Resource room

Abstract: Children with learning disabilities in four types of special education settings were compared in terms of social acceptance, number of friends, quality of relationship with best friends, self-concept, loneliness, depression, social skills, and problem behaviors Two of the placements (In-Class Support and Resource Room) were for children with mild to moderate learning disabilities and involved between 30 and 90 minutes of special education per school day The other two placements (Inclusion Class and Self-Contained Special Education Class) were designated for children with severe learning disabilities and involved at least a half-day of special education Children in the more inclusive placements had more positive social and emotional functioning Children receiving In-Class Support were more accepted by peers, had higher self-perceptions of mathematics competence, and fewer problem behaviors than children receiving Resource Room Support Children in Inclusion Classes had more satisfying relationships with their best school friends, were less lonely, and had fewer problem behaviors than children in Self-Contained Special Education Classes

Abstract: Using the observation procedures developed by Leinhardt, Zigmond, and Cooley (1981), we conducted a large-scale field study of reading instruction in special education resource room programs for fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade mildly handicapped students. Children in 23 resource rooms in one district and those from 5 resource rooms in another district were observed during reading instruction. Observations were also made in regular classrooms for a subset of handicapped students and their nonhandicapped peers. The research sought to answer questions regarding the standardization of resource room reading instruction, the nature and amount of reading instruction in these programs, factors associated with how students are scheduled for special reading instruction, reading instruction in resource rooms versus regular classrooms, and special education students’ reading instruction (resource room plus classroom) versus that of nonhandicapped peers. Process-product relations similar to those of the Leinhardt et ...

Abstract: Since the publication of A Nation at Risk (1983), which heightened public interest in educational reform, there has been a strong national movement to include all students in the regular neighborhood schools and classrooms (Stainback & Stainback, 1990). Inclusion is defined as educating all students in the mainstream for all of the day (Lusthaus & Forest, 1989). All students, regardless of disability, are educated in the integrated, general education class. Regular teachers are asked to provide experiences that are appropriate for all of their students. The special education teacher provides support in the regular classroom (Stainback & Stainback, 1992). The resource room is at least partially replaced with the special education teacher consulting from room to room. Inclusion originated in New Zealand, England, and Canada where it is currently being implemented (Gage, 1994). There are also a number of schools in Italy, Australia, and the United States that are successfully implementing inclusion (Berrigan, 1989; Blackman & Peterson, 1989; Buswell & Shaffer, 1990; Schattman, 1988; Stainback & Stainback, 1988). Inclusion differs from mainstreaming in that in the inclusive program the children with disabilities are the shared responsibility of the classroom teacher and other support professionals. In mainstreaming programs the children were seen as the primary responsibility of the resource teacher (Stainback & Stainback, 1988). Some groups such as the Association for Retarded Citizens, United Cerebral Palsy, and the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps have been strong advocates for the inclusion movement. These groups want to eliminate segregated classrooms as well as pullout special educational programs. They hope to create a better social environment at school by bringing services for children with handicaps into the regular classroom (Gorman & Rose, 1994). Although opinions vary widely, one key advocate for the inclusion movement has been the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) which argues that current practices in special education have not been effective (Gorman & Rose, 1994). For example, Cartwright, Cartwright, and Ward (1985) reported that research showed students in special education classes did not achieve any better than their counterparts in regular education classes. In fact, children with mild handicaps made greater academic gains in the regular classroom than children with similar handicaps in segregated classrooms (Madden & Slavin, 1983). The NASBE also has called for the integration of general and special education into one system with flexible instruction on and curricula. The single system would offer student centered classrooms where a variety of professionals would meet the needs of all students (Gorman & Rose, 1994). Those in support of inclusion believe that inclusion provides more effective education for all students, not only those with handicapping conditions (Pearman, Huang, Barnhart, & Mellblom, 1992). As with any significant change there are also those who strongly hold differing opinions. Opponents of inclusion have argued that it does not save money and actually probably costs more to implement than old pull-out approach (Woelfel, 1994). The two most prominent opponents of inclusion, The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) and the Learning Disabilities Association (LDA), have urged schools to keep service options available to students (Gorman & Rose, 1994). The LDA has also argued that inclusion is a violation of the 1990 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("Position Paper," 1993). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act mandated that a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment based on the individual needs of the students be provided to individuals with disabilities. Inclusion may not be appropriate for all students. Other groups also have resisted inclusion. …

Abstract: This article compares student achievement data of the Integrated Classroom Model (ICM) to achievement data in resource room programs. Cost-effectiveness of the two programs is also compared. Comparison of pre- and postscores on the reading, math, and language subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery indicated no significant differences in performance among elementary-school students with learning disabilities in integrated classrooms and resource classrooms. Comparisons of California Achievement Test scores indicated no significant differences among regular education students in the ICM and in regular classrooms. The ICM was shown to be more cost effective than resource room programs while achieving similar results.