been the establishment of special classes for mid in the ordinary school (McGee,1990).

In the Netherlands most children with mid have been educated in special schools.Interestingly, there is a considerable demand for such segregated schools, whichenjoy a high status and a positive image often missing in other countries (denBoer, 1990; Rodbard, 1990). Here, there is also evidence of increased collaborationbetween regular and special schools, and a growing unease over the fact that arelatively high proportion of pupils spend at least some part of their school livesin a segregated situation. The new education act, due in 1995, may make somechange in this position.

In Switzerland, where most children with mid have been educated in specialclasses or schools, despite the cantonal variations mentioned, two large projectsto investigate the possibilities of integration for mid finished in 1990 (Burli andSturny-Bossart, 1990).

The Spanish integration project, launched in 1985, aims to encourage, ratherthan force, ordinary schools to take children with special needs, of whom thosewith learning difficulties form the largest group (Marchesi, 1986).

The list of countries could be extended. Before drawing conclusions on thepresent position, it is worth examining one country more carefully.

In the UK, the position of children with mid is governed by the 1981 EducationAct, which reflected the view of the 1978 Warnock Report (Department of Educationand Science, 1978) and which stipulated that all children should be educated inordinary schools, provided that the parents were in agreement, that it waspracticable, that it was educationally efficient for others and that resources wereused efficiently. Many educators feared that these escape clauses would enableauthorities to drive a coach and horses through the legislation. Swann (1988a)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14


showed that the intended change to a more integrated system had not materializedto any great extent. Indeed he argued that over this period there was a slightincrease (proportionate to the school population) in segregation (i.e. placement inspecial schools) of children with mid. But there is a later suggestion of someimprovement in this situation (Swann, 1988b).

Swann also discussed the increasing association between special schools and themainstream, i.e. partial integration, or the last three possibilities listed in Figure2. These links between the special and ordinary school sector are fostered throughshared social activities, through children from the special school being taughttimetabled lessons in the ordinary school, and vice versa, and through teachersbeing interchanged (Jowett et ah, 1988; Jowett, 1989). While the effect of suchprocedures is to offer some integration to children otherwise segregated, it alsooffers rewards to teachers, lessening the isolation of the special school staff whilebroadening the experience of the staffs of both types of schools.

In Jowett et al.'s survey, 70 per cent of special schools for mid were involvedin link schemes of some kind or other. Encouraging though these developmentsare for advocates of integration, Swann (1988a) sounded a warning note. Here-analysed the survey data to show that, in only 12 per cent of special schoolsdid children spend more than 3 per cent of the available time in the ordinaryschool 'The great bulk of children on the special school roll are educated in aspecial school.'

Note too that integration figures can conceal considerable differences betweenphases of the education system. For mid, integration may appear to be completein the first few years of education - largely because difficulties remain to beidentified or, if identified, remain to be dealt with.

The following conclusions can be drawn. While national figures usually obscurewide local variations, most countries have integration policies which encompassmid. But allied to wide differences in understanding of the term 'integration', thereare also wide differences in the ways in which policies are put into practice. Themove to integration is seen by some as a need to improve links between the specialand ordinary schools: others see it as establishing classes in the ordinary school.Yet others see it as mainstreaming for, if not all, as many as possible. It is thislast view which has gained ground during the last decade, and in the next sectionwe examine some of the research findings relating to it.

EXAMINING THE ARGUMENTS

The research literature can be broadly divided into two methodological strands.One consists of studies using classical experiments, usually comparing matchedgroups in different settings. There are problems in using the matched group design.Clearly no two groups can be really comparable, for there are reasons which haveled to one form of placement rather than another. Random allocation to thetreatment groups would overcome this difficulty, but there are obvious ethicalobstacles to this. In a very few studies these obstacles have been overcome, orminimized, but other methodological problems remain. For a fuller discussion seeSchindele (1985) or Jenkinson (1987).

The other strand avoids these problems by examining the conditions that makefor successful integration. These enquiries rely more on views from participantsin the process - parents, teachers, advisers, etc., though, interestingly enough,rarely the children themselves. Both these research strands are used in discussing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14


the main arguments for and against integrating children with mid. These argumentsare considered under two main headings, social arguments and academic arguments.

(i) Social Arguments

'Social' is a convenient umbrella word used in the literature to cover quite differentconcerns: social acceptance, social behaviour, and self esteem, the last usuallymeasured by self-concept techniques.

(a) Social acceptance and social behaviour

In 1950, Johnson demonstrated that for many children with learning difficulties,mainstreaming involved effective segregation - a daily social isolation much greaterthan would have been experienced in special schools or classes. Johnson's resultswere often quoted in support of the expansion of segregated education for childrenwith mid, which occurred during the 1950s and 1960s.

