National Academies Press: OpenBook

Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity (1982)

Chapter: Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children

« Previous: Testing in Educational Placement: Issues and Evidence
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 262
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 263
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 264
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 265
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 266
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 267
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 268
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 269
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 270
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 271
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 272
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 273
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 274
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 275
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 276
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 277
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 278
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 279
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 280
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 281
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 282
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 283
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 284
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 285
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 286
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 287
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 288
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 289
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 290
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 291
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 292
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 293
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 294
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 295
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 296
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 297
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 298
Suggested Citation:"Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children." National Research Council. 1982. Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9440.
×
Page 299

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Effects of Special Education Placement on Educable Mentally Retarded Children KIRBY A. HELLER Research on the effects of placement in special education programs for educable mentally retarded (EMR) children has proliferated since the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-1421. In part this research represents a response to the mandate of P.L. 94-142 a need to determine whether special education services can be ef- fectively delivered in a less restrictive setting than self-contained class- rooms~ for EMR children; whether regular classroom teachers can instruct children previously assigned to special education teachers; and whether children in the regular classroom are adversely affected when EMR stu- dents are placed in their classrooms. These questions, however, did not arise solely in response to current educational policy. They have been asked repeatedly since the introduction of special education programs into the public school system. Even Binet, whose test was used to identify chil- dren needing special instruction, warned "it will never be to one's credit to have attended a special school" (cited in Lazarson, 1975:501. Throughout this paper, I use the term "special education" to cover all services provided to children who have been identified and labeled in the schools. I use the terms "segregated special education," "self-contained classrooms,' and "special classes" interchangeably to refer to one type of administrative arrangement within special education. I would like to thank James Gallagher, Jay Gottlieb, Samuel Guskin, Reginald Jones, Gaea Leinhardt, Lauren Resnick, and Melvyn Semmelfor their thoughtful and helpful reviews of earlier drafts of this paper. 262

Effects of Special Education Placement 263 The long-standing debate over the efficacy of special education classes reflects a tension between the perceived need for educating the EMR stu- dent in a small class with a specialized curriculum and special teacher and the concern over the effects of segregating EMR children from the main- stream in classes that include a disproportionate percentage of minority students. The justification for educating the EMR child in a special class lies in the assumed benefits derived from such a class. If placement in a special program has harmful effects or an absence of beneficial effects, then the harms associated with special placement pejorative labeling and segregation appear indefensible. If, however, beneficial effects fol- low from a special placement, such programs may be successfully de- fended on educational grounds. For these reasons, answers to the question of the efficacy of special programs are important not only to special educa- tors who seek to deliver better services but also to those concerned with the civil rights of minority and mentally handicapped children. The purpose of this paper is to review the research on the effects of pro- grams for EMR students. This research has almost exclusively focused on the effects of setting whether EMR children should be educated in a reg- ular classroom or in a self-contained classroom. To a large extent it ig- nores the processes that occur in these settings: those that lead to effective learning and those that provide barriers to further development. I argue that the goal of research should be to identify those factors that contribute to effective learning, rather than to arbitrate a final decision on setting, which must be determined by moral and legal concerns as well as by scien- tific evidence. I begin with a brief description of the early studies, known as efficacy studies, on the effects of setting. This research has been widely reviewed and criticized for its methodological shortcomings (see, e.g., Guskin and Spicker, 1968; Kirk, 1964; Semmel et al., 19791. Methodological prob- lems are discussed here because they provide an important caveat to the interpretation of the efficacy studies and because they illustrate the diffi- culties inherent in evaluating effects attributable to the settings in which EMR children are placed. The remainder of this paper is devoted to a dis- cussion of the later research on the effects of mainstreaming. Included are studies on academic achievement and social adjustment of EMR children, studies on the attitudes of other children toward their EMR peers, and studies on the attitudes of teachers toward mainstreaming and their ex- pectations for EMR children. The literature on the consequences of special education for EMR chil- dren is voluminous, and this paper by necessity cannot be an exhaustive review of all relevant research. My approach has been to focus on rep- resentative, frequently cited, and, whenever possible, methodologically

264 TELLER sound research. Because of the complexities involved in investigating the effects of educational programs on children, it is possible to criticize the methodology of almost every study undertaken in this area; yet it would be unfair to say that we know nothing about the effects of alternative educa- tional arrangements on children and simply conclude that more research is needed. To some extent, however, it is impossible to avoid the cliche of more needed research since many mainstreaming programs are new and evaluation efforts are just beginning. Rather than focus on the lack of knowledge, I have tried to emphasize the issues consistently addressed in the literature and the specific research questions that need to be studied for a better understanding of the effects of special education on EMR children. EFFICACY STUDIES The efficacy studies hypothesized that children in special classes would achieve at higher levels and be better adjusted than their counterparts in regular classes. In most of these early studies the special class thus repre- sented the treatment or experimental group and the regular classroom was the control group. The efficacy studies have been reviewed thoroughly (e.g., Cegelka and Tyler, 1970; Gardner, 1966; Guskin and Spicker, 1968; Hammons, 1972; Kaufman and Alberto, 1976; Kirk, 19642 MacMillan, 1971; MacMillan and Meyers, 1979; Meyers et al., 1980), and their results are often too briefly summarized: The academic achievement of children in special classes was found to be lower than the achievement of children remaining in regular classrooms, whereas social adjustment was often lower for chil- dren remaining in regular classrooms. The reviewers note, however, that this generalization is misleadingly simple, for the results of many studies, including one of the better known and frequently cited efforts of this period (Goldstein et al., 1965) do not adhere to this pattern. In addition, all discussion of the efficacy studies includes, by necessity, an important caution: The literature suffers from serious methodological problems. SAMPLING A major problem in the research is the choice of an appropriate com- parison group against which to measure the achievement of EMR children in self-contained classrooms. A typical strategy has been to compare EMR children to students with similar IQs who were perhaps matched on other variables as well, such as social class, age, sex, and achievement test scores (e.g., Baldwin, 1958; Kern and Pfaeffle, 19631. Since random sam

Effects of Special Education Placement 265 pling was not employed, the equivalence of the two groups is in doubt. In fact, it is likely that in most cases the groups were not equivalent. Children who have been identified as needing special education services are apt to differ from those who have never been so identified. Children who have been removed from the regular classroom may exhibit behavior or adjust- ment problems to a greater extent than those who remained in the regular classroom. To avoid these obvious problems, other sampling techniques have been adopted: matching EMR children in special classes with children on waiting lists for placement in special classes (e.g., Mullen and Itkin, 1961) or matching EMR children in special classes with children who attended schools in districts that did not have special education pro- grams (e.g., Cassidy and Stanton, 1959; Johnson, 1961~. Although well planned, these studies did not solve the problems created by a failure to randomly assign children to treatments. One can assume that children who are placed in special education differ in fundamental ways from chil- dren who await placement. Similarly, districts that do not provide special education services are likely to differ from those that do on many charac- teristics other than the availability of special education programs, such as size of school, expenditures, and educational philosophy (Kaufman and Alberto, i976~. The research also suffers from problems associated with matching students on selected variables, particularly the inability to generalize from the atypical matched samples to the original unmatched samples. Only one of the efficacy studies attempted to eliminate these problems by a random assignment of students to classrooms. Goldstein et al. (1965) tested all students entering the first grade in 20 school districts and ran- domly assigned all those with IQ scores below 85 to either self-contained classes with carefully designed curricula and specially trained teachers or to regular classes. The children were tested periodically during the follow- ing four years using a variety of achievement and social adjustment mea- sures. At the end of the four years no differences were found between the two groups in IQ gains, although both groups showed significant IQ in- creases, primarily during the first year of school. Results from academic achievement tests were mixed, depending on the specific subject matter tested, the IQ of the children, and the actual tests used. Sociometric measures indicated that neither group was rejected by its peers, but children in the regular classes were more likely than their special-class counterparts to interact with other neighborhood children. In a study of self-concept using the data from the Goldstein et al. project, Meyerowitz (1962) found that students in the special classes applied more self-derogatory statements to themselves than did EMR children in regu- lar classrooms.

266 HELLER Despite the strength of the methodology, there is a serious weakness in the study. Children were placed in the self-contained or regular classroom on the basis of IQ alone. Although this is not a methodological problem in the study itself, it does reduce the external validity of the project. Students are not usually placed in special classes unless they have been referred by a teacher (or someone else) who notices that the child has a specific problem (see the paper by Bickel in this volume). Thus the sample of children in the special classes in the Goldstein et al. (1965) study may not be equiva- lent to samples of children typically found in self-contained classrooms. In fact, many of the children who were originally placed in special classrooms later had IQ scores above 85. The study reveals little about the effects of special education on children who are placed when they are older than six or effects on children who have been chosen for placement using selection criteria other than the relatively high IQ scores used in this study. This and other studies emphasize the importance of random sampling and standardized measures of cognitive ability and achievement. Other types of research designs, which often include less quantifiable measures, are relatively neglected in the literature. This is not meant to imply that studies that include randomization are not desirable. The measures em- ployed must match the questions asked, and not all questions require ran- domization. To gain a more differentiated view of the effects of special education, a wide variety of outcome measures should be used, includ- ing naturalistic observations, descriptions of services provided, and more qualitative judgments of the experiences of EMR children in special and mainstreamed classes. INSTRUMENTATION The validity of the four instruments most commonly used to measure achievement in the efficacy studies- the Stanford Achievement Test, the Wide Range Achievement Test, the California Achievement Test, and the Metropolitan Achievement Test has been questioned for use in regular classes (Kaufman and Alberto, 1976~. In special classes, with modified curricula and students with IQs not represented in validation samples, the validity of these instruments is even more doubtful. Instrumentation prob- lems are even more serious in the measurement of social behaviors. Many researchers attempt to measure ill-defined constructs with instruments of unknown reliability and validity. The instrumentation problem involves more than the use of invalid measures. It is difficult to determine which measures are appropriate when two different types of programs with nonoverlapping goals are being compared. For example, it may be more appropriate to judge the effec

