1996 Version

How Much Time Should Students With
Significant Disabilities Spendin Regular
Education Classrooms and Elsewhere

Lou Brown, Patrick Schwarz, Alice Udvari Solner,
Elise Frattura Kampschroer, Fran Johnson, Jack Jorgensen,
Jan Duxstad and Lee Gruenewald

University of Wisconsin (UW)

And

Madison Metropolitan School District
(MMSD)

___________________

The 1991 version of this paper was supported by Grants H029D80019 and H086D00022 to the UW and the MMSD from the USDOE – OSERES – OSEP – Divisions for Educational Services and Personnel Preparation and was published in the Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16(1), 39-47.  This 1996 version was supported by funds ascribed to the Wisconsin School Inclusion Project by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction and the USDOE – OSERS – OSEP Program for Children with Severe Disabilities.

ABSTRACT

Students with significant disabilities should be based in the same schools and classrooms in which they would be based if they were not disabled.  However, a Regular Education classroom base in a home school is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for a minimally acceptable education.  They should spend some of their time elsewhere.

Some of the major reasons why they should be based, but should not spend all of their time in, Regular Education classrooms in home schools will be delineated.  In addition, ten of many factors to consider when determining the amounts of time and the kinds of instruction that should be provided in regular education classrooms and elsewhere will be addressed.  The ideological and instructional assumptions are that the benefits that accrue both from functioning in Regular Education classrooms and elsewhere must be realized.
PART I

INTRODUCTION

Sixty years ago individuals who were significantly disabled did not live very long. Their life expectancies increase annually (Siwolop & Mohs, 1985). Forty years ago whether or not they should receive tax supported educational services was at issue. Goldberg said yes. Cruickshank said no. Goldberg was right (Goldberg & Cruickshank, 1958). Twenty-five years ago whether or not they should be required to attend regular or segregated schools was the substance of policy debates (Sontag, Burke & York, 1973). Regular schools are better.

The end of the arduous placement journey is imminent. Each year more students with significant disabilities attend, not only regular schools, but those they would attend if they were not disabled, i.e., their home schools (Brown, et al., 1989). As a result, two issues are becoming increasingly important: Should they be based in Special or in Regular Education classrooms and How do we determine the amounts of time each will spend in Regular Education classrooms and elsewhere.

Who Are Students With Significant Disabilities
Those who function intellectually within approximately the lowest 1% of the school age population are the students of concern. Traditionally, I.Q. scores of approximately 50 and below and such labels as moderate, severe and profound mental retardation have been used to delimit most of them. Almost all exhibit communication, behavioral and sensorimotor difficulties in degrees that are obviously disabling (Sailor, 1988). Nevertheless, we must constantly remind ourselves that each is remarkably complex and that only by addressing uniqueness can we even begin to foster meaningful development.

When important components of living in a culture in which citizens are assumed free and equal under the law are considered, differences between those who function with significant disabilities and others should be minimal. However, degrees and kinds of intellectual phenomena that make them substantially different from others not so labeled are operative. These phenomena cannot be denied, ignored or minimized in importance. They must be acknowledged and accounted for in educational services. Indeed, if the students of concern are to function in reasonable accordance with capacity in integrated school and nonschool environments during and after school hours, days and years, some educational services that are different from those offered nondisabled peers must be provided.

The 0% Club
I am going to fight this. I will hire as many lawyers as I can and spend as much time, money and energy as it takes to make absolutely sure that child does not spend even one minute of her life in a Regular Education classroom.

Those who believe that students with significant disabilities should not spend even one minute of any school day in Regular Education classrooms are members of the 0% Club. A representative list of reasons used to justify categorical and total exclusion from Regular Education classrooms is presented below.

They are simply too different to benefit from being in there.

They will be “dumped” and deprived of needed services (Burton & Hirshoren, 1979b).

Allowing them in will hurt nondisabled students (Burton & Hirschoren, 1979a).

Nondisabled students will ridicule and otherwise abuse them.

The high staff‑student ratios available in Regular Education classrooms are simply inappropriate for them.

They need specialized materials and techniques that cannot, or should not, be used in Regular Education classrooms.

Regular Education teachers do not want them and do not know how to teach them. 

Homogeneous are better than heterogeneous groupings.

The Regular Education curriculum is inappropriate (Burton & Hirshoren, 1979b; Jenkins, Pious, & Jewell, 1990).

Having them function in Regular Education classrooms would be too costly in that the needed therapists, teachers, assistants, nurses and equipment are simply not affordable.

There is no evidence that integrating them in Regular Education settings is better than segregating them.

Too many Regular Education classrooms are not helpful to nondisabled students, so why should students with significant disabilities be forced into them? Specifically, most of the individuals represented by the statistics below spent many years in Regular Education classrooms.

In 1988, 29.9% of all high school age students in the U.S. “dropped out” before graduating (U.S. Census Bureau, 1989).

In 1988, 11,069,300 families in the U.S. were recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (Social Security Administration, 1988).

In 1960, 15% of all teenage births occurred outside of marriage. By 1988 the percentage quadrupled to 61% (National Center for Health Statistics, 1989).

In 1988, 5.5% of the U.S. labor force over age 16 was unemployed (U.S. Census Bureau, 1989). 

In 1989, it was estimated that 53% of all U.S. 6th graders had already used alcohol and that 47% of all twelfth graders had tried an illicit drug at least once (Minneapolis Research Institute, 1989).

In 1988, 13,523,100 crimes were committed in the U.S. (U.S. Department of Justice, 1989).

The 100% Club
Joe is totally deaf and blind. He has no arms or legs and is profoundly retarded. He has AIDS, herpes, hepatitus Q and screams all the time. Those crazy extremists want to put him in regular Calculus, Chemistry and Latin classes.

Some would believe that students with significant disabilities should spend 100% of their school time in Regular Education classrooms. Why?  Because only by doing so can true, whole, full, total, meaningful and pure integration-inclusion be realized. Conversely, spending less than 100% of a school day in Regular Education classrooms would be segregative, exclusionary, unfair, cost inefficient, negatively discriminative and immoral.

