Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T03:07:36.255Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integration — Who Benefits?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Richard L. Schiefelbusch
Richard L. Schiefelbusch*
Affiliation:
Bureau of Child Research, University of Kansas, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Old ideas give way slowly; for they are more than abstract logical forms and categories. They are habits, predispositions, deeply engrained attitudes of aversions and preference.

John Dewey, 1909

One of the most difficult tasks faced by the collective leadership of a nation is the design and maintenance of its schools. Leaders must decide what is to be taught, by whom, and who to teach. The membership of the teacher and the student groups, in turn, help determine how the subject matter is to be taught. The what, who, and how issues are further complicated by rapid changes in cultural values and priorities, political and economic issues and legal interpretations. These complications require strenuous policy discussions and often agonizing reappraisals as the nation’s political leaders interact with their constituents, including groups representing parents, educators, scientists and economists.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , May 1987 , pp. 4 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1987

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

Brinker, R. (1985). Interactions between severely mentally retarded students and other students in integrated and segregated public school settings. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 89(6), 587–594.Google ScholarPubMed
Brinker, R., & Thorpe, M. (1984). Integration of severely handicapped students and the proportion of IEP objectivcs achieved. Exceptional Children, 51 (2), 168–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaylord-Ross, R., & Peck, C. (1985). Integration efforts for students with severe mental handicaps. In Bricker, D. & Filler, J.(Eds.), Severe mental retardation: From theory to practice (pp. 184–207). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, Division on Mental Retardation.Google Scholar
Nirje, B. (1985). The basis and logic of the normalization principle. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 11(2), 65–68.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Reynolds, M. (1976). Trends in education: Changing roles of special education personnel. Columbus OH: The University Council for Educational Administration.Google Scholar
Sarason, S., & Doris, J. Mainstreaming: Dilemmas, opposition, opportunities. In Reynolds, M.(Ed.), Futures of education for exceptional students: Emerging structures. Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Strain, P., & Kerr, M. (1981). Mainstreaming of children in schools: Research and programmatic issues. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wang, M.. & Birch, J. (1984). Effective special education in regular classes. Exceptional Children, 50(5), 391–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, M., & Reynolds, M. (1985). Avoiding the “Catch 22” in special education reform. Exceptional Children, 51(6), 497–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Will, M. (1984). Let us pause and reflect but not too long. Exceptional Child, 51(1), 11–16.Google Scholar
Youniss, J. (1980). Parents and peers in social development: A Sullivan-Piaget perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar