Mainstreaming During the Early

Childhood Years
CHRISTINE L. SALISBURY
State University oINew York-Binghamton

ABSTRACT: lssues SWTowldillg the implementation l!f the integration imperative during injanc»
and early childhood presentformidable challenges to education and conununitv providers. Key
llllJOllg these issues is holY professionals provide high-quality services 10 young children with
disabilities ill mainstream environments. This article explores current issues related 10 integration
and reexamines the concept l}f "best practices" as it applies 10 maills/reaming during the early
childhood years. The author recommends all integrated set ofuulicatorsfor high-quatity programs
and describes all outcomes-bused processfor making administrative and pedagogical decisions.

o When asked by a visitor what it was like hav- One reason for these problems may be that al-
ing a child with disabilities in her kindergarten though there are considerable data on the out-
class, young Andrea looked puzzled. The visitor comes of specific interventions in integrated
rephrased the question by asking whether the early childhood programs, remarkably little is
child with disabilities belonged in Andrea's known about how to apply this information to
class. Andrea answered, "Of course. He's five, mainstrearned settings (Guralnick, 1990). This
isn't he?" article focuses on integration during the early
Andrea's implicit understanding of equity, en- childhood years, with specific attention devoted
titlement, and accommodation have been fos- to the notion of how predictors of high-quality
tered in an inclusive school context where chil- programs themselves become integrated into ser-
dren without disabilities assume that all classes vice delivery systems.
contain friends with a range of abilities and
needs. Why are some programs able to achieve a INCLUSIVE PRACTICES, SUPPORTIVE
greater degree of integration than others? The an- SETTINGS
swerlies, in part, in their commitment to the value There is an essential, conceptual difference be-
of inclusion and their ability to incorporate desir- tween inclusion and integration that has impor-
able organizational and programmatic practices tant implications for pedagogical practice and
into complex education contexts. programmatic reform. Integration is the process
Many programs across the United States are by which physical, social, and academic oppor-
successfully mainstrearning young children with tunities are created for the child with a disability
mild to profound disabilities in typical day-care. to participate with others in typical school or
preschool, and early elementary settings community environments (Taylor. Biklen, Lehr,
(Guralnick, 1981; Hanline, 1990; Hoyson, & Searle. 1987). It is assumed that contextual
Jamieson, & Strain, 1984; McLean & Hanline, supports are provided to maximize the probabil-
1990; adorn & Strain, J 984; Templeman, Fred- ity of the child's success in the mainstream envi-
ericks, & Udell, 1989; Salisbury, 1989; Salisbury ronment.
& Syryca, 1990; Strain, 1985). Others, however, The social-cultural realities of integration are
face opposition, inaction, and frustration as they such that one group is viewed as the "main-
attempt to develop integrated school placement stream" and one group is not; where one group
options at the local level (Gartner & Lipsky, must "push in" to the activities and settings oc-
1987; Peck, Hayden, Wandschneider, Peterson, cupied by the other. When students with disabil-
& Richarz, 1989). ities are based in nonmainstream classrooms and