The 100% Club may have no members. The authors do not know anyone, nor could they find a printed reference, that argues that all such students should spend 100% of their school time in Regular Education classrooms. The suspicion is that those who call for a Regular Education classroom base are often erroneously accused of being 100% Club members (Biklen, 1989; Brost & Johnson, 1986; Forest, 1987; Lipsky & Gartner, 1989; Stainback & Stainback, 1987; Strully & Strully, 1989; Thousand et al., 1986).

Parenthetically, there are substantial differences between being based in as opposed to confined to Regular Education classrooms. “Based in” refers to “being a member of a homeroom”, “a member of a real class”, “where and with whom you start the school day”, “being with a group you are perceived to be a member of”, “you may not spend all of your time with your group, but it is still your group and everyone knows it.”

At the elementary level, based in means that the student starts the day and is an acknowledged member of Ms. Thomas's 3rd grade class. Being a member of her  class influences the social relationships that are developed, helps establish self esteem and personal identity, determines which teacher or team of teachers will be mentors for the entire school year, makes a big school seem small, offers a place to become well known by at least a few and affords somewhere to go for support and guidance. In middle and high schools, the student starts the day in a regular homeroom. She then follows an individualized schedule with access to the same regular classes, extracurricular activities and other opportunities available to nondisabled peers. This does not mean that she will only function in Regular Education classrooms. It does mean that if a particular class is judged appropriate, she has as much right to be enrolled as her nondisabled peers.

“Confined to” refers to spending 100% of a school day in Regular Education classrooms and classes. You leave only if, when and under the same circumstances nondisabled classmates leave.

More Than 0% But Less Than 100%
Segregation in school begets segregation in adulthood, results in terrible wastes of human potential and is unacceptably costly (Piuma, 1989). Depriving students with significant disabilities opportunities to function in Regular Education classrooms during individually meaningful portions of most school days is nonpreparatory for a reasonable life in an integrated society and is therefore judged educationally untenable. Many Regular Education classroom activities offer, or can be adapted to render, reasonable benefits to such students. Forming an object from clay in an art classroom, learning to play a musical instrument in a music classroom, putting a daily picture schedule together in a homeroom, playing a rudimentary video game during "free time" in a computer classroom and enjoying integrated recess are examples.

However, many Regular Education classroom activities present extraordinary difficulties to the same students. In typing classrooms students are typically seated at machines in rows and columns, focused on their materials almost all of the time, required to respond at rapid rates and to function with a 1‑25 instructor‑student ratio. It is very difficult for the students of concern to acquire meaningful skills or to develop social relationships under such conditions. Further, the costs of adapting or force fitting the activities would be too great for the social or other gains that could be realized.

Some argue that it is acceptable for the students of concern to leave regular classrooms and schools for instruction, but only with nondisabled peers and for the same purposes. This thesis is considered questionable at this time for several reasons.

First, it is not inherently negative to provide specialized nonschool instruction because many students without disabilities leave school to learn to function in vocational environments during school hours and days. “Work-study” and “distributed education” are examples.

Second, the assumption is that the students of concern are often in need of highly specialized and individualized instruction by trained and competent personnel over extended periods of time. Most management‑labor agreements require that school personnel provide instruction from 8:00 a.m.. to 4:00 p.m on school days. A significant amount of time will pass before educational services are made generally available during nontraditional times and days.

Third, if instruction is provided when peers without disabilities function in nonschool environments, a highly unnatural situation is created. Specifically, it is unusual to have professionals teach after school and on weekends. Further, who is going to organize, coordinate and validate that appropriate experiences are occurring in nonschool environments if professionals are not present? Should parents or siblings do it? Should new cadres or professionals be developed? Should we expect nondisabled peers to do it?

Fourth, if the students of concern remain in school the same hours as nondisabled peers, sufficient amounts and kinds of valuable instruction in nonschool environments simply cannot be provided. Specifically, many students with disabilities receive instruction in important, high status, parent and student preferred work environments during school days. Banks, hospitals, insurance companies and government offices are examples. By confining instruction to school hours and days, opportunities to learn to function in these important environments are denied because they are rarely available after 4:00 p.m. and on weekends.

PART II
WHY SOME, BUT NOT ALL, OF THE TIME

It is unacceptable for students with significant disabilities to spend 0% of their time in Regular Education classrooms. While better, it is also unacceptable for them to spend all of their time therein. Self contained regular and self contained special education are both rejected because each extreme disallows important experiences and opportunities. The preference here is that they be based in the Regular Education classrooms in which they would be based if they were not disabled. Then, the individually meaningful amounts of time each needs to spend elsewhere should be arranged.

Several reasons why more than 0% but less than 100% of the school day must be spent in the classrooms in which they would function if not disabled are outlined below.

The best language, social, dress and behavior models are in Regular Education classrooms. Reasonable access is critical.

The high frequency opportunities necessary to build meaningful social relationships with nondisabled peers are in Regular Education classrooms. However, many important social relationships can be developed, maintained and/or enhanced at school, but not in Regular Education classrooms, particularly during high school years. Extracurricular activities, "hanging out" in the commons and going to and from areas of the school are good vehicles for social relationship development.

Regular Education classrooms are chronological age appropriate environments, at least until 19.

Future leaders, taxpayers, service providers and parents of children with disabilities are in those regular classrooms. They need knowledge of and experience with the kinds of children they will produce and the diversity of citizens with whom they will associate.

Many changes that will be made in Regular Education classrooms because they function therein will enhance the development of all students.

It is better to be an "insider" who goes out for short periods of time, than it is to be an "outsider" who comes in for short periods of time.

In many instances physical, speech and language, occupational therapy services and mobility training can and should be provided in Regular Education classrooms. In some instances these important services must be provided elsewhere (Sternat et al., 1977).