By 1981, in a very different educational climate, Hegarty and Pocklington (1981)reported an intensive study of seventeen very varied UK integration programmes,with an emphasis on children with learning difficulties and physical handicaps.They found a broad consensus that the pupils' social and emotional developmenthad benefited from the programmes, and that while friendly relationships betweenpupils with special needs and their peers were limited, negative relationships wererare. This is supported by Jobling's (1985) brief summary of research, whichconcluded that mentally handicapped children both enjoy and benefit in socialbehaviour from interaction with more able peers. This finding is also supportedby studies of partial integration, e.g. Jowett et al. (1988) and McKernan and Wells(1989).

Madge et al. (1990) compared two models of mainstream placement of learningdisabled students in the USA, mainstream with pull-out, and full mainstreamingin a special programme, the 'Integrated Classroom Model'. They found modestgains in social status for the latter.

(b) Self-concept

Madden and Slavin (1983) reviewed mainly North American research on the effectsof integrating children with mild academic handicaps. One study, Calhoun andElliot (1977), was methodologically sounder than most, using random allocationof pupils with learning difficulties to either special class or mainstream, as wellas attempting to control for teacher variability. The social outcome here favouredregular class placement. The conclusion of the whole review, bearing in mind thedifficulty of drawing sound generalizations from most of the work, was thatmainstreaming students with mild academic handicaps, with appropriate support,can be more effective for social-emotional outcomes, usually measured asself-concept, than placement in full-time special classes. A later review by the sameauthors (Slavin and Madden, 1986) again concluded that regular classes areassociated with better self-concepts.

Wang and Baker (1985-86) examined over 200 studies reported in the USliterature between 1975 and 1984. Their meta-analysis found eleven only withsufficient data to permit comparisons of outcomes for mainstream vs special classplacement. A careful re-analysis of the effects showed that for the mentally retardedgroup, the results of measures of self-concept, as well as attitudes to and from

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14


peers, were equally divided, 29 per cent favouring the mainstreamed group, while29 per cent also favoured the special class group.

General vs. academic self-concept

Later surveys have concentrated on more specific outcomes. Chapman (1988)reviewed a number of mainly North American studies of the self-concept of learningdisabled students. He compared the effects of three different placements on generalself-concept and on academic self-concept. He found no systematic differences ingeneral self-concept as a result of segregated vs mainstream placement. But wherestudents were in the mainstream, having been identified as learning disabled, butnot yet placed in a programme, the self-concepts were considerably lower.

The academic self-concept findings militated in favour of children in segregatedsetting.

A Swiss research investigation, based at the University of Freiburg (Burli andStuni-Bossart 1990), compared three types of placement, similar to Chapman's.Using qualitative and quantitative methods on a sample of over 1,000 childrenwith learning difficulties (lernbehinderten), they too found that those placed inregular classes had a more negative academic self-concept than their fellow-pupilsin special classes. But they also found that this applied to the general self-concept,too.

In summary, comparisons between the mainstream and special class/school donot provide consistent results as far as social development is concerned. Probablythe important point to note is that pupils with learning disabilities tend to havelower self concepts than their peers, irrespective of the placement. Integration perse is not the answer to avoiding isolation and stigma - though it can in somecircumstances lead to improvement. More precise analyses suggest that academicself-concept may be relatively better in the segregated setting. This is understandable,for the group is academically more homogeneous and comparisons within thegroup must be less damaging.

Several reviewers, e.g. Chapman (1988), Madden and Slavin (1983), Madge etah (1990), argue for the importance of the nature of the programme, rather thanthe setting. A mainstream programme which emphasized teaching the social skillsof interacting with peers might make a substantial difference to the equivocalfindings on social status and acceptance: one which did not emphasize inter-childcomparisons and which praised achievement, no matter how limited, might similarlymodify the findings on academic self-concept.

Moreover the relationships between school placement and acceptability later, inthe post-school world, raise different - and difficult - questions, to which differentanswers might be given.

(ii) Academic Arguments

Many reviewers agree that there is no clearly demonstrable pattern of differencebetween the academic achievements of integrated and segregated children (e.g.Galloway, 1985; Jenkinson, 1987; Lindsay, 1989; Yoshida, 1987). However Slavinand Madden (1986), although agreeing with this general conclusion, do point outthat the few better-designed studies find an academic advantage for placement ina regular class - with individual attention. The Wang and Baker (1986) meta-analysisfound more comparisons of attainment favouring mainstream placement of childrenwith mid than the converse. The Freiburg study concluded similarly: children with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14


mid in the regular classes made greater gains in performance than those placedin special classes (Burli and Stumi-Bossart, 1990).

But positive findings from group investigations rarely result from positive findingsfor every child: some will respond poorly to an environment which may suit others.Moreover, those children with mid who have pioneered the mainstream programmesthat many of these enquiries investigate are more likely to have fewer of theadditional disadvantages of behavioural, speech and sensory problems from whichothers may suffer. So although the balance of advantage seems to lie in favour ofmainstreaming, the safer conclusion is the same as that for social effects: noconsistent evidence for a clear difference.