146 OctoberfNovember t991

are "allowed" to be incorporated into specific ac- signed for their age peers without disabilities.
tivities or lessons in mainstream environments, Whether attending a program full- or part-time,
we implicitly endorse a value that says it is per- young children with disabilities should he in-
missible to exclude them from age-appropriate cluded in, not integrated into, age-appropriate
placements. While integration is considered to be mainstream environments. When supplementary
philosophically and educationally superior to aides and supports have been tried and found to
segregation, such "push in" arrangements remain be insufficient, then and only then should alter-
inherently hierarchical and unequal. native service delivery options be considered. To
Inclusion, on the other hand, is a value that is maximize the likelihood of success, educators
manifested in the way we plan, promote, and con- should employ those practices determined to be
ceptualize the education and development of most directly linked to positive child and family
young children. The underlying supposition in outcomes in mainstream school and nonschool
inclusive programs is that all children will be environments.
based in the classrooms they would attend if they
did not have a disability. Teachers, students, par-
RE- THINKING THE NOTION OF "BEST
ents, and administrators (in fact all stakeholders)
PRACTICES"
define the school and classroom culture as in-
cluding children with diverse backgrounds, abil- Professionals in the field of special education
ities, and contributions. often suggest that the way to optimize the likeli-
In inclusive programs, the diverse needs of all hood of successful performance in mainstream
children are accommodated to the maximum ex- environments is to implement generally ac-
tent possible within the general education curric- knowledged "best practices." At least three is-
ulum. Collaborative teaming and teaching, sues surface with such a proposition. First, use of
shared planning, transformational leadership, the term best implies no need to get better and
and an outcomes base provide the intentional gives the impression that a well-defined, rather
framework for stakeholder success. Driven by a static corpus of information is accepted by the
vision of schools as a place where all children profession. Although an apparent consensus on a
learn well what we want them to learn, schools core of quality indicators has been reached by col-
become creati ve and successful environments for leagues in early childhood education (Bredekamp,
adults and the children they serve (Chambers, 1987), there is little indication that the same is true
Salisbury, Palombaro, & Cole. 1990; Salisbury, in the field of early childhood intervention.
Pennington, Veech, & Palombaro, 1990; Salis- Second, whether commonly cited practices
bury & Syryca, 1990; Thousand & Villa, 1990). are, in fact, "best" can only be answered on a rel-
Preliminary data from the Collaborative Edu- ative basis and with an empirical grounding.
cation Project (Salisbury, 199 J; Salisbury, Though convincing data exist to support the effi-
Evans, Palombaro, & Veech, 1990) suggest that cacy of specific strategies in mainstream environ-
positive social and academic outcomes accrue to ments, the data are insufficient to clearly identify
children with and without disabilities enrolled in any particular set of practices as "best."
an inclusive elementary school. The collabora- Third. "best practices" in the field of special
tive culture of such a school fosters a heightened education have traditionally been generated from
sense of equity among peers without disabilities the special education perspective (e.g., Me-
wherein they advocate for the inclusion of their Donnell & Hardman. 1988; Meyer, Eichinger, &
classmates with disabilities and identify solutions Park-Lee, 1987). The nature and language of
to integration obstacles. In addition, building- these special education practices communicate a
level leadership is a critical factor in the success message that what we do is somehow very differ-
of programmatic reform. These data suggest that ent from the rest of the early childhood profes-
with proper philosophical, administrative, and in- sion. The inadvertent effect may be to create ob-
structional supports, young children with mild to stacles to collaboration with colleagues in
profound disabilities can be appropriately based general education where none were intended.
and served in classrooms they would attend if Fourth, perhaps an even more important ques-
they did not have a disability. tion is, From which knowledge base or bases
Program policies, structures, and practices should we derive our "best practices"? Research-
must be designed to support the inclusion of ers have presented arguments in favor of creating
young children with disabilities in settings de- one system of education for all children (Gartner