Effects of Special Education Placement 267 tiveness of special classrooms on the basis of outcomes other than aca- demic achievement, since instruction is often geared toward acquiring social and vocational skills. The differences typically found between EMR children in special and regular classrooms could simply reflect the lack of emphasis on academic subjects in special classes. IDENTIFICATION OF TREATMENTS AND POPULATIONS The sampling and instrumentation issues discussed above are examples of specific problems that limit the inferences that can be drawn from the effi- cacy studies. There are, in addition, two other, more fundamental and pervasive problems that undermine efforts to synthesize results from the effi- cacy research. First, studies on the effectiveness of special education fail to delineate the treatment or curriculum that is being evaluated. One can- not assume that children educated in special classes share anything besides a common administrative arrangement. Differences found among classes in- clude class size, curricula, the materials used, the professional back- grounds of the teachers, the attitudes of the teachers, and the educational needs of the students within the classroom. To understand the effects of special classes, the actual classroom operation, the nature of teacher- student interactions, the sequencing of ideas and materials, and the con- sequences of treatment rather than the administrative arrangement must be identified (Gallagher, 1967; Jones et al., 1978~. A similar problem is that the studies fail to describe the children being evaluated. Children labeled EMR do not belong to one clearly identifiable group. Rather, their membership is determined by the state in which they live as well as by idiosyncratic factors associated with individual school districts. For example, states employ different criteria in the definition of mental retardation, so that a child may be eligible for EMR programs in Illinois (with no specified IQ cutoff score) but ineligible in neighboring In- diana (with an IQ cutoff score of 75) Similarly, in 1959 the American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD) revised its system of classifica- tion of mentally retarded children by including in the definition of mild mental retardation deficits in adaptive behavior as well as subaverage in- tellectual functioning (test scores between one and two standard devia- tions below the mean). Thus, studies done prior to this revision included samples that may have been significantly different from those that were used after the new classification system was adopted.2 2The AAMD again revised its classification system in 1973, eliminating the category of "borderline retardation," thereby reducing further the generalizability of studies from decade to decade.

268 HELLER Children with varying learning characteristics and educational needs are likely to be found in EMR classes. These may include bilingual children who need help with English, children from impoverished environ- ments who may be lacking experience or materials that aid in school adjustment, children with motivational problems, and children with emo- tional problems that depress test scores (MacMillan, 19711. For these reasons, studies that focus on the effects of special and regular classes without specifying the population under study and the actual classroom operations may fail to identify significant findings and relationships. RESEARCH IN THE POST-EFFICACY STUDY ERA: THE EFFECTS OF MAINSTREAMING The increased role of the judiciary in special education, the growing disen- chantment with segregated special classes among influential educators (Dunn, 1968; Johnson, 1962), and the attendant restructuring of the laws governing the education of handicapped children led to a renewed interest in research on the effects of special education in the 1970s. The research addressed questions similar to those of the earlier efficacy literature, but the hypotheses of the later studies reflected a different bias. Children in mainstreamed classes were now considered the experimental group and children in special classes the control. This shift was partially the result of provisions of P.L. 94-142, which require the placement of children in the least restrictive environment. Because of persistent attacks on the earlier studies, researchers investi- gating the effects of mainstreaming attempted to randomly assign subjects to groups (this, of course, is not always possible nor desirable, as argued previously), to more adequately describe classroom curricula and func- tioning, and to utilize more sophisticated measures. To this end two meth- odologies have been employed: (1) large-scale planned or natural experi- ments, which resemble the actual conditions found in classrooms and (2) smaller-scale controlled studies, which maximize control but are limited in their applicability to real classroom conditions. The synthesis of both leads to a more complete understanding of the potential and real effects of educating EMR children in regular classrooms. DEFINITIONS OF MAINSTREAMING The terms "mainstreaming" or "mainstreamed classroom" have been used simply to assert that some degree of integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped students occurs in the same classroom. This unqualified usage of the concept of mainstreaming reveals little about the educational

Effects of Special Education Placement 269 environment experienced by a handicapped child. Variations include the number of hours of integration in the regular classroom, the academic and nonacademic subjects taught in integrated settings, the types of tran- sitional programs that are provided, the supports given to handicapped children in the regular classroom, and the teaching strategies used to ac- commodate handicapped children. Meyers et al. (1980) list four forms of regular-class placement for special learners, each of which is considered an example of mainstreaming: 1. The special student is in the regular class for one half of the time and is aided in a resource room or taught by a tutor for the other half. 2. The special student is in the regular class for most of the time and gets periodic help when it is needed. 3. The special student is in the regular class and gets no direct special help, but the teacher is assisted by a consultant. 4. The special student is in the regular class and gets no extra assistance. Kaufman et al. (1975:40-41) formulated a definition of mainstreaming that has been widely adopted as a model by many special education researchers (e.g., Jones and Wilderson, 1976; MacMillan and Semmel, 19771: Mainstreaming refers to the temporal, instructional and social integration of eligi- ble exceptional children with normal peers, based on an ongoing individually determined educational planning and programming process and requires clarifica- tion of responsibility among regular and special education administrative, instruc- tional, and supportive personnel. To satisfy the criteria set forth in this definition, a handicapped child must receive more than a desk and chair in the regular classroom. The ad- ditional requirements a sharing of responsibility among educators and instructional and social integration-are precisely the factors most dif- ficult to implement. As a result, it is unlikely that mainstreaming, as it is currently practiced, meets the standards set forth in Kaufman et al.'s defi- nition or that evaluations of current practices are evaluations of main streaming in its intended form. Guerin and Szatlocky (1974) conducted one of the few studies that com- pared various models of mainstreaming programs. They identified four models of integration that were used in eight school districts in California. These models included (1) primary assignment to a special class with par- tial integration into regular classrooms; (2) placement in combination classes in which the EMR children were in regular but small-sized classes

270 HELLER all day, with access to aides and supplementary materials; (3) assignment to regular classrooms in a centralized school that maintained a resource center for the regular as well as the handicapped school population (the EMR children were helped by a special education teacher who assisted the other teachers in the resource center); and (4) attendance at local schools with help from a special teacher for an hour or two a day. Guerin and Szatlocky found that the type of integration affected students' behavior in the classroom as well as the attitudes and plans of the staff. The results from this study are described in greater detail in subsequent sections. Research on the extent of mainstreaming indicates that the percentage of time a child is instructed in the regular classroom is not necessarily based on specific information about that child. For example, Semmel et al. (1979) noted that in a large-scale study in Texas (Project PRIME), admin- istrative considerations probably determined the child's placement and that correlations between learners' characteristics and hours of integra- tion were quite low. Determination of the least restrictive environment fre- quently is inextricably tied to the child's label e.g., if a child is labeled EMR, his or her placement is in a self-contained classroom (Stearns et al., 1979~. (These findings are part of a larger pattern, discussed in the paper by Bickel in this volume, in which service availability affects types of refer- rals, labeling practices, and final placements.) ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF EMR CHILDREN This research was recently reviewed by Semmel et al. (1979) and Corman and Gottlieb ( 1978~. The conclusions of these reviewers are strikingly similar to those reached by reviewers of the efficacy literature. Corman and Gottlieb note (p. 2571: Studies on achievement of EMR pupils in a variety of school settings reveal incon- sistent results. As a whole, these studies suggest that particular instructional techniques may be of greater relevance to improved achievement than the fact that these techniques are used in one of many possible integrated settings. Unfortunately, the designs of most achievement studies have failed to isolate particular treatment methods so that it is impossible to determine which treatment components were responsible for improvement. Exceptions to this generalization i.e., studies that do describe the educational program generally follow behavior modification principles. For example, Bradfield et al. (1973) studied the progress of three EMR and three educationally handicapped children placed in regular third- grade classrooms. The trained teachers took a learning center approach,

Effects of Special Education Placement 271 emphasizing individualized instruction and behavior modification tech- niques. At the end of the first year, the achievement scores of the handi- capped children in the regular classrooms were similar to those of children who remained in the special classrooms, but the achievement scores of the nonhandicapped children in the mainstreamed classrooms were below those of other children in regular classes. During the second year of the program, the consultants were replaced and the program was altered. The curriculum relied less on traditional textbooks, and the staff developed their own materials. The emphasis was on precision charts that indicated each child's progress and on tangible reinforcements, such as food. All work was done on an individualized basis, and cross-age tutoring was em- ployed. After the second year, the EMR children in the fourth-grade inte- grated classrooms gained more than their special-class peers in reading and arithmetic. There were no differences between third-grade EMR children in the model and control programs. Fourth-grade nonhandi- capped students in the model program had higher achievement scores than other nonhandicapped students in regular classes. No other differ- ences were found between these two groups, indicating that their perfor- mance did not deteriorate when EMR children were their classmates. Haring and Krug ( 1975) did not initially investigate mainstreamed classes but did study the effects of curricula based on behavior modifica- tion techniques. In this study, 48 children who had been diagnosed as mentally retarded were randomly assigned to either experimental or con- trol classrooms. The two experimental classrooms included precision charts showing daily achievements, a highly structured reading program, and a token reinforcement system in which students could earn rewards for good behavior. Teachers specified the programs in the two control classrooms. The experimental group gained significantly more in reading and arithmetic than the control group. Following the termination of the project, 13 of the 24 children in the experimental group returned to the regular classroom. None of the children in the control classrooms was transferred. The one-year follow-up study is more relevant to a discussion of main- streaming. Teacher ratings of the 13 EMR students who were reintegrated into the regular programs were compared with those for nonhandicapped children in the regular classrooms. The teachers indicated that on some specific items (e.g., the student follows directions, the student has basic skills) the experimental EMR students were superior to regular-class stu- dents. None of the former special-class students was perceived to need spe- cial-class help, and 76 percent of them did not require any extra assistance. The authors concluded that children who received adequate preparation in special classes can function effectively in regular classes.

