8 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT 6,5
P arents of children with disabilities want
their children to have the right to the best
possible education.
Integration
of Children
with Special
Needs
Lorraine Wilgosh
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, 1992, pp. 8-14.
MCB University Press, 0951-354X
Introduction
Parents of children with disabilities want their children to
have the right to the best possible education. They also
want them to have the opportunity to establish
neighbourhood friendships, to attend school without
spending long hours on a bus going to special programmes
or schools, and to be prepared for living and working in
society as adults. The current movement towards the
integration of children with special needs has arisen from
these concerns, as has the debate about this movement.
Given the current pro-integration climate, media coverage
is being given to children who have been integrated
successfully into school settings. For example, Banks[1]
told the story of Michael, a child in British Columbia, who
has spastic cerebral palsy. Michael cannot speak, has
limited used of his limbs, and is visually impaired. He was
originally diagnosed as profoundly retarded and placed in
a classroom for multihandicapped children. After further
assessment demonstrated that he was capable of handling
This article was previously published in The Canadian
Administrator, Vol. 31 No. 4, January 1992.
normal school work, his parents campaigned successfully
for him to be allowed to attend the neighbourhood school.
Communicating through a spelling board, working with
classroom friends, receiving specialized care, and
experiencing a curriculum planned by a resource teacher,
Michael achieved top honours for his grade. His story is
one of hope and inspiration. In Alberta, two young people
with disabilities, Margaret and Robbie, recently gained
the opportunity, after lengthy battles with their local school
boards, to attend regular classes in their local schools[2,3].
The families of these three young people have in common
the determination that their children should be integrated
into the neighbourhood school with other local children.
For each child, integration has a somewhat different form.
For Michael, the required support systems for regular
class placement have been noted above. For Margaret,
a teacher-aide and modified curriculum are required, while
for Robbie, wheelchair access together with washroom
and desk alterations have also been necessary so that he
can attend a regular classroom.
Definitions of Integration
Before the issues involved in integration of children with
special needs can be examined, a definition of integration
is crucial. A range of definitions exists. For some,
integration means "full inclusion" and, as Bunch[4] stated,
it calls for:
Nothing less than a redefinition of what education is and of
what a student is. Advocates of full inclusion argue that
education must never separate learners no matter whether
the focus of learning is to be social or academic or both
(p. 83).
For other advocates, integration has meant that children
with disabilities should attend their neighbourhood
("home") schools, with varying levels of additional
support. For example, with reference to the education
of students with severe intellectual disabilities, Brown et
al.[5] stated: "However, a regular classroom base in a
home school is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition
for minimally acceptable education. These students should
spend some of their time elsewhere" (p. 39). For Brown
et al.[5], "elsewhere" may be a special class or another
school or community setting, because "some educational
services that are different from those offered non-disabled
peers must be provided" (p. 39). The second of these
positions appears clearer in recognizing and specifying the
needs of each individual student and in categorizing
integration as a process as well as a philosophy.
Brown et al. [6] have proposed four major reasons why
children with disabilities should attend their home schools:
(1) They can be prepared to function within society.
(2) Individual appropriate programmes can be planned.
 INTEGRATION OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
(3) Family members have easier access to the school
and related services.
(4) A wide range of relationships and friendships can
be developed and sustained.
The education of such children will involve some amount
of instruction in a regular classroom, instruction in other
contexts within the school, and activities in integrated non-
school environments as warranted by the special needs
of each individual child.
An excellent discussion of the issues associated with
home-school placement of children with disabilities has
been presented by Brown et al. [7]. Whether a regular
classroom base for students with disabilities will affect non-
disabled students is an issue of some concern. Dissenters
predict that non-disabled students will receive less
instructional time and be distracted by the presence of
children with disabilities. Those who argue the affirmative
viewpoint propose that, with appropriate resources and
services, all difficulties can be resolved in ways that do
not affect the non-disabled students. However, Brown et
al.[7] stated:
If professionals with reasonable experience, expertise, and
resources are unable to address effectively... interfering
actions, the classroom may not be the most appropriate
environment at certain times of the day (p. 10).
