Learning Disabilities Practice

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(1), 48–57


C 2011 The Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children

Educational Programs for Elementary Students with Learning Disabilities:

Can They Be Both Effective and Inclusive?
James McLeskey and Nancy L. Waldron
University of Florida

One of the most controversial issues in special education over the last 40 years has been the
extent to which students with learning disabilities (LD) should be educated in general education
classrooms. Recent mandates in federal law requiring that all students with disabilities have
access to the general education curriculum and make adequate yearly progress relative to this
content have intensified this debate. In this article, a brief summary of research regarding the
nature of instruction that produces significantly improved educational outcomes for students
with LD is provided. This is followed by a review of research related to the delivery of this
high-quality instruction in inclusive, general education classrooms and in resource settings.
We conclude that this research provides the foundation for reconsidering full inclusion and
how services are delivered for elementary students with LD.

The LRE mandate in the Individuals with Disabilities Educa- which these placements produce desirable student outcomes
tion Act (2004) provides a clear preference for educating stu- (McLeskey, 2007; Waldron & McLeskey, 2009).
dents with disabilities in general education classrooms. More These issues have been the subject of especially passion-
specifically, this mandate states that students with disabilities ate debate related to the education of students with learning
should only be educated in separate, special education set- disabilities (LD). From one perspective, advocates have sug-
tings if their disability is so severe that it cannot be addressed gested that the relatively mild problems exhibited by students
in the general education classroom with supplementary aids with LD could be addressed in the general education class-
and services. Since the LRE mandate was originally included room through the collaborative efforts of general and special
in federal legislation in 1975, it has provided the legislative educators, eliminating the need for pulling students out of
support for the movement toward educating students in in- general education for resource class instruction (Reynolds,
clusive, general education settings. These settings have been Wang, & Walberg, 1987; Sailor & Roger, 2005; Skrtic, Har-
defined as general education classrooms in which students ris, & Shriner, 2005; Will, 1986). In response to these calls
with disabilities are valued and active participants and are for full inclusion, other professionals have raised questions
provided supports that give them an opportunity to succeed about the feasibility and effectiveness of these programs for
(McLeskey, Rosenberg, & Westling, 2010). addressing the academic needs of students with LD (Fuchs
In principle, the LRE mandate and inclusion are widely & Fuchs, 1994; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010; Zigmond,
supported by parents, researchers, school professionals, and 2003; Zigmond et al., 2009).
advocates for students with disabilities (Fuchs & Fuchs, In spite of the controversy that exists surrounding the
1998a; McLeskey, 2007; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Zig- effectiveness of inclusive programs, data from the U.S. De-
mond, 2003). However, the implementation of this mandate partment of Education (2010) reveal that, over the last two
in practice has been and remains a very contentious and divi- decades, the number of students with LD who are educated in
sive issue among special education professionals and stake- general education classrooms for most of the school day has
holders (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; Kauffman, 1993; McLeskey, increased substantially. For example, in 1989–1990, about 22
2007; Zigmond, 2003; Zigmond, Kloo, & Volonino, 2009). percent of these students were educated in a general education
The two central issues that have formed the crux of this setting for 80 percent or more of the school day (McLeskey,
controversy relate to how much of the school day students Hoppey, Williamson, & Rentz, 2004). By 2007–2008, this
are included in general education settings, and the extent to proportion had increased to 62 percent (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010). This dramatic increase in inclusive pro-
grams has led some to conclude that in most parts of the
United States, the preferred model of service delivery for
Requests for reprints should be sent to James McLeskey, University of
Florida, 1423D Norman Hall, P.O. Box 117050, Gainesville, FL 32611. students with LD is now “full inclusion with co-teaching”
Electronic inquiries should be sent to mcleskey@[Link]. (Zigmond et al., 2009, p. 196).
 LEARNING DISABILITIES PRACTICE 49