The integration of children with mid has challenged the received wisdom of thelast few decades. Research workers have usually asked whether there is evidencefor this change. 'Why integrate?' has been the implicit question. In view of theaccumulated evidence we might now ask, as does Dessent (1987), 'Why segregate?'.This leads to what may be more productive research questions. What are theconditions that make for the positive results of some enquiries into mainstreaming,as opposed to the negative results of others? Are there some kinds of mainstreamprogrammes which are more effective than others? We now turn to these issues.

In a powerful article, Dunn (1968) forecast that the innovations then occurringin regular education would enable individual differences to be managed muchmore effectively in the mainstream. Three of his key themes, namely new curricula,team teaching and more support personnel, have direct relevance to mainstreamingchildren with mid today, and these we now discuss in turn.

CURRICULUM

When each school has some freedom to determine its own curriculum, a choiceof content can be made, and, in Ireland, McGee (1990) stated that the modifiedcurricula offered to children with mid are the teachers' own responsibility. Butelsewhere freedom of curricula choice is often constrained. For the UK, Peter(1989) and the anonymous author of Chapter 4 in Adams (1990) outlined theproblems that a prescribed National Curriculum can raise for integration policies.

Yet if a child can tackle the same curriculum as his/her peers, a substantialobstacle to mainstreaming is removed. Access to the curriculum is the key: butfor children with mid, there are particular considerations. The research mentionedearlier suggests that the curriculum for children with mid should include a greateremphasis on social skills - which entails less time for other aspects of the curriculum.Mitchell (1990) further argued that it should also include a significant concernfor assisting pupils with mid to make the transition to the post-secondary schoolyears.

There are other differences. Hegarty (1990) pointed out that learning difficultiesrequire that the teacher pays greater attention to assessment procedures: essentiallythese should be both curriculum-led and also more frequent, so that informationon progress should be readily available to teachers. Teaching has to be based oncareful presentation of material at gentler levels of gradient and appropriate levelsof language. These points imply more time for pupil-teacher interaction.

The possibilities for individual attention in a busy mainstream class are certainlylimited. Croll and Moses (1985) analysed teacher-pupil interactions in the primaryschool classroom and showed that the average pupil spends about 1.9 per cent ofclass time in private interaction with teacher, as compared with 3.3 per cent forthe child with learning difficulties. This is substantially less than the individual

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14


attention received in the special school for children with mid, where Bucklandand Croll (1987) reported that 10 per cent of the teaching time can be describedas individual attention - compared with 4 per cent for the comparable group ofchildren with mid in the mainstream in that particular study. How can themainstream combine its advantages of non-segregation and access to a fullcurriculum with the extra attention and specialist teaching that this demands?

TEAM TEACHING

One of the most common ways in which a full-time mainstreamed approach canbe organized uses team teaching, variants of which are sometimes called co-teachingand sometimes support teaching.

Team teaching, or co-teaching, is effectively a partnership of two teachersworking in the same classroom. This arrangement was described by Fish (1985)as most promising. In the UK, the most common example of co-teaching in relationto special needs is known as support teaching. Here, a teacher of special needsmay work alongside the class teacher for as many lessons as resources permit, aprocedure which has replaced many of the withdrawal arrangements for childrenwith learning difficulties previously common in many British schools.

There are problems in co-teaching, as well as advantages, both of which havebeen examined by many authors (e.g. Dahlen, 1982; Ferguson and Adams, 1982;Croll and Moses, 1985; Bines, 1986; Garnett, 1988). The main issue has beenpinpointed as the way in which the shared teaching functions are introduced andunderstood. This involves careful planning and time to discuss the matters involved.A balance has to be struck between preserving the status of the support teacherwhilst at the same time ensuring that the class teacher retains ownership of thelearning difficulties of her/his class member. (This last point is of course one ofthe advantages of the mainstreaming approach as opposed to 'withdrawal'.)

Do children like co-teaching? Children themselves are rarely consulted on whichorganizational approach they prefer. When they are, their views do not alwayscoincide with those of research workers. Jenkins and Heinen (1989), comparingpreferences for class organization in a mixed group of learning disabled and regularpupils, found that when there was a clear preference it was for pull-out, especiallyamong older pupils. But when the choice lay between help in the mainstream fromthe support teacher or help from the child's own teacher, the latter was preferred.They concluded that children do not necessarily see it our way. Samson and Reason(1988), in a small-scale study of the reintegration of nine pupils with moderatelearning difficulties into secondary schools in the UK, found that the pupils soughtto avoid any additional attention, for this singled them out as 'different'. This wasin essence the view of Madden and Slavin (1983), who concluded that, for children,'belonging' may be the most important goal, rather than success relative toclassmates.

