This review of the literature on integration was conducted in 1989 by the Saskatchewan Instructional Development and Research Unit through arrangements with the Saskatchewan School Trustees Association.
Integration is generally defined as a process in which all children are educated to the maximum extent possible in the least restrictive environment. School boards and other service providers may, though, define integration somewhat differently depending on the philosophy they have adopted to guide their programming.
Provincial legislation and policies that govern the education
of exceptional children
Saskatchewan’s Core Curriculum stresses individual student needs, locally determined options, and an adaptive dimension aimed at supporting teachers in their responsibility to meet individual student learner needs in unique ways.
Parent and professional associations have been the major impetus in the development of policies and programs for exceptional students and continue to be strong advocates for the integration of exceptional students into regular school programs.
The following personal sketches represent examples of the special needs population to whom this research report is dedicated.
Seven-year-old Christopher has multiple handicaps. He attends a developmental classroom housed in an elementary school. Every morning a taxi picks him up at his home and drives him to school. There, Christopher is met by a teacher aide who has been hired especially to work with him in the classroom. The aide carries out a program that has been designed for Christopher by the teacher and a special education consultant. Once a week, a speech therapist comes to the school to work with him. Interaction between the children in Christopher's class and other children in the school has been encouraged. Christopher takes part in the school's swim program, and some of the older children in the school visit the developmental classroom at noon hour and at recess. Still, segregation is a problem Christopher's school is working to overcome.
Karen is a single teenage mother. During her pregnancy, she decided to keep her baby and return to school to finish her grade twelve. She lives at home with her parents and takes her baby to a sitter during the day. Every day Karen leaves home with her books, her baby, and a diaper bag. She takes a city bus to the sitters, then catches another bus to school. She is very concerned about making a living to support herself and wants to go on to some kind of post-secondary training. She does not participate in any extracurricular activities as her out-of-school time is taken up with raising her child. She sometimes feels alienated from the other students in her school and wishes there were a course she could take that related to her situation. Although she gets lots of support from her family, she worries about money and being a good parent to her child.
Sherry is fourteen and is to enter grade seven in the fall. School records indicate that she is of low average intellectual ability, functions below average on achievement tests, and is a very slow worker. In everyday assignments and classroom tests Sherry does well in spelling and vocabulary and can answer fact questions appropriately. She does, however, have difficulty with passage comprehension and problem solving. Sherry is a hard worker but often has homework. The assignments are always completed but seem of better quality when they have been done at home. Sherry's parents are very supportive. During classroom discussion Sherry willingly answers questions but misunderstands the content much of the time. Sherry is sensitive to criticism. She likes sports and is good at them. She has many friends and is well liked.
Danna is fifteen years old and is to enter grade eight in the fall. School records indicate that Danna came to Canada five years ago from India. Very little English is spoken in the home. Danna attended English as a Second Language classes for two years. Her measured intellectual ability has increased from low average to average within the last two years. Her achievement is average in most areas although vocabulary, spelling, and passage comprehension are weak. Assignments are always completed, but Danna's written compositions include many grammatical errors. Danna is conscientious but is frustrated at times. She appears to be uncomfortable asking the teacher for help. She is quiet in class and avoids participation in discussion. Danna enjoys many extracurricular activities including basketball and volleyball. She appears to have many friends.
Marlene was born on a ranch in southwestern Saskatchewan. Within a few weeks after her birth, her mother noticed that her left eye appeared abnormal. Examination by an ophthalmologist resulted in a diagnosis of retinoblastoma, a form of cancer affecting the retina. To halt the spread of cancer, the eye was enucleated (removed) at the age of four months. At the age of three, the right eye was enucleated for the same reason. Before Marlene reached school age, options for educational programming were presented to her parents. These options included residential school placement, placement in a city (Regina or Saskatoon) with an established resource-itinerant program, and service in the home school jurisdiction. A series of discussions with school board and Saskatchewan Education personnel resulted in the establishment of a local program based in the regular classroom with specialized instruction provided by a teacher trained in education of the visually handicapped.
Marlene learned braille quickly and consistently performed at an academic level two to three years above her sighted peers in the early elementary grades. She has become an accomplished musician and now, at age thirteen, she is the organist at her church. Two years ago she won an international writing competition for blind students.
She is now entering grade eight and continues to excel in all academic areas. In addition to her regular school program, she receives special training in life skills and in orientation and mobility with emphasis on cane travel. She also is involved in an enrichment group. One of the activities this group completed last year was the planning and production of a radio program.
Kevin is in grade two in a rural Saskatchewan school. He is a year younger than his classmates because the school allowed him to enter directly into grade one without kindergarten. Kevin began reading at age three and was printing words and phrases at four. When Kevin listens to other children learning to read, he becomes severely ill with nausea and headaches. The MacNeil Clinic diagnosed his condition as 'severe anxiety syndrome," common in children with extremely high ability (Kevin's IQ score indicates that he scores above 999 other children his age). Kevin has read almost every book in the school library. His hobbies include playing chess with his dad, an extensive stamp collection, and building model planes. The school is wondering whether it is all right to allow him to work in the grade three reader. Kevin told his class, during grade two arithmetic class, the "32 doesn't have to mean 32, it could mean 17" (if you use base 5). The teacher requires that Kevin finish all of the questions in addition facts.
Kevin worries a lot about things like nuclear proliferation, life after death, and a pollution-free environment. He finds that the social studies class about "our community" is interesting but there hardly seems to be the time or opportunity to get into discussions about the community issues which he would like to raise. His favorite subjects at school are music, physical education, and recess.
Saskatchewan Education. (n.d.). Core Curriculum. Unpublished material. Regina, SK:
Minister's Advisory Committee, Curriculum and Instruction Review. (1984). Saskatchewan children: Their lives and needs. Regina, S K: Saskatchewan Education.
This review of the literature on integration was conducted by the Saskatchewan Instructional Development and Research Unit through arrangements with the Saskatchewan School Trustees Association.
Integration is generally defined as a process in which all children are educated to the maximum extent possible in the least restrictive environment. School boards and other service providers may, though, define integration somewhat differently depending on the philosophy they have adopted to guide their programming.
Although the historical roots of special education can be traced to the late 1700s, the integration movement as we know it today emerged in the 1970s and escalated in popularity in the 1980s. Prior to these very recent times children and adults with special needs were rarely academically or socially integrated with their mainstream peers.
Provincial legislation and policies that govern the education of exceptional children mandate the provision of free and appropriate individualized educational programs in the least restrictive environment. The impact of human rights legislation, particularly the equality provisions, is viewed as being a very positive development on behalf of the handicapped.
In the Core Curriculum, which is a result of a major review of education in Saskatchewan, guidelines for meeting the individual needs of students have not yet been developed, but the plan stresses individual student needs, locally determined options, and an adaptive dimension aimed at supporting teachers in their responsibility to meet individual student learner needs in unique ways.
Parent and professional associations have been the major impetus in the development of policies and programs for exceptional students and continue to be strong advocates for the integration of exceptional students into regular school programs.
The reasons for the recent integration movement stem from the social values of fundamental justice and equal opportunity based upon the principle of normalization.
The two main administrative models of integration provide for placement of every student in the regular classroom or placement of exceptional students along a continuum of educational services. The instructional models include individualized instruction, curriculum modification, instructional variations, enrichment programs, and resource room programs.
Although the research in general has not provided conclusive evidence on the efficacy of integration, more recent reports include a growing body of cautious generalizations in support of the approach.
A priority for school boards in the development of integrated programming is the establishment of a philosophical commitment and understanding of the concept. Subsequently, school boards need to develop organizational and administrative policies and procedures that support integration.
Implementation of a successful integrated program requires school board action to inform and prepare all those involved in the provision of services to exceptional children. Board staff members, students, parents, and the community must understand and make a commitment to the concept of integration.
A prescriptive team approach is recommended for identification, assessment, and placement of programming for exceptional students. An individualized education program, regardless of placement, is generally found to be the best program to meet the needs of exceptional students.
The need for strong commitment to integrated programming is especially important in view of the fact that costs of integrated programs have been found to be higher than segregated programs when appropriate support services are provided to the regular classroom teacher and the students.
Several authors, who acknowledged that there was some confusion about integration or mainstreaming, have summarized the following major points about the concept (TASH Newsletter, 1987 [Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps]; Howarth, 1983; Little, 1985; Striefel, 1985; Winzer, Rogow, & David, 1987).
* place children in the same school they would attend if they did not have special needs.
* provide an individualized program that is appropriate to needs and age.
* provide a program in the least restrictive environment
* provide a program for most exceptional children in a regular classroom.
* provide a special education on the basis of educational needs rather than on clinical or diagnostic labels.
* provide special help and opportunities to exceptional children in the mainstream setting.
* provide out-of-regular-class programs only as is necessary to control learning variables critical to the achievement of specified learning goals.
* emphasize activities in which exceptional children can participate rather than activities in which they cannot participate.
* provide both access to and freedom of choice in the opportunities and environment available to the non-handicapped peers of exceptional children.
* provide the same schedule for exceptional and regular students.
* provide for learning in the non-school environment when appropriate.
* provide program alternatives to help general educators who have students with learning and adjustment problems in regular settings.
* provide continued support to the regular schools by consultants, special educators, and specialists.
* unite special and regular education skills so that all children have equal opportunities.
* teach children to understand and accept individual differences.
* take parental concerns seriously.
* adapt itself to a variety of settings.
* eliminate all special classes.
* eliminate all special education teachers.
* ignore needs of some children for a more specialized program than can be provided in a general education setting.
* place exceptional children in regular programs without preparation and support.
* isolate children with special needs in separate programs, schedules, or physical areas.
* group students with wide ranges of disabilities and needs in the same program.
* ignore individual needs.
* expose children to unnecessary hazards or risks.
* place unreasonable demands on teachers and administrators.
* place children with disabilities at schools or in programs for younger children.
* stop at physical integration of exceptional children without trying to integrate them socially and intellectually.
* cost less than serving children in self-contained classrooms.
Integration is part of the philosophical belief that exceptional children and adults should live and work and learn in an environment that is as normal as possible. The provision of special educational services to exceptional children has been historically a topic of debate. At this time the debate centers on integration of special and regular education programs as part of the general issue of integration into society.
Current social developments regarding the provision of educational services to exceptional children include parent and advocate demands for integration, increasing responsibility by school boards for services to exceptional children, and enactment of laws on the rights of handicapped children. School boards must deal with these recent social developments as they make decisions and establish policies regarding the provision of educational services to children.
The Saskatchewan School Trustees Association, acting on behalf of provincial school boards, made arrangements with the Saskatchewan Instructional Development and Research Unit of the University of Regina for a review of current literature on integration. The review was intended to display the most significant issues and findings related to the concept of integration as they might be used by school boards in their attempts to provide the most appropriate educational services to children and, in particular, to exceptional children.
The review of the literature was particularly facilitated by the succinct summaries found in major reports by the Canadian Education Association (1985); Howarth (1983); Manley-Casimir and Sussel (1986); Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986); and Winzer, Rogow, and David (1987). Other references fitting these sources include three separate publications by the Wellington County Separate School Board (1984).
TERMINOLOGY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
Terminology, including that used in the language of education, has often been a contentious issue. The terms integration, mainstreaming, and normalization themselves are often used interchangeably in the literature. For clarification, definitions of some terms in special education are provided here.
Integration or Mainstreaming
* is the temporal, instructional, and social integration of eligible exceptional children with normal peers based on an ongoing, individually determined educational planning and programming process and requires clarification of responsibility among regular and special education administrative, instructional, and support personnel (Kaufman, Gottlieb, Agard, & Kukic, 1975 in Winzer, Rogow, & David, 1987).
* is the process of educating all children, with and without handicaps, in the same setting to the maximum extent possible (Striefel, 1985).
* is the integration of the disabled and nondisabled students in regular schools. This may occur in regular classes, in the lunch room, in hallways, in particular subjects, in school assemblies, and in extracurricular activities (Biklen, 1985).