Exceptional Children 147

& Lipsky, 1987; Stainback, Stainback, & Bunch, supported in a recent, large-scale analysis of the
1989; Will, 1986). Others have emphasized the elementary and secondary schooling literature
importance of basing interventions on the rou- (e.g., Oakes, 1989).
tines, schedules, and activities of typical home Contending that indicators of school context
and school settings (e.g., Bredekamp, 1987; are as necessary as indexes of student outcomes,
Bricker & Cripe, 1990; Powell, 1989; Rainforth Oakes (1989) analyzed the elementary and sec-
& Salisbury, 1988; Salisbury & Vincent, 1990). ondary schooling research literature and identi-
These two initiatives provide a useful benchmark fied three global school conditions that were em-
for examining validated practices from main- pirically related to student outcomes. Viewed as
stream settings at both administrative and in- enabling conditions related to the attainment of
structionallevels. high-quality teaching and learning, these three
We can no longer assume that "best special conditions and their key indicators (practices) re-
education practices" are sufficient for ensuring flect concrete decisions by schools about how to
the meaningful inclusion of young children with "distribute resources, what structures to create,
disabilities in mainstream contexts. Rather, it and what processes, norms, and relationships to
seems important that we examine validated prac- establish at the school" (Oakes, 1989, p..186).
tices found to be most directly linked to positive Table I represents an integration of Stedman and
child outcomes in the general education and early Oakes' indicators.
childhood literatures and assess their applicabil- These practices may well provide an impor-
ity to children with special needs. Only then will tant benchmark against which we can assess var-
we be able to determine what additional, special- ious practices recommended for infants, toddlers,
ized supports will be needed to maximize the and preschool age children with and without dis-
probability of the child's success in a mainstream abilities. The conceptual and developmental un-
context. Adaptations embedded in the main- derpinnings among these three literatures will
stream environment should be only as special as clearly vary. However, if we are able to ascertain
necessary to support children with and without where significant pedagogical differences do
disabilities and ensure educational benefit exist, we may then be able to address attitudes
(Biklen, 1985). One essential question for par- and practices that hinder efforts to integrate and
ents, practitioners, administrators, and policy- include young children with disabilities in typical
makers becomes, What does the child, any child, settings.
need to succeed?
Indicators from Early Childhood Education
INDICATORS OF PROGRAM QUALITY Guidelines for developmentally appropriate
Given the importance of understanding the main- practice in early childhood settings were recently
stream environment as a context for integration, generated by the National Association for Educa-
it seems appropriate to ask: What are valid and tion of Young Children (NAEYC) (Bredekamp,
useful indicators of program quality? 1987). These guidel ines are a blend of empirical
and conceptual literatures that provide informa-
tion on pedagogical practices related to infants,
Indicators from General Education
toddlers, and preschool age children without dis-
Recently, two cogent analyses in the general ed- abilities. Despite the comprehensive nature of
ucation literature have addressed this question. these guidelines, the author(s) devoted little at-
Stedman (1987) analyzed the effective schools tention to the organizational issues included in
literature and concluded that the formula typi- the Stedman and Oakes analyses. The compari-
cally used for program evaluation could not be son in Table J provides a preliminary index of the
substantiated by the research. Using stringent se- commonalities among the two literatures on chil-
lection criteria, he generated nine broad catego- dren without disabilities.
ries of practices that could be empirically
supported by the effective schools research liter- Indicators from Early Childhood Special
ature. These nine categories and their key indica-
Education
tors included school and classroom practices that
were directly related to positive learner out- Because there has been limited research on the
comes. Each of Stedman's key indicators was applicability of early childhood practices to chil-

1411 October/November 1991

 TABLE I
Comparison of Quality Indicators From General and Special Education

General Education Early Childhood Education Early Childhood Special Education

Curriculum
Rich program content Concrete, real, and relevant Functional
materials and activities
Appropriate materials and equip- Developmentally appropriate Age-appropriate
ment Attuned to current and future needs
Applied, enrichment activities Integrated content Integrated content and selling
Cultural pluralism Values/respects diversity Values uniqueness of individual
Adult-Child Interactions
Success-focused teaching Facilitates child success Intentional. concurrent instruction
Teaching to prevent learning Prevention and remediation of learn-
problems ing difficulties
Accepting environment Accepting and responsive envi- Responsive to learner needs
ronment
Engaged time Facilitated engagement Optimize engaged time
Student centered Child initiated and directed Child and family centered
Integrated supports Meet diverse needs Individualized, integrated teaching
and therapy
Grouping practices Age-based groupings Heterogeneous grouping; role of peers
Clear program goals Assess for program planning Assess for program planning
Evaluation of student program Evaluate for curriculum Programming changes based on
progress effectiveness formative evaluation
Multiple sources of information Variety of outcome measures
Home and School Relationships
Community and parent participa- Family involvement Family focus
tion Regular communication Systematic communication
Shared governance among par- Role in decisions and planning Full partners in planning and decision
ents and teachers Support to family making
Coordinated sharing of informa- Support to family
tion Transition planning
Structure, Staffing, and Organization
Strong leadership
Well-trained teachers Properly trained staff Integrated preparation and experi-
ences
Use of staff and resources Adequate staff-child ratios Individualized instruction
Program improvement, profes- Continuing professional develop- Professional development required
sional renewal ment and promoted
Collaborative staff planning, Coordinated sharing of informa- Comprehensive, collaborative team-
sharing, teamwork tion ing and decision making
Parent and professional team
membership
Clear building, program, and Outcome focused; integrated setting
student goals
Administrative support Administrative support
Faculty beliefs about teaching and Staff beliefs about children, Beliefs about children, families,
learning families, and learning teaching and learning
Positive, supporting school Respect, accept, and value Educative approaches; naturalistic
climate children's actions teaching