272 HELLER As noted previously, characteristics of children labeled EMR may be more diverse than the single label implies. It is possible, and in fact likely, that some children labeled EMR may profit from instruction in the regu- lar classroom, while others may advance under the conditions offered in special classes. A study described earlier (Goldstein et al., 1965) found that children with borderline IQs (in this case, 80-85) in regular class- rooms had slightly although not significantly higher reading, arithmetic, and basic social information achievement test scores than did the equiva- lent IQ group in the special classes. The opposite pattern was found for children with IQ scores lower than 80. Children in this IQ range in the special classes had higher achievement test scores than did the children in the regular classes. Budoff and Gottlieb (1976) studied the interaction between educational placement and "learning potential" the ability to use prior training to solve new tasks. EMR children were divided into two groups: those that had high learning potential and those that exhibited low learning poten- tial. Half the children in each group were randomly assigned to segregated classrooms or integrated programs supplemented by remedial learning centers. Achievement test scores as well as data from other measures were collected during the spring prior to placement, two months after the be- ginning of the school year, and at the end of the school year. Results indi- cated that the students with high learning potential had higher arithmetic and reading test scores than did the children with low learning potential at all three times of measurement. No differences were found between chil- dren in the two placement groups on achievement test scores. The studies described above, with the exception of the older Goldstein et al. study, were experimental in design, using small samples and few classrooms. A different strategy, possible because of large-scale changes in special education following the implementation of P.L. 94-142 and revised state regulations, would be to monitor the effects of districts' ef- forts to educate EMR children in less restrictive environments. One example is the Texas PRIME project (Kaufman et al., in press), which was based on a naturally occurring change in special education in Texas. Districts were required to choose either self-contained classrooms for EMR students or adopt mainstreaming plans. Anglo, Chicano, and black children in grades 3, 4, and 5 in special and regular classes were studied. Considerable data were collected concerning the types of pro- grams into which children were placed, the percentage of class time that was integrated, the amount of one-to-one instruction, and the types of in- struction provided. Although the final report has not yet been published, drafts indicate that the scores of the mainstreamed EMR students were roughly equivalent to those of the nonmainstreamed EMR students on

Effects of Special Education Placement 273 various standardized achievement tests. The scores of both groups of EMR students were below those of the regular students. A second study, capitalizing on changes in the special education system in California, followed students who, after reassessment, were returned to regular classrooms (Meyers et al., 19751. Students who were decertified under new state guidelines were compared with EMR children who were not decertified and a matched group of regular students. The regular students were chosen from the classrooms of the decertified students and were in the lower half of the class in achievement. Although the EMR students and the decertified students had similar IQ and achievement test scores at the time of the original placement in special classes, at the time of Recertification the EMR students had lower IQs (and therefore were not returned to the regular classroom). On mathematics and reading achieve- ment tests, the regular students had the highest scores, the EMR students had the lowest, and the decertified students fell between the two. There tended to be greater differences between the decertified and the EMR students than between the regular and the decertified students. Teacher grades were similar for the decertified and the regular students. Both decertified and regular students were several years below grade level. The results from the studies reviewed can be interpreted according to one's expectations about mainstreaming. If one expects mainstreaming to be the panacea for all of special education's ills, clearly the results are disappointing. The two large-scale studies discussed here indicate that the EMR children may be progressing in the regular classroom but are still behind their peers, who themselves are not achieving at grade level. In fact, the most consistent finding from the studies reviewed is the rather poor prognosis for EMR children, whether in a special or a regular class. In their review of the literature, Semmel et al. (1979) note that mean reading scores of EMR pupils never reached a grade level beyond 4.0. A mainstreamed setting may be at least as effective as a segregated setting, but under either condition the reading skills of the children are deficient. The studies reviewed also highlight the need to determine individuals' strengths and weaknesses rather than rely on a global label. Why, for ex- ample, did some students in the California Recertification study (Meyers et al., 1975), who were originally quite similar on test scores to the EMR population, progress so that they were able to return to the regular class- room? The authors hypothesize that the decertified students might have had an enriched or stimulating home environment, yet this does not ex- plain the initial low IQ of the decertified children. It also is possible that the decertified students improved because of their prior educational ex- periences in the special class. Identification of the factors that led to the improvement of the decertified students is critical.

274 SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT HELLER Research on the social adjustment of EMR children who are mainstreamed into regular classrooms has focused on two general areas: the self-concept of the mainstreamed students and their attitudes toward learning and school. The commonly held belief, based on the early efficacy studies, is that attitudes about self and school suffer when EMR children remain in the regular classroom because of their obvious inferiority to their non- EMR peers. AS noted previously, these studies are methodologically weak and the finding is an oversimplification at best. In an attempt to specify one aspect of self-concept that should be af- fected by classroom placement, Schurr et al. (1972) measured the self- concept of ability in children four times during their first year of special education. The Michigan State University Self-Concept of Academic Ability Scale, used extensively in research by Brookover and his colleagues (Brookover and Erickson, 1975), indicates perception of one's ability to achieve on a task compared with others engaged in the same task. This measure has been found to be correlated with academic achievement, even when social class, intelligence, past achievement, and the expectations of others were controlled. However, the measure had not been used previously with EMR children. Across the four times of measurement there was an increase in scores. In the second year of the study, seven children were reassigned to the regu- lar class. The self-concept of ability of these children decreased, while that of those remaining in the special class continued to increase. This study highlights the importance of the children's comparison (or reference) group. Strang et al. (1978) directly assessed the effect of the reference group on self-concept. Elementary school children who had been randomly chosen to participate in a partially integrated program were compared with chil- dren remaining in special classes by using the Piers-Harris self-concept scale. Self-concept was measured prior to mainstreaming, one month after mainstreaming and at the end of the school year. The children in the in- tegrated classes had higher adjusted self-concept scores than the children who remained in the special classes. The authors hypothesized that the augmentation of self-concept could be due to one of two factors. The children in integrated programs may have been using multiple reference groups to evaluate their performance. Alternatively, the children in the mainstreamed classes may have interpreted their change in placement as an indication of success, which affected their self-concept. To further understand the importance of reference groups, a second study was conducted. Children who were partially integrated into regular

Effects of Special Education Placement 275 classes were randomly assigned to experimental or control groups. Both groups completed the Piers-Harris scale before mainstreaming and six weeks after mainstreaming. To increase the salience of the regular-class placement the experimental group was told to compare their performance with their non-EMR classmates. Consistent with hypotheses, the scores of the experimental group decreased and the scores of the control group in- creased (replicating the results of the first study). This study has in- teresting implications for mainstreaming. Programs that are based on partial integration, in which the EMR child interacts with EMR as well as non-EMR peers, allow the child to choose among multiple reference groups and select similar others (i.e., EMR children) as a comparison group, while disregarding dissimilar others (i.e., non-EMR children). In contrast, the entirely mainstreamed child may have a single reference group, one that is superior in many realms of behavior. Two studies reviewed in the section on academic achievement also con- tain information about self-concept and attitudes toward school. Budoff and Gottlieb (1976) investigated the effects of class placement and learn- ing potential on academic self-concept, attitudes toward school, and locus of control. After one year the children in integrated classrooms were more internally motivated and felt more positive about themselves and toward school than did the EMR children in self-contained classrooms. There was also an interaction between learning potential and placement. Children high in learning potential in integrated classrooms were more positive about school and themselves than children high in learning potential in segregated classrooms; children low in learning potential in segregated classrooms felt more positive about school and themselves than did chil- dren low in learning potential in integrated classrooms. Thus, the effects of placement are mediated by certain student characteristics. Adjustment also was investigated in the California Recertification study (Yoshida et al., 1976) and in Project PRIME (Kaufman et al., in press). The Project PRIME data indicate that EMR children in both settings as well as the non-EMR children had roughly equivalent academic self-con- cepts, feelings of isolation, and attitudes toward school. The California Recertification study obtained information from student files on attendance and on whether the student had dropped out of or had graduated from school. They found that more decertified students than EMR students graduated from school in two of the eight districts studied. Adjustment, as defined by remaining or dropping out of school, was simi- lar for the two groups in the other six districts. The results from these studies are clearly contradictory. Some show positive effects on social adjustment due to mainstreaming, some show negative effects, and some show no effects at all. Even the Budoff and

276 FIELLER Gottlieb (1976) study, perhaps the most comprehensive and methodologi- cally sound of all those reviewed, contains a critical shortcoming: While the students who were integrated into regular classrooms were placed in different classrooms with many teachers, the special-class children were all placed in one class with one teacher. The results could, therefore, be due to the behavior of the specific teacher rather than to the effects of placement in a self-contained classroom. Under any conditions the measurement of self-concept is difficult and elusive. It is not surprising that results from studies using different mea- sures and special populations do not converge. In addition, it is perhaps naive to expect that current educational placement, to the exclusion of a child's history of success and failure, will singularly modify self-concept or other deep-rooted attitudes toward learning. Perhaps the only conclusion that can be reached at present is that mainstreaming does not necessarily lead to a lowered self-concept and that other school and home factors probably have more powerful effects on a child's adjustment than does the influence of classroom setting alone. SPECIAL EDUCATION PLACEMENT AND THE MINORITY CHILD As mentioned previously, controversy over special education placement stems in part from concern about the overrepresentation of minorities in EMR programs. Studies of this problem typically have focused on the is- sues of assessment and placement (see Jones, 1976; see also the papers by Bickel and Travers in this volume) rather than the effects of special educa- tion programs for different subgroups of students. For example, the re- search reviewed in the previous sections often did not include descriptions of the racial composition of the samples; when this information was given, race was not used as an independent variable in analyzing the data. If a greater percentage of minority children than white children are inap- propriately placed in EMR programs, one might hypothesize that main- streaming and the provision of less intensive remedial help may be more likely to benefit (or less likely to harm) minority students than white stu- dents. Data on this issue are not available. A related question for which data are available concerns the degree of integration (e.g., the number of hours or percentage of time in which a student is mainstreamed) for minor- ity versus white children. In an analysis of Project PRIME data, Gottlieb et al. (1976) found that Chicano children were more likely than Anglos to receive reading, arithmetic, and nonacademic instruction in the regular classroom. These findings may reflect the fact that Anglo children had more severe disabilities and therefore were viewed as inappropriate candi