Given the controversy regarding full inclusion, much re- these questions should provide insight into the new contin-
search has been conducted regarding the effectiveness of uum of services that seems to be emerging for elementary
these programs compared to resource or pullout programs students with LD (Fuchs et al., 2010), as educators attempt
for students with LD. Reviews of this research (Carlberg to create programs for these students that are both effective
& Kavale, 1980; Epps & Tindal, 1988; Freeman & Alkin, and inclusive.
2000; Leinhardt & Pallay, 1982; Lindsay, 2007; Madden &
Slavin, 1983; Manset & Semmel, 1997; Salend & Duhaney,
1999, 2007; Sindelar & Deno, 1978) have been very con- WHAT IS “HIGH-QUALITY INSTRUCTION” THAT
sistent, indicating that some students obtain better achieve- PRODUCES SIGNIFICANT EDUCATIONAL
ment outcomes in inclusive general education settings, while PROGRESS FOR MANY ELEMENTARY
others do better with part-time resource support. For ex- STUDENTS WITH LD?
ample, Manset and Semmel (1997) reviewed the effective-
ness of several model full inclusion programs and concluded Over the last decade, research has revealed that many elemen-
that, while some of these programs produced improved aca- tary students with mild academic disabilities (mostly students
demic outcomes for students with mild academic disabilities with LD) can make significant academic gains when provided
when compared to students in resource programs, other in- high-quality instruction in part-time, separate settings (Foor-
clusive programs produced unimpressive results. Similarly, man & Torgesen, 2001; Gersten et al, 2009a, b; Holloway,
Epps and Tindal (1988) reviewed the effectiveness of re- 2001; Marston, 1996, 2001; Torgesen, 2002; Torgesen et al.,
source programs and reported that the effectiveness of these 2001; Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele, 2006). Further-
programs has not been demonstrated, although some inves- more, these gains are often significantly greater than gains
tigations revealed that resource programs were superior to that are experienced by most students with similar difficulties
full-time placement in general education classrooms. Others who are educated in high-quality, full-time inclusive settings
have reached similar conclusions (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980; (Marston, 2001; McLeskey & Waldron, 2010; Torgesen et al.,
Freeman & Alkin, 2000; Leinhardt & Pallay, 1982; Lindsay, 2001; Torgesen, 2009; Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele,
2007; Madden & Slavin, 1983; Salend & Duhaney, 1999). 2006; Waldron & McLeskey, 1998). Perhaps most impor-
A second conclusion of most of these reviews is that the tantly, this research reveals that, for as many as 40–50 per-
student outcomes in inclusive and resource classes are vari- cent of these students, significant academic gains result in
able because of the unevenness in the quality of instruction catching up with grade-level peers (Torgesen et al., 2001;
that is provided in these settings. More specifically, Epps Torgesen, 2009; Vellutino et al., 2006).
and Tindal (1988) note “It is not the setting itself, then, but To achieve these results, research indicates that this high-
instructional variables within these settings that largely in- quality instruction (i.e., instruction that has strong research
fluence student achievement” (p. 228). Similarly, Leinhardt support for significantly improving academic outcomes for
and Pallay (1982) state that the “setting itself is not the pri- students with LD) should be more intensive than instruc-
mary issue of importance, rather it is what happens in the tion that is typically offered in general education classrooms
setting” (p. 574). They go on to note that a setting does not (Gersten et al., 2009a, 2009b; Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009).
eliminate or guarantee the presence of effective instructional This more intensive instruction explicitly focuses on a small
practices, as most important variables can occur in most group of targeted, high-priority skills and concepts, which
settings. are taught directly with sufficient time for instruction and us-
These findings suggest that both inclusive and resource ing practices such as modeling and guided practice to ensure
programs can be used to improve academic outcomes for student mastery (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Gersten et al.,
elementary students with LD, if high-quality instruction, de- 2009b). The level of intensity of this high-quality instruction
signed to meet individual student needs is delivered in these is increased by providing instruction to smaller groups of
settings. Key questions that are raised by these reviews relate students and by providing more instructional time that is in
to the nature of “high-quality” instruction, and where it can addition to high-quality general education instruction (Ger-
be effectively delivered. We contend that research that has sten et al., 2009b). Group sizes of 1–3 have generally been
been conducted over the last decade provides evidence that shown to be most effective (Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, &
this instruction is best delivered in part-time, separate spe- Moody, 2000; Iverson, Tunmer, & Chapman, 2005; Vaughn
cial education settings, and that full inclusion is not a feasible et al., 2003), while additional instructional time typically re-
alternative for meeting the basic academic needs in reading quires 40–60 minutes per day, 4–5 days per week (Fletcher
and math for most students with LD. & Vaughn, 2009; Torgesen, 2002).
In the following sections of this article, we provide a A teacher with a high level of specialized skills should
summary of research to support this contention. Initially, we deliver this instruction (Brownell et al., 2009; Fletcher &
address research related to the characteristics of high-quality Vaughn, 2009; Gersten et al., 2009a). For example, research
instruction that is needed if elementary students with LD by Brownell and colleagues (2009) revealed that student read-
are to make adequate academic progress. This is followed ing gains were influenced by teacher knowledge and skill
by a summary of research related to whether this instruction related to behavior management, decoding practice, and pro-
can be delivered in inclusive, general education classrooms. viding instruction that is engaging and explicit. Moreover,
Finally, we review research regarding the extent to which these skills are not typically included in general education
high-quality instruction has been delivered in part-time, spe- teacher education programs, but are more frequently part of
cial education resource settings. Research related to each of the specialized knowledge and skills that are included in
50 MCLESKEY AND WALDRON: EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR ELEMENTARY STUDENTS

special education teacher education programs (Brownell specialized needs of students with disabilities is rarely pro-
et al., 2009; Brownell, Ross, Colon, & McCallum, 2005). vided in general education classrooms (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998;
Research has documented that high-quality or effective McLeskey & Waldron, 2000, 2002a; Waldron & McLeskey,
instruction should have several qualities related to student 1998; Zigmond & Baker, 1996) and that many general edu-
grouping, instructional design, delivery of instruction, in- cation classroom teachers take the perspective that they do
dependent practice, and progress monitoring (Fletcher & not have the time nor the skills to deliver this specialized in-
Vaughn, 2009; Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Gersten et al., struction (McLeskey & Waldron, 2002a; Zigmond & Baker,
2009a, b; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986; Swanson, 2001, 1996).
2008; Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998; Torgesen, 2000, 2002). The adaptations that teachers make in inclusive class-
These qualities are included in Table 1 and suggest that this rooms for students with LD, as well as the extent to which
instruction is intensive, explicit, should be delivered to small these teachers use intensive, explicit instruction have been
groups, and should be closely monitored. While some have studied by several researchers (Baker & Zigmond, 1990,
contended that this type of instruction can be delivered in in- 1995; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Phillips, & Karns, 1995; Fuchs
clusive, general education classrooms (Sailor & Roger, 2005; & Fuchs, 1998; McIntosh, Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, & Lee,
Skrtic et al., 2005; Will, 1986), others have taken the position 1993; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002a; Wang, 1989; Zigmond
that separate class settings are required for delivering this in- & Baker, 1994, 1995, 1996). For example, Zigmond and
struction (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Torgesen, 2002; Zigmond Baker (1995) addressed this issue by conducting case studies
et al., 2009). Research related to the settings in which this in five inclusive elementary schools in different parts of the
instruction may be most effectively delivered is summarized country. They found that teachers in these schools tended
in the following sections. to make routine adaptations in their general education class-
rooms to make the curriculum more manageable for students
with LD. These adaptations included reduced workload, al-
CAN THIS HIGH-QUALITY INSTRUCTION BE tered assignments, adjustment of homework requirements,
DELIVERED IN AN INCLUSIVE CLASSROOM? and accommodations on tests. These adaptations were in-
variably used with the entire class, and not for just students
A question that advocates for inclusion might ask is whether with LD.
this high-quality, intensive instruction can or should be de- This research further revealed that teachers found it very
livered in a general education classroom. Research suggests difficult to provide focused, intensive instruction for students
that this type of instruction is more intensive and explicit with LD in the general education classroom (Zigmond &
than instruction that has typically been provided in general Baker, 1995). These researchers concluded that the inclu-
education classrooms (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Torge- sive classrooms where they observed were more amenable to
sen, 2002; Zigmond, 2003; Zigmond et al., 2009). More change with regard to the how of instruction (materials, in-
specifically, research conducted on inclusive classrooms has structions, structure), but the what of instruction (curriculum,
revealed that intensive, explicit instruction that meets the pacing) was less amenable to change. Thus, students were not

