This study records the perceptions of special education administrators, building principals and regular and special education teachers in four neighboring North-of-Boston communities as to how each has: viewed the evolution of the special education law and its implementation process; included or excluded students with disabilities in local public schools during 15 years of state and federal mandates; mainstreamed students with disabilities; dealt with the fiscal restraints of Proposition 2 1/2; become more or less concerned with "due process" than with quality education. Twenty-one special and regular educators from two cities with large low income populations and two smaller, more affluent towns provided data responding to multiple choice questionnaire surveys and semi-structured interviews. Results indicate all four systems have adopted special education mandates incorporating change at varying degrees of implementation. The two multi-ethnic and socio-economically diverse cities have been assisted with compliance through state and federal regulators and the courts, overseeing procedural implementation. The smallest affluent suburban community studied continues to resist mainstreaming. While their affluent neighbor has successfully upheld a strong commitment to mainstreaming, evident in a more unified education system, where principals and the special education administrator share the role of gatekeeper of the regulations. Three communities' respondents described a separate system of education for students with disabilities where the special education administrator is considered the ultimate gatekeeper of the regulations. Compliance continues to dominate and concern school administrators. Legal and technical issues are reported to overwhelm the mainstream educator who, generally, has abdicated responsibility for the student with disabilities to the specialist. The specialist has all too readily accepted this assignment. Decentralization of special education and restructure of the mainstream, as recommended in the Regular Education Initiative, will require a metamorphosis of the gatekeeper to collaborative consultant and eventual elimination of the position special education administrator. The transition from policy to practice will occur only to the extent that regulatory agencies view educational outcomes and quality of programs as a priority, and when all educators apply the standards for special education to all education.

The purpose of the study was to examine and compare the service delivery models of three students with severe disabilities in three different settings and to detail the benefits derived in each of the programs. The study included classroom observations, analysis of individual educational plans (IEPs), interviews with families and teaching assistants, and presentation of in-depth cost data. The study found three examples of unsuccessful inclusion, as determined by observed social isolation, documented skill loss, and feedback presented by the teaching assistants. Analysis further revealed a lack of staff support and training. Cost analysis found that the highest expenses incurred among the participants were for individual aides and transportation. Implications of the study focus on the importance of thoroughly assessing a child's needs prior to placement in an inclusive setting, and then comparing those needs with existing and potential programmatic resources. Finally, inclusion strategies deemed effective in serving students with mild to moderate special needs in all likelihood will provide insufficient support to youngsters with severe disabilities.

Since the late 1980's, both the federal government and the Massachusetts state government have encouraged the practice of integrating students with disabilities into regular classroom environments. Proponents of this practice assert that all students will benefit from this arrangement and that it represents a less costly approach to educating special needs children. In fact, there is very little research to substantiate conclusions about whether or not integration is less costly than more traditional special educational programs. To learn more about this question, special education costs in two school districts were analyzed. The cost description model used in this study was developed by Lewis, Bruininks and Thurlow in their 1988 study of school-based special education programs. Data about special education costs were collected for a school year before implementation, and then for a school year after implementation. In both districts, there was an increase in costs and enrollments in the less restrictive prototypes and in pre-school programs. Enrollments and costs decreased in most of the more costly and restrictive prototypes. Per pupil costs varied by enrollment trends. Although few students were enrolled in private programs, these placements had a significant impact on the overall cost picture. The less restrictive programs served more students in the post year than during the earlier year and this helped to restrict cost increases. The rural district saw their total costs increase significantly, after discounting for inflation. Salary increases, incentives for professional development and the hiring of new staff, were factors behind the increase in total costs. The suburban district realized cost savings over the six years of the study after discounting for inflation. This district changed staff assignments but did not add new teachers. A very costly collaborative program was reorganized and much of the savings were due to this reduction. Private placements were also reduced. The cost description model developed by Lewis is flexible and allows for differences in enrollments and programs. As special education costs will vary in each district according to their particular circumstances, integration should be promoted or debated, not on the basis of costs, but according to whether or not it is in the best interests of children with disabilities.