University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Development and evaluation of a workshop to increase classroom teachers' knowledge of special education issues and legislation

(USC Thesis Other)

Development and evaluation of a workshop to increase classroom teachers' knowledge of special education issues and legislation

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF A WORKSHOP
TO INCREASE CLASSROOM TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE
OF SPECIAL EDUCATION ISSUES AND LEGISLATION
by
Marilyn Clare Male
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education)
June 1980
UMI Number: DP24714
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Pubi s b s n q
UMI DP24714
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
Ed
'80
?k.V.
This dissertation, written by £ f ) \
l^arilyn Clare Male -...
under the direction of Aer_.__ Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in partial fulfillm ent of requirements of
the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to the following
people, whose support and love have contributed so much joy to my life:
my parents, Carolyn and Roy Male, and Frank, my brother;
my friends, especially Susan Hollon;
my professors;
my boss, Karl Murray, and former bosses, Judy Grayson and
Virgil Flathouse;
my colleagues who assisted in conducting the study,
especially Diane Arnold;
and the co-author of ACTIONS and my best friend,
Roger Perkins.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vi 1
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Purpose of the Study
Research. Questions.
Significance of the Study . .
10
12 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
12
Legislation
Historical Background of PL 94-142 12
Historical Background of California Legislation . 13
14 Inservice Training
Historical Background 14
Prevailing Inservice Approaches 17
19 Recommended Inservice Approaches . .
20
22 III. METHODOLOGY
23
24
Instrumentation
24
Education Information inventory .
iii
Chapter
The RuckerHSahle Educational Programming
Scale .............................. 25
Workshop Evaluation Form . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Procedures ......................... 28
Development of Experimental Workshop........ 28
Workshop Description..................... 29
ACTIONS Format ................................ 30
Control Format . . . ..... 31
Training of Workshop Leaders ................. 31
Pilot Workshop .............................. 32
Pilot Study ...... . . . . 32
Evaluation Design of the Study ............... 32
Data Analysis......................... 34
Summary........................................... 35
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................. 37
Results........................................... 37
Discussion...................................... 42
Summary........................................... 49
V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH: . . . 51
Summary .......... 51
Recommendations for Future Research ....... 53
APPENDIXES
A. PL 94-^142 REGULATIONS— Provisions for Inservice
Training .......... 66
iv
APPENDIXES
B . ASSEMBLY BILL 1250 Provisions for Staff
Development........................... 69
C. SPECIAL EDUCATION INFORMATION INVENTORY ........... 71
D. RUCKER-GABLE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING SCALE ......... 76
E. WORKSHOP EVALUATION FORM 81
F. SAMPLE AGENDA ................. 85
G. WARM-UP ACTIVITY ..................................... 90
H. ACTIONS LEARNER ACTIVITY C H A R T ...................... 92
I. DEBRIEFING STIMULUS QUESTIONS ...................... 94
J. PARTICIPANT HANDBOOK .............................. 96
K. PERMISSION TO USE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL............. 191
V
LIST.OF TABLES
Table
1. State Inservice Training Priorities ........ 17
2. Description of Instruments Used in the Study .... 24
3. Continuum of Services From the Rucker'-Gable
Educational Programming Scale ................. 26
4. Comparison of Prevailing Inservice Practices and
the Experimental ACTIONS Workshop ........ 28
5. Comparison of Recommended Inservice Practices and
the. Experimental ACTIONS Workshop............... 29
6. Description of Learning Centers ................... 30
7. Variables Considered by the Study.................. 33
8. Demographic Characteristics of Experimental and
Control Groups ........................... 37
9. Pretest Results ............ 38
10 . Pretest Results— Urban vs Rural..................... 39
11. Means and Standard Deviations for the Dependent
Variables of the Study .......................... 39
12. "Learning-Centered Activities*1— Experimental
ACTIONS vs Control Workshop ..................... 54
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Participant Profile—^Rucker-Gable Educational
Programming Scale 41
Relationship of concerns and implementation of
PL 94-142 as an innovation 48
I. THE PROBLEM
Introduc tion
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142) was
enacted in 1975 to assure that all handicapped children have a "free,
appropriate public education" (p. 42478) available to them; that rights
of handicapped children and their parents are protected; that states
have financial assistance to implement education for all handicapped
children; and that programs are assessed for effectiveness. The regu
lations for implementing PL 94-142 (Federal Register, August 23, 1977)
also included provisions to work toward effectively integrating handi
capped individuals into the mainstream of American life.
In the past, many school districts had failed to recognize the
rights of handicapped children, and, in some cases, appropriate legal
processes had not been followed. As a result of a wave of judicial
decisions upholding the rights of handicapped children to a publicly
supported education and to due process of law (Pennsylvania Association
for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Consent Agree
ment, 1972; Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia,
1972) ;PL 94-142 was enacted. Federal funds were provided to assist
states and local districts to implement mandates of the law and even
more important, if states do not fulfill the mandates, federal funds
can be withheld from the state altogether (Abeson & Zettel, 1977) .
In order to fully comply with the provisions of PL 94-142,
1
California's Master Plan for Special Education was passed (Assembly
Bill 1250, as amended by Assembly Bill 3635) . The Master Plan provided
the means to implement PL 94-142 throughout California by 1982. At
present, 22 areas of the state, representing 240,000 handicapped chil
dren, have been served under the Master Plan (California Department of
Education, 1979).
The provisions of PL 94-142 and AB 1250 have mandated shifts in
educational practices which have affected the entire educational sys
tem. The most controversial effects have been felt most directly by
the classroom teacher, as educational policy has moved away from sepa
rate educational systems for "special" and "regular" students, toward
a free, appropriate public education for all students based on their
educational needs. The three most demanding aspects of the law are as
follows: First, emphasis is on placement in the "least restrictive
environment," as close to normal peers as possible. Least restrictive
environment means that "to the maximum extent appropriate, handicapped
children . . . are educated with children who are not handicapped"
(Federal Register, August 23, 1977, p. 42497) . A district must offer
a continuum of alternative placements to assure that when a handicapped
student is removed from the regular environment (because the nature
and severity of the handicap is such that education in the regular
classes cannot be achieved), an appropriate placement "in the most
normal setting feasible" is selected. Second, an "Individualized Edu
cation Program" (IEP) is to be developed by a team (including the •
teacher and the parent) for each handicapped student. An IEP is a
written statement specifying present performance levels, goals,
2
objectives, special education and related services. Third, inservice
training is to be provided to assist personnel in the implementation of
the law. Inservice training is defined as planned activities for the
instructional improvement of professional staff members (Harris &
Bessent, p. 36).
Although PL 94-142 and AB 1250 have affected parents, adminis
trators, and special educators, the concerns of the classroom teacher
related to the "least restrictive environment" mandate have been
addressed only recently. Pressure from classroom teachers in the form
of union demands for quotas limiting the types of problems and number
of exceptional students served in regular classrooms has been increas
ing . Released time to perform additional duties of meetings to plan
and write IEP's was a frequent request. In addition, teachers demanded
release time to attend training sessions to acquire skills helpful in
integrating handicapped students. In short, recognition of the criti
cal role played by classroom teachers in implementing PL 94-142 was
long overdue. The least restrictive mandate, IEP, and the team
approach for comprehensive services require the cooperation of class
room teachers.
Several large-scale studies on the impact of PL 94-142 implemen
tation have been conducted that have assessed classroom teachers'
perceptions of their new roles (Fenton & Yoshida, 1978; Marver & David,
1978; Morrissey & Safer, 1978) . Results of the classroom teacher sur
veys indicated that classroom teacher response to mandated changes
ranged from qualified support to outright resistance and opposition,
with those in the middle waiting passively for current trends to pass.
3
Misinformation and fears were responsible for increased teacher back
lash and hostility; responsibility for inservice training for classroom
teachers had been passed back and forth between regular and special
education, resulting in limited efforts to train a relatively small
number of classroom teachers.
Fenton and Yoshida (1978) found that teachers tended to play pas
sive roles in IEP meetings, felt inhibited by the principal's presence,
and had a relatively small amount of participation. The amount of
satisfaction with the IEP process was related to the amount of parti
cipation; teachers, therefore, experienced dissatisfaction with the
IEP process. In the teacher interviews conducted by Marver and David
(1978), teachers expressed fear of being held accountable for student
progress. A review of 150 IEP's indicated that only special education
activities were included, while regular classroom programs were omitted.
Interview data from Project IEP (Morrissey & Safer, 1978) revealed
teacher resentment concerning time spent in meetings, completing forms,
and developing plans, which took teachers away from their instructional
role. Lack of training in individualized instruction and the team
approach to IEP development were also cited as teacher concerns.
Any major changes or innovations as far-reaching as PL 94-142 and
AR 1250 could be expected to produce confusion, uncertainty, and a
degree of frustration. In setting out to accomplish the necessary
changes, the tendency was to focus narrowly on the change itself rather
than on processes and procedures for institutionalizing the change. In
California, a massive inservice training effort was begun as a way of
institutionalizing the changes in special education for all persons
4
affected by the new laws (California Office of Special Education, 1979).
A substantial part of this effort was devoted to providing classroom
teachers with accurate information, relieving unjustified fears, and
assessing needs for skill-building.
A workshop was needed which could respond to logistical, theo
retical, and practical considerations. Logistical considerations were
based on limited financial resources, since 53,000 teachers were to be
trained in PL 94-142 implementation according to the 1979 Comprehen
sive Plan for Personnel Development. Thus, a workshop was needed that
could be conducted without extensive training of workshop leaders and
would maximize a spread of effect. A training-of-trainers approach
(Havelock, 1973) was selected as the most efficient model for dissemi
nating the workshop.
Theoretical considerations were based on previous studies of the
dissemination process when an innovation or change was to be intro
duced. Hall (1977) described change as a process, not an event, which
is made first by individuals, then by institutions. The change pro
cess was described as highly personal, where personal perceptions,
frustrations, and satisfactions must be acknowledged.
Research has documented stages of concern experienced by persons
affected by an innovation or change (Fuller, 1969; Hall, 1977; Hall,
1978). For a given innovation such as PL 94-142, teachers' concerns
progressed from awareness, information, personal management of pro
cesses and tasks, consequences for students, collaboration with others
on implementation, to refocusing on universal benefits of the new law.
Teachers may experience more than one stage of concern at one time,
5
and a profile of concerns can be drawn over time which distinguishes
early innovators and those teachers acquiring the information for the
first time. The workshop format must respond to a variety of stages
and accommodate different levels of teacher awareness in order to suc
ceed .
Practical considerations were based on teacher union demands for
release time for teachers to attend training. A cost-effective, time-
efficient workshop was needed which would nore require excessive time
yet could assure awareness of legislative mandates and their impli
cations .
A workshop designed to respond to the logistical, theoretical,
and practical considerations was developed and adopted by the Cali
fornia Department of Education for use throughout California (Male &
Perkins, 1978). The workshop, entitled ACTIONS (Assisting Classroom
Teachers with Information and Opportunities for New Skills) was de
signed for the specific purpose of providing accurate information on
the following topics: (a) legislation, (b) least restrictive environ
ment, (c) IEP, (d) team approach, and (e) teacher rights and respon
sibilities .
The format of the workshop differed significantly from the tra
ditional inservice workshop, which is generally teacher-centered
(teacher-presented lecture followed by teacher-prescribed tasks or
activities). The experimental ACTIONS workshop was designed to be
learner-centered and featured six learning centers. Each learning
center offered the content of the five ACTIONS topics in a different
learning mode. Introductory overviews of each topic were available in
6
the self-instruction center (cassette tapes, scripts, cassette play
back units with headphones), the reading center (journal articles,
excerpts from books, and papers organized to correspond to each topic)
and filmstrip center (cassette tapes and filmstrips, a viewer with
headphones). Application tasks on each topic were available in the
games center, the problem-solving center (a set of real-life problems
on each topic which asked the participant to develop and compare
his/her solution to actual solutions), and the testing center, where
mastery of each topic could be checked by taking a self-checking quiz
on a thought problem for each topic. Participants received instruc
tions on using the centers, reaching mastery, and working with each
other and the workshop facilitator. The experimental ACTIONS workshop
was designed to be learner-centered rather than teacher-centered, as
in most traditional inservice workshops.
Objectives for the ACTIONS workshop were developed to focus on
information acquisition and awareness. Objectives for participants
completing ACTIONS included:
1. Participants will be able to list basic components of recent
state and national legislation which affect all of educa
tion;
2. Participants will be able to define the concept of least
restrictive environment;
3. Participants will be able to describe the purpose and compo-
4. Participants will be able to discuss how team interaction
supports the development of the IEP:
7
5. Participants will be able to identify teacher rights and
responsibilities: under Ah 125Q and PL 94 -142.
The effects of the information acquisition and awareness on attitudes
toward integration of exceptional students: into regular classes was
difficult to predict; however, any positive effects on attitudes
toward exceptional students in regular classes, would have been con
sidered unanticipated benefits and would have helped to establish
workshop objectives in the attitude area.
Purpose of the study
A recent U.£>. Office of Education newsletter (National Inservice
Network, 1979} cited the following major problems incthe ongoing
effort to train classroom teachers in educating handicapped children.
First, local education agencies have been reluctant to support such
training; second, teachers resent the implication that they are defi
cient and that they are expected to participate on their own time in
activities based on what administrators think teachers should want to
know, instead of actual needs. An additional problem has been the
lack of cooperation between persons responsible for local inservice
and persons who coordinate statewide planning to implement the com
prehensive system of personnel development mandated in PL 94-142.
Thus, the purpose of the study was two-fold: (a) to develop a workshop
for classroom teachers on new special education legislation sponsored
by the California Department of Education, and (b) to evaluate the
effectiveness of the workshop format in meeting the objectives of the
workshop.
8
Research Questions
The content and the effectiveness of the process; of the. ACTIONS
workshop were analyzed. The following research questions were posed:
1. Will classroom teacher participants in the experimental
ACTIONS workshop score significantly higher on a test of
knowledge of special education legislation than a control
group of teachers in a traditional workshop with identical
content?
2. Will classroom teacher participants in the experimental
ACTIONS workshop score significantly higher on a test of
knowledge regarding least restrictive placement issues than
the control group of teachers in a traditional workshop with
identical content?
3. Will the classroom teacher participants in the experimental
ACTIONS workshop score significantly higher on a measure of
attitudes toward least restrictive placement of exceptional
individuals than teachers in the control group in a tradi
tional workshop with Identical content?
4. Will classroom teacher participants prefer the format of the
experimental ACTIONS workshop to the format of a traditional
workshop with identical content?
Significance of the Study
The forces of change upon the public school have, never been
stronger. Issues of desegregation, decreasing achievement, profes
sional accountability, as well as special education, have increased
the necessity for staff development and inservice training so that
changes can he accommodated by school personnel. Empirical data are
needed to support effective inservice approaches so that changes will
result in improved programs.
The format of ACTIONS was innovative in its. approach to some
specific problems of classroom teachers in implementing PL 94-142.
Teachers needed to understand the letter and spirit of the law and to
he open to changes in roles and responsibilities caused hy the law.
The ACTIONS workshop, a learner-centered experience, was a signifi
cant departure from traditional teacher-centered inservice training.
The field-testing, revision, and ongoing evaluation for further revi
sion of ACTIONS were significant departures from typical inservice
practices. And an evaluation utilizing experimental procedures would
he an important addition to the literature of inservice training which
has been subject to factors jeopardizing internal and external validity
of design, e.g., selection, instrumentation (Glass & Stanley, 1970).
The study, therefore, was significant in at least two respects: (a)
the development of a new model of inservice training and (b) the use of
ah experimental design for inservice evaluation.
Summary
Recent legislation, PL 94-142 "envisages a transformation in
both special and regular education" CReynolds & Rirch, 1977) in which
mildly handicapped students are returned to regular classes. Unfor
tunately, the regular classroom teacher has not been prepared for this
transformation. An experimental workshop, ACTIONS, was developed to
provide the initial step in the process to prepare classroom teachers
for the changes presdribed by PL 94-142. The purpose of the study
10
was to determine the effectiveness of this experimental approach com
pared to a . more traditional inservice workshop in preparing classroom
teachers to implement the mandates of PL 94-142 and AB 1250,
A review of the literature related to legislative issues of PL
94-142 and AB 1250 will be presented in Chapter IT, including histori
cal background of these of these laws and implementation in other
states. In addition, the literature of inservice education is reviewed
which includes a historical background and the kinds of research which
have been conducted in the past on inservice education.
The methodological considerations in developing the workshop and
in designing the evaluation study are set forth in Chapter III,
describing the posttest control group design which was selected. The
procedures of random assignment of subjects, training of workshop
leaders, instrumentation, and data analysis are reported.
The results of the data analysis are included in Chapter IV. The
data analysis employed Hotelling's multivariate t_ test. The statis
tical significance of the results was examined in Chapter IV and was
followed by conclusions and implications. A summary of the study and
recommendations for further research have been included in Chapter V .
11
IX, REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Legislation
Historical Background of PL 94-142
In the early 1950’s and extending into the 1960‘s, parents of
exceptional children began to form organizations, e.g., National Asso
ciation for Retarded Children, which, took an active role in shaping
national and state policy towards handicapped persons. Active in fil
ing court suits when due process rights were violated, these parents
and their lobbying efforts resulted in the funding of the Bureau of
Education for the Handicapped in 1966 and the passage of PL 94-142 in
1975 (Reynolds & Birch, 1977}.
State legislatures also responded to the pressure from parent
groups. By 1972, nearly 70% of the states had adopted mandatory legis
lation requiring education of the handicapped (Abeson, 1972) . The
right to education, however, was more than a question of access in
that the effects of labeling and the resulting placements were docu
mented, The. placements seemed to be more a function of administrative
convenience than a way to meet the needs' of the children (Dunn, 1968).
The concept of a right to an education was thus expanded to the right
to a "suitable" or "appropriate" education, including specially
designed instruction and placement in the least restrictive environment
(Bolick, 1974), By October, 1975, however, the National Education
Association reported that 22 states had statutory or regulatory
12
language related to placement In the least restrictive environment and
interaction with nonhandicapped children.
The right to an "appropriate" education guaranteed to each excep
tional student by PL 94-142 implied the right to instruction by suit
ably trained teachers (Rubin, 1978, p. 15). A teacher had a right to
be trained in dealing with a particular handicap prior to the placement
of a child with that handicap in that particular classroom (Senf,
1978) , The PL 94.-142 regulations (Federal Register, August 23, 1977)
recognized these rights and required every state education agency to
proyide inservice training and a comprehensive system for personnel
development. Responsibilities for carrying out this mandate for in-
service training have been reported in Appendix A, and states have
been monitored to insure compliance,
Inservice training, then, has been viewed as the hey to implemen
tation of PL 94-142 (Warnat, 1978), To implement a comprehensive
system for personnel development, schools must provide needs assess
ments , innovative and experimental programs, a plan of action, and an
evaluation system (Federal Register, August 23, 1977, p. 42492). Tar
get audiences most in need of training included school administrators,
regular classroom teachers, and parents, especially on issues of pro
cedural safeguards, identification of individuals with exceptional
needs, and instructional shills to design and implement an IEP (Warnat,
1978),
Historical Bachground of California Legislation
In California, Assembly Bill 4040 established an experimental
version of the Master Plan for Special Education which was
13
implemented in six areas of the state in 1974, Legislation to phase
in the Master Plan throughout the state, AB 1250, was passed in 1978
(amended by AB 36351; by 1982, all school districts in California will
have been served under the Master Plan for Special Education. Under
the Master Plan, "special assistance to individuals with exceptional
needs must be provided in a program which promotes maximum interaction
with the general school population appropriate to the needs of both"
(California Assembly Bill, 1250, p. 21); unnecessary use of labels
was to be avoided in providing special education programs.
Inservice training was also required in AB 1250 andrrmust be in
cluded in the comprehensive plan submitted from districts or regions
to the state. The role of classroom teachers in designing and imple
menting staff development was specified, and several types of inservice
education were suggested (see Appendix B).
Inservice education has been clearly established as a vehicle for
classroom teachers and other key personnel in implementing the concept
of least restrictive environment or mainstreaming in the new laws
(Rude, 1978; Warnat, 1978). Given these legislative requirements,
what support for the regular classroom teacher has been necessary for
the results of mainstreaming to be successful?
Inservice Training
Historical Background
Five studies to investigate the needs of classroom teachers in
successfully managing mainstreaming have been conducted (Birch, 1974;
Boote, 1975; Redden, 1976; Swatzenbarg, 1975; Zawadski, 1974), In
Zawadski's study (1974), teachers were asked to list deterrents to
14
mainstreaming as well as possible solutions:, A list of 15 categories
of problems resulted, but in every instance, teachers had practical
suggestions for removing these deterrents. One of the key solutions
was inservice education, an outcome which was shared by the other four
studies, Redden’s studies: (19761 resulted in a list of competencies
which were desired from an inservice training program. Birch (1974)
found key factors of successful mainstreaming processes ongoing in
school districts. The study included visits to the schools, inter
views of teachers, administrators, pupils, and parents, observation of
classes, and reviews of documents. The four most important factors
were;
1. inservice education is a requirement;
2. regular class: and special education teacher concerns must
be acknowledged;
3. potential problems of regular class teachers need to be dis
cussed and solutions tried; and
4. positive teacher attitudes should be recognized and encour
aged (belief in the right to education, cooperativeness,
willingness to share, openness, flexibility).
Studies of attitudes of regular classroom teachers confirm the
need for inservice training as a way of getting fears, misinformation,
and hostilities out of the way before intensive training on specific
skills, in a review of five studies of regular class teachers’
attitudes toward handicapped children and mainstreaming, Alexander
and Strain (1978) reported that classroom teachers without training
or experience, in special education do not favor mainstreaming and
15
view handicapped children as generally les.s able to benefit from
schooling, Conine (19691, Harasymiw (19741, and Haring, Stern, and
Cruickshank. (19581,found that teacher attitudes toward the handicapped
were similar to those of the general public in terms' of avoidance and
dis comfort.
Hudson, Graham, and Warner (1979) found that classroom teacher
attitudes were not supportive of mainstreaming; teachers: fear that
their teaching effectiveness: would be impaired by integration and feel
they do not have time, support or training necessary to teach excep
tional students. Three fourths of the 151 teachers in the study
indicated that they would meed inservice training before being able
to teach a handicapped child in their classroom.
Classroom teachers generally underestimate the abilities of handi
capped children (Fine, 1967), and labels tend to acceptuate teachers1
negative stereotyping of handicapped children (Foster, Ysseldyke &
Reese, 1975; Gillung & Rucker, 1977; Severance & Gasstrom, 1977). A
number of studies have focused on teacher behaviors as they related
to positive and negative perceptions of students; with negatively
perceived students, according to the studies, teachers avoided contact,
failed to provide the students with follow-up to their work, and were
more critical of them (Good & Brophy, 1972; HOrne, 1979; Kester &
hetchworth, 1972; Rothbart, Dalfen & Barrett, 1971; Rubovits & Maehr,
1971; Silherman, 1969).