Note: Where no entries are noted, specific reference to indicator was not evident in material reviewed.
Sources: For general education, Stedman (1987) and Oakes (1989); for early childhood education, Bredekamp
(1987); for early childhood special education, Gaylord-Ross (1989), Stainback, Stainback, and Bunch (1989),
Bricker and Veltman (1990), McDonnell and Hardman (1988), and McCollum and McCartan (1986).

Exceptional Children 149

dren with disabilities, comparisons are limited to well as children, must be integrated if we are to
the form, rather than function, of these school effectively meet the needs of all learners in main-
practices. Given this limitation. what is the rela- stream contexts. The identification of discrete inte-
tionship of this information to typically cited gration strategies is necessary, but not sufficient, for
"best practices" in the field of early childhood in- the development of an inclusive school and class-
tervention? Researchers have described corre- room climate. These validated strategies must be
lates of high-quality , integrated special education integrated into a framework that provides both
(e.g .. Gaylord-Ross, 1989; Stainback et al., 1989) process and outcome guidance for those wishing
and early childhood intervention programs (e.g., to initiate educational reform. Such a framework
Bricker & Veltman, 1990; McDonnell & Hard- exists in outcome-based education programs.
man, 1988; McCollum & McCartan, 1986).
Table I depicts these indicators and their rela- Outcomes-Driven Developmental Model
tionship to the recommended practices from the
early childhood and general education literatures. For the past 5 years, the Johnson City Central
School District in New York has provided admin-
Reflections on Quality Indicators istrative and school supports to ensure the "rein-
tegration" and inclusion of students with mild to
Three observations can be made of these compar- profound disabilities in age-appropriate, elemen-
isons: tary school classrooms (Salisbury, 1989; Salis-
• Recommended practices in early childhood bury & Syryca, 1990; Salisbury, Pennington,
education appear generally consistent with Veech, & Palombaro, 1990). The district's na-
many of the indicators from general educa- tional1y validated Outcomes-Driven Developmen-
tion. While the practices related to positive tal Model (ODDM) (Marnary, 1985) incorporates
child outcomes underlying these two research many practices endorsed in the effective schools
bases may be enacted differently, their intent literature, yet embeds these practices within an
may well be similar. organizational framework of outcomes-based ed-
ucation (Blum, 1985; Purkey & Smith, 1983).
• Early childhood intervention practices share a
Figure I shows this model and the breadth of con-
general concordance with those in early child-
textual supports available for all faculty and stu-
hood education. Despite differing theoretical
dents in the district.
foundations (Odorn & McEvoy, 1990), there
A key feature of ODDM is the decision-mak-
may be greater consonance in actual practice
ing model used at the classroom, building, and
than typically assumed. Our work, in an inclu-
district levels. The model presumes that only
sive elementary school (see next section) indi-
when staff and administrators have reached con-
cates that teaming structures, shared planning
sensus on the outcomes they want for all children
time, and a consensus on desired outcomes
can they examine enabling practices, beliefs, and
provides sufficient basis for the resolution of
knowledge for their role in helping to attain those
pedagogical differences.
outcomes. At the heart of this model is the con-
• There were numerous areas of consistency be- sensually derived vision to which all stakeholders
tween the early childhood intervention and in the school aspire. Figure 2 shows the compo-
general education practices. nents of the decision-making model.
Insofar as these similarities exist, there appears
to be at least a preliminary basis for considering Application to Integration
a merger of desirable program practices from
general and special education. The following is a summary of how this model
may be applied to the development of high-qual-
ity practices in mainstream settings.
ASSIMILATING INDICATORS INTO
SYSTEMS
What do we want? Yogi Berra once said, "If you
Identifying discrete contextual indicators is an don't know where you're going. you probably
important policy, program development, and re- won't get there." Sound planning is predicated on
search issue (Oakes, 1989), but educators also what one wishes to achieve. At the Harry L. John-
need to identify effective processes for assimilat- son Elementary School, teachers, aides, parents,
ing this information into programs. Practices, as children, and building support staff have