Various efforts have been made to refine the simple 'mainstreaming with support'model of classroom organization. The Madge et al. (1990) study described theeffects of the Integrated Classroom Model (ICM) in the USA. In this pattern,one-third of the pupils in the classroom have special needs, some learning disabled,some mild mental retardation and some seriously behaviourally disordered. Theclass is taught by a teacher trained in special education and in addition there arethree hours of aide time per day. The study compared this with a more usual USAmainstreaming arrangement in which the regular class teacher did not have specialeducation training, the class size was not reduced, but each child with special

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14


needs received help for two hours per day from a trained special education teacherin a resource room. The modest gains in social status for children taught in theICM have already been mentioned. There was no academic penalty. This patternof organization raises sharply the question of the effects of the presence of childrenwith learning difficulties on the progress of other members of the class, thoughhere Galloway (1985, p. 74) stated that 'the evidence does not suggest that childrenof average ability and above suffer from the ability range being extended to includechildren with special needs'.

Some studies offer other views on effective organization for promotingintegration. Kaufman et al. (1978) found that children in the mainstream hadmore difficulty where teachers emphasized structure and order. In the UK, a studyof management and teaching styles in secondary schools noted how factors suchas an emphasis on competitive achievement may act against slow-learning pupils'chances of success (Department of Education and Science, 1984). Chapman's (1988)conclusions comprise an effective summary. What matters, according to Chapman,is not the placement per se, but the classroom organization. When students workon similar tasks, as a whole class or in defined ability groups, poor self-perceptionsare easily reinforced. They need, according to Chapman, multi-dimensional learningenvironments individually orientated, non-competitive judgements and a range ofactivities. In short, good teaching - preferably delivered by their regular teacher!

SUPPORT PERSONNEL

There are two main sorts of support personnel. First, there are those whose functionis advisory, often professionals with special skills, such as psychologists andtherapists. Although Burli and Sturni-Bossart (1990) failed to find any specificeffects related to therapeutic services, many studies refer to the demand for suchsupport services for children with mid (e.g. Hegarty, 1987; Moses et al., 1988).

The other sort of support personnel, such as advisory teachers and classroomaides, provide direct and immediate support and relief for the teacher in theclassroom. They are part of the framework of support incorporated in manyintegration arrangements. G. Thomas (1985) sees extra people, including parentsand members of the community, in the ordinary classroom as a key to the integrationof children with learning difficulties. He examines the need to understand anddefine the different functions of a teacher - or classroom manager - so that thecontributions of different people can be organized to best effect.

Extra people in the classroom is one reason for the successful integration ofprimary children with special needs in the Montessori schools in Germany(Heidegger, 1988). What we need to know is the extent to which the greaterindividualized attention in the smaller classes of the special school (Buckland andCroll, 1987) can be offset by the presence of additional support personnel in themainstream. Whilst support personnel are generally assumed to be staff employedfor the purpose, there are many other ways in which extra individual attentioncan be provided. Parents can be involved, as in parent-assisted teaching schemes(Topping and Wolfendale, 1985). Peer tutoring (Topping, 1988) is another approachwhich merits attention.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14


ATTITUDES TO INTEGRATION

Walton et al. (1990) point out that, in Sweden, the main problem in eliminatingall self-contained classrooms in the public school system is attitude. It is notpossible to educate children with mid in the mainstream without positive attitudeson the part of the dramatis personae. The main characters are the teachers, thechildren - both those with mid and their peers - and the parents. We now turnto findings on their attitudes.

Northern Ireland teachers in their first year find teaching children with learningdifficulties the hardest part of the job (D'Arcy, 1988). That initial experience maypartly underpin the many international findings of the broadly negative - withreservations - attitudes of the majority of teachers towards the practicability ofintegrating children with mid (e.g. Lowden, 1984; Croll and Moses, 1985; Elkins,1985; D. Thomas, 1985; Bowman, 1986).

Although Lowden's teachers believed that integration was not really practicable,and could in some circumstances be positively undesirable, yet they were broadlyfavourable in principle. Croll and Moses found a similar generally favourable viewof integration in principle, but less so in practice. They found less enthusiasm foraccepting children with mid than any other grouping, with the exception of childrenwith emotional and behavioural difficulties. The interesting point however is thatwhere teachers had had some experience of teaching children with mid, more werewilling to accept them in the class.

Thomas found that attitude to integrating children with mid was not relatedto age of teacher, nor to parental status, nor to possession of a special educationqualification. He wrote that

A tradition of special classes in the area, limited opportunity for teamteaching and a negative attitude from the principal, moderate or highconservatism, unsupportive attitudes from the contact special educator,form a powerful set of circumstances with regard to negativism towardsintegration, (p. 259)

Ward and Center (1987) used educational characteristics rather than traditionalgroupings in an attempt to unravel the structure of attitudes to integration. Theyfound that mild intellectual disability (IQ 56-79) loaded heavily on their firstfactor, as did 'requiring additional skills on the part of the teacher'. They concludethat a positive attitude to mainstreaming depends upon the availability of suchskills and of adequate backup resources.

To summarize, teacher attitudes to integrating children with mid arepredominantly positive in principle, but negative in practice. But the negativismrests on a need for improved teaching skills and better support. Given theseconditions, it is reasonable to conclude that more positive attitudes might overcomea segregative tradition.

