Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T03:39:47.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Special Education Resource Programs — A Perspective from the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

J. Lee Wiederholt ,
Becky Martinez  and
Julianne Harris
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the United States, a certain percentage of the students cannot meet certain requirements of the school. A portion of these students (approximately 12% of the total school population) are identified as having some handicapping condition, i.e. deaf, blind, mentally retarded, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, or orthopedically handicapped. Many of these identified students with mild to moderate handicaps are served in resource programs. When placed in a resource program, students also receive a portion of their academic instruction in a regular education classroom. Special education resource teachers support the regular program efforts by providing specific assessment of the students academic and social/emotional abilities, some direct instruction to the student, as well as consultation with regular classroom teachers, parents, and other specialists concerned with a student’s progress.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , November 1984 , pp. 12 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ammer, J. J. The mechanics of mainstreaming: considering the regular perspective. Remedial and Special Education, 1983, 5, 15–20.Google Scholar
Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F. and Aust, M. H. A method to integrate descriptive and experimental field studies at the level of data and emperical concepts. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 1968, 1, 75–191.Google Scholar
Bingham, W. V. D., Moore, B. V., and Gustad, J. W. How to Interview. New York: Harper & Row, 1957.Google Scholar
Brown, L. F., Kiraly, J., & McKinnon, A. Resource rooms: Some aspects for special educators to ponder. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1979, 12, 480–487.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. O. Measurement and analysis of behavioral techniques. Columbus, OH: Merrill, 1974.Google Scholar
Drew, C. J., Criterion-referenced and norm referenced assessment of minority group children. Journal of School Psychology, 1973, 11, 323–329.Google Scholar
Elman, N. M., & Ginsberg, N. J. The resource room primer, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1981.Google Scholar
Evans, S. The consultant role of the resource teacher. Exceptional Children, 1980, 46, 402–404.Google Scholar
Friend, M., & McNutt, G. Resource room programs: Where are we now? Exceptional Children, 1984, 57, 150–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glavin, J. P., Quay, H. C., Annesley, F. R. & Werry, J. A. An experimental resource room for behavior problem children. Exceptional Children, 1971, 38, 131–137.Google Scholar
Hall, R. V. The Measurement of behavior. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, 1974.Google Scholar
Harris, W. J., & Maher, C. Problems in implementing resource room programs in rural schools. Exceptional Children, 1975, 41, 95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawisher, M. F. & Calhoun, M. L. The resource room. Columbus, OH: Merrill, 1978.Google Scholar
Heron, T. E., & Harris, K. C. The educational consultant: Helping professionals, parents, and mainstreamed students. Baton: Allyn & Bacon, 1982.Google Scholar
Idol-Maestas, L. Special educator’s consultation handbook. Rockville, MD: Aspen. 1983.Google Scholar
Idol-Maestas, L., & Jackson, C. An evaluation of the consultation process. Unpublished report, Department of Special Education, University of Illinois at Urbana — Champaign, 1981.Google Scholar
Knoff, H. M. Mainstreaming attitudes and special placement knowledge in labeling versus nonlabeling states. Remedial and Special Education, 1984, 5, 7–14.Google Scholar
Marsh, G. E., Price, B. J., & Smith, T. E. C. Teaching mildly handicapped children: Methods and materials. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, 1983.Google Scholar
Mayhall, W. F. & Jenkins, J. R. Scheduling daily or less than daily instruction: Implications for resource rooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1977, 10, 159–163.Google Scholar
McCallon, E. & McCray, E. Planning and conducting interviews. Austin, TX: Learning Concepts, 1975.Google Scholar
Mercer, C. D., & Mercer, A. R. Teaching Students with learning problems. Colombus, OH: Merrill, 1981.Google Scholar
Morse, W. C., Worksheet on life-space interviewing for teachers. In Long, N. J. Morse, W. C. and Newman Ceds, R. G., Conflict in the classroom. Second ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1981.Google Scholar
Nelson, C. M. & Stevens, K. B. An accountable consultation model for mainstreaming behaviorally disordered children. Behavioral Disorders, 1981, 6, 82–91.Google Scholar
Opper, S. Piaget’s clinical method. Journal of Children’s Mathematical Behavior, 1977, 1, (4), 90–107.Google Scholar
Paroz, J., Siegenthaler, L. S., & Tatum, V. H. A model for a middle school resource room program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1972, 10, 7–15.Google Scholar
Slavin, R. E. Team assisted individualization: Cooperation learning and individualized instruction in the mainstreamed classroom. Remedial and Special Education, 1984, 5, 7–14.Google Scholar
Stewart, C. J., & Cash, W. B. Interviewing principles and practices. Dubuque, Iowa: Brown, 1974.Google Scholar
Wallace, G. & Larsen, S. C. Educational assessment of learning problems: Testing for teaching. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978.Google Scholar
Wang, M. C., Peverly, S., & Randolph, R. An investigation of the implementation and effects of a full-time mainstreaming program. Remedial and Special Education, 1984, 5, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiederholt, J. L., Hammill, D. D., & Brown, V. The resource teacher: A guide to effective practices (2nd edition). Austin, TX: PRO-ED, 1983.Google Scholar
Wright, H. F. Recordings and analyzing child behavior with ecological data from an American town. New York: Harper & Row, 1967.Google Scholar