Effects of Special Education Placement 277 dates for mainstreaming; alternatively, greater political pressure may have resulted in the mainstreaming of the Chicano children. Along with monitoring of the extent of mainstreaming and the impact of mainstreaming on disproportion in EMR programs, research is needed to document the effects of alternative educational placements on the aca- demic performance and social adjustment of minority children. Although one goal of current mainstreaming efforts may be to decrease the dispro- portion of minorities in EMR programs, careful study is needed before one can conclude that any resultant reduction of disproportion necessarily implies that minority children are receiving a more appropriate education. EFFECTS OF MAINSTREAMING ON NoN-EMR CHILDREN Effects on Academic Achievement There has been almost no research on the effects of mainstreaming on non-EMR children's academic achievement, despite the fears of many critics that placing EMR children in regular classrooms will adversely af- fect the other children's learning. For example, opponents of mainstream- ing believe that teachers will have to spend a disproportionate amount of time with the slower learners, neglecting the average and above-average students. Neither the Project PRIME data nor related research on the fre- quencies of interactions that teachers initiate with children of low versus high ability within a classroom, however, supports this hypothesis. While extreme variation exists among teachers, children of high ability are gen- erally not ignored because of teachers' attentiveness to the slower learning students (Brophy and Good, 1974; Wang, in press). Only one study reviewed investigated the achievement of non-EMR children in a mainstreamed setting (Bradfield et al., 1973~; the results were summarized in a previous section. After the first year of an experi- mental program, the non-EMR children in the model program were adversely affected compared with a control group not involved in any special pro" gram. These negative effects could have been due to the presence of EMR children in the classroom or some aspect of the experimental program that may not have been appropriate for average and above-average students. After the second year, however, the achievement of the children in the model program was equal to or better than that of children in the control groups. No conclusions about this important phenomenon can be based on the results of one sketchily described study. It does emphasize the need to investigate further this variable as well as the mediators of positive or

278 HELLER negative effects of mainstreaming (e.g., changes in teachers' behaviors, changes in regular students' behaviors as a result of mainstreaming). Effects of Labels This research is only marginally relevant to an understanding of children's attitudes toward their EMR peers. Most of the studies use stories, audio- tapes, or videotapes to portray labeled or unlabeled hypothetical children, rather than ask the children to rate people they actually know. Thus, the research indicates how children in regular classrooms might react to the integration of handicapped and labeled children into their classrooms rather than describing how they actually feel or behave. The effects of labeling on children's attitudes and perceptions stem from a vast literature based in sociological, psychological, and educational theory. A review of this research is beyond the scope of this paper, but an ex- cellent synthesis and critique can be found in an article by MacMillan et al. (1974~.3 One issue that is relevant to an understanding of the effects of main- streaming involves differentiating the effects of the behavior that led to the issuance of the label from the effects of the label itself (e.g., Budoff and Siperstein, 1978; Gottlieb, 1974, 1975a; Strichart and Gottlieb, 1975~. Two conflicting hypotheses are plausible. First, the label may serve a pro- tective function, resulting in more tolerant behavior by the non-EMR child to the potentially negative or unusual behavior of an EMR-labeled peer. Similarly, standards may be more lenient when judging an EMR child. Or in contrast, the label may exacerbate a child's reaction to the behavior of an EMR classmate. Inappropriate behaviors may be perceived more negatively, and positive behaviors may be misinterpreted. The results of the research are affected by a number of factors: the behavior displayed by the actor and its congruence with the label, the sex and social class of the respondents, and the dependent measures used. In a typical study, children see a videotape or hear an audiotape of an actor performing a task either competently or incompetently. They are told that 3In this article the authors conclude that currently available data do not support the asser- tion that the mentally retarded label by itself has detrimental or long-lasting effects. In research, as in reality, labeling is confounded with different classroom experiences and in- teractions with significant others. For example, do children labeled mentally retarded have lower self-esteem? This is impossible to determine since those who are labeled are also in special classes and are treated differently by parents, peers, and teachers. Labeling initiates a chain of events that has a cumulative effect; therefore, it is impossible to isolate the conse- quences of the label itself.

Effects of Special Education Placement 279 the actor is either mentally retarded or are given little or no information about the actor and are asked to rate the actor by a series of adjectives or to indicate how much they want to be friends with the actor. Gottlieb (1974) found that labels did not affect the ratings of children from either an affluent suburb or a low-income urban neighborhood. The children in the middle-class sample had more positive attitudes toward competent than incompetent spellers regardless of the label. However, when subjects in the urban sample saw a videotape of a black rather than a white actor, neither levels of competence nor labeling affected their attitudes. A repli- cation of this study using slightly different dependent measures (as well as different age groups and audiotapes rather than videotapes) revealed that subjects were equally positive toward labeled and unlabeled competent spellers but that boys were more negative toward incompetent, unlabeled spellers than were girls (Budoff and Siperstein, 1978~. When aggression rather than competence in spelling was the target behavior, an EMR child was rated less positively than an unlabeled child, and an actor behaving in a socially appropriate manner was rated more favorably than an actor behaving aggressively (Gottlieb, 1975a). Freeman and Algozzine (1980) hypothesized that labeling effects could be diminished if positive behaviors were made salient. Fourth-grade chil- dren from middle to low socioeconomic status groups observed a video- tape of a boy engaging in a variety of academic tasks as well as in free play. They were told he was either mentally retarded, learning disabled, or emotionally disturbed or that he was not given a label. After seeing a por- tion of the tape the children completed questionnaires revealing their perceptions of the actor. The investigators either described positive at- tributes of the actor or presented nonevaluative info~-~ation. After view- ing the latter part of the videotape, in which the actor behaved more nega- tively, the children completed a second series of ratings. Labels had no effects on ratings. Children who were not told about the positive attributes assigned lower ratings to the boy on the videotape than those who had heard the positive description. Children who knew of the actor's positive attributes did not alter their ratings after viewing the end of the videotape, despite the actor's seemingly negative behaviors. The au- thors suggested that assigning positive attributes to an actor can offset the effects of negative behavior if the information provided is credible. Labels can lose their effects in the context of salient and believable behaviors. A study by Foley (1979) illustrates the influence of teachers' reactions on students' attitudes. Fourth-grade children in a rural town saw a video- tape of either a positive or negative reaction from a teacher to the aca- demic and social behaviors of a child labeled mentally retarded, learning

280 HELLER disabled, or average. Children were more accepting of actors who elicited positive rather than negative reactions from the teacher. Surprisingly, the acceptance scores were highest for actors labeled mentally retarded. In summary, with the exception of one study (Gottlieb, 1975a) the re- sults consistently indicated that children do not respond negatively to a peer labeled mentally retarded and that the actor's behavior is a more influential determinant of children's ratings. Generalizations to actual classroom situations must be made cautiously, however. First, character- istics of the population and of the behaviors exhibited influence the effects of labels. In addition, the paradigm used is rather contrived since the ex- perimenter overtly assigns a label to the target child. Subjects in the studies may feel compelled to apply (which in these cases may mean to ig- nore) this information by behaving tolerantly or in a socially appropriate and desirable manner in front of an adult experimenter. The results from the study by Foley (1979) are otherwise difficult to interpret. Is it possible that these children truly preferred mentally retarded children in their reading groups, in their classrooms, and as partners? Children's be- haviors in the classroom toward EMR peers may be less affected by the desire to behave in a socially desirable way, unless the teacher is watching. The salience of the label in the classroom probably is continually shifting, depending on the behaviors exhibited. Thus, the findings from the re- search reviewed above need to be validated in the classroom. Social Acceptance of EMR Childre'' by Their Non-EMR Peers Numerous studies have established that mentally retarded children are less socially accepted than are nonretarded children by their nonretarded peers (Baldwin, 1958; Gottlieb, 1978; Hartup, 1970; Johnson, 19501. This consistent finding is a special case of the positive correlation that is found between IQ and social status, as measured by sociometric instruments (Dentler and Mackler, 1962; Hartup, 1970~. What is less clear is the precise relationship between mental retardation and social status. Some reports suggest that the mentally retarded child is simply isolated from nonretarded peers (Lapp, 1957; Sheare, 19741; others suggest that the mentally retarded child is actually rejected (Gottlieb, 1978; Johnson, 1950) or barely tolerated (Morrison, 19811. Because the measures used differ in the various studies, the results cannot be easily synthesized. For example, some investigators used nomination measures (e.g., "Who is your best friend?" "With whom would you like to be grouped in a sports activity?"), while others used semantic differentials or rating scales (e.g., "How much do you like to play with ?". What factors account for the generally low sociometric position held by

Effects of Special Education Placement 281 EMR children? One possible cause of their low social status is that chil- dren in regular classes lack knowledge of and familiarity with mentally re- tarded children. A hypothesis frequently offered is that children who have had interactions with mentally retarded children have more positive atti- tudes toward them (e.g., Christoplos and Renz, 1969; Goodman et al., 1972~. Obviously, the nature of the interactions should influence the ef- fects of contact. If mainstreamed EMR children are disruptive or act bizarrely in the regular classroom, contact should lead to negative at- titudes toward EMR children. Alternatively, the better-behaved EMR children may be those who are chosen for reintegration, and their behav- ior may be more conforming than those children remaining in the special classes (Gottlieb, 1975b). The research thus far on this issue reveals that integrated EMR children are not more accepted than EMR children remaining in special classes (Goodman et al., 1972; Gottlieb and Davis, 1973; Morrison, 1981; Rucker et al., 1969; Strauch, 1970), although there are some exceptions to this pat- tern (Leinhardt and Leinhardt, in press; Sheare, 19741.4 Gottlieb et al. (1978) studied the effects of perceived misbehavior by and academic ability of EMR children in integrated classrooms on their non-EMR peers' (and teachers') ratings of social acceptance and rejec- tion. Teachers and students completed questionnaires in which they nomi- nated the children who were most disruptive (e.g., "Who does the teacher have to scold all the time?") and those who were low in achievement (e.g., "Who never knows the answers in class?"), and scores were derived for each EMR student from these ratings. Each EMR student also received a score of social acceptance and rejection as rated by his or her classmates. The measure used was a sociometric scale called "How I Feel Toward Others." Subjects colored in either a smiling face, a straightmouthed face, a frowning face, or a question mark (to signify unfamiliarity) to in- dicate their feelings toward each of their classmates. Ratings of cognitive ability by teachers and peers related to social acceptance scores, while ratings of misbehavior by teachers and peers related to social rejection scores.5 4In a reanalysis of Project PRIME data on social acceptance, Leinhardt and Leinhardt (in press) found that mainstreaming did have a positive effect on the attractiveness of the mainstreamed EMR child. They emphasize the importance of using a multivariate approach to the study of social acceptance and caution that univariate analyses may lead to erroneous conclusions. sThese results were not replicated by MacMillan and Morrison (1980). However, their study was conducted with EMR children in special classes. The authors discuss the importance of considering the characteristics of the setting and rater when interpreting results.