Some evidence that providing these conditions facilitates integration is offeredby Marchesi (1986), who described a Spanish integration project. In 1984, Spainhad c. 1.6 per cent of the school population in segregated provision. Schoolsaccepting a government offer to integrate two pupils with special needs per yearwere offered in return an agreement to reduce class size, to provide support teachersand appropriate pedagogical equipment, and to organize courses for participatingteachers, etc. A balanced appraisal of this programme has been given by Gortazar(1991), who states that there are criticisms of some aspects, but also considerablesatisfaction.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14


There are fewer studies reporting on parental attitudes to integration and fewerstill on children's attitudes. Not every parent supports integrated education (e.g.Barnes, 1989); parents who were against special school placement when it wasfirst suggested may fight vehemently to retain it once it has been accepted (Litchfield,1987). But most parents support the lobby for integration, sometimes to the extentof legal action. Parent associations, e.g. the PARC case in the USA (Lippman andOldberg, 1973), have in this way effected greater recognition of the right tomainstream education.

Hegarty and Pocklington (1981) interviewed he parents of forty-three childrenwith special needs. Although all were in an integration programme, some had hadexperience of special schools as well. All forty-three unhesitatingly wanted theirchild to continue being educated in an integrated setting. Hegarty and Pocklingtonconcluded that given a well-planned programme, parents do want integratededucation.

DISCUSSION

The integration of children with mid is the acid test of integration policies: theyconstitute the largest group in the special school population, their parents are notas strong a lobby as the parents of other children with special needs, and they donot command the same degree of sympathy as do children with obvious sensoryand physical handicaps. In the discussion which follows, the main conclusions ofthis review will be summarized and some areas where more research is neededwill be highlighted.

Integration means different things in different countries - from a well-plannedprogramme with generous support from well-trained staff, to a belief that integrationis occurring since children are already educated in the mainstream. Moreover,terms which may seem to be equivalent to 'moderate learning difficulties' maywell refer to somewhat different children. They do not comprise a clear-cut category,but rather a heterogeneous group of children whose learning difficulties mergeimperceptibly into the 'mild' description at one end of the spectrum and into the'severe' at the other. Whether the difficulties of an individual child are describedas mild, moderate or severe will depend to some extent on the ability of the schoolto respond to his/her needs.

Most countries espouse integration policies for children with mid. But thepractice varies. The extent of integration varies significantly within countries, aswell as between them.

The main research question being asked a decade ago, 'Is mainstreaming better?',was not a profitable one. Reviews of research show that the answer is equivocal:there is no solid evidence to suggest that education in the mainstream for childrenwith mid necessarily leads to better academic results, nor to better social outcomes.Few of the enquiries relate different educational experiences to post-schooloutcomes, surely an important criterion. Studies following students with mid acrossthis transition point were carried out under earlier conditions, e.g. Ferguson andKerr (1960); Tuckey and Tuckey (1973), but studies of school-leavers with midfrom good integrated education programmes would be helpful.

Jenkinson (1987) noted that many of the USA enquiries probably includeddisproportionate numbers of ethnic minorities in dieir mid research samples. Ethnicminorities have also been disproportionately represented in the mid population inparts of the UK (Williams, 1984). This draws attention to the special needs ofchildren whose learning difficulties exist in and may be interwoven with a minority

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14


linguistic and cultural background. This issue is intricate educationally (Cummins,1984) and sensitive politically, but exists in many countries, and needs exploring.

Granted that the integration question is at heart a moral issue (Mitchell, 1990),it then follows that the educational question is not 'Whether?', but 'How?'. Parentsare generally positive, teachers less so. The encouraging evidence here is that somany teachers believe that mainstreaming for mid is right in principle: moreoverteachers with experience of children with mid are more favourable to acceptingthem in their classes than those without such experience. For reasons such asthese, the research focus has moved.

The curriculum issue has moved to a concern with methods of access to asmuch of the common curriculum as possible. Differentiation within the curriculum(National Curriculum Council, 1989) aims to offer children with learning difficultiesa similar range of experiences to that of their peers, albeit at different levels, whilealso accommodating the particular needs of the child with mid. Good examplesof differentiated curricula for children with mid in the mainstream are needed.

The traditional pull-out or withdrawal arrangements for offering extra help inbasic subjects for pupils with mid does not fit easily with the concept of acurriculum for all, and educators are experimenting with different forms ofclassroom organization. In the UK support teaching in the classroom is the preferredmodel. In the USA, the Integrated Classroom Model and the Adaptive LearningEnvironment Model are examples of alternative approaches. There is some evidencethat children prefer help from their own teacher, although opinions may be affectedby limited experience. More enquiries into how children feel about differentarrangements would be valuable, though in the end it may well be a case of 'notwhat you do, but the way you do it'.

Teachers' views on the conditions for successful integration were documentedby the UNESCO survey (Bowman, 1986). First, they want a better pupil-teacherratio. This can be achieved by reducing the number of pupils in the class, or byincreasing the teaching time available, or by a combination of both.