* is making available to all mentally retarded people patterns of life and conditions of everyday living which are as close as possible to the regular circumstances of society (Nirje, 1979, in Winzer, Rogow, & David, 1987).
* is the utilization of means which are as culturally normative as possible in order to establish, maintain, and support patterns of behavior which are as culturally normative as possible (Wolfensberger, 1972, in Saskatchewan Association for the Mentally Retarded, 1986).
* includes a pupil who, under the criteria prescribed in the regulations, is deemed to be unable to participate at an optimal level in the benefits of the ordinary program of the school by reason of personal limitations attributable to physical, mental, behavioral, or communication disorders (Section 184 (1), The Education AO.
* is an educational placement in which, to the maximum extent appropriate, exceptional children are placed in educational programs where they will benefit the most at the least distance away from regular education placement (Kansas State Department of Education, 1987).
* is a statement of the present level of educational performance; a statement of annual goals, including short-term instructional objectives; a statement of the specific educational services, and the extent to which the child will be able to participate in regular educational programs, the projected date for initiation and anticipated duration of such services, and appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining, on at least an annual basis, whether instructional objectives are being achieved (Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975 in Hallahan & Kauffman, 1982).
The integration concept in its broadest context, such as that which was adopted by the Wellington County Separate School Board (1984), is based on the premise that every child is a unique individual with unique needs. The categories of exceptionality adapted from Winzer, Rogow, and David (1987) include the talented and gifted; the mildly, moderately, and severely handicapped; and the culturally different.
In Saskatchewan, provisions have been made for special programs (such as regular program adaptations, second language programs, locally developed courses, alternate education, and native education) as well as special education. Special education in Saskatchewan (Saskatchewan Education 1982, 1988) has included children who are talented and gifted and mildly, moderately, or severely disabled. In Saskatchewan, all children between the ages of six and twenty-one years are included under mandatory legislation, and preschool children from the age of three years are included under permissive legislation (Saskatchewan Education, 1982).
The appendix provides a review of the prevalence of exceptional students.
The following historical overview of special education includes the terminology which was used in a given era.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
Historically, integration and segregation were part of the three stages in the development of attitudes toward the handicapped which were identified by Kirk (1972) and Lance in Hasazi (1980). During the pre-Christian era, the handicapped, if they survived, were persecuted, neglected, and mistreated. In the second stage, the Christian era, the handicapped were protected and pitied. In the third and most recent stage, there has been a movement toward the acceptance and integration of the handicapped into society to the fullest extent possible. The following description has been based primarily on the material in Brown, Nisbet, Ford, Sweet, Shiraga, York, and Loomis (1983); Hallahan and Kauffman (1982); Manley-Casimir and Sussel (1986); and Winzer, Rogow, and David (1987).
The historical roots of special education can be traced to humanitarian thoughts, particularly political and social, in Europe between the late 1700s and early 1800s. Philosophical and educational ideas developed by French thinkers at that time had a major influence on special education in North America. Special education in Canada has historically followed developments in the United States.
In the Christian era, limited provisions for handicapped children came from parents and a few church hospices. There were some successful programs for the blind, the deaf, and vagrants from the late 1500s and early 1600s. The first systematic attempts to educate the handicapped were directed towards idiotic and insane children in Europe during the 1700s. In the era of broad intellectual development throughout the mid-1700s and early 1800s, the English began to question the idea that children were born with innate characteristics. The notion of individuality was introduced calling for both thought and care in the raising of children. This new thinking eventually spread throughout the European continent to influence French physicians who could be called the originators of special education. They combined concepts of social equality and individual rights with concepts in education such as stimulation of the senses, sequenced tasks, individualized instruction, functional skills, structured environment, and normalization to the greatest extent possible. In Europe and North America, many of these early educational programs were developed by individuals for individuals. Programs were developed for the blind, the deaf, the mentally retarded, the needy, the physically handicapped, and the mentally ill.
In the mid- and late 1800s, institutional programs and some special classes were developed with public funds for the deaf, the blind, and the insane, as well as for delinquents. These programs segregated handicapped children from the general education system in the belief that handicapping conditions were predetermined and could not be improved through education. Attitudes of fear and alarm about societal pollution by the handicapped, particularly the retarded, carried over into the early 1900s.
Between the early 1900s and World War 11, there was a general loss of momentum in special education developments in Europe and North America due to economic, social, and political turmoil. It was during this time, however, that special schools and special classes became more prevalent while institutions continued to increase in numbers, and attempts were made for supervision of institutional programs to come under departments of education. The educational programs tended to be for the care and provision of limited industrial training for boys and domestic training for girls. The first programs to be developed were for the mentally retarded, the physically handicapped, and sick children. These programs were subsequently followed by special day classes which provided programs for the visually impaired, the homebound, the mentally retarded, the speech impaired, and the orthopedically handicapped. Vocational and gifted classes and remedial reading programs were also initiated. This was also the time in which the testing movement developed as a means to identify feeble-minded and gifted children.
The inertia of the first half of this century was overcome by a combination of the emigration of European educators of the handicapped to the United States before the war and the political and social developments which followed the war. The trend was away from institutional care to community treatment and the recognition of individual rights. In the 1940s and 1950s, parents helped to organize segregated private day care and residential schools. Parents also organized as lobby groups to exert pressure on governments for expanded special education services. Segregated special classes rather than special schools were developed in the 1950s and 1960s to provide programs for the mildly handicapped.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the academic benefits of segregated classes were questioned by researchers. The medical model of diagnosing and programming for problems within the child gave way to prescriptive teaching based on individual needs. In the 1960s, the implementation in the Scandinavian countries of educational programs based on the principle of normalization soon had an impact in Canada and the United States.
The 1970s saw the development of a strong movement led by parents and professionals away from special schools and institutions to regular schools and regular classes with the help of support staff. This was also the age of phenomenal growth in special education as school boards moved to cope with factors such as birth rate increases, medical and technical advances, application of the learning disability concept, and economic growth. In the 1970s and 1980s, there were continued efforts by school boards and other agencies to increase the universality of special education services and to provide early identification and early intervention programs. The 1970s saw provision of programs to the multiply handicapped become the responsibility of education rather than of health or social services. This occurred in Saskatchewan in 1978.
The 1970s and 1980s was a time of social change in which not only the concept of normalization but the concept of human rights received recognition. The view had developed that education is for all children and that exceptional children are a part of, not separate from, regular education. Free and appropriate education with equal opportunities for all children became part of the law. A trend of the 1980s has been to provide educational programs in chronologically age-appropriate classrooms and schools along with direct instruction in nonschool environments.
Throughout history, individuals have played a significant role in the implementation and development of special education, but professional and parent associations have also had a major impact on the development of special education services. The first to organize were medical professionals in the 1800s who founded associations concerned with the mentally retarded and the mentally ill. Special education as a category within general education emerged in the United States at the beginning of the 1900s. Professional associations devoted to special education were organized in the United States in the early 1900s. Beginning in the 1950s, Canadian members of American-based associations were instrumental in the formation of professional and parent associations in Canada. The pressure exerted by parents and professionals on school boards and governments was a major factor in the development of policies and programs and in the expansion and changes in educational services to exceptional children.
Historically, the laws that governed the provision of educational services to handicapped children were for institutional public program funding and for exclusion from public school attendance. Efforts of parents and professionals, individually and collectively, have been directly responsible for legislative achievements in special education. Parents and professionals voiced their concerns to school boards, governments, and the courts.
In recent years, responsibility and program appropriateness for the education of exceptional children have been legislated in many European countries, the United States, and Canada. All provinces and territories in Canada now have legislated a form of permissive or mandatory responsibility and have included a provision for education programs appropriate to the individual student. Saskatchewan has had mandatory legislation since 1971.
The special education issues which have been taken to hearings and courts since the 1970s have had a significant impact on the direction of special education services in Canada and the United States. Initially, the litigation issues involved the right to attend School and, subsequently, the right to an appropriate education. The arguments in these actions have been based upon education and human rights legislation.
As school boards have the responsibility for the delivery of programs and services to students as established by both board and department policies and procedures, the legislation and litigation concerning special education are detailed in the following section.
LEGISLATION AND LITIGATION IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
International, national, and provincial legislative and litigative actions all have had an impact on the delivery of special education services in Canada. The prime sources of legislation which govern the provision of educational services are the acts, regulations, and policies established through the departments of education (Winzer, Rogow, & David, 1987). Other legislative sources include those which regulate such areas as professional services, social services, health services, buildings, and safety (Saskatchewan Education, personal interview, 1988). Human rights legislation, outlined by MacKay (1986), has been a relatively recent development and could have a major impact on educational services. Litigation under educational legislation, as described by Manley-Casimir and Sussel (1986), has affected educational service developments. They suggest that the effect of human rights litigation with respect to educational service delivery to handicapped children will have to await court action.
Recent international, national, and provincial legislation and litigation has had both direct and indirect impact on special education service delivery in Canada. Education legislation in Sweden, Denmark, Italy, and Britain, as described by McLeary and Buchanan (1987), and in the United States, as described by Manley-Casimir and Sussel (1986), has included mandatory provisions for free and most appropriate education for all children regardless of handicap and with placement in the least restrictive environment. Weddell, Welton, Evans, and Goacher (1987) reported that in Britain, The Education Act, 1981, which was based upon the Warnock Report (Karagianis & Nesbit, 1984; Sharron, 1985), made a commitment to integration and legislated the provision of maximum opportunities for all children to develop to their fullest extent and for parents to participate in decisions about their children's educational needs. Karagianis and Nesbit (1984) have suggested that the Warnock Report has influenced educational planning in Canada.
Two pieces of recent legislation, regarded as particularly significant and influential for Canadian education, were the United States' Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Public Law 94-142, 1975 and Ontario's Education Amendment Act, Bill 82, 1980 (Winzer, Rogow, & David, 1987). As described by Hallahan and Kauffman (1982) and Winzer, Rogow, and David (1987), the basic provisions included in the American legislation ensure that each state and local school system has a plan for:
* the right of free education without charge to the pupil or the family;
* the right of appeal of identification and placement, and the right to a review hearing by the exceptional children, their parents, and their advocates;
* the right to an appropriate program that states objectives and outlines services that will meet exceptional children's needs; and
* the right to continuous identification of needs and continuous assessment and evaluation of the student's progress.
Saskatchewan, Quebec, Ontario, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Manitoba have mandatory legislation. British Columbia, Alberta, and Prince Edward Island have permissive legislation. The Yukon and Northwest Territories are in the process of drafting new policies that will include integration. The provisions for an appropriate education are included in the legislation in Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario. Manley-Casimir and Sussel (1986) and Hadder (1986) note that all provinces have some form of exclusionary clause based on behavioral problems or severity of problems that deal with the student who cannot benefit from a school program. Saskatchewan has a clause for exclusion from a specific program but not from alternate programs provided by the school board or from other appropriate services.
In Saskatchewan, the legislation and its application have been set out in The Education Act, in the Regulations under the Education Act, and in Special Education: A Manual of Legislation, Regulations, Policies and guidelines. Sections of the legislative documents are included here as they have been specifically written to ensure an appropriate education for exceptional children in Saskatchewan.
Section 144 (2) of The Education Act
.... the educational services mentioned in subsection 1 are to be provided at the cost of the school division .... (Right to attend school at cost of division)
Section 184 (1) of The Education Act
For the purpose of this section, 'pupil with a disability' includes a pupil who, under criteria described in the regulations, is deemed unable to participate at an optimal level in the benefits of the ordinary program of the school by reason of personal limitations attributed to physical, mental, behavioural or communication disorders.
Section 184 (2) of The Education Act
Subject to the regulations, a board of education shall provide educational services on behalf of pupils with disabilities, .... (Education of handicapped pupils)
Section 185 of The Education Act
Where the ordinary programs of instruction of the school are considered by the board of education to be insufficient to meet the educational needs of certain pupils of superior natural ability or exceptional talent, the board may make provisions for such special programs as considered feasible and appropriate. (Gifted pupils)
Section 52 (1) of the Regulations
A board of education shall:
(a) make available, at no cost to their parents or guardians, special education services for disabled pupils, that are, in the opinion of the minister, appropriate including special schools, special classrooms, resource rooms and itinerant and tutorial programs, and may provide for pre-school age disabled children identified pursuant to Subsection 50(2), in order that disabled pupils and children can benefit from the most appropriate and least restrictive program. (Special education services.)
