I. Mainstreaming in the middle school may have little to no effect on non-impaired students.
A. General teachers resist adaptation of teaching resources; non-impaired students continue to receive on-level instruction.
1. Individualization in the classroom may be impractical.
2. The greater the impaired student's disability, the more likely s/he is to "fall through the cracks."
B. General teachers attend to the middle ground of students' abilities; non-impaired students still comprise the "target audience."
1. Teachers may not know what special students are doing with the special education instructor.
2. Teachers monitor their teaching strategies according to the overall class reaction.
C. General teachers interpret textbook material, but do not adapt it for the impaired student; non-impaired students model more advanced thought processes rather than basic skills.
D. General teachers are sympathetic to their mainstreamed students in theory; practical considerations win out over the theoretical; the status quo prevails for non-impaired students.
II. Mainstreaming (tending toward a model of full inclusion) in the middle school may have a considerable impact on non- impaired students, while loosely monitored mainstreaming may have no impact.
A. Positive outcomes are a "new reality" of effective mainstreaming.
1. Non-impaired students receive a realistic view of heterogeneous society.
2. Non-impaired students learn that they can help others; non-impaired students learn how to help others.
3. Non-impaired students reinforce their own learning through peer tutoring.
B. Full inclusionary models of mainstreaming represent the best of...