Panda and Bartel (1972). and Shotel, fano and McGettigan (1972)
found that years of teaching experience alone do not improve teacher
attitudes; inservice training, however, has been found effective in
16
a number of studies, on improving attitudes;. Broobs and Brans ford
(1971) , Glass and Meckler (1372), andviHarasymiw and Horne (1976)
reported positive results in attitude change and skill development
as a result of inservi.ce training.
The growing importance of inservice training is documented by
Table 1, which, lists priorities for inservice training gathered from
each state's: annual program plan submitted for PL 94-142 funds (Rude,
19781. Approximately 21,3% of federal funds for training through
the Education of the Handicapped Act— Part D are earmarked for train
ing regular school personnel (Siantz & Mtoore, 1978, pp. 25-30).
Table 1
State Inservice Training Priorities
Rank
Order
Topics
1 instructional procedures/classroom management
1 Curriculum/programming/materials
2 Individualized education programs
3 Identification and referral
4 Child evaluation/assessment procedures
5 Least restrictive environment
6 Implementation of PL 94<-142
7 Communication
8 Coordination
Prevailing Inservice Approaches
Prevailing inservice training practices have stimulated increas
ing criticism. Often planned and imposed without consumer input,
17
inservice training has presented the audience with speakers; chosen on
ill ^-defined criteria to provide easy solutions to difficult problems
(Wieck, 1979) . The search for a solution to problems has usually
preceded a careful effort to identify needs. As Rubin (1971) has
observed:
Inservice education has indeed been virtually a lost cause.
. . . Teacher professional growth has not been taken seriously,
it lacks a systematic methodology, and it has been managed
with astonishing clumsiness. It is not surprising, there
fore, that teachers have grown accustomed to its impotence and
that administrators have come to regard it as a routine exer
cise in futility. (p. 245)
Poor needs assessment and inadequate planning have been but two
of many earlier pitfalls of inservice training. A third major problem
of inservice education has been the tendency to attempt objectives at
the knowledge level without first dealing with motivational and affec
tive content (bloom, 1956; Dexter, 1978; Gagne, 1977; Martin, 1974).
As Martin (1974) noted:
There must be massive efforts to work with regular teachers,
not to "just instruct them" in the pedagogy of special edu
cation but to share in their feelings, to understand their
fears, to provide them with assistance and materials, and
in short, to assure their success. (p. 152)
Information and awareness workshops have been typically bypassed in
favor of skill acquisition. Yet these skill-building workshops have
often been conducted under time limits and conditions more appropriate
for introductory information and awareness, which have resulted in
little more than bits end pieces of information without a systematic
approach or plan to enable actual practice and achievement of new
skills CPasanella & Volkmor, 19761. Workshops may model the opposite
of skills being taught, e.g., a lecture to a large group of teachers
* ^ 18
on techniques to individualize instruction,
A major barrier to improving inservice; education has been the
lack of rigorous research in this area. A search of the literature
for evidence that research has contributed to the improvement of in-
service training reveals few, if any, studies on staff development
itself (West, 1977, p. 36). Inservice training has been a difficult
area to research due to its interdisciplinary nature and focus on
broadly defined goals, Inservice training has been a complex sub
ject, with unwieldy populations, long-range results, and goals diffi
cult to assess (West, 1977).
Most of the inservice training studies reported in the special
education literature have the following shortcomings: methodological
weaknesses. (internal and external validity), use of instruments of
questionable reliability and validity limited to one workshop or set
ting, primary emphasis on content rather than format (Brownsmith,
1976; Fiorentino, 1978; Gay, 1976; Ingram, 1976; Soloway, 1974;
Yard, 1978).
Heath (1974) and Jarolimek (1970) reviewed the inservice educa
tion literature and compiled a list of the most frequent complaints
against inservice education. These, complaints included lack of con-'
sideration of teacher needs, little participation by teachers in the
planning, implementation, and follow-up, and use of teacher time to
participate In the training.
Recommended Inservice Approaches
Given the documented needs for particular inservice topics and
emphasis on regular classroom teachers as: a target population,
19
certain components of workshops; have been necessary to change atti
tudes toward handicapped students and improve instructional shills;.
These components, according to Anthony (1972), were: (a) awareness#
information, knowledge; (h) contact experience; and (c) skill develop
ment and guided practice.
Teachers* views of inservice delivery reported in a recent
National Education Association study (1978) emphasized experiential
(activity-centered) over theoretical (lecture-oriented) training and
the use of support personnel as ongoing trainers to provide follow-up.
Continued contact with training personnel was a major characteristic
of inservice programs that effectively influence and stabilize atti
tudes and instructional skills (Lawrence, 1974; Mann, 1976). In a
comprehensive review of effects of inservice training on teachers,
Lawrence (1974) reported that certain conditions produced effective
results. These conditions included school-based planning, active
learning roles, opportunities to share, and ongoing follow-up. These
recommended approaches were incorporated into the ACTIONS workshop
described in Chapter III.
Summary
The passage of PL 94-142 and- AB 1250 arose from political pressure.
from parent groups as-well as judicial challenges to the practices of
excluding handicapped children from public education, labeling and
segregating handicapped children in special classes, and violating the
due process provisions; of rights of handicapped children and their
parents. In addition to establishing the right to a publicly supported
education, PL 94-142 and AB 1250 included mandates for an appropriate
20_
program for each, handicapped child, in the least restrictive environ
ment. The least restrictive environment provision has affected regu
lar classroom teachers,; new shills and attitudes; have been required,
and the legislation specified inservice training mandates to support
classroom teachers with their new responsibilities.
Inservice training has been criticized in the literature for
numerous shortcomings; these shortcomings were reviewed, and recom
mended approaches in the literature were, analyzed for the development
of ACTIONS. The design and development of the ACTIONS workshop
responded to many of the problems, concerns, and recommendations
reported in the literature and are described in Chapter III. The
research methodology used to ascertain the effects of the ACTIONS
workshop in terms of knowledge of legislation, knowledge of least
restrictive placement issues, attitudes toward least restrictive
placement, and satisfaction of participants with workshop process and
content is also described in Chapter III.
21
XII. METHODOLOGY
Recent legislation to assure the rights of handicapped students
to a free, appropriate public education provided in the least restric
tive environment has stimulated a number of changes and accompanying
i
problems for regular classroom teachers. The background of these
changes and problems was described in Chapter I. In Chapter II, a
review of legislative issues, including least restrictive environment
and inservice training, was presented; studies of successful and un
successful inservice approaches were reviewed. The research method
ology of the development and evaluation of the ACTIONS workshop used
in the study is presented in the present chapter. The study posed
the following research questions:
1. Will classroom teachers in the experimental ACTIONS workshop
score significantly higher (p < .05) on the Special Education
Information Inventory than teachers in the control group?
2. Will classroom teachers in the experimental ACTIONS workshop
score significantly higher (p^ < .05) on the knowledge sub
scale of the Rucker-Gable Educational Programming Scale than
teachers in the control group?
3. Will classroom teachers in the experimental ACTIONS workshop
score significantly higher Cp < /05) on the attitude subscale
of the Rucker-Gable Educational Programming Scale than
teachers in the control group?
4. Will classroom teachers in the experimental ACTIONS workshop
evaluate the, format of that workshop significantly higher
(p. < .05) than evaluations from the control group?
Subjects
A large metropolitan school district and a rural, isolated school
district volunteered to participate in the study. Schools within the
urban district represented a variety of ethnic backgrounds, socio
economic conditions, and problems typical of urban districts: integra
tion, ideclining enrollment, collective bargaining, dwindling resources,
etc. Schools in the rural district had less diversity of populations
but problems such as distances for transportation, limited resources,
and frequent turnover of school personnel. Approximately 9% of stu
dents in both districts were classified as handicapped.
Sixty-three teachers were randomly selected from the elementary
schools; in the volunteer urban district; every elementary school
teacher in the rural district participated in the study (n = 62).
Teachers were randomly assigned to either the experimental or control
group. Random assignment of teachers prevented selection bias due
to school differences in terms of types of students served, type of
facility, and services available. Because the districts in which the
study was conducted volunteered to participate, results may not be
generalizable, and effects may differ had the districts been selected
at random. In addition, the districts had not phased in the Master
Plan for Special Education, which made the districts different from
those areas already in the Master Plan. Currently two thirds of
California have not yet implemented the Master Plan.
23
Instrumentation
Three instruments were used to gather and cross-check data on
teacher knowledge and information, attitudes, and satisfaction with
the workshop. Table 2 contains a list of the instruments, their pur
pose and how they were used.
Table 2
Description of Instruments Used in the Study
Name Purpose Pretest Posttest
Special Educa
tion Informa
tion Inventory
To measure information
on special education
legislation
X X
Rucker-Gable
Educational
Programming
Scale
To measure knowledge
of least restrictive
placement; attitudee
toward least restric
tive placement
X
Workshop
evaluation
To measure participant
satisfaction with
workshop
X
The Special Education Information Inventory
The Special Education Information Inventory was developed and
field-tested as part of previous ACTIONS workshops. The instrument
consisted of 25 items which, cover knowledge of special education
issues and legislation presented in the workshop (see Appendix C).
The instrument was intended to be criterion-referenced and was thus
item analyzed and revised until the test consisted of items which were
24
passed by at least 75% of participants following the workshop.
Content validity of the instrument was assessed by three expert
judges for adequate content coverage of the five topics presented in
the workshop: legislation, least restrictive environment, IEP, team
approach, and teacher rights. Judges were furnished criteria for
determining the relevance of each item to the objective. The items
which were deemed irrelevant by two of the three judges were rejected;
new items were written and reviewed by the judges.
The Rucker-Gable Educational Programming Scale
The Rucker-Gable Educational Programming Scale (Rucker & Gable,
19731 was used as one of the posttest measures (see Appendix D). The
purpose of the instrument was to measure attitude toward and knowledge
of appropriate program placements for handicapped children. The
instrument consisted of 30 brief descriptions of actual children
referred for special educational services. Respondents were asked to
choose what they felt was the most appropriate educational setting
for each child from a continuum of seven placements (Table 31, assum
ing an ideal set of circumstances. The scale yielded knowledge and
attitude scores, obtained by comparing participant responses to an
expert panel's responses.
Reliability of the Rucker-Gable Educational Programming Scale is
reported on two dimensions. Inter-rater reliability of the panel of
35 experts was calculated using Guilford's method (Guilford, 1954,
pp. 395-397). The reliability coefficient reported across severity
and type of handicap was .99. Internal consistency data were also
gathered for the knowledge and attitude subscales of the Rucker-
Gable Educational Programming Scale. For the. Knowledge subscale, co'-
efficient alpha was .92 for regular classroom teachers. Qn the
attitude subscale, a split half internal consistency of .86 was
reported. These are considered within acceptable limits for the pur
poses of the study.
Table 3
Continuum of Services
From the Rucker-Gable Educational Programming Scale
REGULAR CLASSROOM—-with, no basic change in teaching procedures.
CONSULTATION— regular classroom with specialists available for con
sultation with teacher Cor parent) whenever needed.
CONSULTATION AND DIRECT SERVICES— regular classroom with specialists
available in the school to consult with the teacher and provide short
term direct services to student.
RESOURCE ROOM— regular classroom with resource room services (special
education teacher providing supplemental instruction) provided on a
continuing basis in which the student can participate for as much as
two hours a day.
PART-TIME SPECIAL CLASS— student enrolled in a special class for the
majority of each day, but enters the regular classroom for certain
subjects.
FULL-TIME SPECIAL CLASS— student assigned to a self-contained special
class on a full-time basis.
NOT— student placed in a residential school, hospital program, treat
ment center, etc. because he or she cannot reasonably be handled
within the context of regular or special public instruction.
NOTE: Adapted from Bruininks and Rynders (.1971) , Deno (1970)
Reynolds (1962), and Stern (1958) .
Content validity data were gathered using actual case descriptions
judged by content experts. Item appropriateness and item responses
26
were also judged by content experts. The final set of 30 items was
selected based on judges1 responses to represent a continuum of disa
bility across each of the three disability areas (mental retardation,
emotional disturbance, and learning disabilities).
Construct validity was reported by the test’s authors through a
continuous process of refining and elaborating on test score interpre
tation. Construct validity is more commonly viewed as the extent to
which some underlying trait is measured by the scale. No factor
analyses were presented,, but several studies to assist score interpre
tation were presented. Because the Rucker-Gable Educational Program
ming Scale was used as. the criterion measure, no direct information on
construct validity of the scale was generated. Shapiro (1975) and
Shaw (1975) used the scale to assess attitude changes resulting from
training sessions. The studies support reasonable predictions about
the Rucker-Gable Educational Programming Scale in various settings
which provide the basis for limited assertions of construct validity
(McCarthy, 1975, pp. 599-600).
Workshop Evaluation Form
A written evaluation form was developed, field-tested, and re
vised twice with classroom teachers prior to the present study (see
Appendix E). The instrument was used to gather participants' percep
tion of knowledge gained and overall response to the workshop content
and process. The instrument provided a subjective cross-check of
cognitive and affective responses gathered on the previous two instru
ments to the ACTIONS workshop.
27
Procedures,
Development of Experimental Workshop
As a result of the inservice training literature review, short—
comings of prevailing inservice practices were, identified, and promis-
ing inservice practices were recommended. The innovative ACTIONS work-
shop was developed to avoid earlier pitfalls (see Table 4) and to in
clude recommended practices (see Table 5}
-
Table 4
Comparison of Prevailing Inservice Practices
and the Experimental ACTIONS Workshop
Category
Prevailing
inservice. Practice
Experimental ACTIONS
Planning No consideration of actual
or felt needs of educators
involved
Designed by classroom teach
ers ; conducted at school
site level
Little teacher partici
pation
Teachers volunteer to train
at local site
Little time and money set
aside
Massive field test and revi
sion; state pays for train
ing of trainers and materials
Promoted by administrators Administrative support is
desirable
Implemen
tation
Held on teacher time with
out compensation
Schools can schedule a re
duced day for school site
workshop; release^ time for
teachers
No credit Credit can be arranged
Few stated goals Stated goals
Most programs are dull
and lecture-oriented
No lectures; activities are
learner-oriented
Follow-up Little opportunity for
evaluation and feedback
Workshop design includes
feedback session
No follow-up for further Follow-up plan developed at
workshop
28
Table 5
Comparison of Recommended Inservice Practices
and the Experimental ACTIONS' Workshop
Category
Recommended
Inservice Practices
Experimental ACTIONS
Planning School-based rather than
district wide
School-based
Implement a
tation
Differentiated experiences Differentiated experiences
through various learning
centers
Active learning roles Active learning roles
Demonstrations of learning
instead of storing up
knowledge
Application tasks and
masteryilearning
Opportunities to share Opportunities to share
Learner-selected activities Learner-selected activities,
pace, learning style
Follow-nip Comprehensive plan not
one-shot
Comprehensive plan is devel
oped as part of the workshop
Thus, the development of the ACTIONS workshop was based on earlier in-
service training research and was designed specifically for needs
described by classroom teachers.
Workshop Description
The process of the experimental ACTIONS workshop consisted of six
learning centers, set up throughout the room, with a sign and rules
posted at each, center. Participants were directed to sit anywhere and
listen to the instructions for using this type of classroom. Materi
als in each center and the type of instruction presented were reported
in Table 6.
29
Table 6
Description of Learning Centers
^ L a
Center Materials
Type of
Instruction
Self-instruction Cassette tapes, scripts,
playback unit, headphones
Introducto ry
Reading Books, journals, papers Int ro du c to ry
Filmstrip Cassette, filmstrip,
viewer, headphones
Introductory
Games One game per rtopic Application task
Pr obi em-so lvi ng One set of problems Application task
Testing Thought questions Application task
9.
All five topics (legislation, least restrictive environment,
IEP, team approach., teacher rights! were contained in each center.
ACTIONS Format
Each workshop hegan with a warm-up activity to stimulate discus
sion (see Appendix G), followed by 2-g hours to work at the learning
centers. Each participant was told to cover all the topics and was
given a progress Chart (see Appendix tt) . After the time in the learn
ing centers was up, debriefing and discussion sessions were conducted
by the workshop leader, for open sharing of unanswered questions and
concerns. A needs assessment to plan future inservice training was
conducted using stimulus questions asked by the workshop leader (see
Appendix I), At the conclusion of the workshop, an ACTIONS handbook
was distributed to each participant (see Appendix J)..
30
Control Format
The content of the control workshop was identical to the experi
mental ACTIONS workshop; however, the process differed. Each of the
five topics was presented in a lecture format, followed by small group
activities using the problem-solving exercises. The control group
workshop was introduced in the same way, began with the same warm-up
activity as the experimental ACTIONS workshop, and was conducted in
the same amount of time as the experimental version (3^ hours) . Each
participant received the ACTIONS handbook. The only difference be
tween the two workshops was in the approach, learner-centered vs
teacher-centered.
Training of workshop Leaders
As a means of rapidly disseminating the ACTIONS workshop through
out California, the training-of-trainers model (Havelock, 1973) was
used. Participating districts selected trainers who participated in
an ACTIONS workshop and received instruction in conducting the work
shop .
In order to carry out the study, four workshop leaders received
training in both the experimental ACTIONS and the control workshop
content and process. Workshop leaders were assigned at random to the
experimental or control group to prevent confounding effects due to
workshop leader characteristics rather than workshop effects. A
training session was held, followed by guided practice in both ap
proaches and feedback from the experimenter. Actual training sessions
were observed by the experimenter, followed by further feedback. In
addition, a written agenda and script were provided to both
31
experimental and control group workshop leaders to assure uniformity
(see Appendix F).
Pilot Workshop
The initial version of the ACTIONS workshop was field—fested and
revised; and the revised version was implemented over 100 times with
over 2,000 classroom teachers as part of the California Department of
Education's inservice training effort for a nine-month period prior to
this study. Written evaluation data were collected at the close of
each workshop and adjustments and improvements resulted.
Pilot Study
A trial version of the study was conducted with 40 classroom
teachers from a small suburban school district to detect any problems
with instrumentation and procedures. Logistical problems of releas
ing teachers, random assignment, providing adequate time for comple
tion of pretests and posttests, and insuring uniform workshop pro
cedures were discovered, which resulted in refinements of the design
and implementation of the study.
Evaluation Design of the Study
The posttest control group research design was: used to test the
effect of the independent variable, the type of inservice training
approach Clearner-centered vs teacher-centered) on the dependent
variables, measures of information and knowledge, attitudes, and sat
isfaction with workshop process and content. Demographic variables
of sex, years of teaching experience, number of special education
32
courses taken, and degrees achieved were also considered. The vari
ables are displayed in Table 7.
Table 7
Variables Considered by the Study
Approach. , Demographics
r-r J J Measures f
Clndependent , .... (Teacher
. %, x (Dependent variables) ^ ,
variable) characteristics)
ACTIONS
(learner-centered)
vs
Traditional
(teacher-centered)
Special Education
Information Inventory
Rucker-Gable Educational
Programming Scale
Knowledge subscale
Attitude subscale
Workshop Evaluation
Sex
Years of teaching
Number of special
education courses
taken
Degrees achieved
I;n the design, subjects were assigned to experimental and control
groups, at random. They were pretested with a content-validated short
form (10 items) of the Special Education Information Inventory to
determine the initial equivalence of the two groups in terms of in
formation on special education issues and legislation. The workshop
was conducted; immediately following the workshop, three posttest
measurements were given. The difference between the posttest scores
for the two groups was then tested for statistical significance.
The posttest control group design is superior to most designs
used in inservice training research because of the use of random
assignment to treatment group and the resulting comparison of the two
groups, instead of the. typical reliance on gain scores. Previous
33
studies which utilized other designs were vulnerable to testing effects
due to the use of pretests and interaction effects of selection bias
with the experimental variable (Campbell & Stanley, 1963) .
Data Analysis
Pretest data for the study were collected prior to the workshop.
Experimental and control teachers completed the same short form of the
Special Education Information Inventory. The pretest was described as
a needs assessment for an upcoming workshop. Descriptive data includ
ing means and standard deviations were calculated to compare initial
group differences.
Written evaluation forms were distributed to and collected from
teachers in the experimental and control groups at the end of the
workshop. The Special Education Information Inventory and the Rucker-
Gable Educational Programming Scale were also completed immediately
following the workshop. The instruments were described as follow-up
needs assessment and workshop evaulations.
Hotelling's multivariate ;t test was performed to determine the
statistical significance of the differences between the experimental
and control groups on the four dependent variables: measures of infor
mation on special education legislation (Special Education Information
Inventory), knowledge of least restrictive placement issues (Rucker-
Gable Educational Programming Scale), attitude toward least restrictive
placement (Rucker-Gable Educational Programming Scale), and satisfac
tion with workshop content and format (workshop evaluation).
34
Summary
The ACTIONS workshop was developed as a result of legislative
mandates to provide inservice training to classroom teachers on changes
that have occurred as a result of PL 94-142 and AB 1250, especially
least restrictive placement and individualized education programming.
Designed to overcome problems of previous: workshops, a posttest con
trol group evaluation design was described that assessed teachers in
the experimental and control groups on the effects of the ACTIONS
workshop on information and knowledge, attitudes toward least restric
tive placement, and satisfaction with workshop process and content,
compared to a control workshop.
Subjects were drawn from two volunteer school districts and were
randomly assigned to the experimental group Clearner-centered ACTIONS
workshop1 or control group Cteacher-centered workshop with same con
tent) . A pretest, a short form of the Special Education Information
Inventory, was used to see whether the equality of the experimental
group and the control group in terms of information on special educa
tion legislation existed prior tocthe training. Posttest measures
consisted of the Special Education Information Inventory, the Rucker-
Gable Educational Programming Scale (to assess knowledge of least
restrictive placement Issues and attitudes toward least restrictive
placement) and a written workshop evaluation Cto assess participant
satisfaction with workshop content and process),
Preparations for the study included over 1G0 pilot ACTIONS work
shops over a nine-month period, training of workshop leaders in the
learner—centered (experimental) and teacher—centered (control) •
35
approaches tp the workshop, and a trial run of the study. The process
of the experimental workshop consisted of learning centers; the con
trol workshop used teacher presentations and small-group tasks. Post
test data were gathered immediately following the workshop. Data
analysis consisted of Hotelling's multivariate t_test and descriptive
statistics on the demographic characteristics of the subjects.
The findings and evaluation of the findings have been reported in
Chapter IV; a summary of the study and recommendations for further
research were included in Chapter V.
36
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results
Demographic information about the teachers in the experimental
and control groups is reported in Table 8. Because teachers were ran
domly assigned to the experimental and control groups, it was assumed
that demographic characteristics would be approximately the same.
Table 8
Demographic Characteristics of Experimental and Control Groups
Experimental Control
District Urban 33 31
Location Rural
30 32
Age 20-30 15 23
31-40 26 25
41-50 14 11
51+ 8 3
Sex Male 30 19
Female 33 43
Education BA or BS IQ 7
BA+ or BS+ 33 37
MA or MS 8 6
MA+ or MS+ 12 12
PhD or EdD 0 2
Special Education 0 25 17
Courses Taken 1 12 17
2 7 7
3 or more 17 21
Xn addition to a desired initial equivalence of experimental and
control groups on demographic variables, a pretest of knowledge of
special education issues and legislation was administered. Results of
the pretest, using a t_ test for independent groups, are presented in
Table 9.