* To implement an effective educational program for the handicapped, competent professional personnel with appropriate knowledge, training, and experience are required.
* Early intervention for the purposes of prevention, amelioration, and/or education is necessary to enhance the opportunities for self-realization of the handicapped.
* Education of the handicapped must acknowledge the fact that handicapped children have varying degrees of handicaps as well as divergent levels of educational achievement.
* When integration of the handicapped child in a regular class setting is possible and profitable for the individual, it should be the predominant mode of education, ....
The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code has guaranteed the right to an education and protection against discrimination based on physical disability but not on mental disability.
Endicott (1987) and MacKay (1986) both outlined the importance of Sections 1, 7, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms cited below.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Section 15 (1)
Every individual is equal before the law and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination, and in particular, based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.
Studies by Manley-Casimir and Sussel (1986), Poirier and Gougen (1986), and MacKay (1986) all have discussed the probable impact of the Charter on education. The issues that have been raised about the Charter include the degree to which courts may take an active role in interpreting the provisions, the influence on Canadian decisions of some court decisions in the United States, and the degree to which courts will intrude into provincial education matters. Other issues have centered on whether or not the right to an education is included, the degree to which an obligation to provide educational services to all children might be expressed in terms of placement and programming, and the implications for those provinces which have permissive special education legislation.
The Charter has been regarded by both MacKay and Sussel and Manley-Casimir as a major piece of legislation that guarantees a free and appropriate education for handicapped children. Endicott (1987), McCallum (1987), and Poirier and Gougen (1986) suggest that the Charter provisions are an expansion of rights of the handicapped and will provide for very positive actions on behalf of handicapped children. According to Sussel and Manley-Casimir (1986), the issue of judicial intervention in the educational arena based on the Charter remains unclear.
The process toward an integrated special education service as described by Winzer, Rogow, and David (1987) has also been affected by court decisions and parent appeals in Canada and the United States. The equality provision of the American constitution was the basis for two significant challenges of exclusionary practices in the United States. In 1972, a Pennsylvania court approved a settlement in a class action suit that guaranteed free public education for all mentally retarded children and the right of due process (Hallahan & Kauffman, 1982). A District of Columbia court ruled in 1972 that when a state provides free public education to normal and handicapped children, all handicapped children have the right to education (Manley-Casimir & Sussel, 1986). .
Following these court decisions, a flurry of legal activity brought federal and congressional initiatives to a head with the Education for all Handicapped Children Act in 1975.
In Canada, the court decisions in the pre-Charter years were based on educational legislation. A court in British Columbia ruled, for example, in Bales v. Board of Trustees District No. 23 (1984) that the school board had the authority to place a mentally retarded child in a special school; however, it did not rule on the issue of integration. While no court actions based on the Charter have been taken, the court approved settlement in Elwood et al. v. The Halifax County-Bedford District School Board was based on the Charter of Rights and freedoms (Endicott, 1987; McCallum, 1987). The settlement was an agreement between the parents and the school board (a) that the educational placement and program be in a regular class with appropriate supports in the neighborhood school as opposed to placement in a segregated special education class in a non-neighborhood school, (b) that an individual education plan be provided, and (c) that the parents have a say in the placement and program. At the pre-trial hearings and in the 1986 request which granted an injunction to prohibit the return to a segregated non-neighborhood school program, the arguments were based largely on Sections 7 and 15 of the Charter(Endicott, 1987; McCallum, 1987).
In 1986, two parent appeals to a special education tribunal in Ontario did not reverse special class placement decisions. The tribunal decisions specifically noted that integration in the school and the program were part of the educational services provided by the school boards (Fripp and Nipissing Board of Education, 1986; Rowett and The Board of Education for the Region of York, 1986).
In Saskatchewan there have been three appeals by guardians or parents in special education designation or placement under The Education Regulation, Section 51 (1). The first occurred in 1978, when parents appealed a decision not to designate a handicapped student as severely learning disabled. The appeal committee denied the appeal because the child did not meet the criteria established for severely learning disabled (Saskatchewan Education, personal communication, 1988). In 1982, guardians of a child appealed a school board's decision to purchase services from another jurisdiction for a handicapped student. The appeal committee concluded that educational services should be provided for within the home school division (Saskatchewan Education, personal communication, 1988). The third appeal occurred in 1984 with respect to a school board's decision to purchase services from another school jurisdiction with special programs for the severely hearing impaired. The appeal committee recommended that the program be established in the local school to make use of existing parental, community, Saskatchewan Education, special agency, and school resources (Saskatchewan Education, personal communication, 1988).
The literature indicates that legislation and litigation have promoted and will continue to promote the right to a free, appropriate education in the least restrictive environment for all children as legislators, parents, and professional advocates press for new laws.
SASKATCHEWAN CORE CURRICULUM
Saskatchewan Education has been planning, developing, and implementing changes and improvements in education based on the action plan presented in Directions (Minister's Advisory Committee, Curriculum and Instruction Review, 1984) which was the report of a major review of education begun in 1981. Throughout the curriculum and instruction review and the core curriculum development, a consultative process was used to obtain information from parents, students, educators and trustees (Ministers Advisory Committee, 1984 and Saskatchewan Education, 1987b). The Goals of Education for Saskatchewan, 1984, which were developed following the review report, established a framework for the development of the potential of all students as individual learners. Special education has provided the base for the provision of opportunities and support services for exceptional children to receive an education that will develop their human potential (Saskatchewan Education, 1988).
Based on the outline in Directions, the Core Curriculum Program Policy Proposals (Core Curriculum Advisory Committee, 1986) provided a design for a new kindergarten to grade twelve core curriculum for Saskatchewan schools. The proposals included basic academic study requirements and common essential learnings which should be incorporated into all courses of study. To meet the individual needs of students, an adaptive component within each course was proposed for students who require reinforcement, remediation, or enrichment in their studies. Guidance and counselling, alternative delivery mechanisms, and alternative programs were identified as areas in which program policy was needed.
In March 1987, the Policy Direction for a Core Curriculum (Saskatchewan Education, 1987d) identified modifications to the core curriculum proposals and indicated program areas in which policies were yet to be determined. The main changes made to the policy proposals were in the areas of time allocations to the areas of study and for curriculum adaptation. Alternative education programs remained an area for further study, and a statement about the relationship of the core curriculum to programs for exceptional children was not developed.
The Core Curriculum Plans for Implementation (Saskatchewan Education, 1987b) outlined the plans which had been developed to that date. Implementation strategies for common essential [earnings, required areas of study, locally-determined courses, and adaptive dimensions were provided. In the implementation of the adaptive dimensions, teachers were encouraged to provide for individual needs of students until specific guidelines have been developed. The implications of the Core Curriculum for special education delivery services have been identified in Special Education: A Policy Manual - draft (Saskatchewan Education, 1988) through the common essential learnings, required areas of study, locally determined options, and adaptive dimension; however, the specific impact of both the Core Curriculum common essential learnings and the adaptive component on delivery of special education services, including the integration of regular and special education, has not been clarified at this time.
PARENT AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
Parents and professionals, individually and collectively through their respective associations, not only participated in educational developments such as the Core Curriculum but have updated both goal and commitment statements to reflect current thinking on the rights of exceptional children and adults, including the right to receive an appropriate educational program in an integrated setting. Summaries from position papers are presented below to reveal the nature of concerns expressed at the association level. They represent the views of the Saskatchewan Division of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the Canadian Association for Community Living, the Saskatchewan Association for the Mentally Retarded, and the Saskatchewan Federation of the Council for Exceptional Children.
As changing social values have made integration increasingly attractive, parent and professional associations have lobbied for the integration of exceptional children. Parent groups advocate complete integration or integration where possible. Professional associations favor integration that enhances exceptional children's educational, social, emotional, and vocational development.
RATIONALE FOR INTEGRATION
Many of the reasons for the integration of exceptional children into regular education stem, as discussed previously, from recent social trends. These have been reflected in legislative, program, and service delivery changes. The social values of fundamental justice, equality, and equal opportunity have been the basis for the development of these trends (Howarth, 1983). Changes in moral, ethical, and social values have been reflected in educational thinking which has made integration more humanely attractive in the belief that exceptional children are given opportunity for other experiences if integrated with regular education, and such integration provides the benefits of special and regular students interacting with one another (Howarth, 1983; Winzer, Rogow, & David, 1987).
The literature has provided a host of reasons, as outlined below, for increased pressure to integrate exceptional individuals into the mainstream of society, and most particularly, to integrate exceptional students into regular education.
2. Parental concerns have been expressed more directly and forcefully in the desire for the social benefits of integration and in the belief that educators have the knowledge to educate many exceptional children in the regular classroom (Canadian Education Association, 1985; Hasazi, 1980; Howarth, 1983; Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986).
3. Labels have been increasingly rejected in the belief that they negatively influence the perceptions of exceptional individuals by others and by exceptional children themselves (Canadian Education Association, 1985; Howarth, 1983; Winzer, Rogow, & David, 1987).
4. Recent court actions have accelerated changes by proclaiming the right to a free and appropriate education regardless of exceptionality and by agreeing that a regular classroom setting is the most desirable (Biklen, 1985; Canadian Council of Ministers of Education, 1985; Howarth, 1983; Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986).
5. Psychological testing and placement based upon test results have been questioned as to fairness and accuracy by minority groups (Howarth 1983; Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986; Winzer, Rogow, & David, 1987).
6. Concerns about the classification of a disproportionate number of boys over girls as handicapped as well as concerns about children with a handicap such as mental retardation compared to national estimates, and the subsequent educational programming based upon the classification have been raised (Howarth, 1983; Little, 1985; Winzer, Rogow, & David, 1987).
7. The civil rights movement has challenged the placement of minorities in special classes and schools as significantly out of proportion to the population in general (Biklen, 1985; Howarth, 1983; Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986).
8. The belief has developed that integration maximizes handicapped children's potential, social and language skills, and provides opportunities for interaction so that the non-handicapped learn to understand and accept the handicapped (Biklen, 1985; Canadian Education Association, 1985; Howarth, 1983; Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986).
9. Diversity in the same educational setting has been encouraged by the philosophical belief that the program content and curriculum should be built upon individual differences rather than upon the deviation from the norm as implied by medical labels (Bender, 1987; Howarth, 1983).
10. Preparation for daily living in an integrated setting through practice of functional skills and development of social skills has been viewed as more beneficial than if taught in the abstract in a segregated setting (Biklen, 1985; Forest, 1985; Marshall, 1986).
11. The belief that it is more humane to treat exceptional individuals as normally as possible has become widely accepted (Biklen, 1985; Canadian Education Association, 1985; Florek, 1986; Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986; Weddell, Welton, Evans, & Goacher, 1987; Winzer, Rogow, & David, 1987).
12. The inconclusive research on the social and academic benefits for exceptional children in special classes or integrated alternatives has been an argument for integration as an educational preference (Howarth, 1983; Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986; Slavin & Madden, 1986; Winzer, Rogow, & David, 1987).
13. Arguments have been made that the financial rewards favoring the establishment of special schools and classes could be used to foster integration (Hallahan & Kauffman, 1982; Hasazi, 1980; Howarth, 1983).
14. Special education Should be viewed as a part of, not apart from, regular education (Bender, 1987; The Council for Exceptional Children, 1987; Cruickshank, 1977; Dunn, 1973; Stainback & Stainback, 1986).
MODELS OF INTEGRATION
Several models or adaptations of models based on the principles of integration of exceptional children into regular education are discussed in the literature. Administrative models are related to a philosophical approach, and instructional models are related to a delivery system in the education of exceptional students. Two administrative and five instructional models are discussed. The administrative models, which are considered indicative of the variety available, were outlined by Hallahan and Kauffman (1982).