TABLE 1
Components of High-Quality, Intensive Instruction for Elementary Students with Learning Disabilities

a. Grouping
• Instruction should be provided to small groups of students (e.g., from one to three students for optimal results)
• Students should have similar instructional needs
b. Instructional Design
• Instruction should focus on a small group of clearly defined skills and/or concepts
• Instruction should be provided using an instructional sequence and materials that meet individual student needs
• Instruction should be well structured and provide explicit information with concrete examples, models, and demonstrations
c. Delivery of Instruction
• Allow an appropriate pace and sufficient time for student mastery of targeted skills, with redundant instruction as necessary
• Provide cognitive support through the use of carefully sequenced lessons, control of task difficulty, and providing models and scaffolding that ensure a
high level of student success
• Provide emotional support through encouragement, feedback, and high levels of student success
• Provide students with opportunities to practice and respond (i.e., guided practice)
d. Independent Practice
• Provide practice directly related to the skills being taught
• Students should achieve a high success rate during independent practice
• Independent practice should be actively supervised
• Independent practice should continue until responses are automatic
e. Progress Monitoring
• Monitor student progress weekly or biweekly to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention, and ensure students are making sufficient progress
• Provide students with feedback regarding their individual progress
Sources: Fletcher and Vaughn (2009), Foorman and Torgesen (2001), Gersten et al. (2009a, b), Rosenshine and Stevens (1986), Swanson (2008), Swanson
(2001), Swanson and Hoskyn (1998), Torgesen (2000, 2002).
 LEARNING DISABILITIES PRACTICE 51

provided with the intensive, high-quality instruction that they ods that fit into the routine of the general education class-
needed that could result in significant improvements in their room (Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Shiller, 1997) are much
academic skills. Rather, they were provided with a very good more likely to be used by teachers in inclusive classrooms”
general education (Zigmond & Baker, 1995, 1996). (p. 52).
The research of Fuchs and Fuchs resulted in similar find-
ings (D. Fuchs & L. Fuchs, 1998; L. Fuchs & D. Fuchs,
1998b; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bishop, 1992; Fuchs et al., 1995), CAN SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE
as they found few examples of specialized adaptations for CLASSES, AS CURRENTLY CONFIGURED, BE
students with LD in general education classrooms (Fuchs et USED TO DELIVER HIGH-QUALITY,
al., 1992). Similar to the research of Zigmond and Baker SPECIALIZED INSTRUCTION TO STUDENTS
(1995), Fuchs, Fuchs, and colleagues found that teachers WITH LD?
tended to make more minor or routine adaptations, such as
reduced expectations or extended timelines, but few special- Special education resource classes in elementary schools are
ized adaptations to address difficulties these students had in intended to be settings where students with disabilities are
their classes. Moreover, even after providing support to re- provided high-quality instruction focused on their particu-
structure the general education setting, Fuchs, Fuchs, and lar needs, which helps them catch up with peers in basic
colleagues (1995) found that teachers made more routine skill areas (Bentum & Aaron, 2003; Dunn, 1968; Marston,
adaptations, but continued to make few specialized adapta- 1996, 2001; Wiederholt & Chamberlain, 1989; Zigmond &
tions to meet individual student needs. Baker, 1996). As we have previously noted, research supports
McLeskey and Waldron (2002a) investigated the types the perspective that we know how to design instruction that
of adaptations general education teachers made in well- results in significantly improved academic achievement for
designed inclusive settings, and their findings were strikingly many elementary students with LD (Foorman & Torgesen,
similar to previous research. These researchers found that 2001; Gersten et al., 2009a,b), and that this effective instruc-
teachers in these inclusive classrooms made many routine tion can be delivered in resources classes with the support
adaptations such as changing expectations, altering grading of outside experts (Marston, 1996, 2001; Torgesen, 2002,
criteria, and using flexible within-class grouping. However, 2009). In spite of this knowledge, much evidence indicates
the teachers did not “report making specialized instructional that these practices are rarely used in resource settings. Two
adaptations, similar to those used in separate, special edu- groups of investigators have examined resource settings to
cation classrooms. Indeed, teachers in these schools actively determine why the lack of success of these settings seems to
rejected the idea that special education should be replicated be so widespread.
in the general education classroom, as they felt that these Allington and McGill-Franzen (Allington & McGill-
methods did not fit into the ebb and flow of the general edu- Franzen, 1989a, 1989b; McGill-Franzen & Allington, 1990,
cation classroom” (p. 51). 1991) examined the quality of instruction provided in spe-
Finally, evidence seems to reveal that, in most instances, cial education resource programs in response to students who
even if a special education teacher is available as a co-teacher failed to make adequate progress in reading. Their general
in the general education classroom, high-quality, intensive conclusion was that no value was added by instruction in
instruction is most often not delivered in the general edu- resource settings, which tended to supplant rather than sup-
cation classroom (Murawski, 2006; Murawski & Swanson, port reading instruction in the general education classroom.
2001; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007; Volonino The major problems with instruction in resource settings in-
& Zigmond, 2007). While a special educator working as a cluded:
co-teacher could theoretically provide this instruction, re-
search evidence shows that in most cases, this does not occur (1) Lower-quality instruction. Much of the instruction
(Volonino & Zigmond, 2007). Observations in these class- provided in resource classes was found to be un-
rooms have shown that responsibility for teaching the content differentiated, and thus was not tailored to individ-
typically remains with the general education teacher, while ual student needs. Compared to general education in-
the special educator “provides scaffolding and support to help struction, resource class instruction was found to be
learners access the content” (Volonino & Zigmond, 2007, p. less intensive and included less active instruction and
298). more seat work.
What these investigations share is the finding that general (2) Little coordination with general education. Instruc-
education teachers make few specialized adaptations in their tion in resource classes was rarely connected to
classrooms to meet the specific needs of students with LD. the general education curriculum. Different materials
What these inclusive classrooms provided was a very good were used across the two settings, which were often
general education (McLeskey & Waldron, 2002a; Zigmond based on different theories of reading instruction. This
& Baker, 1995, 1996), but not the highly specialized instruc- often resulted in fragmented learning experiences that
tion that was previously described and that is often needed tended to trivialize learning and waste the time and
by elementary students with LD. McLeskey and Waldron lower the motivation level of students.
conclude by commenting that this line of research “raise(s) (3) Less instructional time. Instruction in resource classes
serious doubts about the feasibility of using highly special- tended to supplant rather than supplement instruction
ized, ‘special education’ methods in the general education in the general education setting. Thus, these students
classroom. Moreover, these investigations suggest that meth- missed reading instruction in general education when
52 MCLESKEY AND WALDRON: EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR ELEMENTARY STUDENTS