Table 9
Pretest Results
„ a Standard . .
Group Mean _ . ^. t test
Deviation —
Experimental 6.6721 1.786
.496 (NS)
Control 6.8750 1.586
a
The pretest contained 10 items from the Special Education Infor
mation Inventory.
Because samples were drawn from very different geographic and socio
economic locations (urban and rural), pretest results were compared
for the two samples. Results of this comparison, shown in Table 10,
indicated initial differences were significant, with the rural sample
scoring significantly lower on the information pretest than the urban
sample. (See Table 10, p. 39.)
Hotelling's multivariate test was used to compare simulta
neously the effect of the independent variable (learner-centered
ACTIONS vs traditional teacher-centered workshop) on the four depen
dent variables. A computer program, BMDP3D, was used to perform the
analysis. The means and standard deviations for the four dependent
variables were presented in Table 11, Results of Hotelling's
38
Table 10
Pretest Results— Urban vs Rural
Group
Standard
Mean
Deviation
t test
Urban 7.2258 1.564
.013 (significant)
Rural 6.1000 1.845
multivariate t^test indicated that there was no significant difference
between experimental and control groups on the four dependent vari-
2
ables Ct = 6.8425; df = 4,118; p_= .163). Thus, insufficient data
were available to reject the four research questions.
Table 11
Means and Standard Deviations for the
Dependent Variables of the Study-
Independent
Variables
Dependent Vari ables
Special Ed
Inventory9-
Rucker—Gable
Knowledge Attitude . d
„ T i~ T c Evaluation
Subscore0 Subscore
Experimental
Workshop
n = 63
Control
Workshop
n = 62
x
st
X
s
X
20.8435
3.4742
20.3165
2.7647
6.8390
1.7822
6.6508
1.9334
128.2540
15 .2152
123.5236
15.7119
59 .2654
25 .0620
53 .8522
14.2171
Special Education Inventory contained 25 items.
^Rucker-Gable Knowledge Subscale contained 30 items scored by
employing the Euclidean distance formula to compare the respondent's
placement choice on each item to the average placement choice of a
panel of experts.
CRucker Gable Attitude Subscale contained 30 items scored by
summing the weighted responses to the items.
cl
Workshop evaluation contained 15 items on a 1-5 Likert format.
39
Each of the research questions with the results is reported in
dividually below.
1. Will classroom teachers in the experimental ACTIONS workshop
score significantly higher (p^ < .05) on the Special Education
Information Inventory than teachers in the control group?
Results of the data analysis indicated that there was no
significant difference between experimental and control
groups on :the Special Education Information Inventory
(t2 = .93; df = 122; p = .35).
2. Will classroom teachers in the experimental ACTIONS workshop
score significantly higher {p_ < .05) on the Knowledge Sub
scale of the Rucker-Gable Educational Programming Scale than
teachers in the control group?
3. Will classroom teachers in the experimental ACTIONS workshop
score significantly higher (p_ < .05) on the Attitude Sub
scale of the Rucker-Gable Educational Programming Scale than
teachers in the control group? Scores on the Rucker-Gable
Educational Programming Scale are divided into a Knowledge
Subscale and an Attitude Subscale, and a visual profile can
be plotted comparing the responses of participants to the
expert panel for each of the seven placement options pre
sented in Table 3. Figure 1 is the profile for the experi
mental group and the control group compared to the expert
panel. The dotted line represents the responses of the con
trol group; the dashed line represents the responses of the
experimental group. The broad solid line represents the
40
"1
kl. \ Aar ^rt nwB?M«ar * j pnar-TTvar . 1 r ■»« 3 d a a c r. d 'a A/» a to> tr » rf c a iTMPA .lM > J W * ■ -*i
Regular
Classroom
Regular
Classroom/
Consultation
Regular
Classroom with
Consultation and
Designated : :
-Services
Regular
Classroom/Re
source Room
haiV-day
Special class/
Regular class
less than half'
dav
iSpecial class
ful1 day
1
;Non~pub1ic schools
\
v.
‘4
.X * ' I
X. . v ,• r i
4 *
* i <
6
;co o o co f" » vo c i
V -l Cn! C'J t-<
I
!Mild handicaps
C"S L O O J C O *-t O C O r - < V t C O « - ! C l- o r -H U D O 'l CTi C \i f
i M I M ----( tV 1 ---- I I Cvj r — « , I OvJ fvj
rl (M H CVJ CN! CN! r-t CO
Moderate handicaps
Severe
handi caps
Expert panel mean
s cores —
Control mean
scores . » *
Experimental mean
scores — «>» # ta a - $m s>
fFfigure 1. Participant Profile - Rucker Gable Educational Programming Scale]
41
expert panel's responses. The closer the participant's
responses to the expert panel's, the higher the score on the
Knowledge Subscale (appropriateness of a particular placement
for specific students) and attitude (willingness to include
handicapped students in the least restrictive environment).
Results of the data analysis indicated that there was no
significant difference between experimental and control
2
groups on either the Knowledge Subscale (t = .57; df_ = 123;
2
p_ = .57) or the Attitude Subscale (t^ = 1.69; df = 120;
P = .09).
4. Will classroom teachers in the experimental ACTIONS workshop
evaluate the format of that workshop significantly higher
(p^< .05) than evaluations from the control group? Results
of the data analysis indicated no significant difference
between experimental and control groups on the workshop
2
evaluation (jb = 1.49; df = 100; p = .13).
Discussion
In order to utilize the contributions of the study for future
research given the lack of significant differences between the two
inservice training approaches, several questions were posed. Possible
answers to the questions are formulated below, and further consider
ations of workshop outcomes on dependent variables are reviewed for
discussion.
Was a methodological problem the source of the nonsignificant
results of the study? Possible sources of methodological problems
include the use of volunteer school districts, the level of teachers'
42
interest in the workshop content, the lack of adequate sensitivity of
the instruments used in the study, and the length of the workshop.
Each problem is reviewed below, along with proposed solutions.
The urban and rural districts used in the study volunteered to
participate instead of being randomly selected from the total popula
tion of districts in California. Perhaps the level of commitment to
special education and support for teachers' professional growth might
have affected teacher responses to both workshop approaches. The
teachers were not aware, however, that a research study was being con
ducted. Random selection of districts to conduct the study would
eliminate this possible problem.
In the urban school district, teachers were randomly selected
and given release time to participate in the workshop, due to the
large number of teachers in the district. In the rural district, all
teachers were given release time to participate in the workshops. At
tendance, therefore, became part of the teachers' job responsibilities.
However, since the teachers were required to attend, perhaps the re
sults of the study were affected. Earlier studies of inservice train
ing (Jarolimek, 1970? Lawrence, 1974) resulted in recommendations for
teachers' voluntary participation in inservice activities. Voluntary
participation in the workshops might have produced different results
in the present study; the effects of voluntary versus required atten
dance could be tested in future research.
In the study, instruments were needed which could document par
ticipant achievement of workshop objectives and discriminate differ
ences in results between the experimental ACTIONS and the control
43
group on the research questions, Two of the instruments, the Special
Education Information Inventory and the workshop evaluation, were
specially designed and created for use in the study. (.One instrument,
the Rucker-Gable Educational Programming Scale, was selected because
its validity and reliability were within acceptable limits; its stated
purpose appeared to match the focus of the present study; and other
studies reported in the literature had used the Rucker-Gable Educa
tional Programming Scale to document inservice training effects CShaw
& Gillung, 1975; Shapiro, 1975). While the instruments may have been
effective in measuring the objectives of the workshop, the instruments
may not have been powerful enough to differentiate the subtle differ
ences between the two workshop approaches. Further modifications of
the instruments or a search for more appropriate techniques to dis
criminate the differences between the two workshops (structured obser
vations, interviews, etc.) might produce different results in the
present study or provide a direction for future study,
Finally, the workshop was designed for a 3% hour session, to
provide teachers with a basic level of information and awareness of
special education legislation and issues. The culminating activity
of the workshop provided a needs assessment for future training as
well as a plan to apply new skills in the classroom. Perhaps the
effects of a workshop of such brief duration are not apparent immedi
ately after the workshop or the instruments selected to measure the
effectiveness of the training may not have been of sufficient sensi
tivity to distinguish the subtle differences in effects. Lengthening
the workshop and presenting instruction for initial classroom
44
application, followed by reinforcement might produce different results
and could be a direction for future study.
Are the objectives for participants met by both approaches to the
workshop?
Special Education Information Inventory. This instrument measured
information on special education legislation and issues, and was de
signed for a minimum mastery level of 75%. Mean scores for the ex
perimental and control groups were over 80%, which exceeds the cri
terion for mastery and far exceeds the mean scores on the pretest (60%).
The scores may have been a direct result of the workshop; thus the
desired objective was achieved.
Rucker-Gable Educational Programming Scale. Profiles comparing
the experimental and control groups' mean scores on each item by a
panel of experts (Figure 1} revealed substantial agreement. No work
shop objective for attitudes was projected, due to inherent difficul
ties in producing and measuring attitude change. However, the profile
indicated a satisfactory result for participants on this particular
measure in both the experimental ACTIONS and the control workshops,
which may be due to participation in the workshop.
Workshop evaluation. Workshop evaluations often produce spuri
ously high results and can be affected frequently by factors altogether
unrelated to the workshop itself. Nevertheless, participant satisfac
tion with the workshop was measured through a Likert-type workshop
evaluation form (Appendix E). Fifteen items were presented, with a
possible total score of 75, if the participant assigned the highest
possible rating for each item. As indicated in Table 11, the mean
45
score for the experimental group on the workshop evaluation was
59.2654; the mean score for the control group was 53 .8522 . Both of
these means reflect a high level of satisfaction with the following
categories featured in the evaluation; achievement of workshop objec
tives, usefulness of workshop information, workshop content and
process compared to other workshops attended in the past.
Are there practical or logistical considerations which justify
use of one inservice. training approach, over another?
Dissemination. Because of the enormous number of teachers yet to
receive training on PL 94-142, dissemination is a critical factor to
be considered. The experimental ACTIONS workshop, which relies on
learner-centered activities, is very easy to conduct, and workshop
leaders can be trained in a very short period of time. The success of
the control workshop relies on presenter knowledge and skill with con
tent, in asking questions and generating involvement with the content,
and in orchestrating the pace of activities and flow of discussion.
Leaders for the ACTIONS workshop could be trained in 3-5 hours;
leaders for the control workshop required 10-12 hours for those lead
ers already possessing a high level of presentation and group process
skills.' In the ACTIONS workshop, only a minimal level of familiarity
with the content and with, group process and presentation are required,
due to the characteristics of the learning centers and workshop ma
terials . Without the prerequisite presentation and group process
skills, training of control workshop leaders could require weeks;
many potential workshop leaders would be ineffective in the control
workshop regardless of the length of training, due to personality
46
characteristics (warmth, acceptance, humor, enthusiasm, etc.)'. In the
ACTIONS workshop, however, the leader is not the center of attention;
the learner is.
The present study attempted to combine experimental research on
inservice training and yet maintain the professional ethics which
demand exemplary inservice training under all conditions. Therefore,
workshop leaders were selected who could be trained to conduct the
ACTIONS workshop and who also had the necessary skills to conduct a
successful control workshop. Workshop leaders were given the amount
of training required to conduct a successful ACTIONS workshop (3-5
hours) but were much more carefully trained to conduct a successful
control workshop (10-12 hours). Thus, the results of the study may
be contaminated by the professional responsibility and ethics of the
field situation. Given random selection of workshop leaders without
added support for those leaders conducting the control workshop, dif
ferent results might have been produced in the present study.
Stages of concern in adoption of innovations. Research on adop
tion of innovations has supported the existence of stages of concern
which mustrhe addressed for change to occur (Fuller, 1969; Hall,
1977; Hall, 1978). Results of the workshop may vary, depending on
the stage of concern being experienced by the participants. Teachers
who participate in the ACTIONS workshop may be at any one or more of
the stages of concern (concern with self and survival, with the task,
or with the impact of the change on others) . In addition to variation
in stages of concern, a teacher's familiarity with and effectiveness
in PL 94-142 implementation will vary. Figure 2 illustrated the
47
Teacher p-nDmpact (effects of Integrating------------ Implementation
PL 94-142 on students) (getting support from
others involved
Concerns
of
About Task (how teaching Managing
methods will have to (problems with “ PL 94-142
PL 94-142
change; logistical paperwork, meetings)
considerations of
mainstreaming)
■ — Self (what PL 94-142 Orienting------------ —J
will mean to profes “ (getting the facts
sional status, re about PL 94-142
wards, role)
NOTE: Adapted from S« Loucks and G.„ Hall (1977).
Figure 2. Relationship of concerns and implementation of PL 94-142 as an innovation.
00
sequence and relationship of concerns regarding the use of an innova
tion such as PL 94-142.
The experimental ACTIONS workshop format offered the maximum
flexibility to meet the diverse stages summarized in Figure 2 because
trainers could direct individual.participants to specific resources
and could work with small groups on particular needs. A local teacher
at each school site could conduct the experimental ACTIONS, because
only brief training is required; the workshop could be oriented to
specific problems and needs identified in the building. Research
indicates that a key factor in successful inservice is the adaptation
of a workshop to meet identified needs at the local school site
(Lawrence, 1974). Even without the availability of an experienced
workshop leader (with presentation, group process, and content exper
tise) , teachers can use components of the ACTIONS workshop to meet
specific school site needs. The control workshop does not possess
this flexibility.
Summary
The study compared the effects of an innovative information and
awareness workshop, ACTIONS, with a more traditional inservice ap
proach. The two workshops used identical content but a different
process (learner-centered versus teacher-cehtered); the study compared
the effects on teacher knowledge, attitudes, and satisfaction with'
workshop process and content. The ACTIONS workshop content and
process were developed as a result of legislative mandates, expressed
teacher needs, and a review of prevailing and recommended inservice
practices.
49
Hotelling's multivariate t test was used to analyze the effects
of the experimental ACTIONS workshop (learner-centered) and the control
workshop (teacher-centered) on the dependent variables of teacher
knowledge of legislation and issues, attitudes toward least restrictive
environment for exceptional students, and satisfaction with workshop
content and process. Initial equivalence of experimental and control
groups on demographic variables was reported; a pretest was used to
assess initial equivalence of information. There was a significant
difference between the urban and rural experimental and control groups
on the pretest Crural teachers scored significantly lower). No sig
nificant differences in the results between the experimental and con
trol groups were found.
Possible conclusions which could be drawn from the data included:
1 . methodological problems may have been the source of nonsig
nificant results (.the use of volunteer school districts, the
leyel of teachers' interest in the workshop content, the lack
of adequate sensitivity of the instruments in the study to
changes or differences in the two workshops, and length of
the workshop);
2. both approaches met the objectives equally well of the Cali
fornia Office of Special Education in providing the training;
3. the experimental ACTIONS approach was preferable to the con
trol approach for ease of dissemination and flexibility to
accommodate teachers' different stages of concern regarding
PL 94-142 implementation.
A summary of the study and recommendations for further research
are included in Chapter V. 50
V, SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Summary
The ACTIONS workshop was designed to provide information and
awareness; and promote positive attitudes related to the implementation
of PL 94-142 by classroom teachers. The process of the workshop was
designed for ease of dissemination, flexibility to acknowledge teacher
perceptions, concerns, and frustrations, and as a response to a con
tinuum of stages of concern which teachers were experiencing. The
purpose of the study was: (a) to report on the development of the
ACTIONS workshop and (b) to evaluate the effectiveness of the workshop
in increasing teacher information on special education legislation
and awareness of issues and attitudes toward integrating exceptional
students into regular classes.
The experimental ACTIONS workshop was designed to be learner-
centered and featured.six learning centers, with content offered-in a
yariety'-ofclearning modes. The control workshop was designed to be
teacher-centered and presented in a lecture followed by teacher-
pre sc r ihe d ac ti.vit ie s.
A posttest control group design was used to test the effect of
the type of instructional approach, (learner-centered vs teacher-
centered) on measures of information and knowledge, attitudes, and
satisfaction with workshop process and content. Subjects were drawn
from two volunteer school districts and were randomly assigned to the
51
experimental or control group, A pretest was administered to further
assure initial equivalence of the two groups:. Each group then partici
pated in the workshop and finally completed three posttest measure
ments. The difference between the posttest scores for the experimental
and the control groups was tested for significance using Hotelling's
multivariate t_ test.
Four research questions were posed;
1. Will classroom teachers in the experimental ACTIONS workshop
score significantly higher (p_ < ,05) on the Special Education
information inventory than teachers in the control group?
2 . Will classroom teachers in the experimental ACTIONS workshop
score significantly higher (p < .05) on the Knowledge Sub
scale of the Rucker-Gable Educational programming Scale than
teachers in the control group?
3, Will classroom teachers in the experimental ACTIONS workshop
score significantly higher (p < .05) on the Attitude Subscale
of the Rucker-Gable Educational Programming Scale than teach
ers in the control group?
4, Will classroom teachers in the experimental ACTIONS workshop
score significantly higher (p^< .05) on the written workshop
evaluation than teachers in the control group?
Results of the data analysis using Hotelling's multivariate t
test indicated no significant differences between experimental and
control groups for the. four research questions listed above, Conclu
sions were drawn from reviewing the data analysis in relation to
earlier studies of inservice training. The first conclusion
52
considered the possibility' of methodological sources of nonsignificant
results (use of volunteer school districts, level of teacher interest
in the workshop content, lack of sensitivity of the instruments used,
and length of the workshop) . A second conclusion was that both ap
proaches were equally effective in meeting the objectives of the
training. Finally, given the equivocal results of the data analysis,
two reasons for choosing the experimental ACTIONS over the control
workshop were explored: ease of dissemination and flexibility of the
ACTIONS workshop to accommodate teachers' different stages of concern
regarding PL 94-142.
Recommendations fob Future Research
Although the results of the study do not support the superiority
of the experimental ACTIONS inservice training approach, over the con
trol approach on the dependent variables of information, knowledge,
attitudes, and workshop satisfaction, the study has contributed to an
important area of research for further exploration: Is academic
engaged time the key variable in adult learning as well as student
learning? One variable not considered in the present study was "aca
demic engaged time": the actual number of minutes each participant
spent working on individual tasks, participating in small group
activities, or listening to and interacting with the workshop leader
about the content of the workshop. Both, the experimental ACTIONS and
the control workshops featured "learning-centered" activities, oppor
tunities for participants to be actively involved with the workshop
content, other workshop participants/ ideas and concerns, and the
workshop leader's background and experiences with the content. In
53
reviewing the inservice practices based on the additional variable of
"engaged time" or "learning-centered" activities, differences between
the experimental and control workshops appear to diminish, as illus
trated in Table 12.
Table 12
I I
Learning-Centered Activitie s" • — Experimental
ACTIONS vs Control Workshop
Activity Experimental Control
Warmup Participants share personal
characteristics and charac
teristics admired in others , *
compare to characteristics
of exceptional learners and
discuss implications
Same as experimental
Pretest Participants complete objec
tive pretest on laws and
issues in special education
Same as experimental
Introduction
to Concepts
Participants listen to
tapes, read scripts, view
filmstrips
Trainer presents informa
tion and uses feedback
and discussion questions
to insure involvement
and interaction
Application
of Concepts
Participants play concept-
related games, do problem
solving
Trainer introduces small
group problem-solving
activity; small groups
do activity and share
results with large group
^Jastery Participants complete
posttest
Same as experimental
In designing effective inservice techniques, therefore, the
critical variable may be more related to the concept of academic
engaged time, or "learning—centered," instead of a difference in
54
"learner-" or "teacher-centered" approaches. Studies of adult learning
and inservice have confirmed the importance of invo1vement of the
learner; the failure of past inservice has been related to the reliance
on lectures without participant involvement with the content and feed
back from other participants and the workshop leader.
According to reports from workshop leaders and informal conversa
tions with workshop participants, the key variable in inservice train
ing appears to be participant involvement with the content of the work
shop and interaction with other participants and the workshop leader
about ideas and concepts presented in the workshop. Participants per
ceive their learning to be greater (as measured by a Likert scale of
achievement) when workshop leaders use questions and small group activ
ities to stimulate involvement and interaction (Male & Arnold, in
press). A study of participant interaction and involvement as key
variables in inservice training produced the following conclusions
(Male & Arnold, in press):
1 . traditional lecture workshops (without activities and discus
sion) are rated less effective by participants than partici
pative workshops (with individual tasks, small group activi
ties, and discussion);
2 . participant ratings of achieved objectives are higher in par
ticipative workshops compared to ratings of achieved objec
tives in traditional lecture workshops .
It may be noted that in studies to determine key variables of
classroom teacher effectiveness on student achievement, academic
engaged time has emerged as the key variable (Baker, 1977; Rosen-
shine, 1977). Although no studies have been conducted to verify 55
that student achievement and adult achievement are analogous, the simi
larity of results points out a need for further research in the area.
Baker's (1977) evaluation of Early Childhood Education in California
indicated that learner choice of goals and activities, use of games,
audiovisual, and other novel activities were negatively related to per
formance for second-grade children. Classroom studies reviewed by
Rosenshine (1977) indicated greatest student achievement in classes
where teachers controlled instructional goals, chose appropriate ma
terials, and paced the instructional lesson. Classes with a great
deal of student choice resulted in lower academic engaged time and
achievement.
To further expand the study of the adult learner, the following
questions could form the basis of future studies:
1. Will classroom teachers who choose the type of inservice ap
proach increase their performance on dependent measures of
knowledge and/or attitude compared to a control group who
have no such choice?
2. Does a classroom teacher's teaching style interact with
his/her learning style during inservice training?
3. Does the "stage of concern" expressed by a teacher regarding
a particular innovation affect learning and/or attitudes in
an inservice training workshop?
The present study has demonstrated the viability of undertaking
experimental research in a field characterized by previous studies of
questionable reliability and validity. Additional recommendations as
a result of the study include expanding the existing study and data
base of participants or selecting additional characteristics to
ascertain possible effects of certain variables on workshop format
preference and learning/attitude outcomes. Variables which warrant
further study include compulsory versus voluntary attendance at the
workshop; administrative support from the principal for "least restric
tive environment " ; previous teacher participation in the IEP process
or in the integration of an exceptional student into the regular
program, and environmental constraints which would lead a workshop
leader to select the ACTIONS approach or the control approach in a
particular context or setting.
As a result of in-depth, experimental studies such as the present
study, money and time can be saved, and results of training enhanced.
Further studies are necessary to insure that inservice training is
cost-effective, perceived as worthwhile by participants, and results
in desired'.changes in educational practices to assure that the imple
mentation of PL 94-142 is effective for children and educators.
57
REFERENCES
58
Abeson, A. Movement and momentum: Government and the education of
handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 1972, 39, 63-66.
Abeson, A. & Zettel, J. The end of the quiet revolution: The Educa
tion for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Exceptional
Children, 1977, 44_, 114-127.
Alexander, C. & Strain, P. A review of educators' attitudes toward
handicapped children and the concept of mainstreaming. Psy
chology in the Schools, 1978, 15, 390-396,
Anthony, W, Societal rehabilitation: Changing society's attitudes
toward the physically and mentally disabled. Rehabilitation Psy
chology, 1972, 19, 117-126.