One model, described as the 'zero reject" model, is where the exceptional student is taught by the regular classroom teacher. This model is referred to as the zero reject model by Little (1985); the needs-based approach by the Wellington County Separate School Board (1984); individualized instruction by the Canadian Education Association (1985) and Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986); full-time placement in regular classrooms by Stainback, Stainback, Courtnage, and Jaben (1985); and unconditional mainstreaming by Biklen (1985). In this model, the role of the special educator is described as helping the regular education teacher deal with the exceptional child in the regular classroom. The social and academic goals have been adapted for every child so that each child is in a program tailor-made to his or her own needs.
The second model, described as the 'fail safe' model, is where a student moves in a continuum of services from one administrative plan to another with the most integration possible. This model is the most frequently proposed administrative model in the literature (TASH Newsletter, 1987 [Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps]; Bagnall, 1985; Biklen, 1985; Booth & Potts, 1983; Canadian Education Association, 1985; Howarth, 1983; Little, 1985; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, 1983; Regina Public Board of Education, 1982; Regina Roman Catholic Separate School Board, 1985; Saskatchewan Education (1982); Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986; Saskatoon Board of Education, 1985; Saskatoon Catholic Board of Education, n.d.; Striefel, Killoran, Quintero & Allred, 1985; Wellington County Separate School Board, n.d.; Winzer, Rogow, & David, 1987; Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1982,1984). In this model, a cascade, continuum, or range of services is considered necessary to meet the needs of a wide range of handicapping conditions in varying degrees of severity. Information provided by every provincial and territorial education department in Canada indicates that provisions are made for integration through a continuum of service delivery arrangements.
Saskatchewan Education provides an 'inverted pyramid" model that suggests options for delivering special education services. The model arranges eleven administrative plans from the most integrated to the least integrated and from the greatest number of children served to the least number of children served in an integrated setting. Provisions are made for placement down the continuum according to individual needs and for movement up the continuum as quickly as appropriately possible. The service delivery system for integrated or mainstreamed settings in a cascade model range from a regular classroom, a regular classroom with support personnel, and a regular classroom and resource room, to a part-time special classroom. The segregated settings of the cascade range from full-time special classroom, special day school, and residential day school, to homebound and hospital instruction. Within the continuum of services, provision is made for increased opportunities for interaction with peers, within the most restrictive to the least restrictive settings. In cascade models, specific tasks are assigned to the special educator. These include provision of methods and materials consultation to the regular classroom teacher, data gathering, student assessment, and prescriptive teaching programs, as well as direct teaching of exceptional students.
Instructional models provide for the entire educational program in the regular classroom or for program options in a variety of settings as well as curriculum and instructional adaptations.
Individualized Instruction Model
Researchers have claimed that if integration is to be effective it must be complete (Howarth, 1983). The individualized instruction model makes provision for all students to be enrolled full time in a regular classroom and to be taught by the regular classroom teacher or teachers (Hadder, 1986). Social and learning goals are adapted as needed for every individual student. The Wellington County Separate School Board needs based approach is an example of an individualized instruction model.
The characteristics of this model include elimination of labels, teaching self-management skills which improve behavior and academic performance, provision for improvement of self-concept and social and personal development, elimination of failure and provision of early identification and intervention (Hadder, 1986; Howarth, 1983; Little.' 1985; Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986; the Wellington County Separate School Board, 1984; Will, 1984). Current literature supports the procedures which have been included in this model of direct individualized instruction, task analysis, diagnostic and prescriptive teaching, individual education plan, structured curriculum, activity centers, learning centers, close monitoring of progress, immediate feedback, and team teaching. The role of the special educator in the individualized instruction model is to provide diagnostic and prescriptive teaching information and materials to the regular classroom teacher.
Resource Room Model
The resource room model has been identified as the predominant model in the delivery of special education services in Canada (Canadian Education Association, 1985). This model is one in which special needs students who have been enrolled in a regular classroom attend a special education room for specifically scheduled periods each week for special instruction based upon individual needs.
A study carried out by the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986) identified the roles of the resource room teacher as: a special education teacher, a consultant to the regular classroom teacher for all students, a provider of crisis intervention, a counsellor and vocational counsellor, an inservice resource, a diagnostic and prescriptive teacher, and a curriculum and materials coordinator. Access to specialists by the resource teacher has been identified as the key to successful resource room programs due to the number of students served, the wide range of exceptionalities served, and the wide range of role expectations held for the resource teacher.
Enrichment, ability grouping, and acceleration are three approaches to meet the needs of students with superior talents, abilities, and achievement in an integrated setting (Winzer, Rogow, & David, 1987). Strategies such as grouping for instruction and working on projects of special interest have been identified as contributing to improved attitudes, behaviors, and academic achievement (Haselhan, 1987; Howarth, 1983; Winzer, Rogow, & David, 1987). The role of the special educator has been identified as that of the consultant to the regular classroom teacher through the provision of programs for gifted and talented students.
Curriculum modification has been used as one appropriate approach to meet the needs of low academic achievers with behavioral problems (Howarth, 1983; Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986). Standard reading materials of regular courses of study are adapted or modified for integrated students so that students can proceed successfully with the rest of the class and make behavioral adjustments. Howarth (1983) reports that success in the academic subjects precedes behavioral adjustment. The role identified for the special education teacher is that of consultant to the regular teacher in establishing objectives and in adapting reading materials.
Varied instructional approaches based upon learning styles, learning rates, and previous experiences and knowledge of students have been found to be most effective in teaching exceptional students in an integrated setting (Howarth, 1983). Teaching strategies incorporated into this model include individual assessment data, modified materials, evaluation techniques, groupings, and peer tutoring. The role of the special educator in this model can best be described as that of methods and materials consultant.
The literature specifically indicated that service delivery models of integration were not prescriptive. Authors such as Hodgson (1985) included a caution that administrative, curriculum, and class programs were not to be the considerations for placement but that needs of the individual student determined the required assistance program. Secondly, a caution was made by authors such as Booth and Potts (1983) that there was a need for many different kinds and combinations of programs which were not specifically identified in the general outline of the models. Comments by several authors may be summed up in a statement by Slavin and Madden (1986) that the issue is not placement but is a well designed, carefully implemented program that increases the achievement of academically handicapped students.
The foregoing models of integration indicate the types of administrative and instructional approaches available to school boards in educational programming for exceptional students. Two administrative models provide for either total integration of all students or a continuum of services which range from complete integration to total segregation. The philosophical approach of the school board determines the administrative model. The delivery of integrated services outlined in the five instructional models may vary according to individual student needs through individualized instruction for every student, through withdrawal from the regular classroom for special instruction or enrichment, and through curriculum and instructional variations. A caution appearing throughout the literature warns that models of integration should not be regarded as prescriptive; instead, the program for the student should be the primary issue.
AN INTRODUCTION TO WHAT THE LITERATURE SAYS
The continued escalation of integration has been described as one of the major factors that has greatly influenced recent developments in special education in Canada (Canadian Council of Ministers of Education, 1983). The Canadian Education Association (1985) points out that school boards must deal with integration as the new dimension in education. The Association also indicates that provision of a positive humanizing educational environment requires careful preparation, orientation, and understanding of integration.
The main impetus for special needs students to be part of the regular education system has been pressure from parents (Canadian Education Association, 1985; Hasazi, 1980; Howarth, 1983; Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986). Another force for integration has been regulatory requirements as provincial governments, through legislation and policy, acknowledge the right of free appropriate education for all children (Manley-Casimir & Sussel, 1986). Policy statements of government indicate a growing commitment to the idea that an appropriate education takes place in an integrated setting in the child's own community.
Hadder (1986) notes that the philosophy of special education in Canada has been considerably more enlightened than the legislative framework upon which it has rested. Integration has been practiced by many teachers for years (Little, 1985). The Canadian Education Association (1985) survey showed that the impact of the right to equal educational access, the acceptance of the concepts of integration, and provision of the least restrictive environment was significant. The survey found that many school boards have introduced integration to provide for the variety of learning needs that exceptional children have.
Several research reports suggest that the research has not provided conclusive results on the efficacy of integration or segregation (Algozzine & Maheady, 1986; Biklen, 1985; Kunc, 1984; New Brunswick School District No. 29, 1986; the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986). Other recent literature, however, has suggested that there is a growing body of research expressing cautious generalizations in support of the effects of integration (Certo, Harding, & York, 1984; New Brunswick School Division No. 29,1986; Slavin & Madden, 1986). These cautions are based on criticisms which suggest that research on this topic is a relatively recent development and that findings are limited in both nature and strength (Algozzine & Maheady, 1986).
Research reported by Biklen (1985), the Canadian Education Association (1985), and Howarth (1983) shows that integration alleviates the use of labels, stereotyping, and stigmatization which were found to lower self-esteem. Improved social acceptance and personal development are reported in the Canadian Education Association (1985) study on integration.
At the same time, Bender (1987) and the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986) note that there is a growing tendency by theorists to recommend discontinuance of external special education classes as an independent entity. A major reason for this recommendation appears to be that current research does not support the instructional effectiveness of special classes (Algozzine, Sacca & Maheady, 1986; Canadian Education Association, 1985; Howarth, 1983; Johnson & Johnson, 1980; New Brunswick School District No. 29,1986; Slavin & Madden, 1986).
Biklen (1985) suggested that, although science could not offer a negative or positive answer to integration, the issue was of a moral nature, i.e., a goal, a value. As noted earlier, integration as a goal is supported by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (personal communication, 1987), the Council for Exceptional Children (1987), Howarth (1983), and the Saskatchewan Association for the Mentally Retarded (1986).
Howarth (1983) concludes that in many cases integration has been poorly implemented. The Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986) reported that many programs were unsuccessful because they had not taken into account the complexities of the integration process. The following guidelines for successful integration have been identified in the literature.
SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND POLICY
The establishment by school boards of a philosophical commitment and understanding of the concept of integration has been identified as a priority (Canadian Education Association, 1985; Howarth, 1983; Saskatchewan Education, 1988).
The literature made several recommendations on school organization and policies for school board consideration in developing and implementing an integrated program.
Both the Canadian Education Association and Saskatchewan Education recommended that school boards, in planning and implementing special education programs and policies, should outline organizational and administrative arrangements, develop role descriptions for central office and other school board personnel, and provide professional development for all involved. The development of procedures for assessment, identification, placement, program planning and review, and parental involvement was also recommended.
The Canadian Education Association (1985), the Council for Exceptional Children (1987), Howarth (1983), and the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986) reported that the literature in general recommended that a range of programs and services must be provided in the delivery of the most appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. Other sources, such as the Wellington County Separate School Board, argued that complete integration was the most effective form of integration. The Council for Exceptional Children (1987) and Hadder (1986) called for an end to special education as a separate entity from regular education. Special education is considered an integral part of the total educational enterprise, and as such, it enables the capacity of the system to serve the educational needs of all children.
If a child is to be integrated, services in the system must be integrated. The Canadian Education Association (1985) survey of school boards reported that integration was introduced on the basis that it allowed a response to a wide range of individual learner needs in the least restrictive environment and that individual needs could be better met in an integrated program. Howarth (1983) and the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986) suggest that physical, social, and academic integration of exceptional and non-exceptional students must all be included in an integrated program.
The Council for Exceptional Children (1987), Hadder (1986), Howarth (1983), Little (1985), Slavin and Madden (1986), Striefel (1985), and the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986) stress that the success of an integrated program is based on a team approach in providing programs to meet the needs of each student's potential. A detailed description of the team approach in which the team was identified as the key component of the integration or needs-based program is outlined in the Wellington County account (Wellington County Separate School Board, 1984).
Their key to success is the school-based prescriptive team which functions to assist the regular classroom teacher in programming to meet the needs of all students. The process in the Wellington program includes student identification and assessment and program development, implementation, monitoring, and feedback; however, placement was not specifically discussed in the Wellington program as the goal was the integration of all students. The school-based prescriptive team was composed of the regular classroom teacher, principal, resource personnel (including the methods and resource specialist), and, as required, other school or outside agency personnel. Throughout the process, parents were considered as partners in the education of their child.
