Effective special education: A United States dilemma

School Psychology Review

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 66-76

  Schulte, Ann C ^a   Osborne, Susan S ^b   Erchul, William P ^b  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032362415     PISSN: 02796015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Allinder, R. M. (1995). An examination of the relationship between teacher efficacy and curriculum-based measurement and student achievement. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 247-254.
2. Allinder, R. M. (1996). When some is not better than none: Effects of differential implementation of curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 62, 525-535.
3. Allinder, R. M., & BeckBest, M. A. (1995). Differential effects of two approaches to supporting teachers' use of curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 24, 287-298.
4. Baker, J. M. (1995). Inclusion in Minnesota: Educational experiences of students with learning disabilities in two elementary schools. Journal of Special Education, 29, 133-143.
5. Bottge, B. A., & Hasselbring,T. S. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex, authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children, 59, 556-566.
6. Brady, N. C., Saunders, K. J., & Spradlin, J. E. (1994-95). A conceptual analysis of request teaching procedures for individuals with severely limited verbal repertoires. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 12, 43-52.
7. Carlberg, C., & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Special Education, 14, 295-309.
8. Chandler, H. N., & Jones, K. (1983). Learning disabled or emotionally disturbed: Does it make a difference? Part I. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 432-434.
9. Deno, S. L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 1-17). New York: Guilford.
10. Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L., & Marston, D. (1997, February). Alternative measures for predicting performance on graduation standards. Paper presented at the meeting of the Pacific Coast Research Conference, La Jolla, CA.
11. Deno, S. L., Maruyama, G., Espin, C., & Cohen, C. (1990). Educating students with mild disabilities in general education classrooms: Minnesota alternatives. Exceptional Children, 57, 150-161.
12. Dixon, R., & Carnine, D. (1994). Ideologues, practices, and their implications for special educators. Journal of Special Education, 28, 356-367.
13. Dudley-Marling, C. (1996). Curriculum-based assessment and literacy instruction: A political critique. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education (2nd ed.; pp. 129-139). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
14. Dunn, L. M. (Ed.) (1973). Exceptional children in the schools: Special education in transition (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston.
15. Elliott, S. N., & Fuchs, L. S. (1997). The utility of curriculum-based measurement and performance assessment as alternatives to traditional intelligence and achievement tests. School Psychology Review, 26, 224-233.
16. Englert, C. S., Garmon, A., Mariage, T. V., Rozendal, M., Tarrant, K., & Urba, J. (1995). The Early Literacy Project: Connecting across the literacy curriculum. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 18, 253-275.
17. Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (1996). A sociocultural perspective: Teaching ways of thinking and ways of talking in a literacy community. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, 157-167.
18. Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., & Stevens, D. D. (1991). Making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337-372.
19. Fagan, T. K., & Wise, P. S. (1994). School psychology: Past, present, and future. White Plains, NY: Longman.
20. Forness, S. R., Kavale, K. A., Blum, I. M., & Lloyd, J. W. (1997). Mega-analysis of meta-analyses: What works in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(6), 4-9.
21. Friehe, M., Aune, B., & Leuenberger, J. (1996). Career service needs of college students with disabilities. Career Development Quarterly, 44, 289-300.
22. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309.
23. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Fernstrom, P. (1993). A conservative approach to special education reform: Mainstreaming through transenvironmental programming and curriculum-based measurement. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 149-177.
24. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of formative evaluation on student achievement: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199-208.
25. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1996). Combining performance assessment and curriculum-based measurement to strengthen instructional planning. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 183-192.
26. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Allinder, R. M. (1991). Effects of expert system advice within curriculum-based measurement on teacher planning and student achievement in spelling. School Psychology Review, 20, 49-66.
27. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Ferguson, C. (1992). Effects of expert system consultation within curriculum-based measurement using a reading maze task. Exceptional Children, 58, 436-450.
28. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, N. B., & Karns, K. (1995). General educators' specialized adaptations for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 440-459.
29. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Stecker, P. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 617-641.
30. Fuchs, L. S., Hamlett, C. L., & Fuchs, D. (1990). Monitoring basic skills progress [Computer programs]. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
31. Gelzheiser, L. M., Meyers, J. M., & Pruzek, R. M. (1992). Effects of pull-in and pull-out approaches to reading instruction for special education and remedial reading students. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 3, 133-149.
32. Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1994). Constructivism: Principles, paradigms, and integration. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 233-247.
33. Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1996). Constructivism and students with special needs: Issues in the classroom. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, 134-137.
34. Haynes, M. C., & Jenkins, J. R. (1986). Reading instruction in special education resource rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 161-190.
35. Huefner, D. S. (1988). The consulting teacher model: Risks and opportunities. Exceptional Children, 54, 403-414.
36. Kameenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies: The prevention of academic learning problems. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