Baker, E. Evaluation of the California Early Childhood Education
Program. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA
Graduate School of Education, January, 1977.
Birch, J. Educable mentally retarded children in regular classes.
Reston, Va.: Council for Exceptional Children, 1974.
Bloom, B., Englehart, N., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D.
Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David McKay
Publishers, 1956.
Bolick, N. (Ed.). Digest of state and federal laws: Education of
handicapped children. Reston, Va.: Council for Exceptional
Children, 1974.
Boote, K. Principal and teacher perceptions of special education in-
service programs for regular elementary teachers, Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa., 1975.
Brooks, B., & Bransford, L. Modification of teachers' attitudes
toward exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 1971, 38,
259-260.
Brownsmith, K. Description and evaluation of the mainstreaming
modules. Indiana University, Center for Innovations in Teaching
the Handicapped, Bloomington, Indiana, 1976.
Bruininks, R., & Rynders, J. Alternatives to special class placement
for educable mentally retarded children. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 1971, 3(4), 1-2.
59
California Assembly Bill 1250,, Chapter 1247, October 1, 1977.
California Office of Special Education. Annual program plan, section
X, 1979.
California State Department of Education. A new" era for special
education; California*s Master Plan in action. Sacramento, Ca.;
California State Department of Education, 1979.
Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for research,. Chicago; Rand-McNally, 1966.
Conine, T. Acceptance or rejection of disabled persons by teachers.
Journal of School Health, 1969, 39, 278-281.
Deno, E. Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional
Children, 1970, 37, 229-237.
Dexter, B. Teach unto teachers as you would have them teach unto
children. Paper presented at the World Congress on Future Spe
cial Education, Stirling, Scotland, 1978.
Dunn, L. Special education for the mildly retarded; Is much of it
justifiable? Exceptional Children, 1968, 35, 5-22.
Federal Register. Rules and regulations for implementing PL 94-142,
August 23, 1977.
Fenton, K., & Yoshida, R. Connecticut study. Final report. Wash
ington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, Bureau of Education
for the Handicapped, 1978.
Fine, M. Attitudes of regular and special class teachers toward the
educable mentally retarded child. Exceptional Children, 1967,
33, 429-430.
Fiorentino, M . A study of the effects of a short term inservice edu
cation program on regular class teachers* attitude toward and
knowledge of mainstreaming. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of Massachusetts, 1978.
Foster, G., Ysseldyke, J., & Reese, J. I wouldn't have seen if I
hadn * t believed it . , Exceptional Children, 1975, 41, 469-473.
Fuller, F, Concerns of teachers; A developmental conceptualization.
American Education Research Journal, 1969, 6^(2} , 207-226.
Gagne/ R. The conditions of learning. New York; Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, 1977.
60
CGay, N. Effects of two instructional designs on attitudes of teachers
toward mainstreaming exceptional students. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. East Texas State University, 1976.
Gillung, T., & Rucker, C. Labels and teacher expectations. Excep
tional Children, 1977, 43, 464-465.
Glass, G ., & Stanley, J. Statistical methods in education and psyr^
chology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970.
Glass, R., & Meckler, R. Preparing elementary teachers to instruct
mildly handicapped children in regular classrooms: A summer
workshop. Exceptional Children, 1972, 39, 152-156.
Good, T., & Brophy, J. Behavioral expression of teacher attitudes.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1972, 63^, 617-624.
Guilford, J. Psychometric methods (2nd ed.) . New York: McGraw-Hill,
1954.
Hall, G. A longitudinal investigation of individual implementation of
educational innovations. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of AERA, New York, 1977.
Hall, G. Facilitating institutional change using the individual as
a frame of reference. In J. Grosenick & M. Reynolds (Eds.),
Teacher education: Renegotiating roles for mainstreaming.
Reston, Va. : Council for Exceptional Children, 1978.
Harasymiw, S. Relationship of certain demographic variables on atti
tudes toward the disabled. Paper presented at the National
Rehabilitation Association annual conference, Las Vegas, Nev.,
1974 .
Harasymiw, S., & Horne, M. Teacher attitudes toward handicapped chil
dren and regular class integration. Journal of Special Education,
1976, 10^, 393-401.
Haring, N., Stern, G., & Cruickshank, W. Attitudes of educators
toward exceptional children. Syracuse: Syracuse University
Press, 1958.
Harris, B., & Bessent, W. Inservice education: A guide to better
practice. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.
Havelock, R. The change agent's guide to innovation in education.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications,
1973.
Heath, E. Inservice training: Preparing to meet today's needs.
Academic Therapy, 1974, 9y 267—279.
61
Horne, M. Attitudes and mainstreaming: A literature review for school
psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 1979, 16, 61-67.
Hudson, F., Graham,Warner, M. Mainstreaming: An examination of
the attitudes and needs of regular classroom teachers. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 1979, 2_, 58-62.
Ingram, S. An assessment of regular class teachers’ attitudes toward
exceptional children subsequent to training in mainstreaming.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1976.
Jarolimek, J. A model for inservice teacher education. Social Edu
cation, 1970, 34, 329-332.
Kester, S., & Letchworth, G. Communication of teacher expectations and
their effects on achievement and attitudes of secondary school
students. Journal of Educational Research, 1972, 66, 51-55.
Lawrence, G. Patterns of effective inservice education: A state of
the art summary of research on materials and procedures for
changing teacher behaviors in inservice education. Report pre
pared for the State of Florida, Department of Education, Talla
hassee, Florida, 1974.
Loucks, S., & Hall, G. Assessing and facilitating the implementation
of innovations: A new approach. Educational Technology, 1977, 5,
18-21.
McCarthy, J. Rucker-Gable Educational Programming Scale review. In 0.
Buros (Ed.), Eighth mental measurements yearbook. Highland
Park, N.J.: Gryphon Press, 1975.
Male, M., & Arnold, D. An analysis of participant involvement and
interaction in the success of inservice training. In press.
Male, M. & Perkins, R. Assisting classroom teachers with information
and opportunities for new skills (ACTIONS). Los Angeles: Cali
fornia Regional Resource Center, 1978.
Mann, D. The politics of training teachers in schools. Teachers Col
lege Record, 1976, 78, 323-338.
Martin, E. Some thoughts on mainstreaming. Exceptional Children, 1974,
41, 150-153.
Marver, J., & David, J. Final report. Palo Alto, Cav; Educational
Policy Research Center, SRI International, 1978.
Mills v Board of Education of the District of Columbia. 348 F Supp. 866
CD.D.C., 1972) .
62
Morrissey, P., & Safer, N. .Project IEP; Final report. Roslyn, Va.:
Nero & Associates, 1978.
National Education Association. Education for all handicapped chil
dren: Consensus, conflict and challenges. A study report.
Washington, D.C., 1978.
National Inservice Network newsletter, June 1979.
Panda, K,, & Bartel, N. Teacher perceptions of exceptional children.
Journal of Special Education, 1972, 261-266.
Pasanella, A., & Volkmor, C. Coming back or never leaving: Instruc
tional programming for mildly handicapped students in the main
stream . Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill Publishing Co., 1976.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Consent Agreement 334 F Supp. 1257 (E .D. PA. 1971).
Redden, M. An investigation of mainstreaming competencies of regular
elementary teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer
sity of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, 1976.
Reynolds, M. A framework for considering some issues in special edu
cation. Exceptional Children, 1962, 28, 367-370.
Reynolds, M., & Birch, J. Teaching exceptional children in all
America's schools. Reston, Va.: Council for Exceptional Children,
1977.
Rosenshine, B. Academic engaged time, content covered, and direct
instruction. Paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association convention, New York, 1977.
Rothbart, M., Dalfen, S., & Barrett, R. Effects of teacher expectancy
on student-teacher interaction. Journal of Educational Psy
chology, 1971, 19, 49-54.
Rubin, L. Improving inservice education: Proposals and procedures for
change. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1971.
Rubin, L. The inservice education of teachers: Trends, processes,
and prescriptions. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1978.
Rubovits, P., & Maehr, M. Pygmalion analyzed: Toward an explanation
of the Rosenthal-Jacohson findings. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1971, 19, 197-204.
Rucker, C., & Gable, R. Rucker-Gable Educational Programming Scale
manual. Storrs, Conn.: Rucker-Gable Associates, 1973.
63
Rude, C, Trends and priorities in inservice training. Exceptional
Children, 1978, 45, 172-176.
Senf, G. The teacher's rights in PL 94-142: A conversation with at
torney Reed Martin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1978, 11,
4-14.
Severance, L., & Gasstrom, L. Effects of the label "mentally retarded"
on causal explanations for success and failure outcomes. American
Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1977, 83^, 547-555.
Shapiro, J. Variables associated with alternatives to special class
placement for mildly handicapped students. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1974.
Shaw, S., & Gillung, T. Efficacy of a college course for regular
class teachers of the mildly handicapped. Mental Retardation,
1975, 13^, 3-6.
Shotel, J., Iano, R., & McGettigan, J. Teacher attitudes associated
with integration of handicapped children. Exceptional Children,
1972, 38, 677-633.
Siantz, J., & Moore, E. Inservice programming and preservice priori
ties. The map, the mission and the mandate: Personnel prepara
tion and Public Law 94-142, second annual regional conference.
Division of Personnel Preparation, Bureau of Education for the
Handicapped, U.S. Office of Education. Albuquerque, New Mexico,
1977.
Silberman, M. Behavioral expression of teacher attitudes toward ele
mentary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1969, 6CL 402-407.
Soloway, M. The development and evaluation of a special education
inservice training program for regular classroom teachers.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California,
Los Angeles, 1974.
Stern, G. Classroom integration inventory. Syracuse, N.Y. Syracuse
University Psychological Research Center, 1958.
Swatzenbarg, P. "Mainstreaming" of handicapped children— Are we
prepared? Unpublished manuscript, Department of Special Educa
tion, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, 1975.
Warnat, W. Inservice education: Key to PL 94-142's service to
handicapped children and youth. Today1s Education, 1978, 67,
7Q-72.
64
West, S. How research, helps staff development: In schools and in
big business. In C. Beegle & R. Edelfelt CEds.), Staff develop
ment, staff liberation. Washington, D.C.; Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1977.
Wieck, C. Teacher centers: Linkage in times of shrinkage. Education
Unlimited, 1979, lj 28-30.
Yard, G. Exceptionalities of children and adults: A modular ap
proach to training educational personnel. Des Moines, Iowa:
Midwest Regional Resource Center, 1978.
Zawadski, R. A study of what regular classroom teachers consider de
terrents to teaching educable mentally retarded children in
regular classes. Dissertation Abstracts international, 1974,
35, 292-A,
65
APPENDIX A
PL 94-142 REGULATIONS— PROVISIONS FOR INSERVICE; TRAINING
66
§121a.382 Inservice training,
Ca) As; used in this section, ”inservice trainingu means any
training* other than that received by an individual in a full
time program which, leads to a degree .
(b) Each annual program plan must provide that the State educa
tional agency;
Cl} Conducts an annual needs assessment to determine if a
sufficient number of qualified personnel are available in the
State; and
(2} Initiates inservice personnel development programs based
on the assessed needs of State-wide significance related to
the implementation of the Act.
(c) Each annual program plan must include the results of the
needs assessment under paragraph (b)CD of this section, broken
out by need for new: personnel and need for retrained personnel.
Cd} The State educational agency may enter into contracts with
institutions of higher education, local educational agencies or
Other agencies, institutions, or organizations Cwhich may include
parent, handicapped, or other advocacy organizations), to carry
out;
Cl) Experimental or innovative personnel development programs;
C2) Development or modification of instructional materials;
and
C33 Dissemination of significant information derived from
educational research and demonstration projects.
Ce) Each annual program plan must provide that the State edu
cational agency insures that ongoing inservice training programs
are available to all personnel who are engaged in the education
of handicapped children, and that these programs include:
CD The use of incentives which insure participation by
teachers Csuch as released time, payment for participation,
options for academic credit, salary step credit, certification
renewal, or updating professional skills);
C2) The involvement of local staff; and
C3) The use of innovative practices which have been found to
be effective.
Cfl Each annual program plan must;
CD Describe the process used in determining the inservice
training needs of personnel engaged in the education of handi
capped children;
C2) Identify the areas in which training is needed Csuch as
individualized education programs, non-discriminatory testing,
least restrictive environment, procedural safeguards, and
surrogate parents);
C3) Specify the groups requiring training Csuch as special
teachers, regular teachers* 'administrators, psychologists,
speech—language pathologists, audiologists, physical educa-
. tion teachers, therapeutic recreation specialists, physical
therapists, occupational therapists, medical personnel,
parents, volunteers, hearing officers, and surrogate parents);
67
(4) Describe the content and nature of training for each, area
under paragraph Cf)C2) of this section;
C5] Describe how the training Trill he provided in terms of Ci)
geographical scope Csuch as Statewide, regional, or local), and
Ciil staff training source Csuch as college and university
staffs;, State and local educational agency personnel, and non
agency personnel);
C6) Specify; Ci) The funding sources to be used, and Cii) The
time frame for providing it; and
C . 7 ) Specify procedures for effective evaluation of the extent
to which program objectives are met,
§121a,383 Personnel development plan.
Each annual program plan must: Ca) include a personnel development
plan which provides . a structure for personnel planning and focuses
on preservice and inservice education needs; (b) Describe the results
of the needs assessment under §121a.382Cb)Cl) with respect to identi
fying needed areas of training, and assigning priorities to those
areas; and Cc) Identify the target populations for personnel develop
ment, including general education and special education instructional
and administrative personnel, support personnel, and other personnel
Csuch as para-professionals, parents, surrogate parents, and volun
teers) „
68
APPENDIX B
ASSEMBLY BILL 1250 PROVISIONS FOR STAFF DEVELOPMENT
69
56332.5. Staff development programs provided as part of a local com
prehensive plan shall he coordinated with other staff development
programs in the special education services region, including school
level staff development programs authorized by state and federal law.
Staff development programs provided under this; chapter shall:
tal Provide opportunities for all school personnel, paraprofes-
sionals, and volunteers to participate in ongoing development activi
ties pursuant to a systematic identification of pupil and personnel
needs;.
(b} Be designed and implemented by classroom teachers and other
participating school personnel, including the school principal.
Teachers shall comprise the majority of any group designated to design
local staff development programs for instructional personnel to be
established pursuant to this article.
(c) Allow for diversity in development activities, including but
not limited to, small groups, self-directed learning, and systematic
observation during visits to other classrooms or schools.
Cd) Be conducted during time which is set aside for such purpose
on a continuing basis throughout the school year including, but not
limited to, time when participating school personnel are released
from their regular duties;.
(e) Be evaluated and modified on a continuing basis by partici
pating school personnel with the aid of outside personnel as neces
sary .
(f) Include the school principal and other administrative per
sonnel as active participants in one or more staff development
activities implemented pursuant to this article.
C
70
APPENDIX C
SPECIAL EDUCATION INFORMATION INVENTORY
71
1. Federal and state legislation provide for the education of handi
capped children in
1. regular classes:, for the most part.
2 . special classes or resource rooms.
3. a setting deemed appropriate by the team.
4. private schools, at public expense.
2. Section 504 and PL 94-142
1 . are part of the same legislation.
2 . are considered ' ’ bills of rights” for the handicapped.
3. affect handicapped persons more than non-handicapped persons .
4. are implemented at the option of the state legislature.
3. California's Master Plan for Special Education
1. preceded PL 94-142.
2 . requires that handicapped students be mainstreamed.
3. has been implemented in most of California.
4. provides; guidelines for labeling handicapped students.
4. Some classroom teachers worry about the effects of PL 94-142
because
1 . so little is hnown about teaching handicapped children*
2 . classroom teachers have no opportunity to participate in the
placement and program planning process.
3. the full burden of implementation rests with the classroom
teacher.
4. so many changes in roles, responsibilities, and attitudes
are required to insure success.
5. An assessment plan must be carried out
1. only with parental approval.
2 . by special education credentialed personnel.
3. prior to the referral.
4. as soon as the psychologist can schedule it,
72
6. If a , student has. been referred to special education from a regular
classroom, the optimal school appraisal team would consist of
1* a special education coordinator carefully trained to work
with, parents;.
2 . a principal or representative/ a parent, and an appropriate
specialist, i.e., resource specialist, special class teacher,
educational psychologist, audiologist, or school nurse.
3. an administrator or designee, the parent, the referring
teacher, any appropriate specialists, and the student, if
appropriate.
4. an administrative designee, a school psychologist, a curricu
lum coordinator, a resource specialist, a special education
coordinator, a school nurse, and the parent.
7. The actual placement decision should be made
1. before the meeting to develop the IEP so that the appropriate
personnel will be able to attend.
2 . after the meeting so that heated arguments will be avoided.
3. during the meeting as a result of a team problem solving
effort.
4. tentatively during the meeting with final decision pending
confirmation of availability of room in the recommended pro
gram .
5. only after the parents have signed the IEP form.
8 . Evaluation of pupil progress in the annual review should
1 . he based on standardized test measures.
2 . decide if progress, is sufficient to justify continuation of
educational services.
3. be conducted by the psychologist and speech, therapist.
4. determine if the instructional objectives are appropriate or
need modification.
9. With the passage and implementation of PL 94'-142, teachers'
rights
1 . have been taken away and given to parents of handicapped
children.
2 . have been set aside in favor of the rights of the handicapped.
3. have been clarified with respect to providing instruction to
individuals with exceptional needs.
4. are being denied by much of the litigation files in response
to the new law.
73
10. Th.e development of an IEP is,
1 . a way of assuring pupil progress.
2 . the responsibility of the special education teacher.
3. a way of assuring that services are provided.
4. confidential and cannot be shared with the teacher or the
child.
11. Classroom teachers can expect to find themselves
1 „ required to attend inservice training after school and on
Saturdays.
2 . assigned at least two exceptional learners each year.
3. with more ready access to special materials, resources,
services, and consultative expertise.
4. in more conflict with parents over curriculum and objectives.
12. Parents' and students* rights related to special education are
1 . more important than rights of professionals.
2. the concern of every member of the IEP team.
3. limited by school board policy.
4. important mostly in cases of conflict.
13. Teachers are held responsible for confidentiality of a student's
and his/her family's official records and psychological test data
1 . yet must provide access to records and information for
parents and the student whom the information concerns.
2 . only when information is significant enough to warrant
conf identi ality.
3. whenever teachers are not too busy with educational problems;
to be responsible.
4. with the exclusion of private conversations in the teachers'
lounge.
14. Court cases filed by parents against school districts are decided
1 .
2.
3.
4.
74
in the school's favor when the right to an education has
been denied to a child.
in the parents' favor when equal protection of the law or
due process has been denied to a child.
in the school's favor when a child has been inappropriately
assessed
in the parents' favor when good faith efforts to achieve the
goals and objectives of the TEP have been made and goals and
objectives are not achieved.
15. Teachers can hest assist in involving parents by
1 . mailing out due process forms.
2 . reading parents their rights before the meeting begins.
3. giving them a completed copy of the TEP before the start of
the meeting.
4. making personal , informal contacts with, parents as soon as
a problem is identified.
TRUE-FALSE
16. PL 94-142 regulations, state that teachers will be held accountable
for good faith, efforts to assist the child in reaching his/her
objectives.
17. All academic areas must be covered by the IEP, according to
AB 1250 and PL 94-142.
18. AB 1250 and PL 94—142 require California to provide professional
and support personnel with inservice training in special educa
tion.
19. A free, appropriate public education is provided at public ex
pense, is based on individual needs, requires parent consent.,
and takes place in a class with non-handicapped students.
20. The final decision regarding placement and services rests with
the administrator.
21. Total time spent in the regular classroom is the most critical
aspect of a child's integration into the program.
22. The social interaction required for successful integration is
basically the responsibility of the child and his parents.
23. For any child, the regular classroom program would be considered
less restrictive than any other setting.
" ?
24. Resource specialists can assist the regular teachers in instruc
tional integration of special education students as long as it
does not interfere with scheduling students into the resource
room.
25. Special education classrooms are defined as a "restrictive
placement."
75
APPENDrx
RUCKER-rGABLE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING SCALE
76
RUCKER-GABLE EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAMMING SCALE
F o rm A
C h a u n c y N . R u c k e r
U n iv e rs ity o f C o n n e c tic u t
N a m e
Present position_________
Years teaching experience
D IR E C TIO N S
Teachers are ordinarily faced with a wide variety of problems arising from the many
different kinds of students they work with each day. On the following pages are brief
descriptions of children actually referred for special education services. For each student
y o u are to indicate what y o u feel would be the best educational setting at this time.
You would actually need more information before placing most o f the students, but
please make your best judgements based on the information provided. Assume that all of
t h e programs are available and competently staffed. Also assume that placements within
t h e continuum are flexible and that it is possible for a student to be moved up or down
t h e scale after treatment.
G O O N T O P A G E T W O
C o p y rig h t © 1 9 7 3 by C h a u n c y N . R u c k e r an d R o b e rt K . G ab le
i
i
A ll rig h ts re s e rv e d . N o p a rt o f th is scale m a y b e re p ro d u c e d o r tr a n s m itte d in a n y fo r m o r b y a n y m e a n s , e le c tro n ic
o r m e c h a n ic a l, in c lu d in g p h o to c o p y in g a n d re c o rd in g , o r b y a n y in fo r m a tio n sto ra g e o r re trie v a l s y s te m , w ith o u t i
p e rm is s io n in w r itin g f r o m th e a u th o rs . '
_ __ -i
77
Date
I
i
R o b e rt K . G a b le
U n iv e rs ity o f C o n n e c tic u t
Page 2 I
i
i
PLACE EACH STUDENT IN ONE OF T H E SEVEN PROGRAMS
FRO M THE C O N TIN U U M BELOW
R EG U LA R CLASSROOM - with no basic change in teaching procedures.
C O N SU LTA TIO N - regular classroom with specialists available for consultation with
teacher (or parent) whenever needed.
C O N S U LTA TIO N & D IR EC T SERVICES' - tegular classroom with specialists
available in the school to consult with teacher and provide short-term direct services
to student.
RESOURCE ROOM - regular classroom with resource room services (special educa
tion teacher providing supplemental instruction) provided on a continuing basis in
which the student can participate for as much as two hours each day.
P A R T-TIM E SPECIAL CLASS - student enrolled in a special class for the majority
o f each day, but enters regular classroom for certain subjects.
F U L L -T IM E SPECIAL CLASS - student assigned to a self-contained special class on ■
a full-time basis. j
N O T - student placed in a residential school, hospital program, treatment center, etc. i
because he or she cannot reasonably be handled within the context o f regular or
special public education.
If you choose:
Regular Classroom, circle number seven
Consultation, circle number six
Consultation & Direct Services, circle number five
Resource Room, circle number four
Part-Time Special Class, circle number three
Full-Time Special Class, circle number two
Not for public education, circle number one
(7) 6 5 4 3 2 1
7 © 5 4 3 2 1
7 6 (5 )4 3 2 1
7 6 5 © 3 2 1
7 6 5 4 (3) 2 1
7 6 5 4 3 © !