Saskatchewan Education (1988) recommended that the student also be involved in the preparation of the plan for his/her individual program.
The Canadian Education Association report (1985) stressed the need for coordination and communication amongst regular teachers, special educators, principals, central office personnel, other agency personnel, and parents. Regular classroom teachers need time to plan, prepare, and consult for effective programming (Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986; Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1984). The availability of support and specialist services to teachers and students was considered as essential for successful integration (Booth & Potts, 1983; Canadian Education Association, 1985; Howarth, 1983; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1983, 1985). A consultative approach was viewed as necessary in improving academic performance in integrated settings (Howarth, 1983; Little, 1985; Slavin & Madden, 1986); nevertheless both Howarth (1983) and the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986) warned that integration was not effective if there was an over-reliance on consultative and resource room programs.
The literature frequently identified the necessity of a teacher aide in reference to adequate support for students and teacher in the integrated setting. The Canadian Education Association (1985), Howarth (1983), and the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986) identified the role of the teacher aide as preparing learning materials, providing custodial duties and physical care, and assisting student participation in class activities.
Other research findings for successful integration included a limit on the number and types of exceptionalities in one classroom, reduction of class size or enrollment, and provision of appropriate facilities. Several reports suggested no more than three exceptional students and only one type of exceptional student in a classroom and fewer than twenty pupils in an integrated classroom. Such enrollments allow the teacher time to prepare, instruct, help students participate in class activities, and facilitate social adjustment.
Both the Canadian Education Association (1985) and the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986) warn that unless it is well-structured for integration the regular classroom could be highly restrictive to a child's progress. Howarth (1983) concludes that the key to successful integration is the preparation of teachers, parents, children, and administrators; class size small enough for individualized programming; and support services provided for both teacher and child.
IMPLEMENTATION OF INTEGRATION
The Wellington County Separate School Board, in Growing Together(n.d.), cautioned that a positive and progressive introduction in a given school system or school is required before a school board implements a program in which the philosophy includes integration of all students within a regular classroom. The Canadian Education Association (1985) reported that the success of integration was dependent upon attitude, commitment, understanding, and preparation of an entire gamut of educators: administrators, custodial, transportation and secretarial staff, school boards, principals and teachers of exceptional and non-exceptional children, and parents of exceptional and non-exceptional children.
For successful integration, an implementation period of eighteen months for intensive and planned orientation for all those involved was cited in the research findings by the Canadian Education Association (1985), Hadder (1986), Howarth (1983), and the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986). In the Canadian Education Association (1985) survey, school boards reported that school board personnel, school personnel, and/or joint committees developed and implemented the plans for integration within their school systems.
School board members must develop an understanding and commitment and make positive decisions for successful integration (Howarth, 1983).
The literature focused on staff development of teachers as a key to successful integration indicates that best results in integration programs are based upon pre-implementation and on-going inservice for all educators. Staff development research, cited by the Canadian Education Association (1985), concluded that the most important factor in a child's adjustment in an integrated setting was teacher skill and attitude toward teaching exceptional students.
The Canadian Education Association (1985), Howarth (1983), and the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986) reported that teachers, in general, were in favor of integration but felt inadequately prepared to cope with many exceptionalities. Several of these studies found that teachers felt left out of the decision-making process as boards implemented integration.
Research by the Canadian Education Association (1985), Howarth (1983), and the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986) identified areas for teacher inservice needs. Skill areas included understanding and working with exceptional students, identification procedures, assessment methods, teaching methods and strategies, curriculum models and adaptations, individualized instruction models and strategies, behavior management and social skill development techniques, counselling techniques, and effective use of consultants' strategies. The Canadian Education Association also included student review and evaluation, program monitoring, and evaluation methods.
Teacher concerns about the development of their own attitude awareness was also a topic identified for teacher inservice by the Canadian Education Association. Bachor and Crealock (1986) report that, through the implementation of successful integration programs, teachers have a more positive attitude toward exceptional learners, can better identify the needs of children, can provide more individualized instruction, and develop a larger repertoire of strategies to teach basic skills.
The Canadian Education Association (1985) and Howarth (1983) identified the need for understanding and commitment to the integration concept, not only by board members and teachers but also by administrators, principals, support staff, parents, students, and the community.
The research reveals that a major role for principals and administrators is to provide effective communication. They are expected to provide or to become involved in teacher inservice, integration model development, curriculum adaptation, assessment and monitoring procedures, placement criteria and process, and parent counselling. They are also expected to establish a cooperative relationship within the school and the larger system as well as with other agencies.
The Canadian Education Association and Howarth also recommend that support staff be involved in orientation and preparation through workshops and staff meetings. Because exceptional and non-exceptional students require preparation and counselling about what to expect and how to act, explanations, discussions, films, puppets, and plays were recommended as possible orientation approaches.
In all, the research reports that parents of exceptional and non-exceptional children are concerned that their children not suffer through integration. Parents of regular students hold concerns with respect to the academic pace, in that the regular teacher might devote too much time to the exceptional students. Parents of exceptional students are concerned that their children not be ridiculed and that they receive enough teacher time. Parents need to know about referral, assessment, placement, and review processes; thus, there appears to be a need for parent programs such as seminars, workshops, and open houses. Similar programs for community awareness and understanding were also recommended throughout the literature.
The Canadian Education Association report (1985) concluded that implementation of an integrated program required school board action to inform and prepare all those who were involved in providing services to exceptional children. Commitment and a close working relationship were found to be necessary for cooperation and coordination of services.
IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS
Early identification and intervention to meet needs of exceptional children appear to be very important for successful integration (Bachor & Crealock, 1986; Hadder, 1986; Howarth, 1983).
Many studies on integration recommended, as Hadder (1986) suggested, a multidimensional educational assessment. The prescriptive team approach, as developed by the Wellington County Separate School Board (1984), was one of the most comprehensive reported in the literature. The identification and assessment process included data gathering by a prescriptive team composed of the regular teacher, parents, principal, and a methods and resource specialist, as well as other professionals and outside personnel. The physical, social, emotional, and academic or intellectual strengths and weaknesses along with learning styles and necessary resources were identified through such a process.
In the reports by the Canadian Education Association (1985) and the Wellington County Separate School Board (1984), information and data on strengths and needs of individual students were obtained from standardized tests, daily observations, parent interviews, student interviews, and past performance records. Information from outside agencies, particularly at school entrance, was also included. In both reports, continuous assessment and evaluation were viewed as necessary to restructure or continue a program to meet the needs of an individual student.
Howarth (1983) and the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986) noted the concerns in the literature about the fairness and accuracy of current assessment and subsequent placement practices for children from minority groups, culturally deprived backgrounds, and home situations which cause undue pressure.
The Canadian Education Association (1985), the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986), and the Wellington County Separate School Board (1984) reports showed that the purpose of the identification and assessment process is to provide data for development of a comprehensive and specific education program for each student.
PLACEMENT OF EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS
Legislative requirements and school board policies were identified by school boards in the Canadian Education Association (1985) survey as the basis for placement decisions. The majority of the school boards in this survey reported that placement decisions were made by a school committee in consultation with parents.
Howarth (1983), the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986), and Striefel (1985) recommended that, with parental involvement, the placement decision in the integration process was one function of a child study team or a prescriptive team.
The literature, in general and in particular the Canadian Education Association (1985) survey, identified several considerations for placement decisions in the integrated process. Most reports agree that placement decisions be selective because not all exceptional students can or should be integrated. Decisions should be based on parents' wishes, needs of the student, regular class suitability, resource availability, and both teacher attitudes and competencies. Other factors for consideration include the student's social and academic abilities as opposed to category of disability, age appropriate placement, and multi-aged classes.
The Canadian Education Association (1985) survey found that, in general, the less severe the handicap the greater the extent of the integration. The Association's survey found that school boards offered a variety of programs ranging from segregated and partially integrated to fully integrated. School board integration practices ranged from the most to the least integrated for the physically handicapped, educable mentally retarded, learning disabled, hearing impaired, visually impaired, trainable mentally retarded, and emotionally disturbed. A limited number of boards in the survey integrated every type of exceptionality. This same survey reported that it was preferable for each child to follow an individual program after a thorough referral, assessment, and case conference procedure was completed that identified the best option or options for the pupil.
PROGRAMS FOR EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS
The research on the provision of special education services and programs that meet individual needs in the least restrictive environment was extensive. School boards reported that they believed that integration programs can respond in the least restrictive environment to the variety of individual needs that special education students have (Canadian Education Association, 1985). In the same study, school board administrators believed that special learners were challenged to their full potential in an integrated setting.
Algozzine and Maheady (1986) and Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, and Roy (1984) identified an appropriate program (rather than labels or categories which identified problems or disabilities) as the answer to the integration of students. Winzer, Rogow, and David (1987) noted that, as special education embraced the concepts of normalization and integration, a non-categorical approach developed in teaching exceptional children. Individual needs were met in this approach by considering the child's functional behavior as the most important factor in the child's educational program.
Bender (1985) suggested that, although many researchers have emphasized an individual education program with both diagnostic and prescriptive teaching as the intervention strategy, other researchers have more recently focused on interactions between the child and the environment as the recipient for educational intervention. Little (1985) suggested that, in successful integration programs, emphasis should be placed on what the teacher does rather than on what the child does. For successful integration, Little emphasized that the regular classroom teacher accepts responsibility for students who are not succeeding and must be provided with information, resources, and suggestions. The program must be characterized by success structuring and include a variety of instructional strategies. Little also maintained that integration was based on the following principles: that no child is ineducable, all children can learn, all learning is legitimate, and learning has to be individualized and personalized.
An individual education program was identified as the best program for special needs students (Hodgson, 1985; Howarth, 1983; Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986; Slavin & Madden, 1986; Striefel, 1985). Howarth also reported that the individualized component was important whether the student was integrated or not and that it improved learning for all students.
Howarth (1983), Muir (1986), Saskatchewan Education (1988), the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986), and Striefel (1985) reported that the individual education plan should provide information on the present level of educational performance, assessment data, individualized goals, methods, materials, curriculum, educational services and who provides them, the role of the non-exceptional students, dates for initiation and duration, evaluation procedures, and reporting procedures.
The literature identified research support for numerous techniques for successful integration. These techniques include the provision of tasks at the individual's level of competence and rate of progress (Howarth, 1983), age and need appropriate tasks (Howarth, 1983), continuous progress (Little, 1985), prescriptive and diagnostic teaching styles (Hodgson, 1985; Howarth, 1983), functional curriculum (Killoran, Striefel, Yanito & Quintero, 1985), activity or learning centers (Howarth, 1983), task analysis (Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986), and structured curriculum and direct instruction (Howarth, 1983). Continued monitoring, evaluation, and feedback of student progress and of the integration program are also identified (Canadian Education Association, 1985; Howarth, 1983; Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986).
Little (1985) recommended a modularized approach, informal basic programs, commercial programs, and materials. The Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986) identified work sheets, learning contracts, and study guides as appropriate means of individualizing programs.
Biklen (1985), the Canadian Education Association (1985), Forest (1985), and Voeltz, Johnson, and McQuarter (1983) all report that the transfer of learning from one situation to another is not automatic. They suggest that handicapped students need to acquire and practice functional skills and develop social competencies in real life situations. They also suggest that real life situations prepare exceptional individuals for association with non-exceptional individuals.
Integration research supports individualized, multi-aged and heterogeneous grouping as the best organizational structures for integration programs (Canadian Education Association, 1985; the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986). Achievement and skill-based groupings and large groups were both found to lower self-esteem (Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986). Studies reported by the Canadian Education Association (1985) and the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986) found that the lecture method was inappropriate for exceptional students in an integrated setting.