37. Khattri, N., Kane, M., & Reeve, A. L. (1995). How performance assessments affect teaching and learning. Educational Leadership, 53(3), 80-83.
38. Kauffman, J. M. (1989). The regular education initiative as Reagan-Bush education policy: A trickle down theory of education of the hard-to-teach. Journal of Special Education, 23, 256-278.
39. Knight, M. F., Meyers, H. W., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P., Hasazi, S. E., & Nevin, A. (1981). A four-year evaluation of consulting teacher service. Behavioral Disorders, 6, 92-100.
40. Kubiszyn, T. (1997). The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The School Psychologist, 51(3), 88-90, 96.
41. Leinhardt, G., & Pallay, A. (1982). Restrictive educational settings: Exile or haven? Review of Educational Research, 52, 557-578.
42. Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion, school restructuring, and the remaking of American society. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 762-796.
43. Marston, D. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford.
44. McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. L. (1991). The gridlock of low reading achievement: Perspectives on practice and policy. Remedial and Special Education, 12(3), 20-30.
45. Mehrens, W. A., & Clarizio, H. F. (1993). Curriculum-based measurement: Conceptual and psychometric considerations. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 241-254.
46. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Evaluation standards: Curriculum and evaluation for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 304 336)
47. National Research Council. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
48. Phillips, N. B., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1994). Effects of classwide curriculum-based measurement and peer tutoring: A collaborative researcher-practitioner interview study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 420-434.
49. Phillips, N. B., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1996). Instructional variables affecting student achievement: Case studies of two contrasting teachers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, 24-33.
50. Poplin, M. S. (1988). Holistic/constructivist principles of the teaching/learning process: Implications for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 401-416.
51. Reschly, D. J., & Wilson, M. S. (1997). Characteristics of school psychology graduate education: Implications for the entry-level discussion and doctoral-level specialty definition. School Psychology Review, 26, 74-92.
52. Sailor, W. (1989). The educational, social, and vocational integration of students with the most severe disabilities. In D. K. Lipsky & A. Gartner (Eds.), Beyond separate education: Quality education for all (pp. 53-74). Baltimore: Brookes.
53. Schulte, A. C. (1996). Remediation and inclusion: Can we have it all? In D. L. Speece & B. K. Keogh (Eds.), Research in classroom ecologies: Implications for inclusion of students with learning disabilities (pp. 203-210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. Schulte, A. C., Osborne, S. S., & Kauffman, J. M. (1993). Teacher responses to two types of consultative special education services. Journal of Psychological and Educational Consultation, 4, 1-28.
55. Schulte, A. C., Osborne, S. S., & McKinney, J. D. (1990). Academic outcomes for students with learning disabilities in consultation and resource programs. Exceptional Children, 57, 162-172.
56. Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Getting ready for inclusion: Is the stage set? Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 10, 169-179.
57. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Sullivan, G. S. (1994). Promoting relational thinking: Elaborative interrogation for students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 60, 450-457.
58. Shepard, L. (1989). Identification of mild handicaps. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.; pp. 545-572). New York: American Council on Education/ Macmillan.
59. Slavin, R. E. (1989). Students at risk of school failure: The problem and its dimensions. In R. E. Slavin, N. L. Karweit, & N. A. Madden (Eds.), Effective programs for students at risk (pp. 3-19). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
60. Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51, 324-336.
61. Stoner, G., Carey, S. P., Ikeda, M. J., & Shinn, M. R. (1994). The utility of curriculum-based measurement for evaluating the effects of methylphenidate on academic performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 101-113.
62. Turnbull, R. H. (1993). Free appropriate public education: The law and children with disabilities (4th ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
63. US. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. (1992). Testing in American schools: Asking the right questions. Washington, DC: U.S. GPO. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 340 770)
64. U.S. Department of Education. Office of Special Education Programs. (1996). Eighteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
65. Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1996). Classroom ecologies: Classroom interactions and implications for inclusion of students with learning disabilities. In D. L. Speece & B. K. Keogh (Eds.), Research on classroom ecologies: Implications for inclusion of students with learning disabilities (pp. 107-124). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
66. Wagner, M. (1989). The transition experiences of youth with disabilities: A report from the National Transition Study. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
67. Wang, M. C., & Baker, E. T. (1985-86). Mainstreaming programs: Design features and effects. Journal of Special Education, 19, 503-521.
68. Will, M. C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 54, 411-416.
69. Zigmond, N. (1995). Inclusion in Pennsylvania: Educational experiences of students with disabilities in one elementary school. Journal of Special Education, 29, 124-132.
70. Zigmond, N. (1996). Organization and management of general education classrooms. In D. L. Speece & B. K. Keogh (Eds.), Research in classroom ecologies: Implications for inclusion of students with learning disabilities (pp. 163-190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
71. Zigmond, N., & Baker, J. (1990). Mainstream experiences for learning disabled students (Project MELD): Preliminary report. Exceptional Children, 57, 176-185.
72. Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S., Fuchs, D., Baker, J., Jenkins, L., & Couthino, M. (1995). Special education in restructured schools. Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 531-535.