ISO OctobcrlNovcmbcr 1991

 FIGURE 1
Components and Organization of the Outcomes-Driven Developmental Model

OUTCOMES-DRIVEN DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL

MISSION: ALL STUDENTS WILL LEARN WELL
STUDENT OUTCOMES
SELF-ESTEEM' THINKING· SELF-DIRECTED LEARNER' PROCESS SKILLS· CONCERN FOR OTHERS

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMUNITY CLASSROOM

SUPPORTS SUPPORTS SUPPORTS

STAFF DEVELOPMENT MODEL BOARD POLICY INSTRUCTIONAL PROCESS

COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK BOARD SUPPORT CURRICULUM ORGANIZATION

PROBLEM-SOLVING MODEL COMMUNITIES SCHOOL PRACTICES

CHANGE PROCESS NETWORKING CLASSROOM PRACTICES

CLIMATE IMPROVEMENT MODEL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES

PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOLOGICAL TRANSFORMATIONAL

BASE BASE LEADERSHIP
RESEARCH LITERATURE

achieved consensus on a vision of inclusive edu- emerged in special education (e.g., Bauwens,
cation (Chambers, et aI., 1990), The vision is the Hourcade, & Friend, 1989; Pearpoint, 1989;
beckoning target to which all staff dedicate their Pugach & Johnson, 1989; Thousand & Villa,
efforts; it serves as a source of motivation, guid- 1990).
ance, and renewal. Specific, measurable out-
comes help index progress toward the attainment
of that vision, The outcomes agreed to by staff in What do we know? This information is used to
this district (see Figure I) are among those de- assess the validity of current policies and prac-
scribed as quality indicators by Oakes (1989) and tices and serves as a source of information for de-
others. veloping the belief base, If, for example, staff
Collaboration at the district, school, and class- believe that individualized instruction or family-
room level helps ensure that actions are directed focuses practices are important for attaining de-
toward the attainment of shared goals. The pro- sired outcomes, then literatures from a variety of
cesses for collaborative decision making are disciplines may need to be reviewed to ascertain
available in the leadership (e.g., Bennis & Nanus, what specific practices will most likely promote
1985) and general education (e.g., Purkey & desired child and family outcomes. Knowledge
Smith, 1983) literatures and have recently of validated practices can then be used to evaluate
current program practices, In the process, poli-

Exceptional Children 151

 FIGURE 2
Vision-Based Decision-Making Model

Desired '-_....1..--1 Sludents

Exit lor Teachers
Behaviors Administrators

cies that constrain and/or foster the use of desir- teaching and learning, inclusive programs, and
able practices will also become evident. In some criterion-referenced learning. Because there is an
cases, staffing patterns will need to be changed interaction between values and beliefs grounded
to support the attainment of desired outcomes. in knowledge, staff members arrived at consen-
sus using many sources of information (e.g., ex-
What do we believe? The staff in the district de- perience, research literature, and philosophy).
veloped consensus around 10 beliefs related to Once faculty commit themselves to a set of be-
excellence in teaching and learning. Among liefs, it is easier to distinguish future criticisms of
these beliefs were a commitment to cooperative practice from faltering beliefs.