282 HELLER This study suggests that EMR children's misbehavior in the classroom may cause their lower social status and that brighter EMR children may be more accepted by their peers. Only a few studies have tested this hy- pothesis by including naturalistic observations of children's behaviors in mainstreamed classrooms. Two studies by Gottlieb and his colleagues investigated the effects of classroom placement and IQ on classroom behavior (Gampel et al., 1974; Gottlieb et al., 1975~. In one study, EMR children were randomly assigned to self-contained or integrated class- rooms, and these two groups were compared to children with low IQ scores who had never been identified for placement in a special class as well as to children with average IQs (Gampel et al., 1974~. They found that the EMR children in the self-contained classrooms more frequently displayed hostile and aggressive behaviors than did the other three groups, which did not differ. In a similar study, Gottlieb et al. (1975) compared students who were randomly assigned to integrated or self-contained programs. Both groups were infrequently hostile, but the integrated EMR children engaged in prosocial behavior more frequently. Observations in classrooms participating in the Project PRIME study yielded similar results. All groups of learners mainstreamed EMR chil- dren, nonmainstreamed EMR children, and non-EMR children dis- played similar levels of cooperative and friendly behaviors and antisocial actions. Guerin and Szatlocky (1974) conducted classroom observations in schools with different mainstreaming models, using Spaulding's Coping Analysis Schedule for Educational Settings (see Simon and Boyer, 19671. They ob- served each child for only about five minutes, and their data therefore can be considered only suggestive. They found very few behavioral differences between EMR children and other children. Students in programs that were integrated for most of the day were more self-directed than those in programs with limited integration. Although these results are based on only a few small-scale studies, they indicate that mainstreamed EMR children do not misbehave in the class- room and that there are very few behavioral differences between EMR and other children. Differences in behavior may be more subtle or occur infre- quently and remain undetected by the observational systems that were used. Efforts have been made to alter the social skills and status of mentally retarded children. This research, recently reviewed by Gresham (1981), is primarily derived from social learning theory and uses such techniques as token reinforcement programs, differential reinforcement of behaviors other than the target response (presumably a negative behavior), remov- ing the child from a reinforcing situation, modeling, coaching, and self- control training. The social skills of handicapped children improve under

Effects of Special Education Placement 283 each of these approaches, although little is known about the maintenance and generalization of effects following termination of the intervention. Four studies have specifically attempted to increase social acceptance by manipulating events in the EMR child's social environment (Aloia et al., 1978; Ballard et al., 1977; Chennault, 1967; Rucker and Vincenzo, 1970~. For example, when group activities were organized and low-status EMR children were assigned to groups that included higher-status EMR peers, the sociometric scores of the low-status children improved more than those of the EMR children who did not participate in the group activity (Chennault, 1967~. However, when Rucker and Vincenzo (1970) tried to replicate the Chennault findings with low-status EMR children and high- status non-EMR children, they found that the gains in social status were not sustained for more than one month. Ballard et al. (1977) studied the effects of EMR children's participation in a group activity on acceptance (using a forced-choice sociometric in- strument) of the EMR children by their non-EMR peers. Groups of four to six children planned and executed a cooperative multimedia project. Each group included one mainstreamed EMR child, and the acceptance of this child improved after participation in the group, even among class- mates who were not originally members of the group. Finally, after providing non-EMR children with information concern- ing the competencies of an EMR child in a game-playing situation, Aloia et al. (1978) found that the EMR children were more accepted by their peers. Taken together, the studies reviewed do not indicate that mainstream- ing alone has a positive effect on the acceptance of EMR children in the regular classroom. The picture is not entirely gloomy, however. First, a distinction can be made between methods that assess friendship and those that assess general acceptance. In an analysis of various sociometric mea- sures, Asher and Taylor (in press) noted that handicapped children often are not chosen on measures that tap "best friendship" but that general ac- ceptance rating scales reveal less negative pictures of the handicapped child's sociometric position. For example, the Project PRIME data revealed that nearly all of the mainstreamed EMR children were accepted by at least three of their non-EMR peers. In addition, there is considerable over- lap in sociometric scores between EMR and non-EMR children (Gottlieb, 1981; Iano et al., 19741. It is important for research to focus on the types and quality of friendships and social networks that mentally retarded children may have rather than to simply rely on their sociometric position in class. A more differentiated view of the relationship between behavior and social acceptance is also needed. For example, a non-EMR child may not want an EMR peer as a spelling partner or as the baseball captain but may choose to sit with the same child on the bus. Children may not hold

284 HELLER uniformly accepting or rejecting attitudes across all situations, since dif- fering contexts may elicit differentiated behaviors from EMR children. Finally, sociometric status can be altered by certain group activities and by training social skills. Thus placement in a mainstreamed setting does not necessarily doom an EMR child to permanent social rejection. EFFECTS OF MAINSTREAMING ON TEACHERS As for most educational innovations, it is the teachers who are ultimately responsible for the success or failure of proposed changes in programming. Despite expressed concern about the ability and willingness of regular classroom teachers to adapt and cope with handicapped children in their classrooms, little research has been directed toward understanding the ef- fects of mainstreaming on teachers. The existing literature can be divided into two categories: survey studies on teachers' attitudes toward mainstreaming and the effects of labeling on teachers' expectations for EMR children. The first category clearly is rele- vant to the concerns of this paper. However, this research does not provide an in-depth investigation of teachers' feelings and behaviors as they are af- fected by mainstreaming. The usefulness of research in the second cate- gory is based on an important but debatable assumption; namely, that teach- ers' expectations ultimately influence the behaviors of children. In fact, one of the major criticisms directed at special education, emphasized by Dunn (1968), is that special classes are dead-end placements precisely because of the low expectations that teachers hold for EMR children. Effects of Teachers' Expectations The effects of teachers' expectations on children's achievement are less clear-cut than Dunn's (1968) original description. Rosenthal and Jacob- son's (1968) book Pygmalion in the Classroom sparked considerable inter- est in research on teachers' expectations, demonstrating that children who were expected by teachers to show intellectual gains did, in fact, show them. Much criticism has followed publication of this study (Elashoff and Snow, 1971; Thorndike, 1968), and the results have been difficult to repli- cate. To briefly summarize the great deal of research that has been done in this area, it is fair to say that teachers' expectations are related to teachers' behaviors toward their students as well as to students' behaviors (e.g., Brophy and Good, 1974; Cooper, 1979; Rothbart et al., 1971; Rubo- vits and Maehr, 1971~. Whether teachers' expectations directly cause achievement gains or losses is less clear. Teachers' expectations in the classroom may reflect actual differences in achievement as well as cause

Effects of Special Education Placement 285 them, and the direction of causality is difficult to ascertain. Studies that measure naturally occurring expectations in the classroom cannot tease out the causal agent in the relationship between expectations and achieve- ment. Studies in which expectations are artificially created before any in- teractions occur in the classroom have not shown consistent effects on stu- dents' achievement. What are the effects of labeling children as mentally retarded on teach- ers' perceptions of or expectations for their students? Salvia et al. (1973) showed videotapes of children performing various tasks to students in reg- ular and special education programs. The children were labeled mentally retarded, gifted, or normal. Subjects also rated a hypothetical child who was supposed to be a typical mentally retarded, normal, or gifted child. Responses to the stereotype were most affected by labeling. The students responded least favorably to their stereotypes of a mentally retarded child. In contrast, the label mentally retarded had few effects on the ratings of the children portrayed in the videotape. In a similar study, Yoshida and Meyers (1975) found no effects for labels. Subjects changed their expecta- tions when the performance of the child on the videotape improved, indi- cating that reliance on the label was reduced when other cues (i.e., actual behavior) were present. Several researchers have investigated teachers' attributions of hypotheti- cal academic performance by children labeled EMR. Severance and Gass- trom (1977) found that subjects rated ability and task difficulty as more important causes of failure for mentally retarded children than for normal children, while effort was perceived as a more important cause of success for the mentally retarded children. They also believed that normal chil- dren were more likely to succeed in the future than were mentally retarded children and that past success was more influential in predicting future success for normal children. Similarly, Palmer (1979) found that when teachers were told that EMR, educationally handicapped (EH), or normal children were performing below grade level, the teachers perceived that lack of ability was more influential in determining performance for EMR children than for EH or normal children. Information about labels, how- ever, was not applied when subjects were told that children were perform- ing at grade level. Palmer also asked the teachers to recommend remedial programs and placements for the hypothetical children. Teachers initially prescribed more remedial programs and settings for the EMR and EH children than for the normal children, but as they continued to receive consistent feedback about the child's performance (the child performed either at grade level or below grade level at three points in time), instruc- tional recommendations converged for the three groups of children. Thus, subjects differentially interpreted and applied information about chil