Also, Brown et al. [5] have acknowledged that the effects
of severe disabilities require educational services that differ
from those needed by non-disabled children. Although
children with severe disabilities might spend much of their
time in settings other than the regular class, Brown et
al. [5] reasoned that the regular classroom will provide a
home base from which to establish interpersonal
relationships and self-esteem. In addition, they discussed
factors that determine the amount of time which children
with special needs should spend in the regular classroom.
As each child with disabilities grows older, more time
should be spent in non-school environments to prepare
the child for the transition from the school into the
community. Parent and student priorities must also be
considered.
Furthermore, Brown et al. [5] considered that the home-
school classroom base raises administrative issues with
no clear answers: "How much will it cost? What kind of
pre-service and in-service training is needed? What kind
of changes in regular education curricula, organization and
management are appropriate? How must teacher-student
ratios, licensing, and certifications change?" (p. 46).
In extending the debate, Winzer[8] presented a very
comprehensive discussion of the general principles of
integration. She noted that the philosophical belief of
normalization supports the provision of an educational and
living environment which is as normal as possible for all
individuals, regardless of their levels or types of disability.
An outgrowth of that philosophical position has been the
process of deinstitutionalization, that is, the movement
9
of individuals from institutional living into community-based
living arrangements. In the educational context,
normalization has been translated into mainstreaming, the
philosophy of educational integration. The primary goal
of mainstreaming as a philosophy and of integration as the
process of mainstreaming is, in Winzer's[8] terms, the
"provision of free, appropriate education in the most
suitable setting for all youngsters" (p. 84). She specified
that children with mild disabilities may be fully integrated
in the regular classroom, with additional help in resource
rooms or from educational specialists other than the
classroom teacher, but she cautioned that:
If children are to be integrated into regular classrooms this
requires that they be members of the class not just physically
but also intellectually, socially and emotionally.
Mainstreaming may prove to be the more restrictive
environment if exceptional children are debased by their
peers, socially isolated and poorly accepted (p. 84).
Winzer[8] also considered that research and practice lag
behind the philosophical commitment towards
mainstreaming:
While educators, legislators, parents and others advance the
notion, the manner in which the process will work most
successfully has not yet been clearly delineated. There is
not yet a quantitative measure of how great a handicap must
be for special services to be offered, nor are there definite
numbers or combinations of characteristics that must be
identfied before a pupil is diagnosed as exceptional. Because
of these inherent difficulties, no other concept in today's
educational system seems so fraught with confusion and
misconceptions (p. 85).
Winzer[8] provided a useful outline of what integration is
and is not. For Winzer, integration involves the following
aspects:
• placing the child with special needs with peers as
often as possible;
• allowing for needed special help while the child is
enrolled in a regular class;
• requiring collaboration of professionals in
programme development and curriculum
modification;
• providing educational options; and
• adapting to a variety of settings such as regular
class and resource room.
Integration provides for equal opportunities for all children
by uniting the skills of regular educators and their
collaborating special educators. It is not the elimination
of all special education classes, support services, and
teachers, while indiscriminately "dumping" children with
special needs into regular classrooms without support
services. Integration does not stop with physical
integration, but focuses on social and intellectual
integration as well.
Thus, to equate the terms mainstreaming and integration
with full integration into regular classrooms is to present
 10 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT 6,5
only one option. Therefore, stakeholders must take care
to define the terms clearly and to discuss fully the variables
and the range of services which may be involved in making
decisions about integration.
The REI Initiative — A United States Parallel
Semmel et al.[9] reviewed the current US reform
movement in special education, called the Regular
Education Initiative (REI). Proponents of the REI have
argued that there is a lack of data to support special
education "pull-out" programmes and a need for special
instructional techniques for children with disabilities. They
concluded that the current "dual" system of regular and
special education minimizes communication between
regular and special educators, that labelling and segregating
children with special needs stigmatizes them and results
in feelings of inferiority, and that a consultant model to
the regular classroom teacher provides the best model
for instructing such children. Opponents of the REI have
countered that stigmatization will still occur because,
irrespective of labelling, the academic performance of
these children will be well below that of their peers, and
that the consulting teacher model cannot be implemented
without extensive retraining both of the regular and the
special educators.
Semmel et al.[9] responded to the absence of documented
information on regular and special educators' views on the
REI by conducting a study of such viewpoints. The
respondents were 381 regular and special education
teachers from six school sites in central and southern
California and 16 school sites in northern Illinois. The vast
majority of respondents were of the view that regular
education teachers do not have the skills and abilities to
provide one-to-one and small-group instruction, and that
to have special educators in the regular classroom to
provide such instruction would be disruptive to classroom
functioning. Generally, both groups of educators were
satisfied with the current pull-out model for provision of
special education services and did not view this as a dual
system of special education. Another matter which has
implications for Canadian education was the concern that
the emphasis on higher achievement test scores by the
Effective Schools Movement places teachers in direct
conflict with the expectations of the full-integration model
and may decrease any enthusiasm for the REI. As Semmel
et al[9] stated:
The teachers in our study...contend that the regular class
program is inadequate for addressing the instructional needs
of such children. Hence, where students with mild disabilities
require extensive adaptation in regular classroom-based
instruction, it is unlikely that the positive instructional effects
expected by REI proponents will be realized in current school
practice (p. 20).
With less than one-third of the sample supporting the
regular classroom as the best placement for students with
mild disabilities, such placements may not have the
outcomes expected by REI proponents, especially if
teachers' expectations are negative. Semmel et al.[9]
suggested: "The results of this survey support the need
for further systematic study of the status and needed
modifications in the perceptions and skills of service
providers before any substantive reform of current
practices is mandated" (p. 21). These research findings
suggest great caution in implementing total integration
programmes. Nesbit[10] has warned that integrated
children whose teachers have not been properly trained
and have negative attitudes run the risk of being
emotionally abused.
Jenkins et al.[11] considered that we should reserve making
judgements about the REI until there is some clear
consensus about what it actually is. This concern is echoed
by Lieberman[12], who stated: "the most critical lack of
all: an agreed-upon definition of what REI currently is,
which may represent the most insurmountable obstacle
to coherent debate" (p. 562).
Jenkins et al. [11] suggested that a need exists to bring the
programme to the child rather than making the decision
to place all children in regular programmes, i.e. the
individual needs of each child should be the determining
factor in programme development. They concluded that
there is no clear agreement on which children, particularly
children with severe disabilities, can be served by the REI.
In their view: "Disagreement among REI proponents
about inclusion of students with severe disabilities points
out the ambiguities both in the intent and in the nature
of this initiative" (p. 483). On the issue of who should
be served by the REI, Jenkins et al. [11] stated that:' 'The
line needs to be drawn somewhere to protect teachers
from unrealistic demands and to assure parents of normally
achieving students that their children will prosper"
(p. 485). Commenting further on the roles and
responsibilities of regular classroom teachers, Jenkins and
Pious[13] noted that:
The work of these teachers is not easy. Further, there is
almost as much heterogeneity among teachers as there is
among students... Many...teachers neither can, nor want
to take on these responsibilities, arguing with some
justification that even the "normal" heterogeneity of the
mainstream classroom poses challenges that are too daunting
(p. 563).
In the same context, Baker and Zigmond[14] noted that
there are no clear descriptions of the amount of change
necessary to support full-time integration in regular
classrooms. They studied one large urban elementary
school extensively over a period of time to determine the
extent to which integration of children with learning
disabilities had led to individualized instruction. They found
no individualization: teachers were committed to routine
instructional practices rather than to individual differences.
The researchers concluded that fundamental changes in
classroom instruction are necessary for integration to be
successful.