152 OctoberlNovembcr 1991

 Reaching consensus on accommodations for Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: Strategies
children with disabilities sometimes raises philo- for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.
sophical, as well as logistical, issues (Salisbury, Biklen, D. (1985). Achieving the complete school. New
& Syryca, 1990; Salisbury et aI., 1990).lndivid- York: Teachers College Press.
ualized instruction in mainstream settings neces- Blum, R. E. (1985). Outcome-based schools: A defini-
sitates joint planning and a shared commitment tion. Outcomes, 5(1),1-5.
to the inclusion of children with special needs. It Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appro-
prtate practice in early childhood programs serving
is unlikely that all staff will share an equal level
childrenfrom birth through age 8. Washington, DC:
of commitment to inclusion or integration, but all National Association for the Education of Young
should have shared in the process of reaching Children.
consensus on outcomes and beliefs. It is, there- Bricker, D. D., & Cripe, 1. (1990). Activity-based in-
fore, appropriate and reasonable to expect that all tervention. In D. Bricker (Ed.), Early intervention for
staff will support the implementation of program at-risk and handicapped infants, toddlers, and pre-
practices to promote those outcomes. Salisbury school children (pp. 251-274). Palo Alto, CA:
and Bricker (1991) suggested that only when ad- VORT.
ministrators and staff move from action based on Bricker, D. D., & Veltman, M. (1990). Early interven-
compliance to action grounded in commitment tion programs: Child focused approaches. In 1.
will current barriers to program quality be sub- Shonkoff & S. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook ojearly in-
tervention (pp. 373-399). London: Cambridge Uni-
stantively addressed.
versity Press.
Chambers, A., Salisbury, c., Palombaro, M., & Cole,
What do we do? In other words, is what you are G. (1990). Developing commitment to inclusive edu-
doing getting you what you want? It may be that cational practices. Manuscript in preparation.
some practices must be abandoned, others im- Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1987). Beyond special
proved, while still others have yet to be incorpo- education: Toward a quality system for all students.
rated. The teaming structures, master schedule, Harvard Education Review, 57(4),367-395.
and nature of instructional activities have Gaylord-Ross, R. (1989). Integration strategies for
changed at Harry L. Johnson Elementary School students with handicaps. Baltimore: Paul H.
as we have assessed these practices and supports Brookes.
against the outcomes (e.g., inclusion, concern for Guralnick, M. 1., (1981). The efficacy of integrating
others) we want for all children in this school. handicapped children in early education settings: Re-
search implications. Topics in Earlv Childhood Spe-
cial Education, /(1).57-72.
CONCLUSION Guralnick, M. 1. (1990). Major accomplishments and
future directions in early childhood mainstreaming,
Program quality is largely based on the extent to Topics in Early Childhood Special Edt/cation, 10(2),
which knowledge, beliefs, and practices are 1-17.
aligned to produce desired outcomes. Collabora- Hanline, M. F (1990). A consulting model for provid-
tive research and program models are needed to ing integration opportunities for preschool children
ensure that all children benefit from integrated with disabilities. jot/mal of" Early Intervention,
opportunities in their neighborhood communi- 14(4),360-366.
ties. The decision-making model described here Hoyson, M., Jamieson, B., & Strain, P. S. (1984). In-
builds on many factors that are empirically linked dividual ized group instruction for normally develop-
to positive child outcomes and has been effective ing and autistic-like children: The LEAP curriculum.
Journal of the Division jor Early Childhood, 8, 157-
in developing internally consistent program prac-
tices. As such, it may well prove useful to those
In
Marnary, A. (1985). The Outcomes-Driven Develop-
who are facing the challenges of developing and
mental Model. Johnson City, NY: Johnson City Cen-
implementing integrated and inclusive programs tral School District.
in community-based, early childhood setting. McCollum, 1., & McCartan, K. (1986). Research in
teacher education: Issues and future directions for
REFERENCES early childhood special education. In S. Odom & M.
Karnes (Eds.), Early interventionfor infants and chil-
Bauwens, 1., Hourcase, 1.1., & Friend, M. (1989). Co- dren with handicaps (pp, 269-286). Baltimore: Paul
operative teaching: A model for general and special H. Brookes.
education integration. Remedial and Special Educa- McDonnell, A., & Hardman, M. (1988). A synthesis
tion, 10(2), 17-24. of "best practice" guidelines for early childhood ser-