A second need was for more training. Appointing a trained special educationteacher to take a class which contains a substantial proportion of children withlearning difficulties, as in the ICM model, circumvents this. In the co-teaching orsupport teaching model, the support teacher offers the expertise, and this modelmay be more appropriate for the secondary phase. (The broader questions ofteacher training for special educational needs are covered by, for example, Andrews,1983, and Hegarty and Moses, 1988.)

A third need was for specialist help for skills other than teaching. The bestexample here is speech therapy, which so many children with mid need." Interestingly,speech therapists, like support teachers, see the disadvantages of withdrawalarrangements and are increasingly moving to work as part of a classroom team.But their services are in short supply, and the tactic of forming a cluster of aspecial school with a secondary and several primary schools acting together as aunit for service delivery, helps organizationally (Inner London Education Authority,1985).

A fourth need was for extra resources. These present less of a problem forteaching pupils with mid than for children with other forms of special needs, whomay require particular forms of classroom modification and technologicalequipment. There is however one great resource which is rarely mentioned, yetmust be provided: time, so that an effective pattern of work can be planned withcolleagues. Diary studies of support teachers' days would be interesting documents.

Children with mid are not educated in a classroom; they are educated in aschool. For their integration to be successful the whole school must be involved.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14


In the UK the phrase 'the Whole School Approach' has become popular to describethe formulation of a school policy which is committed to the integration of pupilswith special needs (e.g. Ainscow and Florek, 1989). And commitment to theprinciple of integration is helped by the kind of practical encouragement used inSpain (Marchesi, 1986).

The tone of this review has been positive. It charts for pupils with mld the finalstages of what Jenkins and Heinen (1986) described as an odyssey, a journey,which began in the closing years of the last century, in the ordinary classes of thenew compulsory education systems, and then moved to the special classes, orStandard Os which were set up for them. During the middle years of this centurythey moved out of the special classes into the segregated special schools, oftensegregated geographically as well as educationally. In recent decades they havestarted to return to the ordinary school, based at first in the special class. Nowthey move back whence they started, back into the ordinary class, but with theirneeds supported in ways which our teacher colleagues of a century ago, with theircrowded, yet lonely classrooms, would not have thought possible. It would bepleasant to congratulate ourselves. But this end stage of the journey has as yetbeen accomplished only by the pioneers: many - most - children with mld haveyet to reach this destination.

This leads to two final observations. First, many writers stress that poor integratededucation is not as effective as good segregated education. Conditions in themainstream must be developed to ensure that needs can be properly met beforeintegration occurs. Second, there is a growing political emphasis in several countrieson the effectiveness of education. In itself, this is welcome. But when effectivenessis measured mainly or even solely through achievement in traditional academicsubjects, and when resourcing depends on this, rather than the social objectivesencapsulated in the integration of children with learning difficulties, there aredangers. The non-competitive judgements that Chapman (1988) saw as so importantfor children with learning difficulties are liable to disappear, and commitment tointegration will be seriously at risk.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude for the material provided by the Danish Ministryof Education and the Schweirischen Zentralstelle fur Heilpadagogik.

REFERENCES

ADAMS, F.J. (Ed.) (1990). Special Education in the 1990s. Harlow: Longman.AINSCOW, M. and FLOREK, A. (Eds) (1989). Special Educational Needs: towards a whole

school approach. London: David Fulton and the National Council for Special Education.ANDREWS, R.J. (1983). 'Issues in the professional preparation of special education teachers:

an Australian overview', The Exceptional Child, 30, 2, 101-110. Quoted in Sebba(1985).

BARNES, R. (1989). 'Integration: panacea or problem?', Education Today, 39, 3, 16-20.BERNATH, K. and KAYSER, M. (1991). Special Education in Switzerland. Luzern:

Schweirische Zentralstelle fur Heilpedagogik.BINES, H. (1986). Redefining Remedial Education. London: Croom Helm.BOWMAN, I. (1986). Teacher training and the integration of handicapped pupils: some

findings from a fourteen nation UNESCO study', European Journal of Special NeedsEducation, 1, 1, 29-38.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14


BUCKLAND, M. and CROLL, P. (1987). 'Classroom organisation and interactions of pupilswith moderate learning difficulties in mainstream and special schools', European Journalof Special Needs Education, 2, 2, 75-87.

BURLI, A. and STURNI-BOSSART, G. (1990). Jahrbuch 1988-9 zur SchweizerHeilpadagogik. Luzern: Schweirische Zentralstelle fur Heilpadagogik.

CALHOUN, G. and ELLIOTT, R. (1977). 'Self-concept and academic achievement ofeducable retarded and emotionally disturbed pupils', Exceptional Children, 44, 379-380.

CHAPMAN, J.W. (1988). 'Learning-disabled children's self-concepts', Review of EducationalResearch, 58, 3, 347-371.

