Arguable Assumptions Underlying the Regular Education Initiative

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Many suggestions of advocates of the Regular Education Initiative (REI) find broad support among educators. Several basic assumptions underlying the REI, however, are arguable. Contrary to advocates of the REI, we argue the following: (1) Students are not overidentified for special education, and the gap between regular and special education is not widening. (2) Student failure should not be attributed solely to shortcomings of teachers. (3) Teachers who are more competent do not necessarily have more positive attitudes toward handicapped or difficult-to-teach students being placed in their classrooms, nor does school reform/school improvement necessarily mean that difficult-to-teach or handicapped students will be instructed more effectively. (4) Variability in student performance will increase, not decrease, when the most effective instruction is provided for all students, such that low performing students will become more rather than less obvious, and their stigma will not be avoided. (5) Teachers are always faced with the dilemma of maximizing mean performance versus minimizing group variance, such that protection of identifiable resources for identifiable low performing students is always necessary.