 INTEGRATION OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
Link[15] has urged, as have Jenkins et al.[11], that rather
than calling for full integration for all children:
A more responsible attitude would be for educators to
consider each case individually to determine which program
would encourage the development of the student's maximum
potential. The individual must take precedence over the
mainstreaming policies of federal and state officials, whose
decisions are influenced not only by their own philosophical
commitment but also by the pressure put upon them by
consumer groups and parents (p. 63).
Lusthaus[16] has proposed that true integration can occur
only when society ceases to dehumanize persons with
intellectual disabilities and when the common human
experiences of all people are promoted. She has called
attention to deinstitutionalization, the movement of
persons with disabilities from institutions to community
environments. One of the major problems of this
movement was "dumping" of many such individuals into
inadequate community programmes with few support
systems. The outcome, according to Lusthaus, has been
deinstitutionalization without community integration, "a
series of disappointments and rejections" (p. 45). There
is a danger of a similar outcome in Canada if school
integration is implemented without the following aspects
receiving attention:
(1) A clear definition of the meaning of integration.
(2) Identification of children's special needs.
(3) Adequate teacher preparation.
(4) Development of school and community support
systems.
A Canadian Example
Alberta provides an interesting example of one province's
attempt to meet the educational needs of its students.
In 1987, during the revision of the Alberta School Act, the
proposed Bill 59 would have restricted access to education
and, therefore, the right to an education for some children.
Under the proposed act, children judged unable to benefit
from education programmes due to severe medical fragility
or severe intellectual impairments would have been
declared non-educable[17]. After extensive lobbying by
concerned individuals and groups, the proposed act was
revised and the attempt to define or label children as non-
educable was abandoned.
Not five years later, Alberta is concerned about integration
of all children into regular classrooms. The Minister of
Education[18] has said:
Our focus will be on doing what is best for disabled students
— developing their full potential. Integration into the regular
classroom will be the norm for disabled students and will
give them the chance they need to learn, to grow, and to
become full participants in our schools and in our society
(p. 2).
11
Alberta Education[18] has proposed that the best interests
of the child would be the basic consideration: students
and parents would have meaningful, ongoing participation;
integration would be the option offirstchoice, accompanied
by support and training for school personnel. Only when
the child's needs could not be met in the regular classroom
would removal be considered, with return to the regular
classroom the primary focus of programming. There would
be a requirement for individualizing programmes and
services for all students with special needs, with
corresponding modification of instructional strategies and
resources. A proposed operational guideline [18] specified
that: "Programs and services will...be cost efficient and
effective" (p. 11). The document has affirmed the
dependence of successful integration on the attitudes and
training of school personnel, who must have the
understanding, skills, and knowledge needed to meet the
needs of all students.
A background paper[19] was prepared as a starting-point
for provincial discussions on integration. Commenting on
the research literature related to integration[20,21], the
document reported: "No clear academic benefits have
been demonstrated for regular versus special class
placements" (p. 5). The document also reported that non-
handicapped peers have not readily accepted children with
disabilities. "The research findings generally indicate that
the social integration of handicapped students has not been
successfully achieved" (p. 6). The document cautioned
that failure to provide support in social skills training for
children with and without disabilities will result in social
isolation of the children with disabilities.
A major concern continues to be the inadequate training
of regular class teachers to teach children with disabilities,
with a recent Alberta study showing that 63 per cent of
teachers surveyed had no formal courses in special
education[19]. Furthermore, the placement of large
numbers of children with disabilities into large classes can
place unmanageable responsibilities on the regular class
teacher. "Clearly, quality of education should take
precedence over the location of the program" (p. 16). On
programme costs, the report indicated that, until a clear
description of the service delivery model is available, no
accurate cost estimates can be examined, because few
data are available that compare the cost of integration
models with more traditional programmes. A final remark
in the report specified that integration must represent a
continuum of services, that it is not intended to eliminate
special classes nor to "dump" children with special needs
into regular classes: "Emphasis must be shifted from the
physical setting to practices which promote effective
academic and social skills instruction" (p. 19).