they were in resource classes. Furthermore, students observational studies of reading instruction for students with
in resource settings tended to spend less time actively LD and emotional behavioral disabilities. They found that
engaged in reading, were provided less direct instruc- there were few differences between reading instruction in
tion, and spent more time doing independent work. general and special education settings, and the overall qual-
(4) Unclear accountability. When responsibility for ity of this instruction was low. In resource settings, reading
teaching students to read is dispersed across two or instruction was seldom differentiated based on student needs,
more professionals, professional accountability for and individualized instruction was rarely provided. Further-
ensuring that these students learn to read tends to more, this research revealed that reading instructional time
be reduced, as responsibility for student outcomes is was not increased when resource settings were used, and that
diluted. much time in these settings was spent doing independent seat-
work and completing worksheets. Similarly, Swanson (2008)
Allington and McGill-Franzen (1989b) found that a major found that resource teachers are often engaged in nonread-
contributing factor to the low-quality instruction in resource ing activities (e.g., classroom management, transitions) and
settings was the heavy caseloads of teachers. Others have spend most of their class time on undifferentiated seatwork
confirmed this finding, as caseloads seem to have only in- rather than direct instruction of reading.
creased over the last two decades (Bentum & Aaron, 2003; In sum, similar conclusions were reached across this
Moody, Vaughn, Hughes, & Fischer, 2000; Russ, Chaing, research (Allington & McGill Franzen, 1989a,b; McGill-
Rylance, & Bongers, 2001; Vaughn, Moody, & Schumm, Franzen & Allington, 1990, 1991; Moody et al., 2000;
1998; Vaughn, Hughes, Moody, & Elbaum, 2001; Vaughn, Swanson, 2008; Vaughn et al., 2001; Vaughn et al., 2002;
Levy, Coleman, & Bos, 2002; Zigmond & Baker, 1996). Vaughn et al., 2003; Vaughn et al., 1998). In general, re-
Thus, special education teachers in resource classes are of- source rooms do not provide students with disabilities an
ten expected to provide instruction to a large, heterogeneous increased quantity and higher quality of instruction that they
group of students across several grade levels, making it diffi- need to significantly improve academic achievement levels.
cult if not impossible to provide the high-quality instruction A key issue preventing teachers from providing this instruc-
these students need to learn to read or to learn other basic tion is large caseloads, which often require instruction of
skills. small classes (13 to 15 students) in resource settings, mak-
More recent research by Vaughn and colleagues that ad- ing it difficult to provide differentiated or individualized
dressed reading instructional practices for elementary stu- instruction.
dents with LD resulted in strikingly similar findings (Moody These findings led Vaughn and colleagues (2002) to
et al., 2000; Vaughn et al., 1998; Vaughn et al., 2002). For state that “[w]asting time on instruction that is not fo-
example, these researchers found that the quality of instruc- cused on intensive and explicit instruction must come to
tion in resource settings was low, as students were primarily an end, particularly in special education settings” (p. 11).
provided whole-group instruction, with little differentiated We concur with this perspective. Most resource settings,
instruction or materials that were tailored to individual stu- as currently configured, are largely a waste of time and re-
dent needs. Much time was spent on independent seatwork sources and have failed to deliver the high-quality instruction
and worksheets, and not on direct instruction or reading text. that is desperately needed by students with mild disabili-
Furthermore, reading instruction in these settings was often ties to learn the basic skills they need to be successful in
disjointed and inconsistent, and not aligned with reading in- school.
struction in general education. Finally, students in resource
settings were found to generally receive less reading instruc- DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
tion, as teachers infrequently spent time directly teaching
reading, and much time was wasted when students were out This review suggests that research conducted over the last
of class, waiting, or off task. decade addressing the value added by delivering high-quality,
Vaughn and colleagues attribute much of the problem in intensive instruction to students with LD provides the foun-
resource classes to untenable class sizes. For example, they dation for reconsidering full inclusion and how services are
found that resource classes averaged 13–15 students across delivered for elementary students with LD. More specifically,
investigations, and the range of reading levels of these stu- four key findings emerged from the research that has been
dents varied from 3 to 4 years (Moody et al., 2000; Vaughn summarized in this article.
et al., 1998). They noted that teachers were overwhelmed
by their caseloads, which made it impossible to provide the • The characteristics of intensive, high-quality instruc-
specialized instruction that students need to make adequate tional methods have been identified (see Table 1) that
progress academically (Moody et al., 2000; Vaughn et al., can be used to significantly increase the academic
2001). Additional factors that contributed to the lack of time achievement levels in reading and math for many el-
available for resource room teachers to provide high-quality ementary students with LD (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009;
instruction included high levels of paperwork and responsi- Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Gersten et al., 2009a,b).
bilities for working with general education teachers in inclu- • High-quality inclusive classes provide a very good gen-
sive classrooms (Vaughn et al., 2001). eral education, which meets many of the needs of el-
Reviews of research on the quality of instruction in ementary students with LD (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998;
resource settings support these findings (Swanson, 2008; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002a; Zigmond, 2003; Zig-
Vaughn et al., 2002). For example, Vaughn et al. reviewed mond & Baker, 1996).
 LEARNING DISABILITIES PRACTICE 53