COLE, T. (1989). Apart or a Part? Integration and the Growth of British Special Education.Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

CROLL, P. and MOSES, D. (1985). One in Five. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.CUMMINS, J. (1984). Bilingualism and Special Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.DAHLEN, M. (1982). Norwegian Seminar on Integration. Paris: OECD. Quoted in Fish,

J. (1985).D'ARCY, J. (1988). Into Teaching. Belfast: Northern Ireland Council for Educational

Research.DEN BOER, K. (1990). 'Country briefing: special education in the Netherlands', European

Journal for Special Needs Education, 5, 2, 136-150.DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1978). Special Educational Needs.

(Warnock Report). London: HMSO.DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1984). Slow-learning and Less Successful

Pupils in Secondary Schools: evidence from HMI visits. London: Department of Educationand Science.

DESSENT, T. (1987). Making the Ordinary School Special. Basingstoke: Falmer Press.DUNN, L.M. (1968). 'Special education for the mildly retarded - is much of it justifiable?',

Exceptional Children, 35, 5-22.ELKINS, J. (1985). 'Disability and disadvantage: special education in Australia. Past present

and future'. In: PALMER, I. (Ed.), Melbourne Studies in Education, Carlton: MelbourneUniversity Press.

FERGUSON, N. and ADAMS, M. (1982). 'Assessing the advantages of team teaching inremedial education', Remedial Education, 17, 1, 24-30.

FERGUSON, T. and KERR, A.W. (1960). Handicapped Youth. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

FISH, J. (1985). Special Education: the way ahead. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.GALLOWAY, D. (1985). Schools, Pupils and Special Educational Needs. London: Croom

Helm.GARNETT, J. (1988). 'Support teaching: taking a closer look', British Journal of Special

Education, 15, 1, 15-18.GAYLORD-ROSS, R. (1987). 'School integration for students with mental handicaps: a

cross-cultural perspective', European Journal of Special Needs Education, 2, 2, 117-129.GORTAZAR, A. (1991). 'Country briefing: special education in Spain', European Journal

of Special Needs Education, 6, 1, 56-70.HEGARTY, S. (1987). Meeting Special Needs in Ordinary Schools. London: Cassell.HEGARTY, S. (1990). 'The curriculum in special education'. In: ENTWISTLE, N. (Ed.),

Handbook of Educational Ideas and Practices. London: Routledge.HEGARTY, S. and MOSES, D. (Eds) (1988). Developing Expertise: INSET for special

educational needs. Windsor: NFER-NELSON.HEGARTY, S. and POCKLINGTON, K. (1981). Educating Pupils with Special Needs sin

the Ordinary School. Windsor: NFER-NELSON.HEIDEGGER, B. (1988). 'The German school system and integration', Support for Learning,

3, 1, 41-43.INNER LONDON EDUCATION AUTHORITY (1985). Equal Opportunities for All? (Fish

Report). London: Inner London Education Authority.JENKINS, J.R. and HEINEN, J. (1989). 'Students' preferences for service delivery: pull-out,

in-class or integrated models', Exceptional Children, 55, 516-523.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14


JENKINSON, J.C. (1987). School and Disability: research and practice in integration.Australian Education Review No. 26. Hawthorn, Vic.: Australian Council for EducationalResearch.

JOBLING, M. (1985). Children with Special Needs in the Ordinary School. Highlight No.67. London: National Children's Bureau.

JOHNSON, G.O. (1950). 'A study of the social position of the mentally retarded child inthe regular grades', American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 55, 60-89.

JOWETT, S. (1989). 'Links between special and ordinary schools - a study of their prevalenceand purpose', European Journal of Special Needs Education, 4, 1, 23-34.

JOWETT, S., HEGARTY, S. and MOSES, D. (1988). Joining Forces: a study of linksbetween special and ordinary schools Windsor: NFER-NELSON.

KAUFMAN, M., AGARD, J. and SEMMEL, M. (Eds) (1978). Mainstreaming: learners andtheir environment. Baltimore: University Park Press.

LINDSAY, G. (1989). 'Evaluating integration', Educational Psychology in Practice, 5, 1,7-16.

LIPPMAN, L. and OLDBERG, I.T. (1973). Right to Educate. New York: Teachers; CollegePress.

LITCHFIELD, B. (1987). 'Fusing special and mainstream education', Education: ForwardTrends, 11, 4, 25-26.

LOWENTHAL, B. (1989). 'The United States regular education initiative', European Journalof Special Needs Education, 4, 3, 180-184.

McGEE, P. (1990). 'Special education in Ireland', European Journal of Special NeedsEducation, 5, 1, 48-64.

McKERNAN, C. and WELLS, I. (1989). 'Integration in Omagh', Irish Educational Studies,8, 1, 211-218.

MADDEN, N.A. and SLAVIN, R.E. (1983). 'Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps:academic and social outcomes', Review of Educational Research, 53, 519-569.

