Naomi Zigmond

Are Regular Education Classes Equipped to Accommodate Students with Learning Disabilities

This study examined educational practices in regular education classes in grades K-5 to determine changes required to facilitate a full-time mainstreaming program for students with learning disabilities. Data collected during the planning year of a mainstreaming project permitted a detailed analysis of the elementary school and the extent to which it accommodated individual differences. Data from informal and structured observations, interviews, and surveys of students, parents, and teachers suggested that fundamental changes in instruction are necessary for the regular education initiative to work in this school.

The Meaning and Practice of Inclusion for Students with Learning Disabilities Themes and Implications from the Five Cases

Since the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94142) nearly two decades ago, the focus of special education for individual students with learning disabilities (LD) has shifted from an emphasis on what and how to teach to an emphasis on where to teach. Discussions of practice used to be about individually prescribed instruction typically delivered outside of the general education classroom; discussions of practice these days are about grouporiented interventions or accommodations delivered within general education classrooms. Preservice teacher preparation in the 1970s stressed competencies in diagnostic-prescriptive teaching (Lerner, 1971) or response-contingent instruction (Zigmond, Vallecorsa, & Silverman, 1982) and the development of individually tailored instructional plans implemented one-to-one in resource rooms or self-contained classes (Faas, 1980). During the 1980s, it was common practice to administer elaborate assessments of students with LD, using both formal and informal tests, to document skill deficiencies in language, academic, and social domains, and to provide a carefully sequenced plan of remedial instruction, oneto-one or in very small groups, to correct the deficiencies. By the 1990s, however, we are being challenged to rethink special education services to students with LD, to abandon pull-out, diagnostic-prescriptive skill building, and to return students more completely to general education settings while delivering whatever specially designed instruction is needed within the confines of the general education class. Many practitioners and university faculty have responded to the gauntlet thrown down by Will (1986) in her call for a new vision of services for students with LD. The public school programs we described in the preceding cases all represent variations on the theme of including students with LD completely, or almost completely, in general education classrooms. In these case studies, we have tried to describe the richness of these variations. We have reported how inclusion operates from the perspective of the adults in each school by describing the roles and responsibilities of the various actors in the process of educating students with LD. But we have also paid particular attention to what the specific educational program feels like and looks like from the perspective of the individual student

Where Should Students with Disabilities Receive Special Education Services? Is One Place Better Than Another?

The question of where special education students should be educated is not new. In this article, the author reviews research studies and research reviews that address this question. She argues that research evidence on the relative efficacy of one special education placement over another is scarce, methodologically flawed, and inconclusive. She also states that “Where should students with disabilities be educated?” is the wrong question to ask, that it is antithetical to the kind of individualized planning that should be embodied in decision making for and with students with disabilities, and that it fails to specify where, for what, and for whom. The author calls for new ways of thinking about the problem and of conducting research so that progress can be made on improving results for students with disabilities.

What, Where, and How? Special Education in the Climate of Full Inclusion

After the passage of PL 94-142 in 1975 guaranteeing a free, appropriate, public education to all students with disabilities, multiple reauthorizations of IDEA have refined, revised, and renewed the nations moral and pedagogical commitment to providing well-planned, public, inclusive, and appropriate education to all students with disabilities. But conflicting views of where that education should take place, what that education should consist of, and how that education should be delivered have continued to plague the field of special education. In this article, we provide an historical perspective on the arguments over where, what and how. We open four “windows” on special education service delivery in four different settings in Pennsylvania to illustrate contemporary interpretations and contemporary public policy related to where, what, and how. In the end, we raise questions about whether current, fully inclusive special education practices fulfill the promise of PL-94-142 to provide a special and appropriate education to students with disabilities.

Twenty-Four Months after High School: Paths Taken by Youth Diagnosed with Severe Emotional and Behavioral Disorders.