7 6 5 4 3 2 (T)
PLEASE RESPOND TO E V E R Y ITE M
_j
78
CON
CONiiOS:
Page 3
cc a .
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
3 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
4 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
; S . , 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1
6. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
j 7 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
j
, 8 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
j
I
9 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1 0 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .
2 3 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
, 1 2 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
' S 3 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
, 1 4 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1 5 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
? 6 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
3 7 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I’n
1.. N a n c y is a th ird grader w h o has d iffic u lty kee p in g her place d u rin g oral reading. H e r h an d
w ritin g is lab o red , the letters are very large and irreg u lar, and she ca n n o t w rite on the lines. H e r
w o rk is disorganized. She gives up easily and needs a lo t o f personal a tte n tio n .
2. J im ’s ach ievem ent is a p p ro x im a te ly tw o years b elo w e x p e c ta tio n fo r his age o f nine. H e has
great d iffic u lty u n d erstandin g and fo llo w in g d ire c tio n s and forgets th e m q u ic k ly . H e seems to
| lack a n y social skills.
1 3 . C liffo rd , a nine ye a r o ld , is very alert arid im a g in a tive; he is able to discuss a v a rie ty o f topics
1 in te llig e n tly , but he is unable to read.
' 4. M y ro n is a sixth grader w h o o fte n becom es aggressive in class. H is relationsh ips w ith o th e r
1 child ren are usu ally quarrelsom e and he is prone to get in to tro u b le w h en le ft alone.
i 5 . Ed repeated kin d erg arten because o f his im m a tu rity and is now' h av in g tro u b le d o ing his first
grade w o rk . I f he is in clu d ed in a g ro u p a c tiv ity , he c o n s ta n tly teases the sm aller ch ild re n . H e
I has to be w a tc h e d c o n s ta n tly or he w ill d es tro y th eir w o rk in a sadistic m an n e r.
6 . Jason, age six. occasionally p rin ts le tte rs b ackw ards, w rites fro m rig h t to le ft, and is restless in
[ class. His parents are con cerned that he is still on reading readiness m a te ria l ra th e r than in a
j ■ reading g ro u p like his classmates.
' 7 . H e rb has m ade a p o o r ad ju s tm e n t to his first grade class despite his c a p a b ility fo r learnin g. H e
' has d iffic u lty p a rtic ip a tin g in g ro u p fu n c tio n s because he is so m ischievous. H e o fte n fails to
j respond to d iscipline.
8 . R a y , age tw e lv e , is a tw o tim e rep ea ter w ith above average p o te n tia l; he has great d iffic u lty
| rem em b erin g m aterial presented in a visual m an n e r an d , in spite o f a great deal o f rem ed ial
| reading in s tru c tio n , rem ains a n o n -read er.
! \ 9 . K e n n y is a ten year old wnth a h is to ry o f late d e v e lo p m e n t. H e sat up at age tw o , he had no
, ; recognizable speech u n til age seven, he learned to w a lk at age n in e, and he is still n o t to ile t
I t ained.
• 10. F ra n k ’s ach ieve m e n t is b e lo w th a t o f his fifth grade classm ates. H e is m o o d y , and a lo n er w h o
1 1 is c o n tin u a lly seeking a tte n tio n and testing adults to see i f th e y lik e h im . A t h o m e he has
j 1 displayed physical violence, b u t never at school.
1 11. L ero y beat a n o th e r first grader so severely th at m in o r surgery w as req u ired . He has b itte n a
- j n u m b e r o f his classm ates and has to be supervised c o n s ta n tly .
I
, ! 12. C harles is an eight year o ld w h o has n o t y e t sat u p , c ra w le d , o r w a lk e d . H e is unable to
I ! c o m m u n icate in any w ay. He has n o b o w el or b lad d er c o n tro l, c a n ’t feed h im s e lf, and is v e ry
| 1 susceptible to u p p er resp irato ry in fe c tio n s .
1 j 13. J ose seetns unable to p e rfo rm the academ ic req u irem en ts o f his f ifth grade class, p a rtic u la rly
f | in m ath e m a tic s and language. H e has a ch e erfu l c o m p lia n t p e rs o n a lity . H e w o rks best on a
, J con crete level.
!| 14. V irg in ia is an eig h t ye a r old w h o does little w o rk in sch ool. She is cap able o f verbal and
physical attacks on anyone w hen a n g ry . She d oesn't seem to care ab o u t an y school re la tio n
ships and n e ith e r threats nor praise are e ffe c tiv e in d ea lin g w ith her.
1 5 . T o m . age eig h t, doesn't seem to acq u ire n ew skills as q u ic k ly as m o s t;h e needs to have in stru c
tions rep ea ted several tim es. He has d iffic u lty w o rk in g in d iv id u a lly and needs.a .great deal o f
en couragem ent and supervision.
16 . A n n a lo u is n ew to her present fifth grade class. She seems an xious w hile she is in school, b u t
! is m u ch calm er as soon as she leaves the school grounds. H e r sch o o lw o rk is slig h tly b e lo w
average, but she is q u ite responsive i f encouraged.
1 17. Jesse, an eight yea r o ld , has d iffic u lty kee p in g up w ith his class in all subjects. H e is very large
fo r his age and q u ite im m a tu re s o c ially . H e has a n o ticeab le speech p ro b le m .
OPEN FOR R E M A IN IN G ITEM S
79
Page 4
I cc o o ce C L u . z
1 8 . 7 6 S 4 3 2 1 1 8 . S ta n is a tw e lv e y e a r o ld o f averag e a b ility w h o w a n ts d e s p e ra te ly to
le a rn lo re a d , b u t even th o u g h he has h a d re m e d ia l in s tru c tio n , h e is
v ir tu a lly a n o n -re a d e t. lie d is tu rb s o th e r c h ild re n b y h u m m in g to
h im s e lf m u c h of th e tim e . A lth o u g h h e as fru s tra te d in m o s t a c a d e m ic
j e n d e a v o rs , h e does v e ry w e ll in e x p e rim e n ts a n d class d iscussions in
science a n d o n all o ra l tests.
, 1 9 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 9 . J e rry is a seven y e a r o ld w h o d is ru p ts g ro u p tasks a n d refuses to go w ith
his class to lu n c h o r g y m . A t recess h e p la y s w ith o ld e r c h ild re n fro m
o th e r classes since his o w n classm ates w o n ’t p la y w ith h im . A lth o u g h
he seem s to lik e h is te a c h e r a n d has ab o ve average p o te n tia l, h e s e ld o m
c o m p le te s his w o r k in a s a tis fa c to ry m a n n e r.
2 0 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 0 . D a n is a six y e a r o ld w h o is e x tr e m e ly im m a tu re in a ll areas. H e is n o t
a b le to d o a n y o f the tasks th a t are e x p e c te d o f a k in d c rg a rtn e r. H is
speech is p r im a r ily lim ite d to o n e or tw o w o rd u tte ra n c e s . H e has a
n e g a tiv e a p p ro a c h to s c h o o l.
2 1 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 1 . P a u la is a s o ft s p o k e n n in e y e a r o ld . S h e has tro u b le u n d e rs ta n d in g
even s im p le d ire c tio n s a n d o fte n chooses to ig n o re th e m . She u s u a lly
1 c a n n o t d o assigned w o r k a n d re acts b y c ry in g o r d is tra c tin g o th e r
j c h ild re n .
2 2 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 2 . N o e l is a second g ra d e r w h o w as r e ta in e d in firs t g ra d e . H is p e rfo rm a n c e
is lo w in all s u b je c ts , b u t h e a p p ears fa ir ly c a p a b le . H e is le th a rg ic ,
passive, a n d n o n -re a c tiv e , s e e m in g to la c k e m o tio n a l responsiveness.
H e s till c h ecks e ach le tte r w h e n c o p y in g a w o rd and o fte n co n fu ses
le tte rs a n d w h o le w o rd s .
'2 3 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 . B o b is a th ird g ra d e r w h o w a n ts frie n d s , b u t his classm ates c o n tin u a lly
m a k e h im a s c ap eg o at. A lth o u g h h e is a p p a re n tly b r ig h t, h e is v e ry
fo rg e tfu l a n d seem s u n a w a re o f w h a t is e x p e c te d b y his te a c h e r.
i
2 4 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 4 . V a n c e , age seven, is a g o o d s tu d e n t in all areas e x c e p t m a th e m a tic s
w h ic h is a c o n s ta n t fru s tra tio n to h im ; he ts u n a b le to d eal s u c cessfu lly
w ith th e m o s t basic a r ith m e tic c o n c e p ts .
2 5 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 I 2 5 . B ill is a v e ry fr ie n d ly ten y e a r o ld w h o has re c e n tly le a rn e d to w r ite his
n a m e . H is speech s k ills are o n a v e ry im m a tu re le v e l. H e has m a s te re d
; a fe w s im p le s e lf-h e lp skills.
2 6 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 6 . M e l c o n tin u a lly d is ru p ts his f if t h g rad e class. H e seem s to be a n g ry
m u c h o f th e tim e an d o fte n b u llie s o th e r c h ild re n . A lth o u g h h e is
o f average p o te n tia l, he d o e s n ’t h ave m u c h in te re s t in his studies.
2 7 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 7 . C h ris to p h e r is a v e ry a rtic u la te seco n d g ra d e r w it h m a n y in te re s ts . H e
w o rk s v e ry s lo w ly , p a rtic u la rly in re a d in g ; H e is w e a k in p h o n e tic
a n a ly s is , c a n ’ t seem to re ta in re a d in g s k ills , a n d a n y a c a d e m ic g ro w th
o n his p a rt d e p e n d s o n a g re a t d eal o f d r ill.
2 8 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 '28. D o n , age te n , is o n ly s lig h tly s lo w e r th an his average classm ates, b u t he
is c lu m s y and o th e r s tu d e n ts h ave n ic k n a m e d h im " D o n th e d u n c e ” .
2 9 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 9 . J irn m y Lee is an e ig h t y e a r o ld w h o s e a c a d e m ic p e rfo rm a n c e is w e ll
b e lo w w h a t is e x p e c te d fo r b is age. H e has d if f ic u lt y fe e d in g h im s e lf,
he is n o t c o m p le te ly to ile t tra in e d , a n d lie has v e ry p o o r m o to r c o o rd i
n a tio n .
3 0 . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 0 . F re d is a .te n y e a r o ld fo u r th g ra d e r w h o w as r e ta in e d in first g u id e . H is
a tte n tio n span is sh o rt a n d m a n y o f his in te re s ts a te im m a tu re . H is
m o tiv a tio n fo r c la s s ro o m w o r k is v e ry lo w . b u t im p ro v e s m a rk e d ly in a
o n e -to -o n e re la tio n s h ip , lie has d if f ic u lt y w it h re a d in g , s p e llin g , an d
a r ith m e tic c o n c e p ts , flis o ra l p e rfo rm a n c e in d ic a te s th a t h e is fa r
-------------- m o re ab le th a n his w r itte n w o rk w o u ld in d ic a te .
80
APPENDIX E
WORKSHOP EVALUATION FORM
81
INSTRUCTIONS;
Please rate the workshop by circling the appropriate
number at the right.
><
H
o
4J
0
■P
1
a
• p
S
H
r-f
i d
H
.<
■ p
To what extent did you achieve the objectives specified
r-f
Oi
■P
•P a
* ' f - f
P
i d
for this workshop;
s
U t f j
0 0 0
u
i d
P
0
u a Q At 3
1. Participants will be able to list basic components
of federal and state special education legislation. 5 4 3 2 1
2. Participants will be able to define, "least restric
tive environment." 5 4 3 2 1
3, Participants will be able to describe the purpose and
components of an IEP, 5 4 3 2 1
4. Participants will be able to discuss how team inter
action supports the development of the IEP. 5 4 3 2 1
5. Participants will be able to identify teacher rights
and responsibilities under AB 1250 and PL 94-142, 5 4 3 2
I
c a -
fo
B. In your current position, how useful was the information
you received in the workshop:
6. To identify responsibilities with exceptional
students.
7. To define your role as a team member,
8. To explain changes in special education to parents,
9. Other (specify and rate)....... '
C. Please compare the content of the workshop to other
workshops you have attended in terms of:
IQ, relevance
11. clarity
oo
u>
iH
„ 3
P 0
0 O i
>. D
I
0
. t o
O
0
m
P
3
o
•H
5
0 ft
£ O
0
rH
-P
-P
'r-f
a
m
G
0 0
• p e
W 'P
^ 0
3 ,
( 6 m -
3 ft
H 3
p »
0 M
•P P
■P Q
&*
O 3
3 -P
S O
3
.3
*3
&
o
%
id
‘3
t
o
o
0
0
3
P
S
W
I
I
P
3 0
3 f t
0 3
W P
<3 0
o 3
2 £?
S O
D. Please compare the process of the workshop to other
workshope you have attended in terms of:
12. involvement
13. interaction
14. enjoyment
15, learning
oo
&
G
<%
G
•A
ft
O
O
■!a-
w
n J
*0
0
8
to
■P
0
S
t f f
ft
Q
M
H
§
u
&
O
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
APPENDIX F
SAMPLE AGENDA
85
Minutes
LEARNING CENTERS
ACTIONS: AN INFORMATION WORKSHOP
10 Welcome, introduction, objectives, logistics
15 Warm up
120 Individualized instructional setting
30 Debriefing, Question/Answer, opportunities for follow-up
Minutes PRESENTATIONS— SMALL GROUP TASKS
IQ Welcome, introductions, objectives, logistics
10 Warm up
20 Presentation 1
20 Task
20 Presentation 2
15 Task
15 Presentations 3 and 4
15 Task
15 Presentation 5
30 Debriefing, Question/Answer, opportunities for follow-up
86
SCRIPT — EXPERIMENTAL ACTIONS
Introduction:
1. Welcome the participants? introduce yourself? explain title
and purpose of the workshop.
"This workshop, Assisting Classroom Teachers with Information
and Opportunities for New Skills or ACTIONS for short, is
designed to communicate basic information from AB 1250 (Cali
fornia Master Plan for Special Education) and PL 94-142
(Education for all Handicapped Children Act) on the following
topics s
Legislative overview
Least restrictive environment
IEP
Team approach
Teacher rights and responsibilities.
This workshop was designed by the California Regional Resource
Center for the Office of Special Education."
2. Explain how the workshop process works.
"We will be working in learning centers just as students might
work in your own classroom. After you have had an opportunity
to use the Learning Centers (which I will explain in a moment),
we will have an opportunity to discuss unanswered questions
and address your concerns.
This content has 5 sequenced components, ACTIONS 1-5.
(Show overhead)
Each component has a posttest and Learning Centers. Here
are your directions:
87
Begin with. ACTIONS' I. Work in as many centers as yon like.
When yon feel that you have mastered the content, take the
posttest, you may want to look at the posttest for each
ACTIONS first, to decide how much, you already know and how
many centers you would went to master the content.
The Self’ -Instruction (Direct Instruction], Reading Center
and Filmstrip Center introduce concepts; the other centers
(including the posttest] allow you to apply the concepts.
When you have finished taking the posttest, let me check it
with, you, and then begin the next ACTIONS.'’
3. Go to each of the learning centers and explain the rules
written on the sign). At each center, ask if there are
any questions about that center.
4, Ask if there are any questions. Tell them what time the
instruction will start, when to get refreshments, etc.
SCRIPT-— CONTROL VERSION
Introduction:
1. Welcome the participants; introduce yourself; explain title
and purpose of the' workshop*
2
"This workshop, Assisting Classroom Teachers with Information
and Opportunities for New Skills or ACTIONS for short, is
designed to communicate basic information from AB 1250
(California Master Plan for Special Education) and PL 94-142
(Education for All Handicapped Children Act) on the following
topics:
Legislative overview
Least restrictive environment
IEP
Team approach
Teacher rights and responsibilities
This workshop was designed by the California Regional Resource
Center for the Office of Special Education."
2. Explain how the workshop process works (presentations followed
by small group tasks).
3. Ask if there are any questions.
4 Follow the agenda you have developed, being sure to allow
plenty of time for the Debriefing.
89
___
APPENDIX G
WARM-UP ACTIVITY
90
WARM-UP ACTIVITY
Have participants form a circle in order of the month and day of
their birthdays. Ask each participant to introduce himself to the
person on his right, and to share a characteristic he admired in a
friend at school and a characteristic that was admired in him. Each
person then introduces the person he has shared with. Trainer should
comment on how many characteristics are shared more than once; how
many exceptional students may have some of these characteristics; how
important it is to help exceptional students develop characteristics
admired by others, etc.
91
APPENDXX H
ACTIONS LEARNER ACTIVITY CHART
92
A C T I O N S Learner Ac t i v i t y Chart
(N a m e )
CENTER
T Self
jlnstruction
Center
k -- - . . . 1
! ACTIONS 1
Legislative
Overview
(Green)
ACTIONS 2
Least
Restricti ve
Envi ronment
(Yellow)
ACTIONS 3
IEP
:
(Orange)
ACTIONS 4 '
Team
Approach
(Red)
ACTIONS 5
Ri gives
and
Respon-
sibi1i ties
(Blue)
| Reading
1 O-cyQ
1 ' ^
Center |
|
. " |
Fi Irnstri p
1 C3 j |
Center i
. 1
f Games \
A 1
| Center j
I
. . — I ...
f Problem j
j Sol vino |
A C e p\
J
Cemsf 1
i
a
8
!
i
i
Post Test [
j Center j
-
\
93
APPENDIX I
DEBRIEFING STIMULUS QUESTIONS
94
DEBRIEFING STIMULUS QUESTIONS
At the end of the instruction, have the participants move
their chairs together for group discussion. Begin the discus
sion by asking them if there are any questions about the
content. The following questions Con overhead masters} may be
used to stimulate discussion and to gather group needs assess
ment data for further training.
1. From your perspective, which aspects of these laws are
not working and what solutions can you recommend?
2. What effects are these laws having on you?
3. What skills are required of classroom teachers to
implement this law?
4. Which of these skills do you already have?
5. Which of these skills do you need or want training in?
Which skill areas have you had training in previously?
At the end of the debriefing session the group leader should
attempt to get volunteers from the group to form committees
to do further exploration into the needs identified on the
transparencies.
95
APPENDIX J
PARTICIPANT HANDBOOK
96
PARTICIPANT HANDBOOK
AB 1250/PL 94-142: Assisting Classroom Teachers
with, Information and Opportunities for New Skills (ACTIONS)
An Awareness Workshop
Designed for the
California State Department of Education
Office of Special Education
By
lYfary Male and Roger Perkins
California Regional Resource Center
600 S. Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 1304
Los Angeles, California 90005
97
Acknowledgements
We wish to express our thanks to our colleagues at the California
Regional Resource Center who contributed to the development of this
program:
Judy Grayson
Susan Hocevar
Joan Honeycutt
Anne Langstaff Pasanella
Lynn Starr
Cara Volkmor
to Mary Hopper at the San Diego Child Service Demonstration Center for
reviewing the program and providing feedback; to Barry Dollar, who
provided the model for the management system we used; and to Nikki
Klauschie, who tirelessly and cheerfully did all the typing.
98
PREFACE
With 1982 as the target date for full implementation of the spe
cial education delivery system provided by AB 1250, school districts
in California must prepare their instructional; personnel and parents
for changes in roles and procedures. P.L. 94-142, which was passed
after California's Master Plan was initiated, mandates personnel
preparation and training to ensure that all members of the educational
"team"— teachers, parents, administrators, related service providers,
students— have knowledge and skills to play an active and meaningful
role in improved education for exceptional students.
ACTIONS is designed specifically for classroom teachers in dis
tricts who are preparing for implementation of AB 1250. For that
reason, the terms used in ACTIONS reflect language used in AB 1250.
We are aware that many districts have not yet switched over to the new
system, but it is important to note that all districts are mandated to
implement P.L. 94-142. The philosophy of P.L. 94-142 emphasizes stu
dent educational needs over disability labels, a continuum of service
options based on needs rather than by category of handicap, and
parental involvement. This is reflected throughout this program and
is applicable to all districts in California, whether Master Plan or
not.
One major difference between Master Plan and non-Master Plan
which affects teachers is the name and composition of the team respond
sible for developing the Individualized Education Program (IEP) and
i
99
deciding the program placement. In Master Plan, these teams are called
School Appraisal Teams (SAT) or Educational Assessment Service (EAS);
non-Master Plan districts call them Eligibility and Planning Committees
(EPC) or Admissions and Discharge (A & D) committees . Another differ
ence is the name for the teacher who provides teacher consultation,
assessment, and instructional services to individuals with exceptional
needs for up to 50% of the day. In the Master Plan, this teacher is a
Resource Specialist; in non-Master Plan, the Learning Disabilities
Group teacher may fill this role. When these terms are used in
ACTIONS, their non-Master Plan counterparts will be included in;paren
theses .
Objectives for participants completing ACTIONS include:
1. Participants will be able to list the basic components of
recent state and national legislation which affect all of
education.
2. Participants will be able to define the concept of least
restrictive environment.
3. Participants will be able to describe the purpose and
components of an IEP.
4. Participants will be able to discuss how team interaction
supports the development of the IEP.
5. Participants will be able to identify teacher rights and
responsibilities under AB 1250 and P.L. 94-142.
6. Participants will identify future inservice training
needs.
Green
Yellow
Orange
Red
Blue
li
'100
The presentation format of ACTIONS provides flexibility for work-
shop facilitator style and school or district needs. The workshop can
be done at least four ways (and probably as many other ways as there
are trainers!):
1. Learning Centers— materials for six learning centers are included
in the ACTIONS workshop package.
Advantages: Allows participants to interact, work at their own
pace and in their own style.
Disadvantages: Requires time to set up, space for centers, .limits
size of group to 35-40 participants.
2. Learning Centers with direct instruction center added— To allow
workshop facilitator to present content to participants directly,
a direct instruction center can be added. The workshop facili
tator can use the self-instruction pages of each component as a
presentation outline, adding local policy or forms where appro
priate .
Advantages: Gives the workshop facilitator a chance to tailor con
tent to local procedures and forms; to expand particular need
areas; to provide a forum for large group questions and answers.
Disadvantages: Requires two workshop facilitators (one for in
struction, one to interact with participants in learning centers).
3. Direct instruction/small group tasks— This approach allows the
workshop facilitator to present content (using self-instruction
as a presentation outline and/or expanded to include local poli
cies/forms) to the large group. Workshop facilitator can select
iii
101
small group tasks from learning center activities or can develop
his/her own.
Advantages: Can be used with a large group; content tailored to
local needs.
Disadvantages: Preparation of tasks and arranging for small
groups, small group leaders, and reporting back to large group.
This approach may require additional time.
4. Self-instruction/small group review sessions— Participant hand
books can be given to teachers to be reviewed independently and be
followed up by meetings to answer questions, review the materials,
or provide information on local policies/forms.
Advantages: requires little or no time and preparation; no limit
on size of group; allows for individual teacher initiative.
Disadvantages: Little or no opportunity to ensure that partici
pants actually read the material or understand information;
limited opportunity for participant interaction on activities.