Exceptional Children 153

 vices. Journal oj the Division [or Early Childhood,
Salisbury, C. L., & Bricker, D. D. (1991). Preface-
12(4),328-34l.
Special issue on implementation of PL 99-457. Part
McLean, M. B., & Hartline, M. F. (1990). Providing H. Journal of Early Intervention. 15( I), 3-4.
early intervention services in integrated environ-
ments: Challenges and opportunities for the future. Salisbury, C. L., Evans, l. M., Palombaro, M. M., &
TopICS in Early Childhood Special Education, 10(2), Veech, G. (1990). Classroom ecology in (Ill inclusive
62-77. elelllelilary school: Focus Oil instructional and social
interactions. Paper presented at the national confer-
Meyer, L. H., Eichinger, 1., & Park-Lee, S. (1987). A
ence of The Association for Persons with Severe
validation of program quality indicators in educa-
Handicaps, Chicago.
tional services for students with severe disabilities.
Journal of the Association jar Persons with. Severe Salisbury, C. L., Pennington, 1.. Veech, G., & Pal-
Handicaps, 12(4), 25J-263. ombaro, M. M. (1990). Teaming and teaching in an
Oakes, J. (1989). What educational indicators? The inclusive school: The perspectives oj regular educa-
case for assessing the school context. Educational tion. Paper presented at the national conference of
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 181-199. The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,
Odom, S. L., & McEvoy, M. A. (1990). Mainstrearning Chicago.
at the preschoollcvel: Potential barriers and tasks for Salisbury, C. L., & Syryca, S. (1990). Social-and in-
the field. Topics in Early Childhood Special Educa- structional interactions ill kindergarten classrooms
lion, 10(2),48-61. serving students with severe disabilities. Presentation
Odom, S. L., and Strain, P. S. (1984). Peer mediated at the International Division for Early Childhood
approaches to increasing children's social interac- conference, Albuquerque, NM.
tion: A review. American Journal ofOrthopsvchia- Salisbury, C. L. & Vincent, L 1. (1990). Criterion of
try, 54, 544-557. the next environment and best practices:
Pearpoint,1. ( 1989). Reflections on a quality education Mainstreaming and integration 10 years later. Top-
for all students. In S. Stainback, W. Stainback, & M. ics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10(2),78-
Forest (Eds.), Educating all students in the main- 89.
stream of regular education (pp. 249-254). Balti-
Stainback, W., Stainback, S., & Bunch, G. (1989). A
more: Paul H. Brookes.
rationale for the merger of regular and special educa-
Peck, C. A., Hayden, L., Wandschnieder, M., Peterson, tion. In S. Stainback, W. Stainback, & M. Forest
K., & Richarz, S. (1989). Development of integrated (Eds.), Educating £II/ students in the mainstream of
preschools', A qualitative inquiry into sources of re- regular education (pp. 15-28). Baltimore: Paul H.
sistance among parents, administrators, and teachers. Brookes.
Journal oj Early Intervention, 13(4),353-363.
Powell, D. R. (J 989). Families and early childhood Stedman, L. C. (1987, November). !L's time we
programs. Washington, DC: National Association changed the effective schools formula. Phi De/Ill
for the Education of Young Children. Kappan, 215-224.
Pugach, M. & Johnson, L. 1. (1989). The challenge of Strain, P. S. (1985). Social and nonsocial determinants
implementing collaboration between general and of acceptability in handicapped preschool children.
special education. Exceptional Children, 56. 232- Topics ill Early Childhood Special Education, 4, 47-
235. 58.
Purkey, S. D., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective Taylor, S.. Biklen, D.. Lehr, S.. & Searle, S. (1987).
schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, Purposeful integration . . . Inherently equal. Syra-
83(4),427-452. cusc, NY: Center on Human Policy, Syracuse Uni-
Rainforth, B., & Salisbury, C. L. (1988). Functional versity.
home programs: A model for therapists. Topics in Templeman. 1'. P., Fredericks. H. D., & Udell, T.
Early Childhood Special Education, 7(4),33-45.
(1989). Integration of children with moderate and se-
Salisbury, C. L. (\ 989). Translating commitment into vere handicaps into a daycare center. Journal ofEarly
practice: Evolution of the SUNY Binghamton-John- Intervention, J3(4), 315-328.
SO/I City Collaborative Education Project. Paper pre-
sented at the Office of Special Education Programs Thousand, 1. S., & Villa, R. A. (J 990). Strategies for
Project Officer's meeting topical session on Integra- educating learners with severe disabilities within
tion Education: State of Implementation and Future their local home schools and communities. Focus OIl
Directions, Washington, DC. Exceptional Children. 23(3), 1-24.
Salisbury, C. L. (1991, May). Empirical evidence in Will, M. (J 986). Educating students with learning
support of inclusion. Presentation at the Maryland problems-A shared responsibility. Washington,
State Education Department Conference on Inclusive DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education, Baltimore. Education and Rehabilitation Services.