Individualized, systematic, comprehensive and long term instruction in a wide array of nonschool environments must be a critical component of an educational service plan (Brown et al., 1983)

Most nondisabled students learn where and how to use restrooms within minutes after entering a school. It may take months of direct and systematic instruction to teach a student with severe intellectual, physical and sensory disabilities to learn the location of a school restroom and how to use it acceptably. Substantial amounts of direct instruction on school grounds, but not in Regular Education classrooms, must be provided.

If all known intellectual phenomena were delineated, it is quite likely that the students of concern would be the least competent in relation to each. Space dictates that only an important sample of six and their relevance to functioning in Regular Education classrooms can be addressed here. Only if these and other important intellectually loaded factors are given serious consideration can more specific questions about how much time should be spent in Regular Education classrooms and how much time should be spent elsewhere be addressed constructively. The purpose is not to accentuate negatives, to be exclusionary or to offer justifications for segregation. The purpose is to continue the difficult process of arranging for an individual to benefit from that which is available in Regular Education classrooms and from that which is available elsewhere.

The Number of Skills That Can Be Learned

"When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school" (Simon, 1973).

Nondisabled students are capable of learning the basic skills, attitudes and values necessary for a reasonable quality of life. They are also capable of learning thousands of other bits of information that may or may not be valuable, interesting or otherwise needed. Further, if they are taught things in school that are not relevant to current or subsequent lives, they still have the ability to acquire that which is elsewhere. Paul Simon is doing fine, even though he learned a lot of crap in high school.

The instructional realities for the students of concern are different because, by definition, they learn less than approximately 99% of their peers. In addition, they rarely develop many important skills and attitudes without systematic and individualized instruction by competent persons. Thus, fewer risks can be taken with their instructional time and energy. All reasonable attempts must be made to select objectives that are the most important for functioning effectively in integrated current and subsequent school, nonschool and postschool environments and activities. Conversely, valuable resources must not be wasted developing that which is not important for integrated school, nonschool and postschool functioning. Many experiences available in Regular Education classrooms are important for nonschool and postschool functioning, but many are not.

Concrete vs. Abstract
Concrete refers to that which is real and tangible. Abstract refers to that which is representational, subtle and symbolic. A real apple is more concrete than a picture of an apple, which is more concrete than the printed word apple. The more intellectually disabled the student, the more she will learn from experiencing activities and materials that are tangible. Conversely, the less she will learn from that which is representational, subtle and symbolic. The students of concern should be involved in concrete operations as much, and in abstract operations as little, as possible.

Regular Education classrooms are heavily laden with abstractions. Because so much of what occurs is too abstract to be comprehensible, the students of concern can be expected to learn relatively little. In addition, abstract activities accentuate and concrete activities minimize differences between them and nondisabled peers. When meaningful concrete activities are available or can be arranged in Regular Education classrooms, the students of concern should be there to experience them. When abstract activities are predominant, it is often more appropriate for them to be elsewhere.

Instructional Trials and Rates of Curricular Progression
The more intellectually disabled the student, the more teaching trials-learning opportunities will be needed to generate acquisition at meaningful performance criteria. Increases in the number of learning opportunities-teaching trials require concommitant increases in time and result in decreases in curricular progression rates.

Progress through curricular content in Regular Education classrooms is usually determined by the passage of time. The Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I and World War II may be covered in November, December, January and March respectively. Unfortunately, time based curricular progressions present extremely difficult problems to students with significant disabilities. For example, in order to respond appropriately to the question, "What are the dates of the U.S. Civil War?," 100 direct instructional trials and two weeks may be necessary. The progress of the nondisabled students cannot be held in abeyance until the appropriate number of direct instructional trials and amounts of time are allowed.

One option is to determine Regular Education classroom activities that require large discrepancies in learning opportunities. Decisions could then be made as to whether or not acquiring the information is worth the associated expenditures. If not, the instruction of something more meaningful can be provided elsewhere.

Practice‑Forgetting
Without practice nondisabled students forget, but gradually and relatively little. They can usually recoup what was forgotten quickly. Students with significant disabilities forget more, relatively quickly and recoup with much more difficulty.

Natural practice refers to performance in criterion environments under the conditions available to nondisabled persons who engage in the same activity. Artificial pracrice refers to performance under other than criterion environment conditions. When Gordy started his training at Kohl's Department Store, he required direct instruction daily by his teacher in order to learn to clean ten mirrors acceptably. The direct instruction and the associated supervision by the paid professional were faded over time. When Gordy cleaned the mirrors under the supervision of his teacher, he was engaging in artificial practice because the teacher is not a natural condition of the store. Now he practices the skills required to clean the ten mirrors at the store, the criterion environment, every day after school under natural conditions, i.e., with the same supervision available to nondisabled coworkers. If he does not practice consistently in the criterion environment, he will forget more and quicker than any other worker. If he is allowed to forget, he may require the same amounts of time and instruction needed for original learning.

Regular educators rarely arrange for natural practice because they seldom assume responsibility for the performance of that which was taught in classrooms in other environments under natural conditions. In fact, most information is presented too rapidly to allow even sufficient amounts of artificial practice.

Parenthetically, in some instances relatively simple things are learned and followed by that which is cumulative, both in quantity and complexity. A student can be taught to count from one to five. Then she can be taught to count from one to ten. In the process of learning to count from one to ten, she is practicing counting from one to five. She can then be taught to count from one to fifteen, etc. This strategy may work quite well for students who are not intellectually disabled, but it presents significant difficulties to those who are. Very quickly the material passes from a difficulty range that is comprehensible into one that is not. A student with significant disabilities might be able to rote count and understand the differences between one, two and three, but may never be able to rote count and understand the differences between 60, 61 and 62.

It is rarely acceptable to spend valuable resources teaching that which will not be practiced in criterion environments under natural conditions after learning occurs. Thus, prior to the selection of most objectives, commitments for practice must be secured from those who naturally function in criterion environments. By doing so, instructional personnel do not have to spend valuable time arranging for and monitoring artificial practice. If professionals are monitoring practice, they are not teaching. In addition, by turning practice responsibilities over to others, valuable resources can be devoted to the continually enhancing repertoires.