In deciding which format to use, the workshop leader should con
sider what type of role s/he prefers, familiarity with content (for
presentations, answering questions, etc.), time available, number of
participants and type of audience, and space available. A sample
agenda for each alternative is included, but, of course, time frames
are flexible, tool
No special expertise in the content is required of the workshop
facilitator for ACTIONS, although familiarity with all of the workshop
materials is certainly desirable. When content questions arise,
iv
■102
therefore, it may he impossible for the facilitator to provide "expert”
answers. More effective approaches might be to reflect questions to
the large group for ideas or to simply admit ignorance and offer to
find the answer.
ACTIONS is an information workshop not a skillbuilding workshop.
It is designed to stand on its own as a means of communicating a basic
awareness of the impact of AB 1250 and P.L. 94-142 on classroom
teachers. However, the debriefing portion of the workshop provides a
means of gathering needs assessment information to plan subsequent
skillbuilding experiences. If such skillbuilding is desired, the work
shop facilitator will probably want the local school/district to set
up a support team or committee to coordinate this training. The
process leading to skill building is illustrated in the figure below.
ACTIONS
needs assessment data
collected by workshop facilitator
local support team organized to
arrange skillbuilding
+
skillbuilding
10 3
An Invitation to A C TIONS
by Leo F. Buscaglia, Ph.D.
University of Southern California
Recently I spoke with a very intelligent student of mine who has
spent her life in a wheelchair due to cerebral palsy. She is not
unattractive; she speaks well and has an extremely high IQ. She is a
sensitive human being, vital and enthusiastic and a truly growing per
son. In the course of our talk, she made the following comment: "I've
spent most of my life, and certainly all of my educational life, look
ing out of a special bus going to and from special schools, them coming
home and again looking out at life, but now through my living room win
dow. I've never had a date with a boy, and I’ve never been touched
warmly by anyone except my family and you!" She is 25 years old!
With the adjustment of certain physical barriers, this young lady
is as able and efficient as we are. She thinks, she feels, she cries,
she desires, she worries, and she is willing and capable of sharing her
uniqueness'— a uniqueness which only she can give! With all her wonder,
she is still denied the opportunity to give of herself and to receive
from those of us who are not impaired, what is her human right to have.
It is amazing that most of us never really think in terms of the
rights of the handicapped. Since they have been conveniently kept out
of sight, even by those professionals dedicated to helping them, they
remain (comfortably for us) out of mind. This is so, not because peo
ple are intentionally cruel, but mainly it stems from our inexperience
10.4
with, our fear and ignorance of their conditions.
In my classes in the Education of Exceptional Children and Adults,
I mandate direct contact between my unimpaired students and impaired
children and adults. Then I simply sit back and watch the beautiful
human process take place— from initial anxiety and fear--to insight
and comfort and to final full acceptance in joy. I watch daily as the
simple platitude "we cannot judge a book by its cover" initiates the
change. How many human stories, with their magic and wonder have
remained unread because we have not bothered to look beyond the
wrapper!
Most handicapped individuals ask for nothing more than that they
be treated and accepted like anyone else. They do not want special
treatment. In fact, they will usually go out of their way to illus
trate their independence.
Christy Brown wrote several great novels with the toes of his left
foot! Helen Keller, both deaf and blind, graduated from Radcliffe with
honors and taught us what perseverance and bravery are. One of our
most important scientists, Steven Hawkins, is locked into a wheelchair
fearlessly facing his impending death but determined to help personkind
to better cope with tomorrow. There are thousands of handicapped per
sons who are not Browns or Kellers or Hawkins but like ourselves, each
with his or her valid statement to make, each asking only for us to
give them the chance. They ask only for what is rightly theirs--equal
education, equal opportunity, equal hope, an equal chance!
To merit the name of "teacher" is to see the above as one of our
major responsibilities to all persons! To ignore the value of even
105
one human person is to irreparably harm us all!
106
ACTIONS; 1 Legislative Overview
(Green)
Self-Instruction
PL 94-142, Section 504 of tile Rehabilitation Act, and California's
AB 1250 were enacted to work toward effectively integrating handicapped
individuals into the mainstream of American life. PL 94-142 and
AB 1250 provide funding to help implement the services needed to
achieve the goal of meaningful participation for the handicapped,
especially access to a free, appropriate public education.
The purpose of PL 94-142 is to assure:
1. That rights of handicapped children and their parents are pro
tected.
2. That all handicapped children have a free appropriate public
education available to them.
3. That states have adequate financial assistance to implement
education of all handicapped children.
4. That effectiveness of programs is monitored and increased.
Section 504 extends the rights to an education provided by PL 94-
142 to rights to have accessibility to public buildings and programs,
including elimination of architectural barriers. Both of these laws
could be considered "bills of rights" for the handicapped.
AB 1250 and accompanying Title 5 regulations establish service
delivery options for school districts in line with requirements of
PL 94-142, such as resource specialist programs (RSP), Designated
Instruction and Services (PIS), and program specialist services, which
will be described in detail in subsequent ACTIONS. A two-level team
107
system is established for review and decisions on eligibility for spe
cial education , individualized education programs, and placement at the
local level (School Appraisal Team-SAT) and regional level (Educational
Assessment Service-EAS).
Both AB 1250 and PL 94—142 went into effect in 1978, although the
transition into programs specified by AB 1250 will occur gradually,
with more districts included each year. All school districts are
required to comply with PL 94-142, even if they are not yet serviced
under AB 125Q. Because of the impact of both of these laws and their
regulations on local school districts, many teachers have expressed a
number of concerns, based largely on uncertainty of how their roles
will be affected. (See the.;NASDSE report in the Reading Center.) Some
of these concerns can be addressed:
1. Will all handicapped children be returning td regular classes?
No, each, program placement will be based on the needs of the hand
icapped child and the effect on nonhandicapped peers. Classroom
teachers have the opportunity to participate in the program
placement decision.
2. Must every academic area in a regular classroom be included in a
student1s IEP? No, only those areas in which the regular educa
tion program is modified to meet the particular needs of an indi
vidual student, and special education goals and objectives in
academic areas, adaptive PE, speech, etc.
3. What if the student does not achieve projected goals, and objec
tives stated in the IEP? Neither the district nor the teacher is
held accountable for reaching attainment; however, a good faith
108
effort is required. This issue is being tested currently in regu
lar education, and court action may change, this policy. Check
with, your teachers1 association.
4. What if 1 am unsure that my skills as a classroom teacher are suf
ficient to include handicapped students in my class? You have the
opportunity to participate in the meeting to recommend place^ .^^
ment; support services and consultation should foe available to
assist you with these students; staff development programs (de
scribed in detail in your ACTIONS Handbook) may assist you in
developing new- skills— both for handicapped and nonhandicapped
children.
Due to the magnitude of change specified in these laws, problems
and concerns are sure to arise as new roles, responsibilities, and
pressures develop. Through a willingness to experiment and to work
cooperatively with others, however, we can create a whole new era of
participation of handicapped individuals who have previously been
excluded from many facets of our society.
109
PL 94—142 FACT SHEET
PL 94^142 (Education for all Handicapped Children Act] was passed
Into law in 1975. This act mandates a free appropriate public education
for all handicapped children ages 3—21 and sets up a system of federal
financial support to states who implement the law.
^ Ftee Appropriate Public Education means the provision of educa
tion and related services at no cost to the handicapped person or his
parents. Appropriateness is defined by the Individualized Education
Program designed to meet the student's learning needs.
An individualized Education Program (IEP} is a written plan
addressed to the educational needs of a single child, and includes
Special education and related services which will be provided to the
child. IEP components are:
1. Statement of present levels of education performance
2. Annual goals and short-term objectives
3. Related services and anticipated duration
4. Extent of participation in regular education
5. Annual review
Special education means specially designed instruction to meet the
unique needs of a handicapped child, including classroom instruction,
instruction in physical education, home instruction, and instruction in
hospitals and institutions.
Related services include transportation, and such developmental,
corrective, and other supportive services Cineluding speech pathology
and audiology, psychological services, physical and occupational
110
therapy, recreation, and medical and counseling services, except that
such medical services shall he for diagnostic and evaluation purposes
only! as may he required to assist a handicapped child to benefit from
special education, and includes the early identification and assessment
of handicapping conditions in children.
Least restrictive environment means that education with nonhandi—
capped children will he the governing objective "to the maximum extent
appropriate." The IEP will he the management tool toward achievement of
the least restrictive environment and therefore shall he applied within
the framework of meeting the "unique needs" of each child. This concept
means that there must be a variety of alternative settings in which the
child can be placed, ranging from regular classrooms to more intensive
settings such as special classes on a full or part time basis, special
schools, or residential institutions.
The IEP document(s) must clearly "show cause" if and when a child
is, moved from the least intensive to a more intensive environment The
statute states that the following component must be included in the
written statement accompanying the IEP "... and the extent to which
Such child will be able to participate in regular educational proe-'
grams:"
Team Approach
PL 94—142 regulations specify that the IEP is to be developed by a
representative of the local education agency qualified to provide or
supervise the program, teacher, parent (s) , child, other individuals at
the discretion of parents or agency; evaluation personnel if child has
been evaluated for the first time. (§121a.344)
111
Parent Participation,
A key feature of PL 94—142, especially for development of the XEP
(§12la, 345) is parent participation. Districts must take steps to
insure that the parents are at the meeting or afforded the opportunity
to participate. Parent rights are protected in the procedural safe
guards section of the regulations (Subpart E), which specifies how
parents are to be informed, types of appeals and hearings, protection
in evaluation procedures, and confidentiality.
112
AB 1250/3635 FACT SHEET
This California law CAB. 1250 was amended by AB 3635, and they are
used together in this program! provides for phase-in of the Master Plan
for Special Education statewide and assures that "individuals with
exceptional needs” have a "right to participate in appropriate programs
of publicly supported education.” Special Education means "programs or
services specially designed to meet the educational requirements of
Individuals with exceptional needs." This includes "all pupils whose
special education needs cannot be met by the regular classroom teacher
with modification of the regular school program, who require the benefit
of special education and services."
Local districts must decide by January, 1979, how they will join
together to serve individuals with exceptional needs. Depending on the
size and scope of each district, special education service regions
CSESR] will be formed and will submit local comprehensive plans to the
county superintendent for approval and submission to the state. Within
each special education service region, the Responsible Local Agency will
handle fiscal and administrative arrangements. By 1981-82, all school
districts in California will be under the Master Plan for Special
Education.
Components of AB 1250 include:
— Each individual with exceptional needs ages 3—21 is assured a
free appropriate public education through secondary school.
— Early education is available to children between 3 and 4 years
9 months who require intensive services.
113
- Responsible local agencies may provide programs to children
below age 3.
~ Each individual with exceptional needs; must have a written
individualized education program which contains: present levels
of functioning, annual objectives, special education programs
and services, extent of participation in regular programs, date
for initiation of services, objective criteria for evaluating
achievement of objectives.
— Special assistance to individuals with exceptional needs must
be provided in a program which promotes maximum interaction
with the general school population appropriate to the needs
of both.
- Pupils are transferred out of special education when these
services are no longer needed.
- Unnecessary use of labels is to be avoided in providing
special education programs.
— Procedures used for assessment and placement should be non—
discriminatory, in the individual’s mode of communication
and/or primary language.
- Education programs are coordinated with other public and
private agencies.
— Each school site will have access to psychological and health
services for individuals with exceptional needs.
— Programs will be evaluated continuously to assure effective
ness.
~ Provisions for the transition into the regular class program
114
±f the pupil is to be transferred from a special class or
center or nonpublic school into a regular class in a public
school.
- Alternative means and modes necessary for the secondary pupil
to complete the district's prescribed course of study and meet
or exceed proficiency standards for graduation.
In addition, Board-adopted California regulations include:
- In the case of LES/NES individuals, the IEP should provide for
linguistically appropriate goals, objectives, programs, and
services.
- Extended school year services when needed as determined by
the SAT or EAS shall be documented in the IEP.
- Specially designed PE programs and specially designed voca
tional education programs, when needed, as determined by the
EAS or SAT shall be documented in the IEP.
Due process rights are specified regarding assessment, notice,
appeals and fair hearings, confidentiality.
Parent participation is a critical component of the law; parents
are members of the SAT and EAS; they must give informed consent prior
to assessment and program placement; they have the right of access to
all educational records pertaining to their child. Parent advisory
groups are required to ensure participation and expression of parental
concerns: both at the school and special services region.
115
SECTION 504 FACT SHEET
Section 504, part of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1973, is
a civil rights statute that prohibits discrimination on the basis of a
physical or mental handicap in federally assisted programs.
Section 504 protects the following rights of handicapped students:
1. No handicapped child can be excluded from a public education
because of disability.
2. Not later than September 1, 1978, public elementary and secondary
education programs must offer a free appropriate public education
to every handicapped student.
3. Handicapped students must be educated with nonhandicapped students
to the maximum extent possible.
4. Handicapped students (and/or their parents) must be given the
opportunity to review evaluation and placement decisions.
Program accessibility is the major feature of the law. The regu
lation provides that programs must be accessible td handicapped persons.
Section 504 does not order totally architecturally barrier free school
facilities. It does not require that every school building or part of
a building must be accessible, but the program as a whole must be acces
sible. Structural changes to make the program accessible must be made
only if alternatives, such as reassignment of classes or home visits,
are not possible. Existing schools must complete structural changes
within three years, and nonstructural changes within 60 days. All
buildings constructed after June, 1977, must be accessible to handi
capped persons from the start.
116
Handicapping conditions included under this law are: such dis
eases; or conditions as: speech, hearing, visual and orthopedic impair
ments; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; muscular dystrophy; cancer; diabetes;
heart disease; mental retardation; emotional illness; and specific
learning disabilities. Under Section 504, alcohol and drug addicts
are also considered handicapped individuals. Physical or mental im
pairments: do not constitute a handicap, however, unless they are
severe enough to substantially limit one or more of the major life
functions.
117
ACTIONS 1 Legislative Overview
(Green)
PROBLEM SOLVING
118
ACTIONS 1 Problem 1
As soon as you get home from school one day, you receive a phone
call from your neighbor, Sally Sweet. Sally's daughter Cindy, who had
been in the EMR program in elementary school, was scheduled to enter
junior high. When Mrs. Sweet and Cindy went to register, however, the
principal explained that because they had no special education programs
for EMR’s at their school, Mrs. Sweet would have to register Cindy in
another junior high at the far end of town. Sally asks you for advice
on what her rights are and whom she should ask for help.
What do you say? (Some of the resources in the Reading Center,
especially #7, will give you some ideas.)
119
ACTIONS 1 Answer 1
1. Ask Sally if she is familiar with; PL 94-142 and AB 1250. If she
is, then she may only need to know who to talk to at the local
school district (special education director, program specialist,
parent advisory committee member). If she is not, let her borrow
your copies of the laws and help her contact a member of the
Parent Advisory group to help her get familiar with local school
policies,
2. Support Sally in seeking out information and getting involved with
the School Appraisal Team and parent group. Assure her that if a
program in another school is the most appropriate decision (and
Sally has a right to participate in that decision-making process),
then the district must provide transportation.
3. Your solution, if you feel it's better than 1 and 2, or additional
ideas•
120
ACTIONS 1
A parent draws yon aside after coming to
school and points out a student in your class
He says he understands that there’s , a new law
to take those kids into their classes, and he
He asks how you feel. What would you say?
Problem 2
pick up his children from
who is being mainstreamed,
which is forcing teachers
doesn't like it one bit.
121
ACTIONS 1 Answer 2
1. Your "feelings” may include the desire to provide the best, most
appropriate educational opportunity for handicapped children, who
are entitled by law to equal educational opportunity. You may
want to discuss the conditions under which the special education
student(s) in your class were placed there and the support ser
vices you receive. If there have been problems and you have
solved them, you may want to share those solutions. If there have
been unexpected benefits, you may want to share those, too.
2. This parent may be more interested in telling you how he_ feels, so
you may want to use active listening techniques to reflect this
parent's concerns back to him, drawing out his fears and uncertain
ties . By asking questions and being a good listener without taking
sides, you may help this parent and prevent future hostility.
3. Prepare a fact sheet which contains basic information on the laws
discussed in the workshop. When parents or professionals who have
partial or incorrect information ask questions, you can refer to
points on the sheet and let them take the facts with them.
4. Your solution, if you feel it's better than 1-3, or additional
ideas.
ACTIONS 1 Legislative Overview
(Green)
READINGS
1. Abeson, A., Boliek, N., & Kass, J. A primer on due process: Edu
cation decisions for handicapped children. Exceptional Chil
dren, , 1975, 4£(2) , 68-84.
2. Apter, S. The public schools. In B. Blatt, D. Biklen, & N.
Bogdan (Eds.), An alternative textbook in special education.
Denver, CO: Love Publishing Co., 1977. Pp. 105-126.
3. Dexter, B. Special education and the classroom teacher. Spring
field, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1977. Pp. 30-63.
4. Melcher, J. Law, litigation, and handicapped children. Excep
tional Children, 1976, 43^(3), 126-130.
5. NASDSE. Summary of research findings on individualized education
programs. Washington, D.C.: NASDSE, 1978.
6. Parks, A. & Rousseau, M. The publis law supporting mainstreaming.
Austin, Texas: Learning Concepts, 1977. Pp. 6-20.
7. Powell, T. Educating all disabled children: A practical guide to
P.L. 94-142. Exceptional Parent, August 1978, L3-L6.
8. Research for Better Schools. Clarification of P.L. 94-142 for the
classroom teacher. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better
Schools, 1978. P. 1.
123
Filmstrip Center: ACTIONS 1
Legislative Overview
"Fulfilling the Promise.1 ’ From the IEP package, Foundation for Excep
tional Children, 1920 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091
124
ACTIONS 1 Legislative Overview
POST-TEST
1. PL 94-142 provides for education of handicapped children:
a „ in regular classes, for the most part
b. in special classes or resource rooms
c. in a variety of settings, to the extent appropriate for
each, individual child
d. in private schools, at parents1 expense
2. Section 504 and PL 94-142:
a. are part of the same legislation
b. are both considered "bills of rights" for the handicapped
c. do not affect anyone except handicapped persons
d. none of the above
3. AB 1250:
a „ was written to bring state policy in line with PL 142 and
Section 504
b. requires that all students be mainstreamed
c. will prevent special education students from receiving a
high school diploma
d. has been implemented throughout California
4. Some of the major guarantees of PL 94-142 are:
a. free appropriate public education
be individualized education programming (IEP)
c. least restrictive environment
d „ all of the above
5. The deadline for California to begin implementation of AB 1250
and PL 94-142 is:
a. 1978
b* 1984
c.
1990
d. there is no deadline
125
6, Some classroom teachers worry about the effects of this
legislation because:
a. there is so little time to do already existing tasks
b. training will be necessary to do a competent job
c. some handicapped children will not work at the same rate
as other children
d. many changes in rolesresponsibilities, and attitudes
will be required to insure success
e. all of the above
TRUE -FALSE
7. PL 94-142 regulations state that teachers will be held account^
able for good faith efforts to assist the child reach his/her
objectives.
8. All academic areas must be covered by the IEP, according to
AB 125Q and PL 94-142.
9. AB 1250 and PL 94-142 require California to provide profes
sional and support personnel with inservice training in
special education.
10. Every handicapped child must be educated with a nonhandicapped
child.
d '<1 'd 'I 'e 'p 'q 'o :SH3MSNY
Imagine that you have just walked into the Teacher’s Lounge after
attending this workshop and you hear a group of teachers who missed
the workshop talking about the new special education legislation.
Briefly describe the intent of PL 94-142, Section 504, and AB 1250
and how they affect classroom teachers.
126
ACTIONS 2 Least Restrictive Environment
(Yellow)
Self-Instruction
Recent court decisions and legislation regarding placement in
special education have relied on the concept of "least restrictive
environment." That is, schools must not separate children from their
peers into segregated, possibly stigmatizing environments without due
process safeguards. (Every possible program placement should be
reviewed by school districts for opportunities to interact with normal
or less handicapped peers as well as special services or programs
available at particular sites.) Schools should review placement op
tions carefully to judge how "restrictive" they are, and the decisions
of .the placement committee should reflect the importance of an appro
priate education as close to normal peers as possible; "restrictive
ness " will vary for each individual child.
Although the concept of "least restrictive environment1 1 applies to
all students, "mainstreaming" is associated with placement of mildly
handicapped students, EMR, EH, learning disabled, orthopedically handi
capped, into regular classrooms. A widely accepted definition of main-
streaming (Kaufman, Gottlieb, Agard & Kukic, 1975; Meyers, Macmillan &
Yoshida, 1975) includes four components:
1. Integration-—
a. temporal (total time spent in regular classrooms without
considering other factors)
b . instructional (participation in the instructional environ
ment) , and
c. social (interaction with and acceptance by other students).
127
2. Individualized educational planning and programming process used
by the School Appraisal Team and Educational Assessment Service
(E & P) •
3. Clarification of responsibility among classroom teacher, special-
ists, resource teachers, parent, etc.
4. Removal of handicapping labels.
In addition to court decisions and legislation which supported the
idea of "least restrictive environment," mainstreaming for mildly hand
icapped students began to receive support from professional educators.
The efficacy and the cost of special class placement were questioned.
Many students were misclassified, inadequately or inappropriately
served, and progress toward established goals was not documented.
Rather than judging the success of special education by increased
enrollment, many professionals recognized that special education must
help classroom teachers become more self-sufficient in managing in
struction for the mildly handicapped. (Classic articles on the devel
opment of the mainstreaming philosophy can be found in the Reading
Center.)
Placement decisions under AB 1250 are made at the local school
level by the School Appraisal Team (SAT). When the placement decision
may require a special class, the Educational Assessment Service (EAS)
is used, and the classroom teacher should have the opportunity to par
ticipate in those meetings where appropriate. The EA.S is also used for
placement decisions at the regional level. The classroom teacher par
ticipates "whenever the pupil may be transferred into a regular class
from a special class or center, non-public school, or special school,
128
and services by the regular teacher may be included as part of the
pupil’s individualized education program."
The restrictiveness of the setting will vary for each individual
student. For this reason, Edgar (1976) lists six considerations which
should be part of the placement decision process used by the SAT and or
EAS. These are:
1. staff expectations that are least restraining of student per
formance
2. most appropriate and inclusive educational opportunities for
the student
3. classroom setting which enhances the ability to participate
4. location in close proximity to nonhandicapped peers
5. interactional opportunities with nonhandicapped peers
6. opportunities to engage in a high number of instructional and
social activities with normal students
California's AB 1250 requires that individuals with exceptional
needs be offered ’ ’special assistance in a program which promotes maxi
mum interaction with the general school population in a manner which is
appropriate to the needs of both." Some misunderstanding has resulted
from the fear of large numbers of handicapped students being "dumped"
into regular classes, burdening teachers who already have overwhelming
responsibilities. This fear is unfounded. Each student's needs are
considered individually, and each teacher has; the right to participate
in the placement decision and to ensure that needs of all his/her
students* are met appropriately.