The Minister's Forum[22] examined the views of
stakeholder groups on the above matters. Among the
issues and concerns expressed were these: that
placement decisions are better made in co-operation
 12 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT 6 , 5
between schools and families, rather than by the courts;
that parents must have choices and that "to dictate a
specific integration mandate from Alberta Education [is]
to practise coercive integration" (p. 6). Rather, families
must have the right to make informed choices. Also,
teachers must be trained appropriately. The suggestion
was made that the term integration should be replaced
by the notion of "parental choice among placement
options" (p. 14). A concern was expressed that educational
standards might drop if schools were to be given increased
responsibilities.
Another Alberta Education[23] document was released
at the time of writing. Flying in the face of all of the above
information, the following position was stated:
Integration into the regular classroom must be the norm for
special needs students so that they get the programs and
services to succeed to the best of their abilities. To achieve
this objective, priority will be placed on: developing and
implementing an integration policy in Alberta that puts the
focus on doing what's best for the needs of each individual
child (p. 32).
Such a statement presumes that the best programmes
for success of the children will exist normally in the regular
classroom. In the light of the issues identified in this paper,
that is a weak assumption. These normative placements
have apparently been determined prior to development
and implementation of an integration policy for Alberta.
Essential Considerations
Definition
Clearly, the primary considerations involve defining
"integration'' for each jurisdiction and specifying the range
of programme offerings which will be considered within
integrated settings. Furthermore, there must be a
common understanding by all local stakeholders on the
definition and scope of the integration process to allow
for meaningful discussion, planning, and implementation.
The writings of Winzer[8] and Brown et al. [5,6,7] offer a
framework for consideration.
Individual Needs
Each child has individual educational needs. Clearly, these
needs are greater for children with disabilities. We should
be examining, for each individual child, what the best
possible setting and programme would be, to maximize
both academic and social gains and to allow the child to
function effectively within mainstream society. This may
not always be the regular classroom on a full-time basis.
There must be strategies in place to assess the needs
of each child as well as the specific programme
considerations. My own research[24] suggests that not
all parents of children with special needs are strongly in
favour of full integration in regular classrooms, and that
any placement decision must be made with full knowledge
of each child's special needs and after direct consultation
with the fully informed parents. I believe that this can only
be done on a case-by-case basis. I also believe that we
can continue to develop better integration policies and
practices only through study of well-designed and carefully
implemented programmes that have demonstrated success
through long-term follow-up with meaningful outcome
measures. This relates directly to the next consideration,
the importance of systematic study before implementing
change.
Systematic Study
Brown et al.[5] were very clear in listing the range of
administrative issues that must be addressed when
implementing integration policies. For example, until there
are clear descriptions of service delivery models, cost
estimates are very difficult to make. The American
message is clear on the need for identifying necessary
fundamental changes through systematic study before
mandating reform.
A growing body of research studies may offer insight into
the process of integration. For example, Villa and
Thousand[25] have described several ways in which
children can collaborate to provide teaching and support
roles in integrated settings for any child in need of intensive
instructional support. Successful strategies included peer
tutoring and partner learning situations. These strategies
bear careful consideration in building support systems for
children with special needs within regular classroom
settings. As another example, Salisbury[26] suggested
that, for early childhood programmes, implementation of
integration practices poses formidable challenges.
Salisbury provided a set of indicators for high-quality
programmes and an outcome-based model for decision
making both administratively and educationally. Even with
improved communication and involvement of parents with
the schools in making placement decisions, strategies are
needed that improve conflict resolution without
confrontation. Here, some of the strategies on conflict
resolution identified by Baine[27] are potentially useful.
The research on educational change reflects pessimism
about implementation of change. For example, Waugh and
Punch[28], in a review of the literature on system-wide
educational change, found "that skills and knowledge
necessary to perform a new role, when not present or
attended to, promote significant blockage of change. Lack
of clarity or abstractness of the change proposal is often
quoted as a barrier to change" (p. 244). Furthermore,
"when a change is proposed, teachers decide whether
that change is 'practical', and this judgement determines
its chances of implementation" (p. 245).
leather Preparation
With the objective of individualized programmes and
differentiated curricula, consideration must be given to
 INTEGRATION OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
teacher support and preparation. All school personnel
must have the understanding, knowledge, skills, and
attitudes required to meet the needs of all students.