286 HELLER dren's initial performance for normal versus handicapped students, but the labels lost significance when information about current performance was consistently given to the teachers. Using a different approach to the study of teachers' expectations, Meyen and Hieronymous (1970) asked special education teachers and cur- riculum specialists to determine the appropriate time in the child's school- ing at which various skills should be introduced into the curriculum. Sub- jects indicated that most of the academic skills should be introduced into the EMR curriculum when children were approximately 11 through 14 years old. A sample of 1,405 students between the ages of 9 and 18 was also tested on the various items, and most of the EMR children achieved these skills between the ages of 12 and 15. In contrast, the same skills were ac- quired by non-EMR children by age 8. Thus, a seven-year lag often separated the achievement of EMR and non-EMR children. The authors speculated that the poor performance of the EMR children was only par- tially due to their slower intellectual development; it also reflected low ex- pectations by teachers for their EMR students' attainment of the skills, which resulted in a relatively late introduction of the skills into the curric- ulum. Similar low expectations by special education teachers for reading achievement in EMR students have been demonstrated (Heintz, 1974~. Mainstreamed children participating in Project PRIME sensed their teacher's low expectations (Velman, 1973, cited in Brophy and Good, 19741. EMR students thought that teachers made fewer cognitive de- mands and expected less of them than their nonhandicapped classmates. This body of research does not directly assess the effects of labels on teachers' behaviors in their classrooms and their attitudes toward EMR students.6 It suggests, however, that teachers' expectations can affect their perceptions of children as well as the instructional strategies they use. The relationship between labels and teachers' attitudes and behaviors is not a simple or straightforward one. A label elicits many attitudes and feelings. In the research cited, the term mentally retarded connoted low ability rather than other transient factors as a cause of failure and led to initial low expectations for performance. Yet these expectations and at- tributions are not irreversible. Teachers change their expectations when 60nly one study was found in which observations of teachers' behaviors toward EMR and non-EMR children were conducted (Raber and Weisz, 1981). The EMR children received more negative feedback than non-EMR students; in addition, the patterns of feedback received by EMR children were those that often lead to learned helplessness in children. While the differences in teachers' behavior may have been due to differences between the groups, the authors selected the samples in ways that would minimize such differences.

Effects of Special Education Placement 287 behavior changes, and the label loses its salience when conflicting behav- ior is exhibited. Teachers' Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming Findings from studies that assess teachers' attitudes toward mainstream- ing are inconsistent. Regular classroom teachers participating in the Cali- fornia Recertification study (Meyers et al., 1975) experienced no particu- lar problems with the decertified mainstreamed students in their classes, and only 29 percent mentioned that the decertified students needed addi- tional assistance (e.g., different materials, assistance from aides). Only a few thought that the decertified students were disruptive. Their views of the accompanying transitional programs that were supposed to aid the decertified students were less positive. Less than half the teachers thought the transitional programs were helpful, and more than one third reported that no special help was given. Only 85 of the 262 regular-class teachers found the transitional programs useful. Results from Project PRIME were similar. Teachers of mainstreamed classes had generally favorable attitudes toward mainstreaming and thought the appropriate placement for most EMR children was a regular classroom with added instruction in a resource room. Although a majority of the teachers received some form of supportive services (in-service train- ing, consultation, education plans, special materials), they felt in general that these services were only somewhat effective. The importance of supportive services was highlighted in a study of 941 regular-class teachers in New England (Larrivee and Cook, 19791. Teach- ers' attitudes generally were positive, and the availability of extra re- sources and administrative support had a significant impact on their atti- tudes toward mainstreaming. Guerin and Szatlocky (1974) also found that the teachers of mainstreamed classes had positive attitudes toward the in- tegration of EMR students into the regular classroom. Only 19 percent of the teachers had negative views. Teachers in the same schools had similar attitudes, especially the regular-class teacher and the special-class teach- ers with whom he or she worked. For example, if the teacher in a resource room was opposed to mainstreaming, the regular-class teacher working with this individual also was likely to be opposed to mainstreaming. The authors also noted that the type of program adopted was based on the at- titudes of the staff rather than on the behavior or abilities of the children. Thus, children attending totally integrated programs were not necessarily more advanced than children who attended resource rooms and were only partially integrated into regular classrooms.

288 HELLER In contrast, Shotel et al. (1972) studied the attitudes of regular-class teachers before and after a resource room model was introduced into their schools. Their attitudes were compared with those of teachers in schools that maintained self-contained classrooms. Before the resource-room pro- gram began, teachers in those schools had attended orientation meetings about the goals and philosophies of the program. The teachers in the schools that were mainstreamed initially had less negative attitudes to- ward mainstreaming (63 percent disapproved of placing handicapped chil- dren in regular classrooms with resource-room help) than did teachers in schools with self-contained classrooms (93 percent disapproved of main- streaming). At the end of the year the attitudes of the teachers in the schools that were mainstreamed became even more negative (87 percent did not favor mainstreaming). Integration of students into the regular class thus had adverse effects on teachers' attitudes. Gickling and Theobold ( 1975) questioned regular- and special-class teachers in Tennessee about their attitudes toward mainstreaming. In this study, 85 percent of the regular-class teachers and 82 percent of the special-class teachers recommended the use of resource rooms for EMR students. However, 46 percent of the regular-class teachers and 42 percent of the special-class teachers also recommended the use of self-contained classrooms for EMR children. Thus, some teachers seemed to favor both options, perhaps indicating that mainstreaming is appropriate for some students, while self-contained classrooms are better for others. The research reviewed above just begins to tap the effects of main- streaming on teachers. Many questions remain unexplored. What are the major problems that teachers experience? Which children are best suited for mainstreaming? What types of children have problems in regular classrooms? What kinds of special assistance would be helpful to teachers? Before the consequences of mainstreaming on children can be assessed, the effects on teachers, who mediate program success or failure, must be understood. FACTORS AFFECTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MAINSTREAMING The regular classroom is probably not the appropriate placement for all EMR children. How does one differentiate between those children who will adapt well to mainstreaming and those who will not? There has been surprisingly little research addressing this question. Budoff and Gottlieb (1976) provided some relevant evidence when they investigated the inter- action of classroom placement (integrated versus self-contained class- rooms) and levels of learning potential. On most achievement and motiva- tional variables, children high in learning potential scored higher than

Effects of Special Education Placement 289 children low in learning potential. As noted previously, children with high learning potential in integrated classrooms had more positive attitudes about school and themselves and were more reflective than the equivalent group of children in self-contained classrooms. Children with low learning potential in integrated classrooms, however, had less positive attitudes about school and themselves than did the children with low learning potential in self-contained classrooms. Thus, EMR children who have the ability to use past experiences to solve new tasks may be better suited to a regular class than children low in this ability. The authors of the California Recertification study (Meyers et al., 1975) attempted to identify variables that could predict which children would eventually be decertified. They found no differences (between children who retained the EMR label and those who were later decertified) at ini- tial time of placement into EMIT classes on IQ scores; grades in reading, mathematics, and citizenship in the regular classrooms before EMR placement; or in comments made by teachers or psychologists concerning adjustment problems. Their results indicate that for reasons not yet identified, the educational prognosis of some children improves, while the performance of others with similar characteristics at the time of original placement is less likely to warrant a change in status. Thus, continual re- evaluations and an openness to the possibility of changing children's placements are necessary. Changes in the composition of EMR populations may also affect the likelihood of mainstreaming for those children who now receive the EMR label. The last few years have witnessed a significant decline in the num- ber of children labeled EMR. In addition, fear of litigation may be re- shaping the EMR population in several states (e.g., California), so that children labeled EMR may be more disabled than children with this label in other, less litigious states (MacMillan and Borthwick, 1980; MacMillan and Semmel, 1977~. Characteristics other than those pertaining to the child may also facili- tate or hinder effective mainstreaming. These include the attitudes and practices of teachers (reviewed above), attitudes of administrators (Guerin and Szatlockly, 1974; Larrivee and Cook, 1979), and organizational struc- ture of the school (e.g., flexible age groupings, open classrooms, team teaching; Budoff, 1972~. For example, the Project PRIME data (cited in Semmel et al., 1979) revealed that classroom environment influences the social adaptation of EMR children. Regular classrooms that were charac terized as more harmonious and cohesive were more likely to elicit positive social adaptation by EMR children than were classrooms in which there were higher levels of disruptiveness and dislike among the non-EMR children.

290 HELLER Jones et al. (1978) described three conditions that must be met for effec- tive instructional integration to occur: 1. The educational needs of the EMR children must be compatible with the instruction given to non-EMR students. 2. Teachers must modify their instructional practices to accommodate the special needs of the EMR students. Large-group instruction is inap- propriate in most cases. 3. There must be cooperation between regular teachers and personnel providing supportive services. Simply returning the child to the regular classroom without the aid of transitional programs or other supportive services is unlikely to result in effective mainstreaming. In almost all cases, these children had been in the regular classroom and had failed. Unless some intervening experience has remedied the child's previous problems, the conditions that contrib- uted to the labeling of the child as EMR probably will have a similarly detrimental effect on the child's future educational attainments. CONCLU SION The major theme emphasized throughout this paper is that evaluations of mainstreaming must expand beyond an investigation of setting. The child must be studied in context. Without a knowledge of the teaching pro- cesses employed in the classroom, teacher-student interactions, the teach- er's organization of his or her time, patterns of feedback, curricula used, etc., the attributes of the mainstreamed or special classroom that contrib- ute to program success and failure cannot be determined. Furthermore, the cumulative effects of various instructional options should be studied. A child's academic performance and self-concept, for example, are not merely the result of current school practices but of long-standing influ- ences both inside and outside the school. This perspective calls for longi- tudinal research, tracing the EMR-labeled child through elementary and secondary school as well as the child's life adjustment after his or her schooling is completed. Studies of setting alone allow few conclusions. In general, the evidence falls into one of three categories: (1) the data are contradictory, neither supporting nor refuting the efficacy of mainstreaming; (2) the data indi- cate that mainstreamed settings are more effective, or at least less harm- ful, than segregated classrooms; or (3) the data reveal the opposite pat- tern segregated settings are more effective or less harmful than main- streamed settings.