The author located students with severe emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) who had been assigned to separate day schools with partial hospitalization treatment facilities because their public school programs did not sufficiently meet their needs, then conducted interviews at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months postsecondary school as part of a large 5-year study of factors influencing the transition process for students with serious emotional disturbance (SED).The findings were consistent with those from previous reports on the employment and schooling participation rates of students with EBD despite the fact that this sample had more severe disabilities and were educated in more restrictive environments than most previously reported samples of students with SED/EBD. Most revealing, however, were the unstable employment and schooling patterns of individual participants over the course of the 2 years of the study, which were illustrated by their career paths after high school.The author speculates as to whether it is appropriate to judge the success of school programs by the long-term outcomes for former students with SED/EBD in their adult worlds.

Benefits of Co-Teaching in Secondary Mathematics Classes

teachers do to provide access to the general curriculum, especially in math? How are they to prepare their students for high-stakes testing programs, with new accountability requirements? How can special and general education teachers work together for the benefit of their students in secondary schools? Here we examined a familiar topic, co-teaching, in a new light and in view of recent mandates and required measures (see box, “ What Does CoTeaching Mean?”). The article is based on observations of real-life co-teaching programs, and includes recommendations from practitioners and researchers for what co-teaching could bring to many students.

A Follow-Up Study of 52 Learning Disabled Adolescents

This study was designed to document, four years later, the progress of 52 LD adolescents who entered a special education program in the ninth grade. The sample were “typical” LD adolescents: old for their grade placement, with severe reading retardation and moderate math retardation. Theoretically, these students should have been in 12th grade at the time of follow—up. In fact, 16 were still enrolled in a special education high school program; seven were still in high school but in regular classes full—time; twenty—four had stopped attending high school; and five could not be located. Thirty—four students (all those still in school and 11 of the dropouts) were retested on academic skills. Results indicated impressive gains for all students although approximately half the achievement growth had taken place in the first year of the LD program. The 11 dropouts were also interviewed about the circumstances of their school leaving. A majority reported that they had been encouraged to leave school before graduation because of persistent, academic, behavior and attendance problems. Data available to the school district at the time of placement into the ninth—grade special education program were utilized in a step—wise discriminant analysis, for predicting status at follow—up. The discriminant analysis was quite poor at identifying students who would leave school.

Follow-up of Postsecondary-Age Rural Learning Disabled Graduates and Dropouts

This article reports the dropout rates, basic skills competency levels, and employment status of a group of semi-rural learning disabled postsecondary-age youth and a control group of nonlearning disabled same-age peers. Findings indicated significantly higher dropout rates and significantly lower basic skills competency levels among learning disabled youth. Learning disabled graduates and dropouts were not different in how they fared in the employment market for the group, nor were they different compared to peers. Educational implications of these findings and future suggestions for follow-up research are discussed.

Coteaching Revisited: Redrawing the Blueprint

Coteaching involves 2 certified teachers: 1 general educator and 1 special educator. They share responsibility for planning, delivering, and evaluating instruction for a diverse group of students, some of whom are students with disabilities. In this article, the authors review models of coteaching and the research base for coteaching and describe coteaching as it is currently practiced. After arguing that educators have not yet realized the potential of coteaching, the authors propose a new framework for looking at coteaching and a blueprint to guide its implementation differently in different instructional environments.

Characteristics of Children Labeled and Served as Learning Disabled in School Systems Affiliated With Child Service Demonstration Centers

Intake placement data were collected from the files of 1,966 students labeled and served as learning disabled in Child Service Demonstration Centers (CSDC) in 22 states. The information included achievement and IQ data, age, and grade. The mean age was 11.83 years and the mean IQ was 92.5. There appeared to be a lack of consistency in the characteristics of students labeled learning disabled. Younger students were much less severely underachieving than were older students. Significant differences were found among CSDCs in mean IQ and in the percentage of students meeting an arbitrary criterion of severe discrepancy. In addition, 54% of the CSDCs included students whose IQs were at or below 69. The results seem to indicate that a heterogeneous, ill-defined population of students is being labeled as learning disabled.