MADGE, S., AFFLECK, J. and LOWENBRAUN, S. (1990). 'Social effects of integratedclassrooms and resource room/regular class placements on elementary students withlearning disabilities', Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 7, 439-445.

MARCHESI, A. (1986). 'Project for integration of pupils with special needs in Spain',European Journal of Special needs Education, 1, 2, 125-133.

MITCHELL, D. (1990). 'Integrated education'. In: ENTWISTLE, N. (Ed.), Handbook ofEducational Ideas and Practices. London: Routledge.

MITTLER, P. (1985). 'Integration: the shadow and the substance', Educational and ChildPsychology, 2, 3, 8-22.

MOSES, D., HEGARTY, S. and JOWETT, J. (1988). Supporting Ordinary Schools: LEAInitiatives. Windsor: NFER-NELSON.

NATIONAL CURRICULUM COUNCIL (1989). Curriculum Guidance 2: A Curriculumfor All. York: National Curriculum Council.

OECD-CERI (1981). The Education of the Handicapped Adolescent - Report on the Resultof the First Phase. Paris: OECD.

PETER, M. (1989). 'Will the English National Curriculum create learning difficulties orcure them?', New Era in Education, 70, 2, 53-57.

ROBINSON, H.B. and ROBINSON, N.M. (1965). The Mentally Retarded Child - aPsychological Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

RODBARD, G. (1990). 'Going Dutch! a perspective on the Dutch system of specialeducation', European Journal of Special Needs Education, 5, 3, 221-230.

RUTTER, M., TIZARD, J. and WHITMORE, K. (1970). Education, Health and Behaviour.London: Longman.

SAMSON, A. and REASON, R. (1988). 'What is successful re-integration?', British Journalof Special Education, 15, 1, 19-23.

SCHINDELE, R. (1985). 'Introduction'. In: HEGARTY, S. and EVANS, p. (Eds), Researchand Evaluation Methods in Special Education. Windsor: NFER-NELSON.

SEBBA, J. (1985). 'The development and evaluation of short school-focused courses onspecial educational needs', Educational and Child Psychology, 2, 3, 130-137.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14


SINGER, J. and BUTLER, J. (1987). 'The Education of all Handicapped Children Act:schools as agents of social reform', Harvard Educational Review, 57, 125-152.

SLAVIN, R.E. and MADDEN, N.A. (1986). 'The integration of students with mild academichandicaps in regular classrooms', Prospects, 16, 4, 443-481.

SODER, M. (undated). The Education of the Handicapped Adolescent: facility integrationof special school classes for the mentally retarded in Sweden. Paris: OECD-CERI.

STAINBACK, S. and STAINBACK, W. (1984). 'A rationale for the merger of special andregular education', Exceptional Children, 51, 102-111.

SWANN, W. (1988a). 'Trends in special school placement in 1986: measuring, grading andexplaining segregation', Oxford Review of Education. 139-161.

SWANN, W. (1988b). 'Backlash: integration? look twice at statistics', British Journal ofSpecial Education, 15, 3, 102.

THOMAS, D. (1985). 'The determinants of teachers' attitudes to integrating the intellectuallyhandicapped', British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 3, 251-263.

THOMAS, G. (1985). 'Extra people in the classroom: a key to integration', Educationaland Child Psychology, 2, 3, 102-107.

TOPPING, K. (1988). 'An introduction to peer tutoring', Educational and Child Psychology,5, 4, 6-16.

TOPPING, K. and WOLFENDALE, S. (Eds) (1985). Parental Involvement in Children'sReading. London: Croom Helm.

TUCKEY, L. and TUCKEY, R. (1973). Handicapped School Leavers: their further education,training and employment. Windsor: NFER-NELSON.

UNESCO (1988). The Review of the Present Situation of Special Education. Paris: UNESCO.UPTON, G. and BEASLEY, F. (1989). 'More by accident than design', British Journal of

Special Education, 16, 1, 27-30.WALTON, W.T., EMANUELSOON, I. and ROSENQUIST, J. (1990). 'Normalisation and

integration of handicapped students into the regular education system: contrasts betweenSweden and the USA', European Journal of Special Needs Education, 5, 2, 111-125.

WANG, M.C. and BAKER, E.T. (1985/6). 'Mainstreaming programs: design features andeffects', Journal of Special Education, 19, 2, 503-521.

WARD, J. and CENTER, Y. (1987). 'Attitudes to the integration of disabled children intoregular classes: a factor analysis of functional characteristics', British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 57, 2, 221-224.

WILLIAMS, P. (Ed.) (1984). Special Education in Minority Communities. Milton Keynes:Open University Press.

YOSHIDA, R.K. (1987). 'Mainstreaming, entry'. In: REYNOLDS, C.R. and MANN, L.(Eds), Encyclopedia of Special Education. New York: Wiley.

YOUNG, P. and WILLIAMS, P. (1986). 'Introduction'. In: COLE, T., Residential SpecialEducation. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

4:36

05

Nov

embe

r 20

14

integration of students with moderate learning difficulties

Documents