Some teachers, like our society as a whole, have simply never had
129
contact with a "handicapped" person and are fearful and uncomfortable
at the prospect of having a handicapped student in class for this rea
son. Others are concerned about the reactions of the other students
end how to prepare them to deal with similar feelings of discomfort and
uncertainty. AB 1250 recognizes this problem by stating that schools
must be provided with procedures "for assisting non-special education
pupils to understand and accept individuals with exceptional needs who
are transferred into their class." Teachers who have experienced in
secure feelings in these situations but worked through some inter
actions with the handicapped report a great sense of satisfaction as
well as surprise. Similarities among people appear much greater than
their differences!
The important things to remember. , according to these teachers,
are:
1. creating a safe emotional space in the classroom in which both
teacher and students can express feelings and ask questions
about feelings
2. honesty in expressing certain feelings, doubts, and uncer
tainties
3. acceptance, appreciation, and acknowledgement of each person's
uniqueness, strengths, and weaknesses
Teaching what you don't believe is almost impossible, so teachers
must be willing to work through, their fears and prejudices along with
the students.
130
ACTION? 2
(Yellow)
Least Restrictive Environment
PROBLEM SOLVING
131
ACTIQNS 2 Problem 1
A parent has been led to believe that his/her child, your student,
should be sent to the special school for ofthopedically handicapped
children. In a role playing situation, discuss some issues the EAS
might want to consider prior to changing to a more "restrictive" place
ment .
132
ACTIONS 2 Answer 1
The architectural harriers and mobility problems can no longer be
cause for exclusion from a regular education program.
Normalizing peer group relationships will foster a more normal
response capability when living and learning in the nonhandicapped
world. Emphasize the capabilities which are the same as "normal" peers
rather than all attention to the nonnormal condition.
Accommodation of any instructional problems resulting from a
physically handicapping condition will be the responsibility of a team
of professionals working cooperatively to assure an appropriate program
which will include all of the necessary services and activities.
Transportation to school and/or therapy will be provided at no
expense to parents.
133
ACTIONS 2 Problem 2
Role play an incident:
You are attending a social event, a party at a friend’s house,
and a parent asks you to explain what will happen when their child,
who has been in a special education self-contained classroom, is main
streamed into your classroom.
Typical parent questions:
Can a regular setting really be any better for my son than the
special class he's been in for four years?
How will the other kids treat him?
Will he be an ”F” student compared to the rest of the kids?
134
ACTION 2 Answer 2
Typical responses:
A team of us including his special education teacher from last
year will work out an IEP, which will enable us to consider where he is
now and where we should try to go with all of the facilities and re
sources we need to make available to him. What instruction and ser
vices he gets will be on the basis of what's appropriate to his needs.
One very important difference is that he will no longer be isolated
with other handicapped children. He may still meet for certain in
structional or related services with his special class friends, but for
other activities he'll be interacting with regular or nonhandicapped
kids.
The "other kids" (nonhandicapped children) will be experiencing
some changes just as your son will. We'll be sensitizing kids to some
of the differences among themselves and their peers. When we meet with
the SAT/EASf we may want to include improvement of social skills as a
long range goal. With the appropriate professional assistance, we can
probably survive any initial problems and set up some successful inter
action patterns that will last his lifetime.
With instructional goals and objectives specified in his IEP, your
son will not be competing for grades with other students. At this
school, we hold a series of conferences where progress toward short
term objectives will be discussed. Instead of comparing your son
against other students, we will be comparing and maximizing your son's
growth to his initial levels of functioning. This is not required by
law'f but it helps keep everyone -up to date on your son's progress.
135
ACTIONS 2 Least Restrictive Environment
(Yellow)
READINGS
1. Barnes, E, & Knoblock, P. Openness and advocacy; Teacher attri
butes' and behaviors for mainstreaming children with special
needs, In N. Kreinberg & S. Chow' (Eds.!, Configurations of
Of change: The integration of mildly handicapped children into
the regular classroom. Sioux Falls, SD: Adapt Press, n.d.
2. Dunn, L. Special education for the mildly retarded^— Is much of
it justifiable? Exceptional Children, September 1968, 35,
5-22.
3. Edgar, E. Least restrictive educational alternatives for the
severely, profoundly handicapped. Mimeo. Seattle: University
of Washington, College of Education, Experimental Education
Unit, 1976.
4. Kaufman, M,, Gottlieb, J., Agard, J., & Rukic, M. Mainstreaming:
Toward an explication of the construct. In E. Meyers, G.
Vergason, & R. Whelan (Eds.), Alternatives for teaching
exceptional children. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Co., 1975.
Pp. 35-54.
5. Macmillan, D., Jones, K., & Meyers, C. Mainstreaming the mildly
retarded: Some questions, cautions, and guidelines. Mental
Retardation, 1976, __, 3-10.
6. Martin, E. Some thoughts on mainstreaming. In G, Warfield (Ed.),
Mainstreaming currents. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional
Children, 1974. Pp. 1-4.
7. Pasanella, A. & Volkmor, C. Coming back or never leaving: In
structional programming for handicapped students in the main
stream . Columbus, Ohio: Charles E . Merrill Publishing Co.,
1977.
136
Filmstrip Center: ACTIONS 2
Least Restrictive Environment
"Case Study: Coming Back" and "Case Study: Never Leaving." Coming
Back or Never Leaving: Instructional Programming for Handicapped
Students in the Mainstream, Charles Merrill Publishing Co.,
Columbus, Ohio.
137
ACTIONS 2 Least Restrictive Environment
POST-TEST
T P Special education classrooms are defined as a "restrictive
environment."
T F Least restrictive environment may include placement in close
proximity to normal or nonhandicapped peers,
T F Total time spent in the regular classroom is the most critical
aspect of a child's integration into the program.
T F The social interaction required for successful integration is
basically the responsibility of the child and his parents.
T F Regular teachers, should he capable of using available test re
sults and other assessment information.
T F Resource specialists can assist the regular teachers in instruc
tional integration of special education students, helping to
plan activities that the teacher can actually implement.
Multiple Choice
1, Least restrictive environment presents parents with an opportunity
to
a. Put their child in better schools.
b . Look at placement for their child considering a continuum
of available instructional arrangements.
c. Avoid all discussions related to special services.
d. Have their child treated just like every other child’ .
2. One of the characteristics below is not a component of a defini
tion of least restrictive environment.
a. Most appropriate and inclusive education opportunities for
the child.
b . A classroom setting which enhances the ability to participate.
c. Interactional opportunities with nonhandicapped Cor less
handicapped! peers.
138
d. Staff expectation restraining student performance.
3. Which, service would not be considered in a placement decision
during a School Appraisal Team meeting?
a. Designated instruction and Services available to supplement
regular education,
b . Adaptive physical education programs.
c. The cost of vocational education programs as compared to
1 1 basics, u
d. Available resource specialist services.
*o (e) 'P (Z) 'q (I)
anuj, ''anjcj, 'asxej; 'esxej 'onjj, aaMsuv
139
Introduction
T h e C a lifo rn ia S la te B o ard o f e d u c a tio n ad o p te d the M aster P lan fo r S pecial E d u c a tio n in 1 9 7 4 , and the
e n a c tm e n t o f A s sem b ly B ill 1 2 5 0 in 1 9 7 7 provides fo r s tatew id e im p le m e n ta tio n o f the M aster P lan in
C a lifo rn ia p u b lic schools. A m a jo r co n c e p t in the M aster Plan fo r S p ecia l E d u c a tio n is th a t p u b lic ed u c a tio n
m ust o ffe r special assistance to e x c e p tio n a l in d ivid u als in a settin g w h ic h p ro m o te s m a x im u m in te ra c tio n ' w ith
the general school p o p u la tio n .
A t a b o u t the same tim e th at the M aster Plan w as being a d o p te d , a n a tio n a l m o v e m e n t p ro m o tin g p la c e m e n t
o f e x c e p tio n a l in d iv id u a ls in te g u la r desses began and soon becam e k n o w n as “ m a in s tre a m in g .” U n fo r t u
n a te ly , the goals o f the M aster Piatt fo r S p ecial E d u c a tio n and the “ m ain s tre a m in g ” p h ilo s o p h y becam e
c o n fu s ed , and a n u m b e r o f peo p le began assum ing that, the in te n t o f the M a s te r P lan w as to place all
in d iv id u a ls w ith e x c e p tio n a l needs in regular classes. T h e c o n fu s io n was o f s u ffic ie n t con cern to the
C o m m issio n o n S pecial E d u c a tio n th a t it d ra fte d a p o lic y p a p e r to c la rify the issues, and the S tate B o a rd o f
E d u c a tio n ad o p te d the p o lic y in Jun e o f th is y e a r. T h e B o a rd , th e C o m m issio n o n S p ecial E d u c a tio n , and the
D e p a rtm e n t o f E d u c a tio n believe th a t th e p o lic y s ta te m e n t, w h ic h fo llo w s , w ill h e lp c la rify the in te n t and
im p le m e n ta tio n o f th e M a s te r Plan f o r S p ecia l E d u c a tio n .
Mainstreaming!
A s the R ig h i-to -E d u o a tio n fo r th e H a n d i
cap p ed began to em erge as a c ritic a l issue in
this c o u n try , the w o rd “ m a in s tre a m in g ”
cam e in to p o p u la r usage -as a m e th o d o f
im p le m e n tin g th a t co n cep t. T h e w o rd has
m a n y and varied d e fin itio n s , b u t it is g en er
a lly acc ep ted to m ean the p la c e m e n t o f
h an d ica p p ed studen ts in reg u lar classroom s.
I t is tliis d e fin itio n w h ic h has com e to be
id e n tifie d vviih C a lifo rn ia ’s M a s te r Plan fo r
.Special E d u c a tio n , and c o n seq u en tly m a n y
persons m is ta k e n ly assume th a t u n d e r tire
M a s te r Plan a ll ch ild re n w ith e x c e p tio n a l
needs are to be served in regular p rogram s.
I'h e state C o m m is s io n on S pecial E d u c a tio n
su b m its this p a p e r to aid in c la rify in g the
in te n t o f th e M aster F la n fo r Sp ecial E d u c a
tio n an d the re a lity o f th e im p le m e n ta tio n
o f leg is latio n .
in J a n u a ry , 197**, th e C a lifo rn ia S tate
B o ard o f E d u c a tio n ad o p te d th e M a s te r Plan
fo r S p ecia l E d u c a tio n as the b lu e p rin t fo r
special e d u c a tio n in this state. In O c to b e r,
.1977, G o v e rn o r B ro w n signed A B 1 2 5 0 ,
w h ic h provides fo r g ra d u a l, m a n d a to ry ,
s tatew id e im p le m e n ta tio n o f th e p la n .
a D efinition
T h e w o rd “ m a in s tre a m in g ’' does n o t
app ear in the M a s te r P lan. T h e phrase used is
“ least restrictive a lte rn a tiv e ” (c a lle d in .PL
9 4 -1 4 2 and h e re a fte r in this pap er, the “ least
restrictive e n v iro n m e n t” ). T h is co n c e p t, spe
c ific a lly set fo r th in the M a s te r P la n , has
been o p e ra tin g in C a lifo rn ia and elsew here
fo r c e rta in groups o f special c h ild re n over
the past 3 0 years. I t has o fte n been te rm e d
in te g ra tio n or n o rm a liz a tio n . T h e tim e has
n o w com e to e x te n d its p ro ve n b e n e fits to
all h a n d ic a p p e d c h ild re n .
140
ACTIONS 3
(Orange)
Self’ -Instruction
The individualized Education Program required by PL 94-142 and
AB 1250 describes a written statement developed in a meeting with a
representative of the local education agency, the teacher, the parent,
and the child where appropriate* The written statement includes docu
mentation of decisions reached about the objectives, content, imple
mentation and evaluation of the child’s educational program. ACTIONS 3
focuses exclusively on the components of this written statement while
ACTIONS 4 will elaborate ort the team approach in developing, implement
ing, and evaluating the IEP.
The term individualized Education Program has a specific meaning—
the program must be addressed to the needs of a single student rather
than a group of students? it is limited to those elements of the stu
dent’s education that are specifically special education and related
services, and is a statement of what is required to serve the student
rather than the programmatic guidelines from which a student's program
is; developed (Torres, 1977, p. 5). An IEP must be developed for a stu
dent newly identified as an individual with, exceptional needs: within 35
days of receipt of written parental consent for assessment (AB 1250).
The components of the IEP according to AB 1250 are very similar
to those required in PL 94-142. The following information must be
included;
o the present levels of the pupil's educational functioning
o annual goals;
141
o short-term objectives
o objective criteria to determine if goals and objectives are
being achieved
o specific special education programs end related services
o the extent to which the pupil will be able to participate in
regular educational programs
o dates for initiation and duration of services
o alternative means and modes necessary for the secondary student
to complete the district's prescribed course of study and meet
or exceed proficiency standards for graduation
o provisions for the transition into the regular class program if
the pupil is to be transferred from a special day class or
center or nonpublic school into a regular class in a public
school
o activities to implement the objectives of the IEP
In addition, Board-adopted California regulations include:
o in the case of LES/NES individuals, the IEP should provide for
linguistically appropriate goals, objectives, programs, and
services
o extended school year services when needed, as determined by the
SAT or EAS shall be documented in the IEP
o specially designed PE programs and specially designed vocational
education programs, when needed, as determined by the SAT or
EAS.
Most districts or special education services regions will prefer to
develop their own IEP form, as this adds flexibility for local needs,
142
A sample of a completed IEP is included on the following page for your
information.
Classroom teachers who have students with exceptional needs main
streamed in their classes have a critical role in the success of the
IEP process. Being familiar with the components of the IEP will
facilitate meaningful participation in the process (ACTIONS 4} and '
clarify teacher rights and responsibilities (ACTIONS 5).
143
■vf
« s f
)EP - 7'ora! Saryice Plan
Si'-jnems Name
.M A T T H E W ;D 0 H 11-22-75)
•ScMal
G ood Start Kindergarten
Meewg Date
3-12-79
CoT,T..'.:oe V.o.T.sr-rs
3ooth (psych); Henderson I speech)
Parent &'sn»tutc O l Approval
Presen.' Levels p'P erform a nce
f ' v r : ; : n i . ' H o c o r p p v . - n f l a i i p n
Heoulnr kindergarten, itinerant help
v. of Tin; e . a Regular education
0QG
Jusfif.ruicn < c ,r Typo ol Placement
(includi: c..ior :_!to:.u!i:vcr. considered):
Parent preference, current progress
John Tracy Clinic
Preschool class for the deaf
.3^5=21.
Piaccmc-ni O aie
Long Range Goals
academ ic
with parents., .observation , . .
lanq'jace-contj'ir.es noun and vcro in p trass
cognition #79-identifias color with
object
self-help
472-cresses self completely; zips
and buttons
social
455-contricutes to conversation
attention wanders (observation)
psvcho.T.ctor
#35-awkward at cutting, pasting,
coloring, and printing
pravocntional/vocational
1. increase expressive
language
2. increase attention to
verbal instructions
Special Eduction
and Related Services
Speech therapy
Itinerant teacher for the hearing
impaired
Type of P E
Career E d
Annual Insiructionsl Cbjectivc-3 for
Each Goal (include evaluation c riteria)
1, Matthew w ill answer "What Portage
doing?" questions and Guide
wiM ask "What are you doing?"iCbserva-
at least 5 times each day tion
during language. Interview
2, Matthew w ill return his at
tention to teacher after any
interruptions cr distracting
visual stimulus within 1 0
seconds.
Start
Dale
3-15-73
O u r a i s n
o f
J L 'IiS S L.
9-1-73
Evaluation
P rocedures
Review
Date
9-1-7S
9-1-79
Persons Responsible fc-r tmpiehisnting IEP Special -!nsf! Media/Maieriais Needed 'suggestions to impiomenters)
2. Jcnes, 3. Henderson, 3. Booth,
J. Westbrook
ACTIONS 3 IEP
(Orange)
PROBLEM SOLVING
145
ACTIONS 3 Problem 1
Sam, an orthopedically handicapped student, has been mainstreamed
in your classroom for the first time this year. Previously, he has
attended a special school. The assessment information indicates that
he is functioning academically slightly below average for his grade
level and that he is extremely withdrawn and has a difficult time mak
ing friends or working cooperatively with other students. What areas
of schooling would the IEP cover? Suggest one or two annual goals for
each area.
146
ACTIONS 3 Answer 1
The IEP is designed only with respect to those areas in which the
student needs jnodification of the regular education program and, thereT-
fore, does not necessarily cover all areas of schooling. This student
would receive adaptive PE, which would he included on the IEP. Social-
affective needs as indicated in the assessment, would also be a target
area for the IEP, Possible annual goals;
Sam will increase strength in torso.
Sam will join group activities voluntarily.
Sam will increase stamina and endurance in operating his wheel’ -
chair.
Sam will tutor younger children.
147
Whittier Area Cooperative Comprehensive Plan For Special Education 1 “T.____ ~ ~ ’ co
Personalized Education Plan
SCHOOL _________________________ ______ PROGRAM(S) : (CIRCLE) (ius7l\) D.I.S.
STUDENT______________________________ ________________ ____________ ___
BIRTH DATE' f/pj/nl________.GRADE LEVEL IQ_____ DATE FORM 02 SIGNED j (/[ 7 Jr j ( D
DATF(S) OF
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT
DATA objectives By June. 1977s CODE
METHODS - MATERIALS
& ACTIVITIES EVALUATION
10/23/76
l/sr/77-,
WHAT spelling- 7*0
VjjRIVT' Spc.il' m -
- 7.8
1, Gilbert will increase
spelling to at least 8*0
as measured by the Wide
Range Achievement Test,
R.
N.
c.
B
0.
GB
1
Auditory Discrim
ination in Depth
Kit; Language
Master activitiesr
10/21/76
|/*r/77
VJRAT beading- 8,5
UORftr <~ex\d\nc.--
°|.3
2, Gilbert will improve
reading skills so as to
measure 9*5 or higher on
the WHAT.
d)
N.
c.
B.
0.
w.
H.
V.
s.c.
ADD kit;
Xo/'tCe .
xfn 7
50 word sample of .
10th grade spelling
Hafts sfifihfl- 12/3’
word samp\e. —
3^7o correct
3, Gilbert will pass the
tenth grade spelling test
with a grade of *£0$ or
better.
R.
N.
C.
B.
0.
H.
V.
S.C.
10th grade word
list drills;
Language Master
pities.
AUTHORIZATION FOR ADMISSION
I understand and approve the foregoing Educational Plan for ray child and hereby authorize my child to participate in the _____
Re a cur ce Program. I understand that the program is an attempt to identify and serve those individuals whose educational
needs require services other than, or in addition to, those provided within the regular classroom, . ...
Distribution: White - Resource Specialist / Date//
Canary - WACSE? Sf\T fceRfleW V^7/?7
Pink ■ - District Coordinator V
_ _ Goldenrod - Parent _ _ _ _ _ _ • _ __ _ -
CHECK DISTRICT:
W.U.XT
ACTIONS 3 Answer 2
1, Present levels of performance a,re incomplete; they do not indicate
skills/abilities the student does/does not have,
2, No related services information has been included. There is no
indication of the extent to which the student participated in the
regular program, or the initiation and duration of services
received,
3, No goals are listed.
4, Since this student is in high school, alternative means and modes
for."meeting graduation requirements need to be stated. You would
want to request this required information as well as types of in
struction used successfully in the past, learning style (prefer
ences, structure, grouping, modality, etc.), types of instruc
tional materials. The resource specialist at your school could
assist you in locating appropriate materials, gathering additional
assessment and/or IEP information, and recommending instructional
approaches.
5, No indication of career and vocational education programming is
included.
6, Person(si responsible.
An opportunity for the parent and new teacher to review the plan
and perhaps schedule an IEP review with the SAT might be appropriate.
149
ACTIONS 3
(Orange!
R E A D IN G S
1. Pasanella, A *, Volkmor , C., Male, M., & Stem f M Individualized
education programming vrith emphasis on the very young and on
the severely handicapped. North Hollywood, CA? Foreworks,
1977.
2. Research for Better Schools, Inc . Clarification of P.L. 94—142
for the classroom teacher. Philadelphia, PA: Research for
Better Schools, Inc. (1700 Market Street), 1978. Pp. 3-4.
3. Shrag, Individualized educational programming (IEP). Austin,
TX: Learning Concepts, 1978. Pp. 1-12.
4. Torres, S, A primer On individualized education programs for
handicapped children. Reston, VA: Foundation for Exceptional
Children, 1977 . Pp. 1-8.
150
Filmstrip Center; ACTIONS 3
IEP
"From Conference Room to Classroom." individualized Education Pro
grams, Foundation for Exceptional Children, 19 20 Association
Driver Reston, VA 22091,
151
ACTIONS 3 IEP
POST-TEST
Below are three lists ol components of IEPs,
I . ; II • . .Ill.
.i-i— ;- v-r ■' — » ■*—n— ■> ' i 1 . r i ti 4 i f i 'i i . i | t > t. ■ < ■; i > . 1 n . J '"■ ■ ■ > t f . -r-n i— ?
1,
Obj ect ive cr iteria
1,
Annual goals, 1, All related ser
for determining vices-,
achievement of in 2. Present levels of
structional objec performance. 2. Present levels of
tives . performance.
3. Date of initiation
2 , Short term instruc of services 3. Objective criteria
tional objectives. for determining
4. Disallowed extra achievement of
3 , Extent of partici curricular activi instructional ob
pation in regular ties . jectives .
education.
5. Designated instruc 4. Short term objec
4 . Related services. tional service. tives .
5. Alternative means 5. Annual goals
and modes for com
pleting prescribed 6. Extent of partici
course of study pation in regular
Cfor secondary education.
students).
1. Which list(s) has (have) a component (s) not required by PL 94-142?
a. List I d. List I, III
b . List II e. List I, II
c. List III f, List I, IT, III
2. Which list(s) is (are) complete in describing the required com~
ponents of the IEP according to PL 94—142?
a. List I d , List I, III
b. List II e, List I, II
C. List III f. List I, II, III
3. Identify by list and number (e.g. 1,7 or III,9 the item(sj which
is (are) not required as an IEP component according to PL 94-142?
152
POST-TEST Page 2
S'I *£ 'o *Z '9 * T :SHSMSNV
Contrast; an IEP with the standard lesson plan that you typically- pre
pare .
1, What differences exist in terms of level of detail, entry level,
measurement, alternative means and materials?
2, What similarities exist between the components of an IEP and the
components of lesson plans?
153
ACTIONS 4 Team Approach
Self-^Instruction
Federal and state legislation mandates a team approach to educa
tional decision-making. California Master Plan legislation ( AB -12 50/
3635) designates two levels of teaming, the School Appraisal Team (SAT)
at the school site and the Educational Assessment Service (EAS) at the
district or regional level. In non-Master Plan districts, teams are
called Eligibility and Planning committees or Admissions and Discharge
committees.
An educational team is usually composed of administrative, in
structional and support personnel. The SAT is composed of the follow
ing:
1. school principal or administrative designee
2. the special education teacher or specialist (s) most appro-
‘ , • . priate _to ..the: - student' s needs
3. the parent or a representative and the student.
Regular education teachers as well as other professionals whose compe
tence is needed, may become team members.