• For most elementary students with LD, instruction in a If significant changes are to occur in general and special
high-quality, inclusive class is not sufficient to ensure education to provide high-quality instruction for students
the acquisition of important reading and/or math skills, with LD, several assumptions about the education of these
and it is unlikely that the high-quality, intensive instruc- students must change (see Table 2). The assumptions in Table
tion that is needed to accelerate instructional growth 2 suggest that all students with LD have a right to be included
for these students can be delivered in most inclusive in their local schools and in general education classrooms, as
classrooms (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Torgesen et well as a right to reasonable and appropriate outcomes. These
al., 2001; Waldron & McLeskey, 1998, 2009; Zigmond assumptions also explicitly move away from an emphasis on
et al., 2009). full inclusion, and assume that most students with LD will
• Special education resource classes, as currently config- need intensive, high-quality instruction, which may often be
ured, often are not equipped to provide the high-quality, provided in a separate setting, to make sufficient academic
intensive instruction that is needed to accelerate aca- progress. Finally, the use of progress monitoring systems to
demic growth for elementary students with LD (Ben- determine program effectiveness suggests that educating stu-
tum & Aaron, 2003; Vaughn et al., 2002; Zigmond & dents with LD in separate settings should only be done when
Baker, 1996). this instruction improves student outcomes relative to gen-
eral education placements and adds value to the educational
This research reveals that full inclusion is insufficient to programs for students with LD. More specifically, removing
meet the needs of most elementary students with LD. Un- an elementary student from a general education classroom
fortunately, the research reviewed herein also reveals that and placing him in a resource class with 10 other students
while we know what to do to address the academic needs who have a broad range of academic difficulties is very un-
of many elementary students with LD, special education re- likely to improve educational outcomes. However, providing
source classes often fail to deliver the high-quality, intensive intensive, high-quality instruction to a small group of stu-
instruction that these students need. Given these findings, dents with similar academic needs is very likely to improve
significant changes are needed in special education service educational outcomes.
delivery to ensure that elementary students with LD receive Applying the assumptions in Table 2 in schools will re-
the high-quality, intensive instruction that they need to sig- quire significant changes in how teachers and administra-
nificantly improve their educational outcomes. tors think about schools and how schools operate (Fullan,
The changes that are needed to meet the needs of stu- 2007; Hancock, 2010; McLeskey & Waldron, 2000, 2006).
dents with LD entail both improving instruction in general Unfortunately, much of what we have learned about school
education classrooms (i.e., ensuring that effective, inclusive improvement has revealed that the changes needed to de-
classrooms are developed that accommodate a diverse range velop effective, inclusive programs will not “travel of their
of student needs) and developing service delivery options own volition” and be adopted by general and special edu-
that support special education teachers in delivering high- cators, even if they are evidence-based, result in improved
quality, intensive instruction in part-time special education educational outcomes, and are viewed as good ideas (Fullan,
classes (Fuchs, Fuchs, Craddock, Hollenbeck, & Hamlett, 2007). Furthermore, they cannot simply be added onto cur-
2008; Waldron & McLeskey, 2009, 2010). Special education rent school programs, as this will result in superficial change
instruction must improve for obvious reasons—this instruc- which is not sustained and programs that fail to produce de-
tion should add value to the education of students with LD, sired outcomes (Fullan, 2007; McLeskey & Waldron, 2006;
and currently this often does not occur. It is also especially im- Waldron & McLeskey, 2010), similar to add-on special ed-
portant that improved education is provided to these students ucation resource programs. In Table 3, we describe several
in general education classrooms, given that most students critical considerations regarding the development of effec-
with LD spend most of the school day in these settings. More tive, inclusive programs for elementary students with LD.
specifically, approximately 62 percent of students with LD As we indicate in Table 3, the previously described as-
spend most of the school day (80 percent or more) in general sumptions and research on school change suggests that the
education classrooms, while 90 percent of students with LD development of effective, inclusive schools requires that the
spend a large portion of the school day (40 percent or more) entire school community engage in comprehensive, long-
in these settings (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). term school change activities (Fullan, 2007; McLeskey &

TABLE 2
Basic Assumptions—Providing Effective, Inclusive Programs for Elementary Students with Learning Disabilities

1. Inclusion and program effectiveness should be equally valued, as we strive to create schools that are both equitable and excellent.
2. Inclusion should not be defined as a “place” where instruction occurs. Rather, inclusion should be defined as including students with disabilities as valued
members of the school community (McLeskey et al., 2010).
3. Our expectations regarding inclusive, general education classrooms should be that a high-quality general education will be provided, but we should not
expect that high-quality, intensive special instruction will be delivered in most of these settings.
4. Most elementary students with learning disabilities require intensive, high-quality instruction in a part-time special education setting that is delivered by a
teacher with specialized skills to make adequate academic progress in basic skill areas.
5. Progress monitoring systems should be used to determine the effectiveness of programs and placements.
54 MCLESKEY AND WALDRON: EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR ELEMENTARY STUDENTS

TABLE 3
Considerations for Developing Effective, Inclusive Schools for Elementary Students with Learning Disabilities (LD)

1. Comprehensive school change is required to develop effective, inclusive schools. Add on programs are not sufficient and will not be sustained.
2. Students with learning disabilities must be supported by a collaborative model in which general and special educators share a collective responsibility for
the success of each student.
3. Teachers should work together as part of a learning community to support each other in developing the necessary skills to teach all students; to provide
effective instruction to all students; and to monitor the effectiveness of instruction and the progress of students (Waldron & McLeskey, 2010).
4. A continuum of supports should be provided to all the students to ensure that they make adequate academic progress. High-quality, multi-tiered instruction
may be an important component of this continuum of supports.
5. Special education teachers who teach elementary students with learning disabilities should limit their role to:
a. Providing focused, high-quality instruction to students with LD in basic skill areas (i.e., reading, writing, and mathematics).
b. Supporting classroom teachers to ensure that high-quality general instruction is provided.
6. Progress monitoring systems should be used to determine the effectiveness of programs and placements, as well as to monitor individual student progress.