Effects of Special Education Placement 291 The first category, characterized by the research on self-concept, is the most troublesome. Can one make a policy recommendation concerning educational placement when the data are so contradictory? Balla and Zigler (1978:156) favor one interpretation: While there does not seem to be a convincing rationale to reconcile these discrep- ant findings, it appears that there is insufficient empirical evidence in the self-con- cept area to support the predominant thrust in social policy in the area of the men- tally retarded that retarded persons be mainstreamed in regular classes to the greatest extent possible. In cases that are truly ambiguous, I would favor an alternative interpre- tation. Unless there is evidence that the benefits derived from special classes outweigh the potential stigma and civil rights' infringements of segregation, the child should not be removed from the regular classroom. Thus, I would place the burden of proof on those who want to educate the child in a separate setting. Most of the research falls within the second category- indicating that mainstreamed settings are more effective (or at least less harmful) than segregated classrooms. The parenthetical phrase is important, for it indi- cates that at best children in mainstreamed settings are performing equally to or slightly better than their special education peers. Mainstreaming does not miraculously cure an EMR child. It is more likely to facilitate the oc- currence of certain positive events (e.g., higher expectations held by teachers) or shield the child from other negative factors associated with special class placement (e.g., stigma). The academic achievement of chil- dren in mainstreamed versus self-contained classrooms exemplifies the research in this category. As suggested in previous sections, mainstreamed children may score higher on standardized achievement tests because the curricula used in regular classrooms are more likely to emphasize aca- demic subjects than are programs in special classes. Research on the sociometric position of children in integrated class- rooms lies within the third category of evidence indicating that seg- regated settings lead to more positive, or less negative, effects than do mainstreamed settings. Children in mainstreamed classrooms may be less tolerated or more actively rejected than children in self-contained class- rooms because regular classroom children spend considerably more time with the EMR children in their own classrooms than those in separate classes. It is perhaps easier to express tolerance for peers with whom one seldom interacts or encounters. Studies on classroom behavior, however, suggest that integrated EMR children do not act in ways that would neces- sarily lead to poor acceptance by their regular-class peers. More research is needed on the types of behaviors exhibited by EMR and non-EMR chil

292 HELLER dren that may contribute to the generally low sociometric position of EMR children in mainstreamed classrooms. The interpretation of ambiguous and weak results as support for main- streaming (or, more accurately, evidence against the value of self-con- tained classrooms) is consistent with the thrust of P.L. 94-142 toward educa- tion in the least restrictive environment. Yet neither the law nor the position advocated above implies that children should be "dumped" into the regu- lar classroom and forever ignored. Clearly, these children need alternative services, for they were first identified on the basis of their inability to func- tion adequately in the regular classroom. This view suggests that special services should be offered to the child, and the goals of these services should be to maintain the child in the regular classroom and to minimize the amount of time the child is separated from peers. Education in a mainstreamed setting need not preclude provision of special services. A number of programs, some of which are still in the ex- perimental stages, provide encouraging examples of special education services delivered within a mainstreamed program. These include the Consulting Teacher Approach to Special Education used in many districts in Vermont (Christie et al., 1972; Fox et al., 1973; Knight et al., 1981), the Instrumental Enrichment Program (Feuerstein et al., 1980), and the Adaptive Learning Environments Model (Wang, 1980, in press). Re source rooms in which a child receives more intensive instruction in a small group from a special education teacher may also provide the tradi- tional benefits associated with special education programs while minimiz- ing the associated harms (see Leinhardt and Pallay, 1981, for a review of this literature). The segregative impact of various settings becomes increasingly trou- blesome as the effectiveness of programs becomes increasingly less evi- dent. The segregation of children in self-contained classrooms is problem- atic because the costs are clear and the benefits are less than obvious. If specified instructional techniques led to successful outcomes, the impor- tance of setting would become less significant. Its role, under these condi- tions, would be to facilitate effective practices rather than determine them, and its importance in research could diminish. The evaluation of programs could appropriately focus not merely on the setting in which these programs are implemented but also on the success of the programs in achieving specified goals. REFERENCES Aloia, G. F., Beaver, R. I., and Petfus, W. F. 1978 Increasing initial interactions among integrated EMR students and their

Effects of Special Education Placement 293 nonretarded peers in a game-playing situation. American Journal of Mental Defi- ciency 82:573-579. Asher, S. R., and Taylor, A. R. In The social outcomes of mainstreaming: sociometric assessment and beyond. Ex press ceptional Education Quarterly. Baldwin, W. K. 1958 The educable mentally retarded child in the regular grades. Exceptional Children 25: 106-108. Balla, D., and Zigler, E. 1979 Personality development in retarded persons. Pp. 143-168 in N. R. Ellis, ea., Handbook of Mental Deficiency, Psychological Theory and Research. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ballard, M., Gottlieb, J., Corman, L., and Kaufman, M. J. 1977 Improving the status of mainstreamed retarded children. Journal of Educational Psychology 69:607-611. Bradfield, H. R., Brown, J., Kaplan, P., Rickert, E., and Stannard, R. 1973 The special child in the regular classroom. Exceptional Children 39:384-390. Brookover, W. B., and Erickson, E. L. 1975 Sociology of Education. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press. Brophy, J. E., and Good, T. L. 1974 Teacher-Student Relationships Causes and Consequences. New York: Holt, Rine- hart & Winston. Budoff, M. 1972 Providing special education without special classes. Journal of School Psychology 10: 199-205. Budoff, M., and Gottlieb, J. 1976 Special class students mainstreamed: a study of an aptitude (learning potential) X treatment interaction. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 81:1-11. Budoff, M., and Siperstein, G. N. 1978 Low-income children's attitudes toward mentally retarded children: effects of labeling and academic behavior. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 82:474- 479. Cassidy, V. M., and Stanton, J. E. 1959 An Investigation of Factors Involved in the Educational Placement of Mentally Retarded Children. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Cegelka, W J., and Tyler, J. L. 1970 The efficacy of special class placement for the mentally retarded in proper perspec- tive. Training School Bulletin 67:33-65. Chennault, M. 1967 Improving the social acceptance of unpopular educable mentally retarded pupils in special classes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 72:455-458. Christie, L. S., McKenzie, H. S., and Burdett, C. S. 1972 The consulting teacher approach to special education. Inservice training for regular classroom teachers. Focus on Exceptional Children 4:1-10. Christoplos, G., and Renz, P. A. 1969 Critical examination of special education programs. Journal of Special Education 3:371-379. Cooper, H. M. 1979 Pygmalion grows up: a model for teacher expectation communication and perfor- mance influence. Review of Educational Research 49:389-410.

294 HELLER Corman, L., and Gottlieb, J. 1978 Mainstreaming mentally retarded children: a review of research. Pp. 251-275 in N. R. Ellis, ea., International Review of Research in Mental Retardatio''. Vol. 9. New York: Academic Press. Dentler, R. A., and Mackler, B. 1962 Ability and sociometric studies among normal and retarded children: a review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin 59:273-283. Dunn, L. M. 1968 Special education for the mildly retarded-is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children 35:5-22. Elashoff, J., and Snow, R. E. 1971 Pygmalion Reconsidered: A Case Study in Statistical Inference: Reconsideration of the Rosenthal-Jacobson Data on Teachers Expectancy. Belmont, Calif.: Wads- worth Publishing Co. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M. B., and Miller, R. 1980 Instrumental Enrichment. Baltimore, Md.: University Park Press. Foley, J. M. 1979 Effect of labeling and teacher behaviors on children's attitudes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 83:380-384. Fox, W., Egner, A., Paolucci, P., Perelman, P., McKenzie, H. S., and Garvin, J. 1973 An introduction to a regular classroom approach for special education. Pp. 22-47 in E. Deno, ea., Instructional Alternatives for Exceptional Children. Reston, Va.: The Council for Exceptional Children. Freeman, S., and Algozzine, B. 1980 Social acceptability as a function of labels and assigned attributes. American Jour- nal of Mental Deficiency 84:589-595. Gallagher, J. J. 1967 New directions in special education. Exceptional Children 33:441-447. Gampel, D. H., Gottlieb, J., and Harrison, R. H. 1974 Comparison of classroom behavior of special-class EMR, integrated EMR, low IQ, and nonretarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 79:16-21. Gardner, W. I. 1966 Social and emotional adjustment of mildly retarded children and adolescents: critical review. Exceptional Children 33:97-105. Gickling, E. R., and Theobold, J. J. 1975 Mainstreaming: affect or effect. Journal of Special Education 9:317-328. Goldstein, H., Moss, J. W., and Jordan, L. 1965 The Efficacy of Special Class Training on the Development of Mentally Retarded Children. U.S. Office of Education, Cooperative Research Project report no. 619. University of Illinois, Urbana. Goodman, H., Gottlieb, J., and Harrison, R. H. 1972 Social acceptance of EMRs integrated into a nongraded elementary school. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 76:412-417. Gottlieb, J. 1974 Attitudes toward retarded children: effects of labeling and academic performance. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 79:268-273. 1975a Attitudes toward retarded children: effects of labeling and behavioral ag- gressiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology 67:S81-585. 1975b Public, peer, and professional attitudes toward mentally retarded persons. Pp.