Nesbit[10] warned about the dangers of emotional abuse
from teachers with inadequate training and negative
attitudes. There is a serious possibility of regular-class
teachers becoming overburdened and resistant because
they have not been prepared for the integration of children
with special needs. The long-range policy of the Alberta
Teachers' Association[29] supports the integration
principle, conditional on lack of adverse effects for regular
students, and on provision of:
• ongoing in-service for teachers;
• adequate information on the special needs student
prior to placement in the classroom;
• preparation of staff, students, parents and
community prior to commencement of the
integration programme;
• adequate support services, materials and
equipment;
• optimum class size;
• teacher preparation time;
• appropriately trained assistants;
• transport for special needs students; and
• access means to buildings (p. 91).
The Association has identified some important concerns
in this policy statement. I will comment on one that is
highlighted in my research on parents[24]. Teachers are
not generally prepared to teach children with special needs
unless they have come through a university programme
in special education. The skills and knowledge that are
required to individualize programmes for children with
special needs cannot easily be covered in brief in-service
programmes, but require extensive university preparation.
These include knowledge about children with special
needs; skills in assessment, programming, and instruction
for children with special needs; classroom management
strategies for avoiding and managing behaviour problems;
and skill in communicating and co-operating with parents
and with other professionals who provide related services
for the children. Universities must be involved in policy
planning so that teacher education programmes can meet
the changing needs of teachers.
Concluding Comment
The issues that need to be considered in developing an
integration policy and implementation plan include: clear
definitions of the terminology being used; articulation of
the range of available educational alternatives;
consideration of the available research and reasoned
application of relevant findings; and assessment of the
special needs of individuals with learning difficulties and
their families. If we fail to prepare teachers adequately
for the difficult task of mainstreaming or integration of
13
children with special needs, two outcomes will be
inevitable: good teachers will be lost because of stress
and burnout, and the integration initiative will fail. Surely
we can strike a sensible balance if we consider relevant
personal values and the potential educational effectiveness
potential of integration on all people involved in these
practices. Resolution of the issues involved in integration
requires common sense, empathy, goodwill, and unbiased
interpretation of research findings by administrators,
parents, politicians, and teachers.
Note and References
1. Banks, K., ''New Kids in the Class'', Western Living, Vol.
16 No. 8, 1991, pp. 18-27.
2. Jimenez, M., "Girl Happy Day to Night after Entering
School", The Edmonton Journal, 18 March 1991, B3.
3. McConnell, R., "Two-year Fight with System Wins Boy
New School Experience", The Edmonton Journal,
4 September 1991, p. B3.
4. Bunch, G., "Full Inclusion: Parent and Educator
Objective for Students with Challenging Needs",
Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, Vol. 19 No. 1, 1991,
pp. 80-101.
5. Brown, L., Schwarz, P., Udvari-Solner, A., Kampschroer,
E., Johnson, F., Jorgensen, J. and Gruenewald, L., "How
Much Time Should Students with Severe Intellectual
Disabilities Spend in Regular Classrooms and
Elsewhere?", Journal of the Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps, Vol. 16 No. 1, 1991, pp. 39-47.
6. Brown, L., Long, E., Udvari-Solner, A., Davis, L.,
VanDeventer, P., Ahlgren, C., Johnson, F., Gruenewald,
L. and Jorgensen, J., "The Home School: Why Students
with Severe Intellectual Disabilities Must Attend the
Schools of Their Brothers, Sisters, Friends and
Neighbors", Journal of the Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps, Vol. 14, 1989, pp. 1-7.
7. Brown, L., Long, E., Udvari-Solner, A., Schwarz, P.,
VanDeventer, P., Ahlgren, C., Johnson, F., Gruenewald,
L. and Jorgensen, J., "Should Students with Severe
Intellectual Disabilities be Based in Regular or in Special
Education Classrooms in Home Schools", Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, Vol. 14,
1989, pp. 8-12.