Generalization-Transfer

Jenna, a nondisabled high school student, learned to write and cash a check and record the transaction in her checkbook in her Regular Education consumer math class. She then went to a bank and opened a real checking account using many of the skills she learned in her classroom.

Mike, her classmate, has significant disabilities. Even though he can learn rudimentary banking skills in his Regular Education classroom, e.g., waiting in line in his wheelchair and handing a written message to a simulated teller, it is extremely doubtful that what he learns in his classroom will be generalized-transferred at minimally acceptable levels to his actual bank.

Performance of a skill under conditions that are different from those under which it was acquired is called generalization (Stokes & Baer, 1977; Stokes & Osnes, 1988). For purposes here, the more intellectually disabled the student, the less confidence one can have that what was acquired in one environment will be performed acceptably in another. It is inconceivable that any teacher or related service professional associated with the students of concern is not aware that substantial generalization-transfer difficulties are primary definitional characteristics.

Historically, regular educators have devoted relatively little energy to generalization-transfer, quite probably because they assume that it is the responsibility of the student to use what is learned in school elsewhere. Placing the responsibility for generalization-transfer on the students of concern is untenable. In an attempt to relate to the notorious generalization-transfer difficulties, four instructional options will be addressed. Space does not permit detailed analyses of many others, the variations within each or the individual circumstances that require combinations (Brown et al., 1983; Horner et al., 1986).

The Classroom as The Criterion Environment Option
An important part of what is learned or experienced at school is an end in itself. That is, there are phenomenona that are inherently valuable for effective functioning in Regular Education classrooms. Being a contributing member of a team, imitating the appropriate actions of others, learning cooperatively, having fun, developing friendships and self esteem, using an electric wheelchair and contributing to, rather than inhibiting, the growth of others are examples.

School is also a means to an end. The end is not living, working and playing in school, but living, working and playing in integrated society. In fact, there are many important skills and other phenomena crucial to meaningful functioning in integrated nonschool and postschool environments and activities that simply cannot be learned or experienced in Regular Education classrooms. Riding on a real public bus appropriately, shopping in a real grocery store effectively and crossing busy streets at night in an electric wheelchair safely are examples.

If all efforts are devoted to developing that which is necessary for effective functioning in Regular Education classrooms and none are devoted to effective functioning elsewhere, an unacceptable imbalance ensues. The teacher who is only concerned with classroom functioning, i.e., who views the classroom as the criterion environment, is not meeting important responsibilities. Reasonable proportions of resources must be devoted to the direct instruction of meaningful functioning in nonclassroom and in nonschool environments.

The Generalization Skill Development Option
Assume a teacher realizes that a student is functioning with rudimentary generalization skills and decides to develop them further. She argues that she cannot teach Sue to function appropriately in every important environment and activity. If she can improve her generalization skills, her ability to function effectively in a wide variety of nonschool environments and activities, without direct instruction therein, will be enhanced. This is an extremely seductive option. The problem, of course, is that no one has ever been able to develop the generalization abilities of the students of concern to extents that justify reasonable confidence that what is learned in simulated settings will be performed acceptably on busy streets, in real work environments, etc. Thus, until it is demonstrated how the generalization
abilities of such students can be sufficiently developed, the prudent educational strategy lies elsewhere.

Test‑Teach‑Test Options
One way to address generalization-transfer difficulties is to evaluate performance in a criterion environment, follow with germane instruction in a Regular Education classroom and then reevaluate performance in the criterion environment. If it is less than acceptable, additional instruction in the Regular Education classroom can be provided, additional generalization-transfer checks in the criterion environment can be conducted, etc. until performance in the criterion environment is acceptable. After establishing that Phil could not make popcorn in his home, the criterion environment, he was then taught to do so under simulated conditions in his Regular Education home economics classroom. When he learned to do so, his performance in his home was reevaluated. Some of that which was learned in the classroom generalized to his home, but much did not. Thus, instruction in his classroom was continued, performance in his home was reevaluated, etc.

The obvious advantage of this and other variations of the test-teach‑test option is that valuable time and other resources can be saved by not having to go to the criterion environments of each student and provide all instruction therein. The obvious risk, indeed, the obvious reality, is that too much of what is taught in Regular Education classrooms is not generalized-transferred acceptably to criterion environments.

Before test‑teach‑test options can be considered educationally tenable, two conditions should be met. First, empirical evidence that reasonable generalization skills are in the repertoire of a student should be available. Second, the resources devoted to the simulated instruction needed to produce acceptable performance in the criterion environment should be less than those needed to generate acceptable performance in the criterion environment through direct instruction therein only. For some students, test‑teach‑test options are educationally viable. For others, they are not.

The Teach Only in the Criterion Environment Option
If it is established that a particular student will generalize little, if anything, from simulated to criterion environments, direct instruction can be provided only in criterion environments. In short, as Regular Education classrooms are rarely criterion environments, instruction must be provided elsewhere.

Difficulty Ranges
Most information can be ordered into ranges from the least to the most difficult. Each educationally meaningful range may contain hundreds of skills of similar difficulty. However, acquisition probabilities decrease as information across ranges increases in complexity. Students with significant disabilities learn within the lowest difficulty ranges. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that if a student is alive, she can learn something (Fuller, 1949) and it is our ethical, legal and professional responsibility to implement the best possible educational services.

Learning skills of similar difficulty, i.e., within a range, is referred to as horizontal enhancement. Learning skills of increasing difficulty, i.e., across difficulty ranges, is referred to as vertical enhancement (Brown et al., 1989). In some instances it may be appropriate to operate within a particular range indefinitely, because it is extremely unlikely that a skill in a more difficult range will be acquired. In other instances instruction can be provided within one range and reasonable returns for educational investments can be anticipated if a move to one more difficult is engineered.