Waldron, 2000, 2006; Waldron & McLeskey, 2010). To cre- It is important to note that these recommendations are
ate these schools, general and special educators must work not new. Over 40 years ago, Dunn (1968) recommended that
collaboratively on school-wide change efforts that address elementary special education teachers of students with mild
improving academic outcomes for all students across both disabilities focus on teaching the “3R’s, especially written
general and special education settings (Farrell, Dyson, Polat, language” (p. 18), and general education teachers provide
Hutcheson, & Gallannaugh, 2007; Hancock, 2010; Waldron “instruction in science and social studies, while specialists
& McLeskey, 2010). These collaborative activities should would instruct in such areas as music and art” (p. 18). Further-
result in changes in the culture and structure of the school more, several influential articles in special education (Deno,
(Fullan, 2007; McLeskey & Waldron, 2006), and the devel- 1970; Reynolds et al., 1987; Will, 1986) have recommended
opment of professional learning communities that provide a that special educators serve as a form of “developmental capi-
setting where general and special teachers are collaboratively tal” (Deno, 1970) to improve instruction in general education
accountable and actively engaged in improving outcomes for classrooms.
all students (Waldron & McLeskey, 2010). Obviously, this recommendation is also similar to those
Previous school improvement research has revealed that that have been made in recent years as special educators
the changes that are needed to achieve these outcomes must work with classroom teachers to improve instruction in gen-
be deep and multidimensional, resulting in the use of new eral education settings as part of a multitiered approach to
or revised materials, different teaching approaches, differ- instruction (Fuchs et al., 2008; Gersten et al., 2009a). Emerg-
ent roles and responsibilities for teachers, changed organi- ing evidence reveals that this collaborative work with general
zational structures for delivering instruction, and the alter- education has the potential to significantly reduce the num-
ation of teacher beliefs and understandings about their work ber of students who are identified with LD (e.g., Torgesen,
(Fullan, 2007; McLeskey & Waldron, 2000, 2002b, 2006). 2007, 2009) and also can significantly improve the educa-
If schools are to be effective and inclusive, these activities tional achievement level of students with LD (e.g., Fuchs et
must result in significant changes in core instruction that is al., 2008).
delivered in general education classrooms, as well as sig- These changes suggest the need for a new type of contin-
nificant changes in how special education instruction is de- uum that guides the work of elementary teachers of students
livered and what type of instruction is delivered in these with LD. Rather than conceptualizing the service delivery
settings. continuum as a series of places or classrooms, some have
One of the basic changes that is needed to support stu- begun to think of this delivery system as a continuum of
dents with LD in schools that are both effective and inclu- supports or tiers of instruction (Fuchs et al., 2010; Han-
sive relates to the role of special education teachers. As we cock, 2010). A continuum that addresses this emerging per-
noted previously, most of these teachers instruct large groups spective on service delivery has been proposed and is being
of students in resources classes, have heavy caseloads, and implemented in Alberta, Canada (Alberta Education, 2010;
have very limited time to collaborate with general educators. Bhardwaj et al., 2009; Hancock, 2010) and is illustrated in
This results in special education service delivery that is often Figure 1.
ineffective and an inefficient use of the time of these highly In this new service delivery continuum, three increasingly
trained professionals. To ensure more efficient use of the spe- specialized types of supports are provided for students with
cial education teachers’ time and more effective practice, the LD (adapted from Alberta Education, 2010). Universal Sup-
role of these teachers should be limited to providing focused, ports are provided in the general education classroom with
high-quality instruction for limited periods of time (e.g., 30 the entire class and benefit all students. This may include sup-
minutes to 1 hour) to small groups of students with LD (e.g., ports such as differentiated instruction or providing a wide
1–3 students) in basic skill areas (i.e., reading, writing, math- range of reading materials in the classroom. Targeted Sup-
ematics), and supporting classroom teachers to ensure that ports are used to benefit students who struggle with learning
high-quality instruction is provided in general education set- basic academic skills and may include supports such as ex-
tings. plicit instruction in small groups, peer tutoring, or extended
 LEARNING DISABILITIES PRACTICE 55

dressed in full inclusion classrooms have been largely disap-

pointed. Well-designed inclusive classrooms provide a very
good general education and meet many of the needs of stu-
dents with LD, but have not proven sufficiently malleable to
offer the high-quality, intensive instruction needed by most
elementary students with LD to achieve desired educational
outcomes (McLeskey & Waldron, 2010). Furthermore, re-
source classes, as they are currently implemented in most
settings (i.e., with a large, heterogeneous group of students),
have largely been ineffective in facilitating the delivery of
high-quality, intensive instruction that improves educational
outcomes for elementary students with LD.
In spite of these shortcomings in the past, special educa-
tion seems to be nearing a tipping point regarding the de-
livery of effective services that significantly improve student
outcomes, particularly for elementary students with LD. Re-
search has identified instructional methods that may be used
to significantly improve educational outcomes for these stu-
dents, especially in the areas of reading (Gersten, 2009b;
Torgesen, 2009) and mathematics (Fuchs et al., 2008; Ger-
sten et al., 2009a). In addition, approaches are emerging that
FIGURE 1 A continuum of supports for elementary students with learning combine the best features of inclusive programs and models
disabilities (adapted from Alberta Education, 2010). of multitiered instruction that show great promise for provid-
ing direction regarding how these effective practices may be
delivered (Fuchs et al., 2008; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007; Sugai &
opportunities for guided practice. Finally, Specialized Sup- Horner, 2009). These developments, coupled with a signifi-
ports are designed to meet the needs of a small group of cant body of research on school change (Fullan, 2006, 2007;
students who have specialized needs and who do not respond Waldron & McLeskey, 2010), are cause for great optimism
and significantly improve their academic skills when Uni- that significant improvements are on the horizon that will
versal or Targeted Supports are used. This may include Spe- result in long-sought advances in educational services and
cialized Supports such as explicit teaching of specific skills outcomes for students with LD.
in small groups or one-to-one, or the use of evidence-based
instructional materials/programs. REFERENCES
As Figure 1 indicates, most student needs would be ad-
dressed with Universal Supports (about 80–85 percent of
students), while fewer students would need Targeted Sup- Alberta Education. (2010). Inclusive education planning tool: Grades 1–
ports (about 10–15 percent), and a small group of students 9. Alberta, Canada: Government of Alberta. Retrieved September 10,
(about 1–5 percent) would need Specialized Supports. Uni- 2010, from [Link]
versal and Targeted Supports would typically be provided in Allington, R., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989a). Different programs, indiffer-
a general education classroom by a classroom teacher, while ent instruction. In A. Gartner & D. Lipsky (Eds.), Beyond separate
education: Quality education for all (pp. 75–98). Baltimore: Brookes.
Specialized Supports would most often be provided by a spe- Allington, R., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989b). School response to reading
cial education teacher in a separate setting. Furthermore, as failure: Chapter 1 and special education students in grades 2, 4, & 8.
was noted previously, a systematic progress monitoring sys- Elementary School Journal, 89, 529–542.
tem should be used to determine the effectiveness of supports Baker, J., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped
to accommodate students with learning disabilities? Exceptional Chil-
and ensure that these activities add value to the education of dren, 56, 515–526.
students with LD. Baker, J., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for
This continuum reflects a significant change in how ser- students with learning disabilities: Themes and implications from the
vice delivery is characterized. The current service delivery five cases. Journal of Special Education, 29, 163–180.
continuum is conceived of as a series of places and assumes Bhardwaj, Head, M., Clarke, M., Cuthbertson, J., Davis, D., Ger-
vais, S., et al. (2009). Setting the direction framework. Alberta,
that separate classrooms will be available for each location Canada: Government of Alberta. Retrieved September 12, 2010, from
on the continuum. In contrast, this new continuum describes [Link].
a series of increasingly specialized and intense supports that Bentum, K., & Aaron, P. (2003). Does reading instruction in learning dis-
are provided to students with disabilities. This new contin- ability resource rooms really work? A longitudinal study. Reading
Psychology, 24, 361–382.
uum better reflects current knowledge regarding effective Brownell, M., Bishop, A., Gersten, R., Klingner, J., Denfield, R., Dimino,
practices for meeting the needs of elementary students with J., et al. (2009). The role of domain expertise in beginning special
LD and also provides a framework for elementary special ed- education teacher quality. Exceptional Children, 75, 391–411.
ucation teachers as they work with general education teachers Brownell, M., Ross, D., Colon, E., & McCallum, C. (2005). Critical features
to improve classroom instruction and provide effective, in- of special education teacher preparation. Journal of Special Education,
38, 242–252.
tensive, small-group instruction to students with LD. Carlberg, C., & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular
In conclusion, those who were optimistic that the needs class placement for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. The Journal
of all elementary students with LD could be successfully ad- of Special Education, 14, 295–309.
56 MCLESKEY AND WALDRON: EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR ELEMENTARY STUDENTS

Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) Pub-
Children, 37, 229–237. lic Law 108-446. (2004). Retrieved November 25, 2009, from
Dunn, L. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it [Link]
justifiable? Exceptional Children, 35, 5–22. Iverson, S., Tunmer, W., & Chapman, J. (2005). The effects of varying group
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. (2000). How effective size on the reading recovery approach to preventive early intervention.
are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 456–472.
risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Kauffman, J. (1993). How we might achieve the radical reform of special
Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 605–619. education. Exceptional Children, 60, 6–16.
Epps, S., & Tindal, G. (1988). The effectiveness of differential program- Leinhardt, G., & Pallay, A. (1982). Restrictive educational settings: Exile
ming in serving students with mild handicaps: Placement options and or haven? Review of Educational Research, 52, 557–578.
instructional programming. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, & H. J. Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclu-
Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice, sive education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychol-
volume I (pp. 213–248). New York: Pergamon Press. ogy, 77, 1–24.
Farrell, P., Dyson, A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G., & Gallannaugh, F. (2007). Madden, N., & Slavin, R. (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild handi-
Inclusion and achievement in mainstream schools. European Journal caps: Academic and social outcomes. Review of Educational Research,
of Special Needs Education, 22(2), 131–145. 53, 519–569.
Fletcher, J., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and Manset, G., & Semmel, M. (1997). Are inclusive programs for students with
remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, mild disabilities effective? A comparative review of model programs.
3(1), 30–37. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 155–180.
Foorman, B., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and Marston, D. (1996). A comparison of inclusion only, pull-out only, and com-
small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learn- bined service models for students with mild disabilities. The Journal
ing Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 203–212. of Special Education, 30(2), 121–132.
Freeman, S., & Alkin, M. (2000). Academic and social attainments of chil- Marston, D. (2001). The effectiveness of special education: A time series
dren with mental retardation in general education and special education analysis of reading performance in regular and special education set-
settings. Remedial and Special Education, 21(1), 3–18. tings. The Journal of Special Education, 21(4), 13–26.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radical- McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, D. (1990). Comprehension and coherence:
ization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294–309. Neglected elements of literacy instruction in remedial and resource
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1998a). Inclusion versus full inclusion. Childhood room services. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities,
Education, 75, 309–316. 6, 149–180. (1989a, 1989b, 1991).
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1998b). Researchers and teachers working together McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. (1991). The gridlock of low reading
to adjust for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Reseach & Practice, achievement: Perspectives on policy and practice. Remedial and Special
13, 126–137. Education, 12(3), 20–30.
Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1998). General educators’ instructional adaptation McIntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., Haager, D., & Lee, O. (1993). Ob-
for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, servations of students with learning disabilities in general education
21, 23–33. classrooms. Exceptional Children, 60, 249–261.
Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness McLeskey, J. (Ed.). (2007). Reflections on inclusion: Classic articles that
to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14–20. shaped our thinking. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Instructional adaptation for McLeskey, J., Hoppey, D., Williamson, P., & Rentz, T. (2004). Is inclu-
students at risk for academic failure. Journal of Educational Research, sion an illusion? An examination of national and state trends toward
86, 70–84. the education of students with learning disabilities in general educa-
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Craddock, C., Hollenbeck, K., & Hamlett, C. (2008). tion classrooms. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 19, 109–
Effects of small-group tutoring with and without validated classroom 115.
instruction on at-risk student’s math problem solving: Are the two tiers McLeskey, J., Rosenberg, M., & Westling, D. (2010). Inclusion: Effective
of prevention better than one? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, practices for all students. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
491–509. McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. (2010). Are full inclusion programs for el-
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., Phillips, N., & Karns, K. (1995). General ementary students with learning disabilities justifiable? Unpublished
educators’ specialized adaptation for students with learning disabilities. manuscript. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.
Exceptional Children, 61, 440–459. McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. (2006). Comprehensive school reform and
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., & Stecker, P. (2010). The “blurring” of special educa- inclusive schools: Improving schools for all students. Theory into Prac-
tion in a new continuum of general education placements and services. tice, 45, 269–278.
Exceptional Children, 76, 301–323. McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. (2002a). Inclusion and school change: Teacher
Fullan, M. (2006). Leading professional learning. School Administrator, perceptions of curricular and instructional adaptations. Teacher Edu-
63(10), 10–14. cation and Special Education, 25, 41–54.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. (2002b). School change and inclusive
York: Teachers College Press. schools: Lessons learned from practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 65–
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., 72.
& Tilly, D. (2009a). Assisting students struggling with reading: Re- McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. (2000). Inclusive schools in action: Making
sponse to intervention and multi-tier intervention in primary grades. differences ordinary. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Washington, DC: Institute for Education Sciences, NCEE 2009– Moody, S., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Fischer, M. (2000). Reading instruc-
4045. tion in the resource room: Set up for failure. Exceptional Children, 66,
Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J., 305–316.
et al. (2009b). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Re- Murawski, W. (2006). Student outcomes in co-taught secondary English
sponse to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools. classes: How can we improve? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 227–
Washington, DC: Institute for Education Sciences, NCEE 2009– 247.
4060. Murawski, W., & Swanson, L. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching re-
Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997). What we know search: Where are the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258–
about using research findings: Implications for improving special edu- 267.
cation practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 466–476. Reynolds, M. C., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. C. (1987). The necessary
Hancock, D. (2010). Inspiring action on education. Alberta, Canada: restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children,
Government of Alberta. Retrieved September 12, 2010, from 53, 391–398.
[Link] Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock
Holloway, J. (2001). Inclusion and students with learning disabilities. Edu- (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376–391). New
cational Leadership, 57(6), 86–88. York: Macmillan.
 LEARNING DISABILITIES PRACTICE 57