Despite its apparent prevalence, the resource room service delivery model has been criticized in the research (Canadian Education Association, 1985; Howarth, 1983; Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986). By withdrawal from the classroom, the resource room approach made the disability apparent and risked damaging self-esteem; the student was not a full participant in the regular classroom program. Concerns were expressed that there was a danger that the student would be labelled by diagnosis rather than identified according to strengths and weaknesses and that the appropriate program would be provided in the resource room but not in the regular classroom. Another concern was that the resource room teacher rather than the regular classroom teacher would assume responsibility for the program.
A close relationship between behavior management skills and academic performance was reported in the research by the Canadian Education Association (1985). Good management skills provided for more persistent problem solving, more attentiveness, and more reliable task completion. Howarth (1983), LaMore (1984), and the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986) stressed the need for teaching and nurturing social and management skills for exceptional and non-exceptional students in the integrated setting.
The Canadian Education Association (1985) and Bachor and Crealock (1986) reported that an effective climate of socialization provided an understanding of each other, a feeling of belonging, and a sense of cooperation by both exceptional and non-exceptional students. Howarth reported evidence that positive attitudes can be developed best with younger children. Research has shown that exceptional students who have negative behaviors and make demands on teacher time and attention have been rated harshly by regular students (Howarth, 1983; Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986). Hill and Whitely (1985) found in their study that providing a teacher-aide overcame this concern, although Howarth (1983) reported that alienation may result when gifted students were kept in the regular classroom.
Cooperative learning styles rather than competitive styles were reported as more beneficial to exceptional and non-exceptional students alike (Bachor & Crealock, 1986; Howarth, 1983; Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, & Roy, 1984; Slavin & Madden, 1986). Cooperative learning improved social skills, interactions, interdependence, accountability, psychological health, and cooperative efforts in school, home and community (Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, & Roy, 1984).
Research evidence reported by the Canadian Education Association (1985), Little (1985), and the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986) found that in integrated settings peer tutoring was academically and socially beneficial to the tutee and tutor. This was found to be particularly so if the tutor were older and of the same sex as the tutee.
The Canadian Education Association (1985), Howarth (1983), and the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation (1986) reported that peer modelling produced positive and effective results in integrated settings. Peer modelling has been found to influence social competencies and reduce social isolation, sex role identity, future educational aspirations, and future achievement. Peer modelling also had a bearing on drug abuse, antisocial behavior, and psychological health. Marshall, Keating, McDonald, and Smart (1986) found that language models were provided by more advanced peers in integrated settings.
Partnership between teacher and parents was an essential element of the integration process of the Wellington County Separate School Board (1984). The reports on integration by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1983,1985) and the Canadian Education Association (1985) established the need for parents to be in favor of integration and to help the child adjust to integration as well as to maintain communication with the classroom teacher. Parents also have a role in providing a home program in cooperation with the teacher (Bloom & Hnatuik, 1982). Parents' rights to be involved in assessment, placement, and program development have been identified by McCallum (1987) and Saskatchewan Education (1982, 1988).
Saskatchewan Education (1988) identified an appropriate education program as one which was designed to develop the potential of the individual in keeping with the Goals of Education for Saskatchewan. A process of comprehensive assessment, planning, and consultation that involved educators, parents/guardians, pupils, and support personnel was identified as necessary in the development of an appropriate program. The result of this process would be reflected in the individual education plan for each exceptional student.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTEGRATION
Integration of exceptional children into a regular classroom was generally thought to be less expensive than special classes (Howarth, 1983) but not cheaper if proper resources were provided to the regular classroom teacher and to students (Howarth, 1983; Muir, 1986; Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, 1986). Financial support for integrated education services has, in the view of Hasazi (1980) and the Council for Exceptional
Children (1987), made it feasible and flexible for school districts to provide special education for those who need it and at the same time to combine exceptional and regular students and programs.
The right to educational access and opportunity has increased demands, expectations, and dependence on schools to provide programs to meet the needs of ail children and has increased costs due to a broadening range Of Programs and staffing (Canadian Council of Ministers of Education, 1983). A related development noted by the Canadian Education Association (1985) suggests that the responsibility for educational programs which was formerly provided by health, social services, and community groups has shifted to education departments and school boards. The provision of related or specialized support services such as health services in an integrated education program were noted as a possible barrier to integration by Biklen (1985) and as a cost consideration by the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education (1985).
Benefits for the taxpayer in the view of Striefel (1985) were that self-contained public education was less costly than residential care, and movement of exceptional students from public education into the work force contributed to the tax base. Killoran, Striefel, Yanito, and Quintero (1985) and Montobbio (1985) believe that productive individuals with handicaps not only save money for society but improve the quality of life for everyone.
The Canadian Council of Ministers of Education (1985) and the Canadian Education Association (1985) pointed out that a factor in the growth of integration practices and in the cost of integrated programs was the regulatory requirement for boards to provide the most appropriate education for each child in the least restrictive environment.
The Canadian Education Association (1985), Wang and Baker (1986), and Ysseldyke and Algozzine (1984) identified the need for inservice and information programs both before and after implementation of integration, special equipment and materials, and additional support services for the regular classroom teacher and the students in an integrated program. The Council of Ministers identified these needs as well as staff salaries as cost factors. The Council of Ministers also identified funding to programs rather than to individual students as a cost consideration. Relative to budgetary planning was the concern identified by Howarth (1983) and Little (1985) that some parents and professionals view integration as a way to cut costs.
Bachor and Crealock (1986), Muir (1986), and Ysseldyke and Algozzine (1984) stressed the importance in integrated programs of budgetary allotments for resources and individualized work in the regular classroom. The Canadian Education Association (1985) noted that there should be no serious budgetary restraints that would hinder an integration program.
In summary, the current literature has identified an increase in the integration approach in the service delivery to exceptional students. There is no definitive piece of research which shows integration to be superior to segregation. There is, however, a strong and continuing public demand for integration of exceptional children and adults in society beginning with their schooling. There is also a growing body of literature that describes how integration can best be done. Boards must provide leadership through policy and evaluation of service provisions to meet public expectations.
Report of the RPSTA/RBEAC. Regina, SK: Regina Board of Education.
Algozzine, B., & Maheady, L. (1986). When all else fails, teach. Exceptional Children, 52(6),487-488.
Algozzine, B., Sacca, K., & Maheady, L. (1986). The Pointer, 31(2).
Bachor, D.G., & Crealock, C. (1986). Instructional strategies for students with special needs. Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall.
Bagnall, L. (1985). Integration, mainstreaming, and education. The Canadian School Executive, 5(6),28-29.
Bales v. Board of School Trustees District No. 23. (1984). Unreported, British Columbia Supreme Court.
Ballance, K., & Foster, A. (Winter 1980). People first discuss integration. Special education in Canada, 54(2), 22-24.
Barringer, M.D. Bridging gaps, travelling new roads. Wayne, MI: Wayne County Intermediate School Board.
Bender, W.N. (1985). A case against mainstreaming: Empirical support for the political backlash. Education, 105(3),279-287.
Bender, W.N. (1987). Effective educational practices in the mainstream setting: Recommended model for evaluation of mainstream teacher classes. The Journal of Special Education, 20(4), 475 -48 7.
Biklen, D. (1985). Achieving the complete school. Strategies for effective mainstreaming NY: Teachers College Press.
Bishop, V.E. (1986). Identifying the component of success in mainstreaming. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 80(g), 939-946.
Bloom, B.J., & Hnatuik, R. (1982). A follow-up study of some SEECC preschool children now in school (SSTA Research Centre Report No. 89). Regina, SK: Saskatchewan School Trustees Association.
Booth, T., & Potts, P. (Eds.). (1983). Integrating special education. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bracewell, D., & Milligan, K. (1984). Thousand cranes integrated school in Toronto. Canadian Journal for Exceptional Children, l(l), 35.
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (1985). A manual of policies, procedures andguidelines (4.1-4.5). Victoria, BC: Author.
Brown, L., Nisbet, J., Ford, A., Sweet, M., Shiraga, B., York, J., & Loomis, R. (1983). The critical need for nonschool instruction in educational programs for severely handicapped students. The Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 8(3), 71-72.
Calgary Board of Education and Canadian institute for Research. (1978). A study of integration of handicapped students in the regular schools of the Calgary board of education: Complete Report. Calgary, AB: Authors.
Canada Constitution Act. (1982). Part /: The charter of rights and freedoms. Ottawa, ON: Queen's Printer.
The Canadian Association for Community Living Task Force. (1986). Report of the membership: Community living 2000. Downsview, ON: Canadian Association for Community Living.
Canadian Council of Ministers of Education. (1983). Survey of special education in Canada, 1982-83. Winnipeg, MB: Candid Research and Council of Ministers of Education.
Canadian Education Association. (1985). Mainstreaming: Some issues for school boards. Toronto, ON: Author.
Cant, B.J.S. (Ed.). (1986). Mainstreaming in the school setting. Moose Jaw, SK: Moose Jaw School Division No. 1.
Certo, N., Harding, N., & York, R. (1984). Public school integration of severely handicapped students: Rational issues and progressive alternatives. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.
Clunies-Ross, L. (1984). Supporting the mainstream teacher. British Journal of Special Education, 1 1(3). 9-1 1.
The Commission on Emotional and Learning Disorders. (1 970). One million children the CELDIC report., A national study of Canadian children with emotional and learning disorders. Toronto, ON: Crainfield.
Core Curriculum Advisory Committee. (1986). Program policy proposals: Report of the core curriculum advisory committee. Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Education,
The Council for Exceptional Children. (1987). The CEC Policy Manual. Reston, VA: Author.
Cruickshank, W. (1977). Least-restrictive placement: Administrative wishful thinking. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10(4), 193-194.
Cruickshank, D. (1983). Human rights and charter rights in special education. B. C. Journal of Special Education, 7(3), 205-220.
Csapo, M. (1981). Teachers' federation in the mainstream. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 5(3),197-218.
Csapo, M. (1984). Segregation, integration and beyond: A sociological perspective of special education. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 8, 211-229.
Csapo, M., & Gouge, L. (Eds.). (1980). Special Education Across Canada: Issues and Concerns for the '80s. Vancouver, BC: Centre for Human Development and Research.
Curtis, C. K. (1985). Are education students being prepared for mainstreaming? Education Canada, 25(2), 28-31, 43.
Davis, J.B. (1983). Mainstreaming programs in secondary schools: Variations on a theme. The High School Journal, 66(3),176-1 80.
Dean, M., & Nettles, J. (1987). Reverse mainstreaming. Volta Review, 89(l), 27-34.
Diamond, B. (1979). Myths of mainstreaming. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12(4), 246-250.
Dunn, L. M. (1966). Exceptional children in the schools. NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Dunn, L.M. (I 968). Special education for the mentally retarded - is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 35(l), 5-22.
Dunn, LM. (November, 1973). The normalization of special education. Paper presented as the inaugural lecture, Laycock Memorial Lectureship, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK.
Edgar, E., & Hayden, A.H. (1985). Who are the children special education should serve and how many children are there? Journal of Special Education, 18(4),522-539.
The Education Act, 1978. Regina, SK: R.S. Reid, Queen's Printer.
Endicott, 0. (1987). The Elwood settlement agreement - what does it mean? Entourage, 2(3),36-37,42.
Essig, D.M. (1985). An opportunity not a burden. Educational Leadership, 43, 68-70.
Fagen, S.A., Long, N.J., & MacArthur, C.A. (Eds.). (1986). Mainstreaming: Making it work [Special Issue]. The Pointer, 31(i).
Florek, A. (1986). Integration - or bandwagon hypocrisy? British Journal of Special Education, 13(2), 52.
Forest, M. (1985). Education update. Canadian Journal on Mental Retardation, 35(1).
Fripp and the Nipissing Board of Education. (July 18, 1986). Northeastern Region (English) Special Education Tribunal.
Gall, R.S. (May, 1986). Framework for policy and action in special education: An international perspective. A paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children Symposium on the Future of Special Education, Lake Geneva, WI.
Gardner, E.M. (1984). The education crisis: Washington shares the blame. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.
Gearhart, B. (1980). Special education for the '80s. Toronto, ON: Mosby.