Effects of Special Education Placement 295 99-125 in M. Begab and S. Richardson, eds., The Mentally Retarded and Society: A Social Science Perspective. Baltimore, Md.: University Park Press. 1978 Observing social adaptation in schools. Pp. 285-309 in G. P. Sackett, ea., Observ ing Behavior, Vol. 1: Theory and Applications in Mental Retardation. Baltimore, Md.: University Park Press. 1981 Mainstreaming: fulfilling the promise? American Journal of Mental Deficiency 86:115-126. Gottlieb, J., and Davis, J. E. 1973 Social acceptance of EMR children during overt behavioral interactions. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 78:141-143. Gottlieb, J., Gampel, D. H., and Budoff, M. 1975 Classroom behavior of retarded children before and after integration into regular classes. Journal of Special Education 9:307-315. Gottlieb, J., Semmel, M. I., and Veldman, D. J. 1978 Correlates of social status among mainstreamed mentally retarded children. Jour- nal of Educational Psychology 70:396-405. Gottlieb, J., Agard, J., Kaufman, M. J., and Semmel, M. I. 1976 Retarded children mainstreamed: practices as they affect minority group children. Pp. 195-214 in R. L. Jones, ea., Mainstreaming and the Minority Child. Reston, Va.: The Council for Exceptional Children. Gresham, F. M. 1981 Social skills training with handicapped children: a review. Review of Educational Research 51: 139-176. Guerin, G. R., and Szatlocky, K. 1974 Integration programs for the mentally retarded. Exceptional Children 41:173-197. Guskin, S. L., and Spicker, H. H. 1968 Educational research in mental retardation. Pp. 217-278 in N. R. Ellis, ea., Inter- national Review of Research in Mental Retardation. Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press. Hammons, G. 1972 Educating the mildly retarded: a review. Exceptional Children 38:565-570. Haring, N. G., and Krug, D. A. 1975 Placement in regular programs: procedures and results. Exceptional Children 41 :413-417. Hartup, W. W. 1970 Peer interaction and social organization. Pp. 361-456 in P. H. Mussen, ea., Car- michael s Manual of Child Psychology, 2nd ed. Vol. 2. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Heintz, P. 1974 Teacher expectancy for academic achievement. Mental Retardation 12:24-27. Iano, R. P., Ayers, D., Heller, H. B., McGettigan, J. F., and Walker, U. 1974 Sociometric studies of retarded children in an integrative program. Exceptional Children 40:267-271. Johnson, G. O. 1950 A study of the social position of mentally handicapped children in the regular grades. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 55:60-89. 1961 A Comparative Study of the Personal and Social Adjustment of Mentally Handi- capped Children Placed in Special Classes with Mentally Handicapped Children who Remain in Regular Classes. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University.

296 HELLER 1962 Special education for the mentally retarded-a paradox. Exceptional Children 29:62-69. Jones, R. L., ed. 1976 Mainstreaming and the Minority Child. Reston, Va.: The Council for Exceptional Children. Jones, R. L., and Wilderson, F. B. 1976 Mainstreaming and the minority child: an overview of issues and a perspective. Pp. 1-13 in R. Jones, ea., Mainstreaming and the Minority Child. Reston, Va.: The Council for Exceptional Children. Jones, R. L., Gottlieb, J., Guskin, S., and Yoshida, R. 1978 Evaluating mainstreaming programs: models, caveats, considerations, and guidelines. Exceptional Children 44:588-601. Kaufman, M. E., and Alberto, P. A. 1976 Research on efficacy of special education for the mentally retarded. Pp. 22S-255 in N. R. Ellis, ea., International Review of Research in Mental Retardatio,`. New York: Academic Press. Kaufman, M. J., Agard, J. A., and Semmel, M. I. In Mainstreaming: Learners and Their Environment. Baltimore, Md.: University press Park Press. Kaufman, M. J., Gottlieb, J., Agard, J. A., and Kukic, M. B. 1975 Mainstreaming: toward an explication of the construct. Focus on Exceptional Children 7(3). Kern, W. H., and Pfaeffle, H. A. 1963 A comparison of social adjustment of mentally retarded children in various educa- tional settings. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 67:407-413. Kirk, S. A. 1964 Research in education. Pp. 57-99 in H. A. Stevens and R. Heber, eds., Mental Retardation: A Review of Research. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. Knight, M. F., Meyers, H. W., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P., Hasazi, S. E., and Nevin A. 1981 A Four-Year Evaluation of Cousulting Teacher Service. Unpublished manuscript. College of Education and Social Services, University of Vermont, Burlington. Lapp, E. R. 1957 A study of the social adjustment of slow-learning children who were assigned part- time to regular classes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 62:254-262. Larrivee, B., and Cook, L. 1979 Mainstreaming: a study of the variables affecting teacher attitude. Journal of Special Education 13:315-324. Lazarson, M. 1975 Educational institutions and mental subnormality: notes on writing a history. Pp. 33-52 in M. J. Begab and S. A. Richardson, eds., The Mentally Retarded and Society: A Social Science Perspective. Baltimore, Md.: University Park Press. Leinhardt, G., and Leinhardt, S. In The evaluation of social outcomes in education. In E. Yaar and S. Spiro, eds., Pro press ceedings of the Pinchas Sapir Conference on Development. Social Policy Evalua- tion: Health, Education, and Welfare. New York: Academic Press. Leinhardt, G., and Pallay, A. 1981 Restrictive Educational Settings: Exile or Haven? Unpublished manuscript. Learn- ing Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.

Effects of Special Education Placement 297 MacMillan, D. L. 1971 Special education for the mentally retarded: servant or savant? Focus on Excep- tional Childre'' 2:1-11. MacMillan, D. L., and Borthwick, S. 1980 The new educable mentally retarded population: can they be mainstreamed? Me,'- tal Retardations 18:155-158. MacMillan, D. L., and Meyers, C. E. 1979 Educational labeling of handicapped learners. Pp. 151-194 in D. C. Berliner, ea., Review oJ Research i'' Education. American Educational Research Association. MacMillan, D. L., and Morrison, G. M. 1980 Correlates of social status among mildly handicapped learners in self-contained special classes. Journal ok Educational Psychology 72:437-444. MacMillan, D. L., and Semmel, M. I. 1977 Evaluation of mainstreaming programs. Focus o,' Exceptional Childre'' 9:1-14. MacMillan, D. L., Jones, R. L., and Aloia G. F. 1974 The mentally retarded label: a theoretical analysis and review of research. America'' Journal of Mental Deficiency 79:241-261. Meyen, E. L., and Hieronymous, A. N. 1970 The age placement of academic skills in curriculum for the EMR. Exceptional Children 36:333-339. Meyerowitz, J. H. 1962 Self derogations in young retardates and special class placement. Child Develop- me,~t 33:443-451. Meyers, C. E., MacMillan, D. L., and Yoshida, R. K. 1975 Correlates of Success in Transition of MR to Regular Class. Final Report. Grant no. OEG-0-73-5263. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1980 Regular class education of EMR students. From efficacy to mainstreaming. Pp. 176-206 in J. Gottlieb, ea., Educating Mentally Retarded Persons in the Main- stream. Baltimore, Md.: University Park Press. Morrison, G. M. 1981 Sociometric measurement: methodological consideration of its use with mildly handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Journal of Educational Psychology 73: 193-201. Mullen, F. A., and Itkin, W. 1961 Achievement and Adjust net of Educable Mentally Handicapped Children in Special Classes and in Regular Classes. Chicago, Ill.: Chicago Board of Education. Palmer, D. J. 1979 Regular-classroom teacher's attributions and instructional prescriptions for handi- capped and nonhandicapped pupils. Journal of Special Education 13:325-337. Raber, S. M., and Weisz, J. R. 1981 Teacher feedback to mentally retarded and nonretarded children. American Jour- nal of Mental Deficiency 86:148-156. Rosenthal, R., and Jacobson, L. 1968 Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Rothbart, M., Dalfen, S., and Barrett, R. 1971 Effects of teacher's expectancy on student-teacher interaction. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology 62:49-54.

298 HELLER Rubovits, P., and Maehr, M. 1971 Pygmalion analyzed: toward an explanation of the Rosenthal-Jacobson findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 19:197-203. Rucker, C. N., and Vincenzo, F. M. 1970 Maintaining social acceptance gains made by mentally retarded children. Excep- tional Children 36:679-680. Rucker, C. N., Howe, C. E., and Snider, B. 1969 The participation of retarded children in junior high academic and nonacademic regular classes. Exceptional Children 35:617-623. Salvia, J., Clark, G., and Ysseldyke, J. 1973 Teacher retention of stereotypes of exceptionality. Exceptional Children 39:651-652. Schurr, K. T., Towne, R. C., and Joiner, L. M. 1972 Trends in self-concept of ability over two years of special class placement. Journal of Special Education 6:161-166. Semmel, M. I., Gottlieb, J., and Robinson, N. M. 1979 Mainstreaming: perspectives on educating handicapped children in the public schools. Pp. 223-279 in D. C. Berliner, ea., Review of Research in Education. Vol. 7. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association. Severance, L. J., and Gasstrom, L. L. 1977 Effects of the label "mentally retarded" on causal explanations for success and failure outcomes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 81:547-555. Sheare, J. B. 1974 Social acceptance of EMR adolescents in integrated programs. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 78:678-682. Shotel, J. R., Iano, R. D., and McGettigan, J. F. 1972 Teacher attitudes associated with the integration of handicapped children. Excep- tional Children 38:677-683. Simon, A., and Boyer, E. G., eds. 1967 Mirrors for Behavior. Vol. 5. Philadelphia, Pa.: Research for Better Schools. Stearns, M. S., Greene, D., and David, J. L. 1979 Local Implementation of P.L. 94-142. Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International. Strang, L., Smith, M. D., and Rogers, C. M. 1978 Social comparison, multiple reference groups, and the self-concepts of academically handicapped children before and after mainstreaming. Journal of Educational Psychology 70:487-497. Strauch, J. D. 1970 Social contact as a variable in the expressed attitudes of normal adolescents toward EMR pupils. Exceptional Children 36:485-494. Strichart, S. S., and Gottlieb, J. 1975 Imitation of retarded children by their nonretarded peers. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 79:506-512. Thorndike, R. I. 1968 Review of Pygmalion in the Classroom by R. Rosenthal and L. Jacobson. American Educational Research Journal 5:708-711. Wang, M. C. 1980 Mainstreaming Exceptional Children: Some Instructional Design and Implemen- tation Considerations. Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.

Effects of Special Education Placement 299 In Development and consequences of students' sense of personal control. In J. Levine press and M. C. Wang, eds., Teacher and Student Perceptions: Implications for Learn- ing. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Yoshida, R., and Meyers, C. 1975 Effects of labeling as EMR on teachers' expectancies for change in a student's per- formance. Journal of Educational Psychology 67:521-527. Yoshida, R., MacMillan, D. L., and Meyers, C. E. 1976 The Recertification of minority group EMR students in California: student achieve- ment and adjustment. Pp. 215-233 in R. L. Jones, ea., Mainstreaming and the Minority Child. Reston, Va.: The Council for Exceptional Children.

Next: Some Potential Incentives of Special Education Funding Practices »
Placing Children in Special Education: A Strategy for Equity Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $125.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!