Many activities in Regular Education classrooms demand rapid vertical progression through difficulty ranges. For example, students are often expected to learn how to multiply and divide whole numbers and then to learn how to multiply and divide fractions. Vertical enhancement strategies that require learning a few skills within one range and proceeding immediately to the next must be used with extreme caution, because the students of concern quickly enter ranges that contain information that is beyond their acquisition potential.

The strategy supported here is to determine the difficulty range appropriate for a particular student and then to teach as much of what is important within that range as one can. If and when a movement to the next higher range seems reasonable, it could be initiated. Mike was learning to make a sandwich of bread and cheese in his home. After he learned to prepare the sandwich cold, it was decided to teach him how to grill it in the microwave oven in his kitchen using pictures of dial settings as aids. Making a cold cheese sandwich is relatively simple, i.e., within one difficulty range. Grilling a cheese sandwich in a microwave oven is relatively complex, i.e., in a higher difficulty range.

Given the extreme difficulties students with significant disabilities have moving across difficulty ranges, how can functioning in Regular Education classrooms be justified or managed? Three options seem reasonable.

Option #1 ‑ Adapt The Regular Education Curriculum Downward
Information can be adapted downward until it is in the appropriate difficulty range. In a Regular Education high school chemistry class students were learning to mix three chemical solutions in a glass beaker so as to produce a detergent. When the turn of the class member with significant disabilities came, the teacher simplified the intellectual requirements of the activity by instructing her to "touch green", i.e., to touch the glass beaker that contained green fluid. Some argue that the adapt downward option is acceptable because the student: is at least partially participating in a chronological age appropriate and integrated environment and activity, is either developing or engaging in social relationships with nondisabled peers, etc.

Some of the major difficulties associated with the adapt downward option are that: the student is being taught that which may not be meaningful in, or may not be generalized to, any other environment; the simplification may result in being demeaned by nondisabled peers; the instruction is boring to nondisabled students and wasteful of their valuable time; the student is engaged in an unacceptably low percentage of the entire activity for less than the amounts of time needed for meaningful acquisition; and more important skills can be developed elsewhere. In sum, the adapt downward option should be used with extreme caution because in most instances more important skills can be taught elsewhere in ways that minimize devaluation, generalization-transfer difficulties and the waste of resources.

Option #2 ‑ Generate Modified or Alternative Activities
Modified or alternative activities within an appropriate difficulty range in Regular Education settings can be arranged. While nondisabled students are learning to mix chemical solutions to produce detergents, Jo, a student with significant disabilities is learning to make “Koolaid.”  Sue has significant disabilities, uses a wheelchair and functions in a regular physical education class. Rather than attempting to teach her to walk on one 3 foot high balance beam, two were placed on the gym floor and she was taught to traverse them in her wheelchair. Instead of the teacher lifting her so she could hold on to rings that hung from the ceiling high off the floor, the rings were lowered and she was taught to raise and lower herself from the seat of her wheelchair.

The advantages of providing modified-alternative activities in Regular Education settings are that students with disabilities can learn something meaningful in the presence of nondisabled peers and that nondisabled peers can learn to adapt so those with disabilities can participate. The disadvantages are that students with disabilities may be involved in one‑on‑one teacher-student instructional arrangements that are so specialized, constructive interactions with nondisabled peers are inhibited or prevented; that what is taught may not be generalized-transferred to criterion environments; and that the alternatives may result in low priority instructional objectives.

Option #3 ‑ Provide Instruction in Other Environments
When low acquisition probability and/or low priority activities are scheduled, the student can leave the Regular Education setting where that which is more important and within individually appropriate difficulty ranges can be taught. While nondisabled peers are dissecting frogs and dividing decimals, it may be more appropriate for a particular student with significant disabilities to receive instruction elsewhere. Learning to communicate manually to a store clerk, to participate in the preparation of a meal at her home and to function in an integrated nonschool work site are examples.

There are activities appropriate for nondisabled students in Regular Education classrooms that are within the difficulty ranges of the students of concern. Cooperative games, communicating with nondisabled classmates, learning social manners, preparing and serving snacks and drawing are examples. Conversely, there are Regular Education classroom activities that are appropriate and important for nondisabled students, but not for those with significant disabilities. Learning the dates of the U.S. Civil War, reading and discussing novels and memorizing the capitals of the countries of South America are examples.
In sum, you must know of a student who can learn, but not as fast or as much as 99% of his chronological age peers; who needs substantially more learning opportunities than all others; who must have continuous practice because he/she forgets more and quicker and recoups with more difficulty than everyone else; and has extreme difficulties generalizing-transferring from one environment to another. You must also know that a significant proportion of school is a means to an end and that the end is maximal participation in integrated and-or respected Domestic, Vocational, Recreation-Leisure and General Community environments and activities. How much time should be spent teaching in Regular Education classrooms and how much time should be spent providing direct, individualized, longitudinal and systematic instruction in the actual integrated and-or respected environments and activities in which a student functions, or is likely to function, during nonschool and postschool life?

PART III
FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN DETERMINING TIME SPENT
IN REGULAR EDUCATION CLASSROOMS AND ELSEWHERE

Ten important  factors that should be considered when determining how much time will be spent in Regular Education classrooms and elsewhere are offered. Many have been presented in other forms and-or for other purposes (Brown, et al., 1989). Space does not allow detailed treatments of each or the consideration of such others as cost, safety, health, teacher comfort and convenience, logistics and personnel to student ratios. The presumption is that these and others will be addressed elsewhere.

Chronological Age
One purpose of a school is to teach acceptable functioning therein. Another, perhaps more important, purpose is to teach acceptable functioning elsewhere. Unfortunately, students with significant disabilities cannot learn to function acceptably in integrated community environments only from instruction in Regular Education classrooms. Thus, as chronological age increases, learning to function in nonschool environments takes priority over functioning at school.