Gindis, B. (1986). Special education in the Soviet Union: Problems and perspectives. The Journal of Special Education" 20(3), 379-384.
Goodlad, J. (1980). How fares the common school? Today's Education,, 69, 37-40.
Goupil, G., & Brunet, L. (1984). Attitudes and behaviours towards the mainstreaming of exceptional children. Canadian Journal for Exceptional Children, l(l), 28-3 1.
Guralnick, M. (Ed.). (1 978). Early intervention and the integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Hadder, C. (May, 1986). Special Education Canada: Past, present and future. A paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children Symposium on the Future of Special Education, Lake Geneva, WI.
Hall, M., & Dennis, L. (1 968). Living and learning: The report of the provincial committee on aims and objectives of education in the schools of Ontario. Toronto, ON: Newton Publishing.
Hallahan, D.P., & Kauffman, J.M. (1982). Exceptional children: Introduction to special education (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-32, 413-436). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hardy, M.I., McLeod, J., Minto, H., Perkins, S.A., & Quance, W.R. (1971). Standards for educators of exceptional children in Canada: The SEECC report. Toronto, ON: Leonard Crainford.
Hasazi, S. E. (Ed.). (1980). Maintaining momentum: Implementing the least restrictive environment concept. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
Haselhan, N. (1987). Pull-out programs - an effective type of intervention for gifted learners. Journal of the Association of Gifted, Talented, and Creative Children in British Columbia, 9(l), 27-32.
Hill, C.A., & Whitely, J.H. (1985). Social interactions and on-task behavior of severely multihandicapped and non-handicapped children in mainstreamed classrooms. Canadian Journal for Exceptional Children, 1(4),136-140.
Hodgson, A. (1985). Meeting special needs in mainstream classrooms. British Journal of Special Education, 12(3),117-118.
Howarth, M. (1983). A search of the literature on mainstreaming. Toronto, ON: Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario.
Johnson, R.F., & Johnson, D.W. (1980). The social integration of handicapped students into the mainstream. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Social environment in the schools (pp. 9-37). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
Johnson, W., Johnson, R., Holubec, E., & Roy, P. (1984). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jones, R. (Ed.). (1984). Attitudes and attitude changes in special education theory and practice. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
Jones, R.L., Gottlieb, J., Guskin, S., & Yoshida, R.K. (1 978). Evaluating mainstreaming programs: Models, caveats, considerations, and guidelines. Exceptional Children, 44(8), 588-60 1.
Jordan, T.L., & McLaughlin, T.F. (1986). Concerns of regular classroom teachers regarding mainstreaming. The Pointer, 31(l), 43-48.
Junkala, J., & Mooney, J. (1986). Special education students in regular classes: What happened to the pyramid? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19(4), 218-22 1.
Kansas State Department of Education. (1987). State regulations for special education.Topeka, KA: Author.
Karagianis, L., & Nesbit, W. (1984). The Warnock influence: Translation into law of Britain's preliminary answer to PL 94-142. Canadian Journal for Exceptional Children, 1(2), 62-64.
Kelly, B. (1985). The funding and costs of special education. Toronto, ON: Council of Ministers of Education, Canada.
Killoran, J., Striefel, S., Yanito, T., & Quintero, M. (1985). Validated strategies for schoolage mainstreaming. Logan, UT: Utah State University.
Kirk, S.A. (1 972). Educating exceptional children. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Kolms, J. (1 979). Mainstreaming: A mix of reactions. A. T.A. News, 14(5), 3.
Kunc, N. (1984). Integration: Being realistic isn't realistic. Canadian Journal for Exceptional Children, l(l), 4-8.
LaMore, G.S. (1984). Mainstreaming: One-way ticket or round trip. Principal, 63(4), 3235.
Last Mountain School Division No. 29. (1987). Special education manual. Govan, SK: Author.
Little, D.M. (1985). A crime against childhood - uniform curriculum at a uniform rate: Mainstreaming re-examined and redefined. Canadian Journal of Special Education, 2(l), 246-250.
MacKay, A.W. (1986). The equality provisions of the Charter and education: A structural analysis. Canadian Journal of Education, 1 1(3), 293-312.
Manitoba Education. (May 18, 1983). M. Hemphill, Minister of Education. Letter on departmental special needs policy direction.
Manitoba Education. (1986). Guidelines for application for low incidence support for school divisions/districts. Winnipeg, MB: Author.
The Manitoba Gazette. (1986). Manitoba Regulation 1186 - Support to School Divisions, 115(3),3-39.
Manley-Casimir, M.E., & Sussel, T.A. (1986). Special children and the Charter., Constitutional implications for the legal right to an appropriate education. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University, Faculty of Education.
Marshall, L., Keating, R., McDonald, L., & Smart, F. (1986). Preschool integration: An experimental classroom. Canadian Journal for Exceptional Children, 3(l), 1522.
McAllister, M. (1987). Mainstreaming the trainable mentally handicapped. Middle School Journal, 18(2),14-16.
McCallum, S.D. (1987). A giant step for all kids. Entourage, 2(3), 38-39.
McLeary, I.D., & Buchanan, M. (1987). Current trends and issues in special education in selected European countries. International Journal of Special Education, 2(l), 25-39.
Melvin, C.(1986).Core curriculum proposals. The School Trustee, 39(l),12-17.
Melvin, C. (1987). Core curriculum policy directions. The School Trustee, 40(2), 22-24.
The Metropolitan Toronto School Board. (1 974). The study of the integration of trainable mentally retarded students into a regular elementary school setting. Toronto, ON: Author.
Minister's Advisory Committee, Curriculum and Instruction Review. (1984). Directions:The final report. Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Education.
Mlynek, S., Hannah, M.E., & Hamlin, M.A. (1982). Mainstreaming: Parental expectations. Psychology in the Schools, 19,354-359.
Montobbio, E. (1985). The Genova challenge. Report prepared for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris: Author.
Muir, R. (1986). Mainstreaming: A second look. Journal of Education, 399. (Nova Scotia Education).
Munson, S.M. (1987). Regular education teacher modifications for mainstreamed mildly handicapped students. The Journal of Special Education.. 20(4), 489-502.
National Joint Commission on Learning Disabilities. (1987). Issues in the delivery of educational services to individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(5), 286-288.
New Brunswick Department of Education. (1987). Integration means aft our children belong. Fredericton, NB: Author.
New Brunswick Department of Education. (1987). Philosophy statement and staffing model for provisions of special services. Fredericton, N B: Author.
New Brunswick School District No. 29. (1986). Special education services: Statement of philosophy, goals, and objectives. New Brunswick School District No. 29: Author.
Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education. (1987). Special education:Policy manual St. John's, NF: Author.
Newton, J. (1984). A longitudinal study of students' attitudes toward multiply disabled students within the same school Thesis for master of education degree, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK.
Northwest Territories Education. (1986). A departmental directive and guidelines for special needs education. Yellowknife, NT: Author.
Nova Scotia Department of Education. 0. Public school programs (pp. 26-28). Halifax, NS: Author.
O'Hagan, F., & Swanson, 1. (1984). Special education: Which way forward. British Journal of Special Education, 1 1(2), 6-8.
O'Neill, G.P. (1984). Some reflections on the integration of moderately handicapped students (TMR) in Ontario schools. Canadian Journal for Exceptional Children, l(l), 19-22.
O'Neill, G.P., & DeBruyn, J.A.J. (1984). The integration of trainable mentally retarded children in North American schools: An assessment of past and present programs. B.C. Journal of Special Education.- 8(l), 1 -1 0.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (1984). Special education information handbook. Toronto, ON: Author.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1985). Integration of the handicapped in secondary schools: Five case studies. Paris: Author.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. (1983). The education of the handicapped adolescent.- Innovative approaches in the transition to adult and working life: Denmark Paris: Author.
Paul, J., Turnbull, A., & Cruikshank, W. (1 977). Mainstreaming: A practical guide. Syracuse, NY: University Press.
Poirier, D. (1984). Educational rights of disabled children in four Canadian provinces. In K. Connell-Thouez & B.M. Kroppers (Eds.), Contemporary trends in family law.- A national perspective. Toronto, ON: Carswell.
Poirier, D., & Gougen, L. (1986). The Canadian Charter of Rights and the right to education for exceptional children. Journal of Education, 11(3), 231-243.
Powell, T.H., & Steere, D.E. (1985). Connecticut's data-based model: Reasserting the right to an integrated program. The Pointer, 30(l), 16-19.
Prince Edward Island Department of Education. (1987). Special education policy - statement on draft policy. Charlottetown, PE: Author.
Quebec Ministere de l'Education. (1 979). The schools of Quebec: Policy statement and plan of action. Quebec, PO: Author.
Reddekopp, 1. (1984). Integration of special class children - is it working? B.C.T.F. Newsletter, 2-3.
Regina Roman Catholic Separate School Board. (1985). Special education handbook, guidelines, procedures, programs in the Regina Catholic Schools K- 12. Regina, SK: Author.
Regulations Under the Education Act Regina, SK: R.S. Reid, Queen's Printer.
Reynolds, M.C., & Birch, J.W. (1982). Teaching exceptional children in all America's schools: A First course for teachers and principals. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
Riediger, A., Hillyard, A., & Sobsey, R. (1985). Integration of handicapped children: Administrative strategies. Canadian Journal for Exceptional Children, 2(3), 90-96.
Riediger, E., & MacKinnon, J. (1986). Integration: Achieving results. Teaching Atypical Students in Alberta, 15(l), 37-40.
Riester, A. E., & Bessette, K. M. (1986). Preparing the peer group for mainstreaming exceptional children. The Pointer, 31(l),12-20.
Rowett and the Board of Education for the Region of York. (1986). Central Region (English) Special Education Tribunal.
Ruttiman, A., & Forest, M. (1986). With a little help from my friends: The integration facilitator at work. Dialect, 5, 8-12.
Sanche, R., Haines, L., & Van Hesteren, F. (1982). Preservice teacher preparation for mainstreaming: Attitude formation and measurement. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 6(l), 69-77.
Sandling, 1. (1975). Sweden marks tenth year of integration. Special Education in Canada, 1 0 and 22.
Saskatchewan Association for the Mentally Retarded. (1986). Community living plan: A strategy for the improvement of community living for people who are mentally retarded. Saskatoon, SK: Author.
Saskatchewan Association for the Mentally Retarded. (1986). What we believe: SAMR positions on social issues which affect the lives of people who are mentally retarded. Saskatoon, SK: Author.
Saskatchewan Education. (1982). Special education: A manual of legislation, regulations, policies and guidelines. Regina, SK: Author.
Saskatchewan Education. (1984). Saskatchewan children: Their lives and needs. Regina, SK: Author.
Saskatchewan Education. (1987a). Annual Report 1986-87. Unpublished statistics.
Saskatchewan Education. (1987b). Core curriculum plans for implementation. Regina, SK: Author.
Saskatchewan Education. (1987c). Educational Services to Children with Disabilities, unpublished statistics.
Saskatchewan Education. (1987d). Policy direction for a core curriculum. Regina, SK: Author.
Saskatchewan Education. (1988). Special education: A policy manual - draft. Regina, SK: Author.
The Saskatchewan human rights code. (1979). Regina, SK: Government of Saskatchewan.
Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation. (1986). Mainstreaming: An update from current Canadian literature. Saskatoon, SK: Author.
Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation. (1986). What teachers need.- A report from the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation study of mainstreaming. Saskatoon, SK: Author.
Saskatoon Board of Education. (1985). Support services handbook Saskatoon, SK: Author.
Saskatoon Catholic Board of Education. (n.d.). Administrative manual.- Policies, regulations, procedures, AAB. Saskatoon, SK: Author.
Schiff, G., Scholom, A., Swerdlik, M., & Knight, J. (1 979). Mainstreamed vs. self-contained classes: A two year study of their effects on the personal adjustment and academic achievement of children with learning disabilities. Education, 99(4), 397-405.
