355R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O NVolume 27, Number 6, November/December 2006, Pages 355–364Segregated Programs Versus IntegratedComprehensive Service Delivery forAll LearnersAssessing the DifferencesE L I S E F R A T T U R A A N D C O L L E E N A . C A P P E RA B S T R A C TT he purpose of this article is to address the principles ofa comprehensive whole-school restructuring to serve not only stu-dents with disabilities educated in inclusive environments but alsoall learners who have been labeled to receive services from fed-erally mandated programs, such as special education, limited English, at risk, or Title I. The number of students who qualify forsuch services is growing. Unfortunately, these students often spendthe largest part of their day leaving their classroom to receive spe-cial instruction, resulting in a disconnected and fragmented day.We address the outcomes of traditional programs and the under-lying principles necessary to support inclusive services versus creat-ing segregated programs. The principles are classified into fourcornerstones: core principles, location of services, curriculum andinstruction, and funding and policy.I N THE PAST DECADE, THE RESEARCH LITERATURE ONinclusive education has significantly increased (Peterson &Hittie, 2003). Most of this literature has focused its unit ofanalysis at the classroom site—for example, on the social andacademic outcomes of integrated education (Peterson & Hit-tie, 2003; Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002), col-laborative teaching arrangements (Thousand, Villa, & Nevin,2002), the role of paraprofessionals (Doyle, 2002), the in-clusion of students with disabilities in district and state as-sessments (Thurlow, Elliott, & Ysseldyke, 1998), or ways tointegrate curriculum (Rainforth & Kuglemass, 2003). Othershave offered a conceptual and ideological analysis of the lit-erature in support of and against inclusive education (Brant-linger, 1997). However, the literature that focuses specificallyon the role of school leaders with students who typicallystruggle (Riehl, 2000) or on the organizational, structural,and cultural conditions necessary for inclusion is signifi-cantly less comprehensive. Even book-length works whosetitle suggests a focus on whole school restructuring to servestudents (Sailor, 2002) do not address the school or districtlevel organizational and structural implementation intricaciesof serving students in heterogeneous classrooms. The afore-mentioned literature focuses primarily on students with dis-ability labels and does not take into account how providingservices for students with disability labels is similar to anddifferent from addressing the needs of other students whomay struggle in school; such as those students for whom En-glish is not the primary language; students considered “atrisk”; students considered gifted; or students with lower read-ing levels. Exceptions to this include works by Burrello,Lashley, and Beatty (2000), Capper, Frattura, and Keyes(2000), and McLeskey and Waldron (2000).The recent comprehensive school reform (CSR) models,by design, come closest to taking such a whole school ap-proach to raise the academic achievement of all students(Borman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2003) However, CSRcontinues to not set standards for integrated comprehensive