154 October/November 1991

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

CHRISTINE L. SALISBURY (CEC Chapter

#0004) is an Associate Professor of Special
Education in the School of Education and Human
Development at the State University of New
York at Binghamton.

Address inquiries to the author at State

University of New York at Binghamton, P. O.
Box 6000, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000.

Preparation of the article was supported in part

by Grant 86D-00OO9 from the U. S. Department
ISBN I'-963029+{)-1
of Education, Special Education Programs, to the
State University of New York-Binghamton. The A FUNCTIONAL GUIDE FOR PHYSICAL
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect THERAPISTS WORKING IN SCHOOLS
those of the U. S. Department of Education, and no • practical approaches to evaluation
official endorsement should be inferred. [ thank • objective measurements for tracking progress
Drs. Samuel Odorn and Beverly Rainforth, as • writing goals and objectives for the IEP
• useful illustrations and valuable forms
well as colleagues Art Chambers and Mary To order, send $45 to:
Palornbaro, for helpful comments on an earlier Rehabilitation Publicalioos, Inc.
draft. P. O. 8m 1068 • RllBWCII, GA 3OOT1-1068
U.S. cus!DmIJIs, pl88 .... add S2 fex shipping.
Exceptional Children, Vol. 58, No.2. pp. 146-155. OulsidB Iha U.S., pl88SfJ add $5.
© 1991 The Council For Exceptional Children.

Resources on Hot Topics

Introducing CEC's Mini-Libraries:
Offering you the latest information on trends and issues in condensed, easy-to-use
booklets.
Working with Behavioral Disorders
NINE books in this series cover:
• Basic Q's and A's • Reducing Undesirable
• Policies and Politics Behaviors
• Assessment • Social Skills
• Mainstreaming • Juvenile Corrections
• Young Children • Transitions
Working with
Behavioral Disorders

Individual books: $8.90; CEC members: $6.25.

Save over 10% by ordering the entire series: $72.00; CEC members: $50.00.
To order a CEC product, contact CEC Publication Sales, Dept. K11039,
1920 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091-1589. Voice or TOO:

•
703/620-3660. FAX: 703/264-9494.

Available in November: A New 11-Book Mini-Library:

Exceptional Children At Risk

Exceptional Children 155