Schmidt, R. E., & Nagata, L.M. (Eds.). (1983). Contemporary issues in special education (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Seaman, C.M. (1987). Holy Cross integration project: Successful mainstreaming of hearing impaired. ACEHI Journal, 13(l), 40-46.
Semmel, M.I. (May, 1986). Special education in the year 2000 and beyond.-A proposed action agenda for addressing selected issues. A paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children Symposium on the Future of Special Education, Lake Geneva, WI.
Sharron, Howard. (January 18,1985). Why the 1981 Act backfired. The Times Educational Supplement, No. 3577 (p. 11).
Singer, J. D., Butler, J.A., Palfrey, J.S., & Walker, D. K. (1986). Characteristics of special placements: Findings from probability samples in five metropolitan school districts. The Journal of Special Education, 20(3), 319-337.
Singh, B.J. (1982). A summary ofteachers'affitudestowardmainstreamingbehaviorallydisorderedchildren (SSTA Research Centre Report No. 92). Regina, SK: Saskatchewan School Trustees Association.
Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1986). The integration of students with mild academic handicaps in regular classrooms. Prospects, XVI(4), 443-461.
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1986). One system, one purpose: The integration of special and regular education. Entourage, 1(3), 12-15.
Stainback, W., Stainback, S., Courtnage, L., & Jaben, T. (1985). Facilitating mainstreaming by modifying the mainstream. Exceptional Children, 52(2),144152.
Steer, M. (1981). Update on services for exceptional children in Newfoundland and Labrador. Special Education in Canada, 55(4), 21-23.
Striefel, S. (1985). Facts about mainstreaming: Answers for parents of children with handicaps. Logan, UT: Utah State University.
Striefel, S. (1985). Facts about mainstreaming: Answers for parents of children without handicaps. Logan, UT: Utah State University.
Striefel, S. (1985). The mainstream I.E.P..: A training program for administrators, teachers, and other specialists. Logan, UT: Utah State University.
Striefel, S., Killoran, J., Quintero, M., & Allred, J. (1985). Continuum of placements in public schools. Logan, UT: Utah State University.
Sussel, T.A., & Manley-Casimir, M.E. (1986). The Supreme Court of Canada as a 'national school board": The Charter and educational change. Canadian Journal of Education, 1 1(3), 313-337.
TASH Newsletter. (1987). Questions and answers on LRE. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 13(11), 15.
Thomas, G., & Jackson, B. (1986). The whole-school approach to integration. British Journal of Special Education, 13(l), 27-29.
Treherne, D., Dice, T. L., Grigg, E.E., & Sanche, R.P. (1 974). A matter of principle. Toronto, ON: The Canadian Committee, The Council for Exceptional Children in Canada.
Treherne, D., & Rawlyk, S. (1 979). Canadian legislation processes: Special education. McGill Journal of Education, XIV(3), 265-273.
Torres, S. (Ed.). (1 977). A primer on individualized education programs for handicapped children. Reston, VA: The Foundation for Exceptional Children.
Torres, S. (Ed.). (1 977). Special education administrative policies manual. Reston, VA. The Council for Exceptional Children.
Tripp and the Nipissing Board of Education. (July 18, 1986). Northeastern Region (English) Special Education Tribunal.
Voeltz, LM., Johnson, R.E., & McQuarter, R.J. (1983). The integration of school-aged children and youth with severe disabilities: A comprehensive bibliography and a selected review of research and program development needs to address discrepancies in state-of-the-art. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Wang, M.C., & Baker, E.T. (1986). Mainstreaming programs: Design features and effects. The Journal of Special Education, 19(4), 503-52 1.
Wang, M.C., Reynolds, M.C., & Walberg, H.J. (1986). Rethinking special education. Educational Leadership, 44(l), 26-3 1.
Wang, M.C., Rubenstein, J.L., & Reynolds, M.C. (1985). Clearing the road to success for students with special needs. Educational Leadership, 43, 62-67.
Warfield, G.J. (Ed.). (1 974). Mainstream currents. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
Waxman, H.C., Wang, M.C., Anderson, K.A., & Walberg, H.J. (1985). Synthesis of research on the effects of adaptive education. Educational Leadership, 43,26-35.
Weddell, K., Welton, J., Evans, J., & Goacher, B. (1987). Policy and provisions under the 1981 act. British Journal of Special Education, 14(2), 50-53.
Wellington County Separate School Board. (n.d.). Growing together.- The school based prescriptive team. Guelph, ON: Author.
Wellington County Separate School Board. (n.d.). Integrating education for all. Guelph, ON: Author.
Wellington County Separate School Board. (1984). Integration assessing program effectiveness. Guelph, ON: Author.
Wiederholt, J.L. (1 974). Historical perspective on the education of learning disabled. In A. Mann & D. Sabatino (Eds.), The second review of special education (pp. 103-152). Philadelphia: Journal of Special Education Press.
Wiederholt, J.L. (1 978). Adolescents with learning disabilities: The problem in perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 578-588.
Wilcox, S. (1987). What should parents expect? TASH Newsletter, 13(3).
Will, M.C. (1984). Let us pause and reflect -But not too long. Exceptional Children, 51(l), 11-16.
Winzer, M. (1984). Mainstreaming: Attitudes of teachers and non-teachers. Canadian Journal for Special Education, 1(2), 23-26.
Winzer, M., Rogow, S., & David, C. (1987). Exceptional children in Canada Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall.
Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto, ON: National Institute on Mental Retardation.
Ysseldyke, JOE. (Ed.). (1985). Curriculum-based assessment [Special Issue]. Exceptional Children, 52(3).
Ysseldyke, JOE. (Ed.). (1986). In search of excellence: Instruction that works in special education classrooms [Special issue]. Exceptional Children, 52(6).
Ysseldyke, J., & Algozzine, B. (1982). Critical issues in special and remedial education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Ysseldyke, J., & Algozzine, B. (1984). Introduction to special education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Yukon Education. (1987). Education handbook. Whitehorse, YT: Author.
Zemanek, D.H., & Lehrer, B.E. (1977). Role of university departments of special education in mainstreaming. Exceptional Children, 43(6), 377-378.
Alberta Education. (November 30, 1987). G.. Millar, Assistant Director, Demonstration, Research and Development. Letter on integration of handicapped children.
British Columbia. (November 25, 1987). R.L. Connolly, Special Education Programs. Letter on integration of handicapped children.
The Canadian National Institute for the Blind. (December 3, 1987). H. Grace, Coordinator of Client Services, Saskatchewan Division. Letter on integration policy.
The Council for Exceptional Children. (January 10, 1988). S.E. Spank, President, Saskatchewan Federation. Letter on exceptional children.
Manitoba Education. (December 7, 1987). H. Stephan, Assistant Director, Child Care and Development. Letter on education programming for children with special needs.
New Brunswick Department of Education. (February 23, 1988). D. Roberts, Student Services. Discussion on integration of handicapped students.
Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education. (December 3, 1987). E. Turpin-Downey, Assistant Deputy Minister. Letter on special needs children within the regular school system.
Northwest Territories Education. (November 30,1987). G. Donahue, Manager, Special Needs. Letter on special needs education.
Nova Scotia Department of Education. (December 16, 1987). S.E. Beuvee, Assistant Director, Special Programs. Letter on mainstreaming or integration.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (December 1, 1987). P.F. Wiseman, Director, Special Education and Provincial Schools Branch. Letter on integration.
Prince Edward Island Department of Education. (December 11, 1987). E. MacLellan, Special Education Consultant. Letter on integration.
Quebec Ministere de l'Education. (December 14, 1987). P. Dassylva, Direction de l'adaptation scolaire et des services complementaires. Letter on children with difficulties in learning and adaptation.
Saskatchewan Association for the Mentally Retarded. (January 12, 1988). C. Glazer, Education Coordinator. Letter on services. to exceptional children.
Saskatchewan Education. (November 24, 1987). R.M. Livingston, Director, Special Education Branch. Letter on integration or mainstreaming handicapped children.
Saskatchewan Education, Special Education Branch. (1987 & 1988). Interviews with Special Education Branch personnel.
Yukon Education. (November 27, 1987). H.J. Weigel, Director of Curriculum. Letter on communication.
Internationally and nationally, special education statistics have been difficult to obtain and more difficult to compare due to differing definitions, record keeping, and diagnostic labelling (Kirk, 1972; Hallahan & Kauffman, 1982; Winzer, Rogow, & David, 1987).
In Denmark where integration was started in 1967, a study found that 13 percent of the children were in special education with 1.2 percent in special schools (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, 1983). In 1985, the United States Office of Special Education reported that 13 percent of the children in the school systems received special education, and that of these, 58 percent spent the majority of the day in regular class, 38 percent spent the majority of the day in special class, and 4 percent were in special schools (Singer, Butler, Palfrey, & Walker, 1986).
Winzer, Rogow, & David (1987) reported that in 1966 the Bureau of Statistics of Canada estimated that 2 percent of children were enrolled in special education programs, and that in 1971 the Council for Exceptional Children estimated that 12 percent were enrolled in these programs. The national study in Canada by the Commission on Emotional and Learning Disorders in Children in 1970 concluded that there were between 2 and 3 percent of children in full-time special education placements and that there was concern for a further 3 to 12 percent of children. In 1978, the Calgary Board of Education study on integration found that 7 to 8 percent of the students were in special education programs and that 9 to 10 percent had mild behavioral or cultural problems. The elementary and secondary principals estimated, respectively, that 10 to 15 percent and 20 percent of the student population were handicapped to some degree.
Winzer, Rogow, and David (1987) reported that there were approximately 3.5 million children enrolled in schools in Canada. They also indicated that the general consensus is that 2 to 5 percent of the school age population is gifted.
Data collected by the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education (1983), Table 1, identified the number of exceptional children in segregated and integrated programs (Winzer, Rogow, & David, 1987).
TABLE 1 Percentage of Exceptional Students
in Segregated and Integrated Programs by Type of Handicap
Table 2 estimated the prevalence of children in Canada who required some form of special education to be 15.50 percent (Winzer, Rogow, & David, 1987).
TABLE 2 Prevalence of Exceptional Students
by Type of Handicap
|Type of Exceptionality||Number of Students||% of Spec. Education Total||% of School Age Population|
Saskatchewan Education, in the 1986-87 Annual-Report (in preparation), identified the number of children designated as (severely) disabled and the type of special services received. This information is shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3 Educational Services to Children with Disabilities
Special Service Nature of Handicap
|Consul. with Equip.||-||2||4||2||8||3||1||1||21|
|Part-time Sp. Class||56||36||2||19||7||79||8||23||230|
|Full-time Sp. Class||263||162||2||29||20||70||7||61||614|
|Spec. Brd. School||16||42||-||-||-||-||-||6||64|
|R.J.D. Williams Sch. for the Deaf||-||-||-||79||-||-||-||-||79|
|Total School Population||205,193|
TMR - Train. mentally retarded OH - Orthopedically handic.
ED - Emotionally disturbed LD - Learning disabled
VI - Visually impaired CHI - Chronically hlth. imp.
HI - Hearing impaired NH - Multiply handicapped
If the above services were separated into two major categories, 4,728 students were integrated to some degree and 1,367 students were segregated out of the 6,095 students who were designated as severely handicapped.
In Saskatchewan, gifted education programs operated by school jurisdictions grew from 7 in 1981-82 to 65 in 1986-87 (Saskatchewan Education, 1987).
Table 4 identifies other groups of children who may have, in some way, a need for special educational intervention as reported in Saskatchewan Children: Their Lives and Needs (1984).
TABLE 4 Percentage of Students with Unique Needs
|Native Students||10 to 15% estimated|
|New Immigrant Students||No figures provided|
|Early School Leavers||30% between grade 8 and 12|
|Young Offenders||2% age group 7 to 15 in 1981 (16 and 17 year olds increase the number)|
|Children from Single Parent Families||9.6% of families in 1981|
|Teenage Parents||50% of the over 3,000 babies born in 1982 were born to girls between the ages of 15 and 19|
|Gifted and Talented||2.5% to 5% gifted
20% may require intellectual stimulation