Russ, S., Chaing, B., Rylance, B., & Bongers, J. (2001). Caseload in special U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Individuals with Disabilities Edu-
education: An integration of research findings. Exceptional Children, cation Improvement Act (IDEA) data. Retrieved September 12, 2010,
67, 161–172. from [Link]
Sailor, W., & Roger, B. (2005). Rethinking inclusion: Schoolwide applica- Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., Moody, S., & Elbaum, B. (2001). Instructional
tions. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 503–509. grouping for reading for students with LD: Implications for practice.
Salend, S., & Duhaney, L. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students Intervention in School and Clinic, 36(3), 131–137.
with and without disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Vaughn, S., Levy, S., Coleman, M., & Bos, C. (2002). Reading instruction
Education, 20, 114–126. for students with LD and EBD: A synthesis of observation studies. The
Salend, S., & Duhaney, L. (2007). Inclusion: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 2–13.
In J. McLeskey (Ed.). Reflections on inclusion: Classic articles that Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S. Kouzekanani, K., Bryant, D., Dickson, S.,
shaped our thinking (pp. 125–159). Arlington, VA: CEC. & Blozis, S. (2003). Reading instruction grouping for students with
Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstream- reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 301–315.
ing/inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, Vaughn, S., Moody, S., & Schumm, J. (1998). Broken promises: Reading
63, 59–74. instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64, 211–225.
Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M., & McDuffie, K. (2007). Co-teaching in inclu- Vellutino, F., Scanlon, D., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. (2006). Response to
sive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and
Children, 73, 392–417. without reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 157–
Sindelar, P., & Deno, S. (1978). The effectiveness of resource programming. 169.
The Journal of Special Education, 12(1), 17–28. Volonino, V., & Zigmond, N. (2007). Promoting research-based practices
Skrtic, T. M., Harris, K. R., & Shriner, J. G. (2005). The context of special ed- through inclusion? Theory into Practice, 46, 291–300.
ucation practice today. In T. Skrtic, K. R. Harris, & J. G. Shriner (Eds.), Waldron, N., & McLeskey, J. (1998). The impact of a full-time Inclusive
Special education policy and practice: Accountability, instruction and School Program (ISP) on the academic achievement of students with
social changes (pp. 1–28). Denver, CO: Love. mild and severe learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 395–
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school- 405.
wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system Waldron, N., & McLeskey, J. (2009). Developing schools that are both
approaches. Exceptionality, 17, 223–237. effective and inclusive. Alicante, Spain: Proceeding of the Annual In-
Swanson, E. (2008). Observing reading instruction for students with learn- ternational Association of Special Education Conference.
ing disabilities: A synthesis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 115– Waldron, N., & McLeskey, J. (2010). Establishing a collaborative culture
133. through comprehensive school reform. Journal of Educational and
Swanson, L. (2001). Searching for the best model for instructing students Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 58–74.
with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(2), 1– Wang, M. (1989). Accommodating student diversity through adaptive edu-
15. cation. In S. Stainback, W. Stainback, & M. Forest (Eds.), Educating
Swanson, L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). A synthesis of experimental interven- all students in the mainstream of education (pp. 183–197). Baltimore:
tion literature for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis Brookes.
of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68, 277– Wiederholt, J. L., & Chamberlain, S. (1989). A critical analysis of resource
322. programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10(6), 15–37.
Torgesen, J. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions Will, M. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared re-
in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Dis- sponsibility. Exceptional Children, 52, 411–415.
abilities Research & Practice, 15, 55–64. Zigmond, N. (2003). Where should students with disabilities receive special
Torgesen, J. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School education services? Is one place better than another? The Journal of
Psychology, 40, 7–26. Special Education, 37, 193–199.
Torgesen, J. (2007). Using an RTI model to guide early reading instruction: Zigmond, N., & Baker, J. (1994). Is the mainstream a more appropriate
Effects on identification rates for students with learning disabilities. educational setting for Randy? A case study of one student with learning
(Technical Report No. 7). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Center for Reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities Practice, 9, 108–117.
Research. Zigmond, N., & Baker, J. (1995). Concluding comments: Current and future
Torgesen, J. (2009). The response to intervention instructional model: Some practices in inclusive schooling. The Journal of Special Education, 29,
outcomes from a large-scale implementation in reading first schools. 245–250.
Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 38–40. Zigmond, N., & Baker, J. (1996). Full inclusion for students with learning
Torgesen, J., Alexander, A., Wagner, R., Rashotte, C., Voeller, K., & Con- disabilities: Too much of a good thing? Theory into Practice, 35(1),
way, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe 26–34.
reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two in- Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Volonino, V. (2009). What, where, how? Special
structional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58. education in the climate of full inclusion. Exceptionality, 17, 189–204.

About the Authors

James McLeskey is a professor in the School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies at the
University of Florida. His research interests include effective methods for achieving school refomlimprovement, the role of
the principal in developing effective, inclusive schools, and issues influencing teacher learning and the translation of research
based methods into practice.

Nancy L. Waldron is an associate professor and director of the School Psychology Program at the University of Florida. Her
research interests focus on improving instructional and support services to accommodate students’ diverse needs in general
education classrooms.