When the students of concern attend elementary schools it seems reasonable that they spend individually determined, but substantial amounts of time in Regular Education classrooms. During middle and high school years time spent in Regular Education classrooms should decrease annually with relatively little, if any, being spent therein during the last three transition years. Indeed, during the school to postschool transition period almost all instructional time should be spent in the integrated nonschool environments in which the student is likely to function upon graduation (Sailor, Halvorsen, Anderson, Goetz, Gee, Doering, & Hunt, 1986).

Jan is 21 years old. How much time should be spent teaching her to function in the work environment in which she will function upon graduation and how much time should be spent teaching her to count to 30 in a Regular Education high school math class? How much time should be spent teaching her to eat
lunch at a public restaurant with future coworkers and how much should be spent teaching her to eat lunch with college bound classmates in her high school cafeteria? How much time should be spent teaching her to get from one school room to another and how much time should be spent teaching her to get to and from her future workplace, neighborhood stores, temple and the other nonschool environments in which she will function upon graduation?

Related Services
The overwhelming majority of students with significant disabilities will need individually determined kinds and amounts of services from mobility, physical, occupational, speech and language and other specialists during some or all of their lives. While it is appropriate to provide many therapeutic and other related services in Regular Education classrooms, there are also instances in which it is not. In fact, if a student needs physical, speech and language and-or mobility training, she probably needs them at school, at home, getting to and from home, school, parks and stores, in classrooms, hallways and bathrooms and in about every other place in which she functions. Further, as schools are not hospitals or clinics, the emphasis given therapeutic and other related services must be balanced against the need for developing relationships with nondisabled peers, the learning of functional skills and many other important educational phenomena.

The Number of Environments In Which A Student Functions
Students who are not disabled have remarkable abilities to learn to function in a wide variety of school and nonschool environments from the guidance and instruction of parents, peers, neighbors, store clerks and by themselves. The students of concern do not have such important assets. In fact, the presumption must be that if they are to function acceptably in any environment, direct instruction therein must be provided by competent persons.

Assume that you counted the number of environments in which a nondisabled student functioned during a seven day period. Assume further that you did the same for a student with significant disabilities of the same chronological age, neighborhood and socioeconomic status. You then determined that the nondisabled student functioned in 50 environments and the student with disabilities functioned in 10. You decide that too large a discrepancy exists and that reasonable amounts of educational resources should be devoted to decreasing it.

Stated another way, you decide that it is generally better to teach a few skills in many rooms than it is to teach many skills in a few rooms. Given the choice of teaching many skills in the kitchen and none in the bathroom, den, yard and basement, or teaching a few skills in the kitchen, bathroom, den, yard and basement; you choose the latter. Thus, it is extremely important to identify the actual environments that will enhance the general life space of your student and then take her to them and teach that which is essential for reasonable success therein.

If educational services are confined to Regular Education classrooms, who is left with the responsibility of teaching acceptable functioning in a wide variety of important nonschool environments? While some parents/guardians have the time, skill, inclination and whatever else is necessary to ensure their child functions acceptably in a variety of nonschool environments, most do not. Consider the number of people who are not so skilled, families with two incomes or with one parent and several children who need different kinds of care after school and on weekends. Some instructional time in Regular Education classrooms must be traded for instruction in integrated nonschool environments. Thus, a critical question that must be asked in the instructional objective determination process is: Will a particular objective and the associated expenditures of resources enhance functioning in an increased number of environments? If it will not, it may be much less valuable than others that will.

Personnel Qualities
Success in a particular environment is often a function of the personnel qualities of the nondisabled people who are responsible for the instruction and support therein. There are many teachers, therapists and other school personnel that are competent, creative, flexible, compassionate and effective. It is extremely important that all students be given access to their talents. Unfortunately, there are also school personnel who are not sufficiently competent, creative, flexible, compassionate or effective. As it is doubtful that the students of concern will receive much benefit from their services, they should spend little time in their presence.

If a Regular Education classroom teacher operates an environment in which a student can benefit substantially, time should be spent therein. If a Regular Education classroom is operated by a relatively incompetent teacher, the same student might learn much more receiving peer tutorial assistance in a study hall, in an integrated nonschool environment or elsewhere. Time spent with competent persons should be maximized and time spent with incompetent persons, regardless of degrees, certifications, years of experience, management‑labor agreements, etc., should be minimized.

Effects on Social Relationships
One of the most important functions of educational and related services for the students of concern is to develop a wide array of social relationships with nondisabled peers that can be expressed both in school and in nonschool environments, activities, days and hours. One of the most efficacious ways of engendering reasonable arrays of social relationships with appropriate nondisabled peers is to spend large amounts of time together in the same environments and activities. Conversely, the less time a student with disabilities spends with nondisabled peers, the lower the probability that the array of relationships so critical for a well rounded social existence will be developed. Thus, before a student is removed from a Regular Education classroom, for even one minute, the potential effects of the removal on the probabilities of developing a reasonable array of important social relationships must be studied carefully. Removal should interfere minimally.

Parent-Guardian-Student Priorities
Many parents-guardians have clear preferences as to where their children should receive instruction. Some feel strongly that functioning more effectively in their homes is extremely important. For others, learning to function in integrated work environments is a very high priority. Others are concerned that their children develop a wide array of social relationships with nondisabled peers. If parents-guardians assign a high priority to developing social relationships with nondisabled peers, more time should be spent in Regular Education classrooms than if they assigned it a lower priority. Obviously, the preferences of students should also be given due value in the same deliberations (Guess et al. 1985; Houghton et al., 1987; Shevin &  Klein, 1984).

Probability of Acquisition
Selecting a relatively meaningless concept or skill for instruction, just because it is highly likely to be learned, is unacceptable. Selecting a potentially valuable concept or skill that is highly unlikely to be learned is equally unacceptable.
The option of choice is to select that which is valuable and can be developed with reasonable instructional resources.