8. Winzer, M., Children with Exceptionalities: A Canadian
Perspective, 2nd edition, Prentice-Hall, Scarborough, ON,
1990.
9. Semmel, M., Abernathy, T., Butera, G. and Lesar, S.,
"Teacher Perceptions of the Regular Education
Initiative", Exceptional Children, Vol. 58,1991, pp. 9-24.
10. Nesbit, W., "Emotional Abuse: Vulnerability and
Developmental Delay", Developmental Disabilities
Bulletin, Vol. 19 No. 2, 1991, pp. 66-80.
11. Jenkins, J., Pious, C. and Jewell, M., "Special Education
and the Regular Education Initiative: Basic Assumptions",
Exceptional Children, Vol. 56, 1990, pp. 479-91.
 14 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT 6,5
12. Lieberman, L., "REI: Revisited... Again", Exceptional
Children, Vol. 56, 1990, pp. 561-62.
13. Jenkins, J. and Pious, C., "Full Inclusion and the REI:
A Reply to Thousand and Villa", Exceptional Children,
Vol. 57, 1991, pp. 562-64.
14. Baker, J. and Zigmond, N., "Are Regular Education
Classes Equipped to Accommodate Students with
Learning Disabilities?", Exceptional Children, Vol. 56,
1990, pp. 515-26.
15. Link, M.P., "Is Integration Really the Least Restrictive
Environment?", Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. 23,
1991, pp. 63-4.
16. Lusthaus, E., "Drastic Actions: The Results of Viewing
People as Less than Human'', Developmental Disabilities
Bulletin, Vol. 19, 1991, pp. 28-48.
17. Sobsey, D., "Bill 59: Is This the End of Universal Free
Education in Alberta?", unpublished paper, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, AB, 1987.
18. Wilgosh, L., "Meeting the Individual Needs of Alberta
Students — A Framework for Positive Change", paper
prepared for participants attending the Minister's Forum
on Special Education, Alberta Education, Calgary, AB,
1991.
19. Wilgosh, L., Integrating Exceptional Students into the
Mainstream: A Background Paper, Alberta Education,
Edmonton, AB, 1991.
20. An extensive annotated bibliography has been complied
by Dreimanis et al. [21], for research on integration from
1982, particularly for children with severe disabilities.
However, such studies include a range of programmes,
all of which can be classified as having elements of
integration. Thus, great caution is necessary in attempting
Lorraine Wilgosh is a professor of educational psychology at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
to make direct comparisons and in drawing any
conclusions about the relative merits of integrated and
segregated settings.
21. Dreimanis, M., Sobsey, D., Gray, S., Harnaha, B.,
Uditsky, B. and Wells, D., Integration and Individuals
with Moderate to Profound Intellectual Impairment: An
Annotated Bibliography, University of Alberta, Edmonton,
AB, 1990.
22. Wilgosh, L., Minister's Forum on Special Education:
Proceedings, Alberta Education, Edmonton, AB, 1991.
23. Wilgosh, L., Vision for the Nineties... A Plan of Action,
Alberta Education, Edmonton, AB, 1991.
24. Wilgosh, L., "Issues in Education and Daily Living for
Families of Children with Disabilities", The Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 26, 1990, pp.
299-309.
25. Villa, R. and Thousand, J., "The Power of Student
Collaboration or Practicing for Life in the 21st Century",
Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, Vol. 19, 1991, pp.
49-79.
26. Salisbury, C., "Mainstreaming during the Early Childhood
Years", Exceptional Children, Vol. 58, 1991, pp. 146-55.
27. Baine, D., "Mediation: The Process", unpublished paper,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, 1988.
28. Waugh, R. and Punch, K., "Teacher Receptivity to
Systemwide Change in the Implementation Stage",
Review of Educational Research, Vol. 57, 1987,
pp. 237-54.
29. Wilgosh, L., Alberta Teachers' Association Members'
Handbook, Alberta Teachers Association, Edmonton, AB,
1991.