There are many concepts and skills that are extremely important to the students of concern that can be acquired in Regular Education classrooms. However, much that is presented therein is beyond their acquisition capabilities. Placing them in environments in which what is being taught is unlikely to be acquired, or will be useless if and when it is, should be avoided. When complex and highly abstract activities that offer low probabilities of acquisition are scheduled, they should function elsewhere. It is often better to take them to criterion environments such as public buses, streets, stores and workplaces and teach that which offers a reasonable probability of acquisition and which will be valuable when acquired.

Functionality
Assume that a student is asked to perform an action and does not. If someone else must then perform that action, it is referred to here as functional. If a student is asked to perform an action and does not, and no one else must then perform that action, it is referred to here as other than functional. The ability to perform functional skills allows autonomy, choices, privacy and other personal freedoms. Conversely, the fewer functional skills a person can perform, the more dependent he is, the fewer choices he has, the less privacy he will be allowed and the more dominated by others he will be. Reasonable proportions of the educational program of each student with significant disabilities must be devoted to developing an array of functional skills both in school and in nonschool environments (Brown et al., 1984). 

There are many functional skills that can be learned in Regular Education classrooms. Sweeping floors, washing windows, watering plants, cleaning chalkboards, opening a book and turning on a tape player are possibilities. However, repertoires cannot be confined to functional skills that can be acquired in Regular Education classrooms. There are many more extremely important functional skills that will not be developed, if they are not done so by competent personnel in home, community and work environments.

Preparation for Postschool Life
The clock is constantly ticking and school time decreases accordingly. Is what I am doing preparing Jo to be as productive and as competent as possible in important postschool environments and activities? Is what I am teaching going to be obsolete, chronological age inappropriate, demeaning and unnecessary by the time I teach it? Is there anything more relevant to living an integrated life after school than what I am doing? These and other questions must be addressed in individually constructive ways so as to provide educational experiences that result in maximal functioning in integrated society during postschool years. Schools have relatively large amounts of money. After age 21, relatively little money and related resources are available to provide direct instruction (Brown et al., 1967). Thus, if something will be important in adulthood, it is given a higher priority during school years than others that are not.

PART IV 
 SACRIFICES, TRADES AND COMPROMISES

In the past most of us had a few good ideas about what these students should learn, but very few of us actually knew how to teach them; our disciplines contained few really talented and creative members; and we were overwhelmed by homogeneous groupings and segregated environments.

Tremendous advances in the sciences, technologies and ideologies upon which the education of students with significant disabilities is based have been made during the last thirty years. We now have the ability to teach any student much more than the time we have with him allows; each month more and more talented young persons enter our disciplines; and each year we become more ideologically advanced. This much needed and hard earned progress places the educational community in challenging, complex and delicate positions. For the first time in our history we have the luxury of deciding which of many possibilities to teach. That luxury also requires the responsibility of deciding what will not be taught.

We could spend all of our resources developing social relationships with nondisabled peers in Regular Education classrooms. If we did, we would be sacrificing that which is necessary for effective functioning in real buses, streets. workplaces, parks and stores. We could devote all our resources to teaching functional skills. By doing so we would be trading away important social relationships with nondisabled peers and critical recreation-leisure repertoires because playing with friends, watching TV, listening to music and many other joyful and beautiful experiences do not meet the definition of functionality. We could provide all instruction in nonschool environments and therapy rooms. If we did, we would be compromising 							.

The educational career of students with significant disabilities must be balanced across environments, persons, activities, attitudes, values and skills. We simply cannot afford to allow one or two components to dominate. While we may emphasize something for a period of time, over a 21 year career we must provide services that truly prepare for comprehensive functioning in integrated postschool life. Thus, we all must become involved in sacrifices, trades and compromises. No parent, student or professional should have the power to determine imbalanced or disproportioned educational services. How much time should be spent in regular classes? Enough to ensure that the student is a member, not a visitor. A lot, if the student is engaged in meaningful activities. Quite a bit, if he or she is young, but less as she approaches graduation. We do not know, so let's find out.

Regular Education has what we desperately need: future parents, workers, taxpayers, legislators, friends and many many extremely competent teachers. All must grow up with and learn to function with individuals with disabilities if meaningful integration is to be realized. Each day more and more of those responsible for the state of Regular Education realize changes have to be made in order to accommodate to an increasingly diverse and complex student population. As regular educators evolve so that they can serve more and more different students better, so must special educators. In the past special meant separate, segregated and parallel. It is time to join, grow together, comingle and become involved in the larger process. If we bring collaborative teamwork, individualized adaptations, instruction in natural environments, inclusion ideologies and other components of our arsenal with us, we can share in the exciting, challenging and awesome responsibility of arriving at the best possible educational and related services for all students.

Finally, the evolution to regular classroom bases in home schools raises many substantive administrative issues. How much will it cost? What kind of preservice and inservice training is needed? What kind of changes in Regular Education curricula, organization and management are appropriate? How will teacher‑student ratios, licensing, certifications and responsibilities change?

References

Biklen, D. (1989). Making difference ordinary. In S. Stainback, W. Stainback & M. Forest (Eds.), Educating all students in the mainstream of Regular Education (pp. 235-248).  Baltimore: Paul Brookes.

Brost, M. & Johnson, T. (1986). Special education does not mean special classes: Two parents' observations about Louisville, Kentucky's experiences in integrating special and Regular Education systems and students. Madison: Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy.

Brown, L., Long, E., Udvari Solner, A., Davis, L., VanDeventer, P., Ahlgren, C., Johnson, F., Gruenewald, L., & Jorgensen, J. (1989). The home school: Why students with severe intellectual disabilities must attend the schools of their brothers, sisters, friends and neighbors. The Journal of The Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 14(1), 1‑7.

Brown, L., Long, E., Udvari Solner, A., Schwarz, P., VanDeventer, P., Ahlgren, C., Johnson, F., Gruenewald, L., & Jorgensen, J. (1989). Should students with severe intellectual disabilities be based in regular or in special education classrooms in home schools. The Journal of The Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 14(1), 8‑13.

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 for the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 8(3), 71‑77.

Brown, L., Rogan, P., Shiraga, B., Zanella Albright, K., Kessler, K., Bryson, F., VanDeventer, P., & Loomis, R. (1987). A vocational follow‑up evaluation of the 1984‑1986 Madison Metropolitan School District graduates with severe intellectual disabilities. A Research Monograph of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 2(2).

Brown, L., Sweet, M., Shiraga, B., York, J., Zanella, K., & Rogan, P. (1984). Functional skills in programs for students with severe intellectual disabilities. In L. Brown, M. Sweet, B. Shiraga, J. York, K. Zanella, P. Rogan, & R. Loomis (Eds.), Educational programs for students with severe handicaps, Vol. IXV, (pp. 55-59). Madison Metropolitan School District.

Brown, L., Udvari Solner, A., Frattura Kampschroer, E., Schwarz, P., Courchane, G., VanDeventer, P.,  & Jorgensen, J. (1991). A strategy for evaluating the vocational milieu of a worker with severe intellectual disabilities ‑ Version IV. A Research Monograph of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps.

Burton, T., & Hirschoren, A. (1979a). The education of severely and profoundly retarded children: Are we sacrificing the child to the concept? Exceptional Children, 45(8), 598‑692.

Burton, T., & Hirschoren, A. (1979b). Some further thoughts and clarifications on the education of severely and profoundly retarded children. Exceptional Children, 45(8), 618‑625.

Forest, M. (1987). More education/integration: A further collection of readings on the integration of children with mental handicaps into regular school systems  (pp. 1-16). Downsview Ontario, Canada: The G. Allan Roeher Institute.

Fuller, P.R. (1949). Operant conditioning of a vegetative human organism. American Journal of Psychology, 62, 587-590.

Goldberg, I.I., & Cruickshank, W.M. (1958). The trainable but non‑educable: Whose responsibility? National Education Association Journal, 47, 622‑623.

Guess, D., Benson, H., & Siegel‑Causey, E. (1985). Concepts and issues related to choicemaking and autonomy among persons with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 10(2), 79-86.

Horner, R.H., McDonnell, J.J., & Bellamy, G.T. (1986). Teaching generalized skills: General case instruction in simulation and community settings. In R.H. Horner, L.H. Meyer, H.D.B. Fredericks (Eds.), Education of learners with severe handicaps (pp. 289‑314). Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing.

Houghton, J., Bronicki, J.G.B., & Guess, D. (1987). Opportunities to express preferences and make choices among students with severe disabilities in classroom settings. The Journal of The Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 12(1), 18‑27.

Jenkins, J.R., Pious, C.G. & Jewell. M. (1990). Special education and the Regular Education initiative: Basic assumptions.  Exceptional Children, 56(6), 479‑496.

Lipsky, D.K., & Gartner, A. (1989). Building the future. In D.K. Lipsky & A. Gartner (Eds.), Beyond separate education quality education for all (pp. 255‑290). Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing.

Minneapolis Research Institute. (1989). Bulletin No. 9408.

National Center for Health Statistics. (1989). Vital Statistics of the United States, Department of Health and Human Services, Vol. 1, Natality.

Piuma, M.F. (1989). A benefit cost analysis: The economic impact of integrated and segregated educational services delivery models on the employment of individuals with severe disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Berkeley University, California.

Sailor, W. (1988). The educational, social and vocational integration of students with the most severe disabilities. In D.K. Lipsky & A. Gartner (Eds.), Beyond separate education: Quality education for all. Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing Co.

Sailor, W., Halvorsen, A., Anderson, J., Goetz, L., Gee, K., Doering, K., & Hunt, P. (1986). Community intensive instruction. In R.H. Horner, L.H. Meyer, & H.D. Fredericks (Eds.), Education of learners with severe handicaps: Exemplary service strategies (p. 253). Baltimore: Paul H. Publishing Co.

Shevin, M., & Klein, N.K. (1984). The importance of choice making for students with severe disabilities. The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9(3), 159-166.

Simon, P. (1973). Kodachrome. Music Sales Corporation. New York: AMSCO Publications.

Siwolop, S., & Mohs, M. (1985, February). The war on down syndrome. Discover, pp. 67‑69.

Social Security Administration, Office of Policy. (1988). Monthly Benefits Statistics Summary Progress Data, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Volume 5.

Sontag, E., Burke, P., & York, R. (1973). Considerations for serving the severely handicapped in public schools. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 8(2), 20-26.

Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1987). One system, one purpose: The integration of special and Regular Education. In M. Forest, More education/integration: A further collection of readings on the integration of children with mental handicaps into regular school systems. Downsview Ontario, Canada: The G. Allan Roehr Institute.

Sternat, J., Messina, R., Nietupski, J., Lyon, S., & Brown, L. (1977). Occupational and physical therapy services for severely handicapped students: Toward a naturalized public school service delivery model. In E. Sontag, J. Smith, & N. Certo (Eds.), Educational programming for the severely and profoundly handicapped (pp. 263-278). Virginia: The Council for Exceptional Children. 

Stokes, T., & Baer, D. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349‑367.

Stokes, T., & Osnes, P. (1988). The Developing Applied Technology of Generalization and Maintenance. In R.H. Horner, G. Dunlap & R.L. Koegel (Eds.), Generalization and maintenance: Lifestyle changes in applied settings (pp. 8-19). Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing.

Strully, J., & Strully, C. (1989). Friendship as an educational goal. In S. Stainback, W. Stainback & M. Forest (Eds.), Educating students in the mainstream of Regular Education (pp. 59‑68). Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing.

Thousand, J., Fox, T., Reid, R., Godck, J., Williams, W., & Fox, W. (1986). The homecoming model: Educating students who present intensive educational challenges within Regular Education environments. The Homecoming Project, Center for Developmental Disabilities, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.

United States Census Bureau. (1989). Current Population Survey, Department of Commerce.

United States Department of Justice. (1989). Crimes in the United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Division.