The written IEP is designed by a team as part of a comprehensive
process. This comprehensive process, which, includes placement and
programming, is the shared responsibility of the team. The complexity
of placement and programming decisions for individuals with exceptional
needs requires a group of people with knowledge and diverse skills.
These people with their varied skills join together in a cooperative
problem solving process. This process is a team approach to ' . - : c : . ■
-: 154
educational decision-making . The. e f f e ctiyenes.s. and success of a team
approach, is based on each member* s ability and commitment to partici
pate and share in the decision-making.
A regular education teacher can participate as a team member
under differing circumstances. Wien you identify and refer a student
from your class or when a student is, to be transferred from a special
class or center and services from you may be included as part of the
IEP, you attend the team meeting. In either case, you will want to
share and receive information and suggestions about the student and
appropriate instruction.
At the secondary level, due to the number of classroom teachers
who may be involved, a counselor or designated teacher may need to be
assigned as "case coordinator" to ensure that the referring teacher,
receiving teacher(s), and specialists get an opportunity to contribute
input and receive follow-up information. It is especially important
that the vocational education teacher(s) be included.
r If the regular classroom is determined to be the least restrictive
environment for a student you will be implementing the goals and objec
tives included in the IEP. Current research has shown that implemen
tation of decisions is dependent on the implementor^ satisfaction with
the decision. The people who are most satisfied with the group deci
sions are those who have actively participated in making those deci
sions* A clear underStandi.ng of your role and the clarification of
your duties as a team member will facilitate your active participation.
As a regular education teacher, you can play,a vital role in the
provision of appropriate education for a student through your active
155
inyQlyement in each step of the comprehensive process. The following
six steps (see figure below). are included in the process.
1. Identification
2. Referral
aT development of the assessment plan
b . parental informed consent to the assessment
3. Assessment
4. Instructional Planning
a. deyelopment of the written IEP (including priority areas
for special education, goals, objectives, and related
services)
b . placement decision
5. Instruction
6. Evaluation
Referral
1.1 Develop assessment plan
1.2 Obtain parental informed consent
Evaluation
5 * Instruction Assessment
Identification
Instructional
Planning
INSTRUCTIONAL 3.1 Develop written IEP
PROGRAMMING CYCLE 3.2 Determine appropriate placement
3.3 Obtain parental consent
156
| fdentif ication
When a. teacher has, an instructional problem with, one or more stu
dents in his/her class, timely intervention must take place. This
intervention may be. short te.rmf requiring a change in instructional
technique or material. However, if several short-term instructional
interventions are unsuccessful, the teacher will want to seek addi
tional information about the student's learning needs and the types of
approaches which are most likely to produce success. By identifying a
student whose needs may exceed the teacher*s current resources, addi
tional support can be provided, such as consultation with the resource
specialist (LDG teacher) and/or other SAT (EPC) members, referral for
more in depth assessment or observation, etc. The alternatives the
teacher has tried provide helpful background for the SAT (EPC) to use*,
in the instructional programming process.
A variety of checklists for problems such as information process
ing, language, perceptual-motor, speech, vision, hearing, and social-
emotional difficulties are available. (Review Pasanella and Volkmor,
Reading Center.) Information from these checklists is only helpful
when information about classroom procedures, curriculum content,
schedules, etc. -:±ss also considered.
Referral
Referral is begun when a student is, perceived as possibly needing
special education services. Referral can be made by parents, teachers
or other professionals. A student may also self-refer. The referral
form becomes part of the student's records. T h e information included
in a referral describes the student's observable behavior in precise
157
language.
As a, regular education teacher you are a primary source of refer
ral . The information you include in the referral summarizes, the stu
dent 's observable behavior in your classroom. This summary conveys
your professional opinion of the student’s academic progress, The fol
lowing items are included as a basic guide to the type of information
needed in a referral:
1. a precise statement of the. difficulties the student is ex
periencing, e.g. "reading skills are 1.5 years below grade
level while math skills are at grade level."
2. specific comments about the student's strengths, e.g. "follows
directions and motivated to attempt new tasks."
3. a description of the student’s observable behavior (not your
interpretation but what the student actually does) e.g. "unable
to attend to academic tasks for more than three minute inter
vals ."
4. descriptions of past attempts to modify program to meet student
needs, current academic demands.
5. data which support your concerns and reflect problem areas
(test scores, student's work samples, observation reports,
materials and methods tried). This avoids duplication of ef
fort and can lead to future assessment strategies.
Once a referral is, received* an assessment plan is developed by the
appropriate team members. The assessment plan specifies areas which are
to be assessed, the types of procedures to be used> and the person
responsible for conducting the assessment.
' 158
Parents must give their informed consent to the. plan prior to
assessment, which requires that the parent be fully informed of all in
formation relevant to the activity for which consent is; sought in the
native language or other mode of communication used by the parent. The
consent must be in writing and describe the assessment plan. If the.
Student is 18 or older, his/her informed consent must be obtained
prior to assessment.
Assessment
Seven considerations have been established with regard to the
information gathering process which precedes the IEP, They include:
o Assessment results determine student needs.
O A standard test battery should not be used* procedures should
fit each student’s presenting behavior,
o Assessment is an ongoing part of the instructional process.
O Assessment should be gathered from multiple sources.
O Labels such as "dyslexic" or "slow learner" do not convey
performance levels.
o Assessments should be adapted for the student’s handicapping
condition (i.e., a hearing impaired student should not be
assessed with an oral test). (Higgins1977). .
The regular classroom teacher is important as an assessment re
source to the team as, he/she most often knows, the student best. Teach
ers are assessing their students in informal ways eyery day and ate in
the position to provide valuable information as a team member. In
formal types of assessment data which can be contributed by the regular
education teacher include observation reports, anecdotal records,
159
student work samples, etc.
Instructional Planning
PL 94-142 and AB 1250 specify the minimum persons to be involved
in the meeting to develop the written IEP. These include (but are not
limited to) an administrator, the teacher, the parent, and the student,
when appropriate. For a student who has been evaluated the first time,
the evaluator or a person familiar with the procedures and results
should attend. Good educational practice, of course, suggests that the
composition of the SAT (EPC) would be defined by the unique needs of
the student.
At this meeting, and based on assessment outcomes and the student's
present levels of functioning, appropriate placement alternatives are
discussed, taking into consideration least restrictive environment
(ACTIONS 2). If no decision is reached, further meetings are scheduled.
The regular teacher can contribute as a team member in setting appro
priate goals and objectives for the student as well as suggesting ef
fective methods and materials to enable the student to progress in his
need areas. The team approach to the IEP process facilitates a sup
portive decision-making model, fully exploring the problem, brainstorm
ing alternatives, and selecting an appropriate solution to try.
Parent Participation in Development of IEP
Parental participation is of primary importance in the development
of the child1 s IEP. The law specifically requires that the LEA ’ 'in
sure" that a parent is present at each meeting and is afforded an
opportunity to participate in the planning and decision making. If
160
parents cannot attend, conference calls or other methods for providing
for their participation must be explored.
The LEA may conduct an IEP meeting without the parent in atten
dance only after all means of arriving at a mutually agreeable time and
place have been exhausted. A record must be kept of all phone calls,
correspondence, and home visits made in the attempt. If indicated, the
LEA must arrange for an interpreter for those parents who are deaf or
whose native language is other than English.
It is the intent of the law that parental involvement go beyond
the role of passive observers and approvers of the team's plans. They
should be actively involved as a team member in the discussion, plan
ning, and decision making. The following considerations may help to
maximize meaningful participation of parents in the team process:
o Prior to the meeting, parents should receive a clear message as
to the purpose and content of the meetings as well as the names
and roles of the others who will be attending,
o At the meeting, parents should be made to feel welcome and
comfortable. They will be reluctant to participate if they
feel threatened.
o Parents should be asked to share their observations along with
those of the professional team members.
o Parents should be encouraged to express the goals and objec
tives they would like their child to accomplish,
o Communication by other team members should be clear and not
muddled by educational jargon,
o Parents should be encouraged to ask questions and raise
161
concerns they have about their child. Ihese concerns should
be addressed in the planning process.
o Team members should be responsive to nonverbal cues from
parents.
Parents who are involved in the team process are more likely to
support the decisions due to their active participation. If they are
not actively involved, they may not be in agreement with those deci
sions, and later conflict situations may arise. Conflicts can often
be avoided by establishing clear and open communication from the be
ginning. The regular teacher is often in the best position to help
facilitate parent participation as a team member. Often, the student's
classroom teacher knows the parent and is least threatening to the
parents.
Instruction
Instruction is the phase during which, the student's IEP is imple
mented. Effective instruction, by definition, includes ongoing assess
ment of progress. The student's classroom teacher will have consider
able responsibility for implementing the student's IEP; however, vari
ous support services are available, such as the resource and program
specialist and Designated Instruction Service personnel.
Know your resources! By becoming better acquainted with your
local specialists— school psychologist, counselor, reading specialist,
nurse or nurse's aide, speech/language therapist, and/or master teach
ers— a wide array of support services should surface, i.e. assistance
in working with parents, new methods for teaching hard-to-learn con
cepts r lessons to help regular and special education students : :
16.2
understand and respect each other, small group counseling sessions for
students, putting parents in touch with community resources, having
students' health needs observed and met, systems for informal testing,
new instructional materials7 different ways to group and work with stu
dents, ways for the teacher to keep the real and ideal in perspective.
Evaluation
At least annually, the IEP must be reviewed by the SAT, and par
ents must be notified annually of this right. This annual review
helps assure that goals and objectives are being met, holds imple
mentors accountable for good faith efforts to implement the IEP, and
assures that program changes are based on accumulation of specific
data.
Key questions for this meeting are:
1. Is the student progressing as specified in the goals and
objectives?
2. Is the student approaching a point where she/he can exit to
another program?
3. If the IEP is not appropriate, what adjustments seem to be
necessary?
Summary
A school's success with each of the six steps in this comprehen
sive process often hinges on the staff's ability and willingness to
make maximum use of their own resources . . . to team. To make the
team approach work, we must move away from:
o being afraid of looking incompetent if we ask for help
163
o lacking knowledge or operating on misinformation regarding a
specialists role
o misusing specialists, such as using psychologists only for
testing
o trying to do everything alone
and move toward
o taking a careful survey of school personnel resources
o, revising current roles and/or schedules to allow for maximum
use of expertise that is available
o freeing oneself to ask for ideas, assistance, and support and
being willing to offer the same to others.
164
ACTION 4 Team Approach
(Red)
PROBLEM SOLVING
165
ACTION 4 Problem 1
You have been invited to attend the SAT meeting for a student you
have referred for assessment and possible services from the resource
specialist. You contacted the parents when you referred the studentr
and they sounded confused but signed and returned the permission for
assessment. Wien the time for the meeting arrives, the parents have
not shown up. Should the meeting proceed without them? What should
you do?
166
ACTIONS 4 Answer 1
If the parent(s) sounded confused, someone should answer their
questions' so that they will feel more comfortable in participating.
Without further efforts to have the parents attend the meeting,
holding such a meeting would not be appropriate. The school district
must have records of attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and
place with the parent. All of the following efforts should be made
and documented in the process of insuring parent involvement in the
development of the IEP:
o actual and attempted telephone calls and their results
o copies of correspondence sent and responses received
o visits made and their results.
Members of the SAT, of course, share responsibility for making
these contacts. If the parents do not attend the meeting, written
permission for placement in special education must still be obtained.
167
ACTIONS 4
Problem 2
As you arrive in the teachers1 lounge from your school's first SAT
meeting, two of your colleagues who have not yet attended a meeting be
gin asking questions. "Did you have to write the IEP all by yourself?"
asks one, "How much voice will I have in the IEP; will someone else
write it and expect me to use it?" asks the:,other. How would you
respond?
168.
ACTIONS 4 Answer? 2
Rein ember the team approach— team members share the responsibility
for designing the IEP. You will be responsible for writing only those
goals and objectives related to special education services provided
by you. Hopefully, objectives will be set by the entire team including
the parent, Recording on the IEP form may be done by someone other
than the teacher. Instructional objectives for related services such
as speech therapy, remedial PE, etc. should be developed by that
specialist charged with performing such services. If the student par
ticipates in activities which do not require special education, they
will not be a part of the IEP.
Your level of involvement will vary. Hopefully, your input will
be solicited for SATs which consider referrals from your classroom or
possible placements in your classroom. However, in some cases, the
student may be placed in your classroom after an IEP has been written
without your involvement. You should be involved in the review and
revision of this IEP.
169
ACTIONS 4 Team Approach.
CRed)
READINGS
1. Fenton, K., Yoshida, R., Maxwell, J., & Kaufman, M, A decision
making model for special education programming teams. Unpub
lished report. USGE, BEK, Division of Innovation and Devel
opment, State Program Studies Branch, 1978.
2. Heron, T . Maintaining the mainstreamed child in the regular
classroom: The decision-making process. Journal of learning
Disabilities, 1978, hL C4J, 210-216.
3. Higgins, S. A primer on individualized education programs for
handicapped chlldren. Reston, VA: Foundation for Exceptional
Children, 1977. Pp. 9-11.
4. Pasanella, A., Volkmor, C., Male, M., & Stem, M. Individualized
educational programming with emphasis on the very young and
on the severely handicapped. North Hollywood: Foreworks,
1977. Pp. 10-12.
5. Pasanella, A., and Volkmor, C. Coining back or never leaving.
Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill Publishing Co., 1976.
6. Research for Better Schools Inc. Clarification of P.L. 94-142 for
the classroom teacher. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better
Schools, Inc., n.d. Pp. 7—12.
7. Ritter, D. Effects of a school consultation program upon referral
patterns of teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 1978, 15^
(2) , 239-243.
8. Yoshida, R. , Fenton, K., Maxwell, J., & Kaufman, M. Group
decision-making in the planning team process: Myth or real
ity? Unpublished report. USOE, BEH, Division of Innovation
and Development, State Program Studies Branch, 1978.
170
Filmstrip Center: ACTIONS: 4
Team Approach.
”A Plan in Action. Special Education: An Opportunity/An Obligation.
Preston Corporation, New York,.
71
ACTIONS
(Red)
I,
2 ,
Team Approach,
POST-TEST
The process of IEP is;
a. a team effort
b. a cyclical function
c. the responsibility of the special education teacher
d. a and b
e . a and c
f. a, b, and c
An assessment plan must be carried out;
a . only with parental approval
b. by special education credentialed personnel
c. Prior to an instructional planning meeting
d. all of the above
e. only a and c
f. only b and c
Xf a student has been referred to special education from a
regular classroom, the optimal school appraisal team to plan
an IEP would consist of:
a. a special education coordinator carefully trained to
work with parents
h. a principal or representative, a parent and an appropriate
specialist, i ,e., resource specialist, special class
teacher, educational psychologist, audiologist, or school
nurse
c. an administrator or designee, the parent, the referring
teacher, and any appropriate specialists
d. an administrative designee, a school psychologist, a
curriculum coordinator, a resource specialist, a special
education coordinator, a school nurse, and the parent
172
4, The actual placement decision should be made;
a. before the SAT meeting so that the appropriate personnel
will he able to attend
b. after the meeting so that heated arguments' might he
avoided
c. during the meeting as a result of a team problem-solving
effort
d. tentatively during the meeting with the final decision
pending confirmation of availability of room in the recom
mended program
e. only after the parents have signed the IEP form
5. Evaluation of efficacy of an IEP by means of an annual review
should:
a- be based on the same techniques and assessment instru
ments that led to the specification of goals and objec
tives .
b. decide if progress is sufficient to justify continuation
of the present instructional procedures.
c. decide if the progress data indicate that the instruc
tional objectives are appropriate or inappropriate for
the student
d. all of the above
p 1 o 1 o "e 'p ••s'&msm
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the. team approach to
the development, implementation, and evaluation of the IEP. Include
your own experiences in participating in SAT or EAS meetings (if you
have attended these meetings!. If you have not attended an SAT or EAS,
describe what contributions you would make when you attend or how you
would recommend that teachers in your school be given this opportunity.
173
ACTIONS 5
(Blue)
Teacher Rights and
Responsibilities
Self—instruction
Many professionals have expressed a number of concerns about the
impact of PL 94—142 and AB 1250 and the increase in litigation on
teacher rights. Unfortunately, a perception of the new laws as talcing
rights away from professionals and giving them to parents to use
against professionals is not uncommon.
But these laws, which guarantee rights for students and their
parents., also provide rights for professionals. A strong communica
tions network and a system for involving classroom teachers and parents
help keep these rights in balance. In ACTIONS 5, these rights and re
sponsibilities will be presented, as well as techniques for improving
communication and involvement.
Teacher Rights
According to Reed Martin, a well-known attorney in this field with
broad experience in law and education, teachers have the following
rights under PL 94-142:
1. Teachers have the right to have a student properly diagnosed.
This prevents the teacher from having to make curriculum deci
sions based on unclear or insufficient diagnostic data.
2, Teachers have the right to participate in the program planning
process. This assures that the wrong child will not be placed in
the wrong program for the wrong reasons and that the teacher is
not faced with implementing a program without appropriate back-
174
ground Information,
Teachers have the right to be provided adequate resources to serve
the student. The IEP process was designed to insure that needed
services and resources be provided. In other words, teachers
should not be asked to work with a language disabled child without
appropriate background information.
Teachers have the right to work with trained special education
personnel. Mainstreaming is an enormous task, and teachers are
entitled to support from trained special educators -
Teachers have the right to be trained in new techniques. The
Comprehensive Personnel Development portion of the laws is set up
to provide training for teachers who have students with excep
tional needs in their classes.
Teachers have the right to expect that their colleagues be effec
tive participants in the team approach. School professionals are
becoming more and more interdependent; a student *s program could
collapse if a team member is inadequately prepared to deal with
the problems. Comprehensive personnel development and program
evaluation components are designed to assure increasing competence
of professionals.
Teachers have the right to receive assistance from parents in com
pleting the school program at home. Through the notion of related
services, a number of opportunities exist for parents to be coun
seled or trained to do such things as behavior management, cur
riculum tasks, etc. The majority of parents welcome the oppor
tunity to receive training from the school in how to help - -
complement the school*s program.
8, Under substantive due process rights: of the Constitution, teachers
have the right to free speech and to action Cto form, join, lead,
and take an active role in organizations and groups regardless of
the postures they espouse— political campaigns being a possible
exception currently under litigation)»
9. Under procedural due process, rights of the Constitution, teachers
have the same rights to notice and fair hearing to challenge deci
sions made as students and parents.
Teacher Responsib.ilities,
Good educational practice as well as: legal interpretations have
indicated that the following are responsibilities of the teacher
(Weintraub & McCaffrey, 1976).
1. Teachers should report to the system the needs of the student.
2. Teachers must inform students and parents, guardians, and surro
gates of their rights and any proposed violations of those rights
(this responsibility is shared by SAT/EAS members).
3. Teachers should cooperate fully in administrative or judicial
proceedings regarding a student.
4. Teachers should seek administrative, or judicial action against
other professionals who violate students1 rights.
5. Teachers: must honor requirements of confidentiality regarding the
student and his/her family (Family Educational Right to Privacy
Act, Buckley Amendment, provides strict guidelines regarding ac
cess to personally identifiable information of a student. It also
provides access by parents and students to educational records!.
176
6. Teachers should work with other professionals to create an appro
priate educational program for all exceptional children in the
least restrictive environment.
Many of the conflicts and court cases arise in an effort to hold
professionals accountable for their actions. This accountability in
cludes the right to treatment, the right to education, and rights of
the handicapped individuals to equal protection of the laws. The IEP
itself is a management tool to assist in this accountability effort,
insuring that the school provides the services a student needs. (Once
these services are provided, however, the school is not responsible for
achievement of goals and objectives of the IEP by the student.) The
number of court cases is increasing rapidly, however, which emphasizes
the need for improved parent-professional relationships.
Parent involvement
When you participate as a member of a SAT or EAS, you share respon
sibility for insuring a meaningful role for parents at the meeting.
Hopefully, your efforts to establish open communication with all
parents of students in your class will have laid the groundwork for
their participation and involvement before the meeting is scheduled.
The following seven points are offered as ideas for improving the
parent involvement procedures of the SAT/EAS:
1. $hen you notify parents of the upcoming IEP meeting, write them a
personal letter or call them on the telephone instead of sending a
form. Suggest a list of questions for them to consider before
attending the meeting.
177
2. Always provide nametags for everyone who attends, the meeting; pro
vide a handout with the purpose of the meeting, time limitations,
and an agenda clearly stated. Make sure the person who guides
the meeting directs questions to parents.
3. if evaluation results are presented, state them in clear language
and provide copies of all assessment results to parents.
4. Provide blank copies of the IEP form to everyone.
5. When the placement decision is considered, list the alternatives
available and the rights of parents in clear language.
6. At the conclusion of the meeting, review all decisions to make
sure everyone shares the same perceptions of what has occurred.
List these decisions and give a copy to the parents.
7. Find out how much and in what ways the parent would like to be
contacted about progress on the IEP. Provide other opportunities
for parents to participate (besides the IEP conference and annual
review meeting).
If parents have been actively involved in the team process, they
will be more supportive of the team's decisions. When conflicts arise,
it is often due to the fact that parents are asked to approve a deci^:’
sion-or plan that was formulated without their adequate involvement.
Since you as a teacher typically have the closest and most frequent
contact with, parents, you can play a vital role in facilitating mean
ingful parent participation in the placement and program planning pro
cess by establishing an atmosphere of openness and sensitivity.
178
ACTIONS 5 Teacher Rights and
(Blue) Responsibilities,
PROBLEM SOLVING
179
ACTIONS 5 Problem 1
A therapist from a local clinic calls; and lets you know; that one
of the handicapped students in your class is receiving treatment
services there. He asks for a copy of the IEP. What would you tell
him?
180
.ACT£QNS 5 Answer 1
Only those school personnel involved with. the. formulation of the
IEP, the student or the student’s parents, or representatives author
ized by the parents should have access to the IEP . Written permission
should be obtained. Refer the therapist to the Family Educational
Right to Privacy Act and review the provisions yourself to make sure
you are clear about this very important law.
Perhaps your district might wish to set up a system whereby
parents whose children are CCS clients (or students 18 or older who are
CCS or vocational rehabilitation clients) are asked to sign a waiver
allowing therapists or caseworkers access to student records. Such a
system tends to facilitate coordination of services and allows atten
dance at meetings without specific authorization each time.
181
ACTIONS 5 Problem 2
In talking with your colleagues about the content of this work
shop, one concern is e x p r e s s e d frequently. "Will programming for
special education require more time of me?" How would you respond?
182
If teachers dp not currently consult with, parents;, participate in
program planning, and have individualized curriculum, more time will
ibly he required. However, your
only in those areas in which you will provide special education
services. The IEP, therefore, can be viewed as a part of the total
lesson planning process.
ACTIONS 5 Problem 3
When you bring up the need for staff development prior to the
mainstreaming of handicapped children, your principal replies that no
released time, has been made available. How would you respond?
184
ACTIONS 5 Answer 3
Staff development is an obligation by law' that the State Depart
ment of Education and your local district have to you and the children
you teach. Each state is required to submit a personnel development
plan to the federal government, and this document is public informa
tion. In addition, your Special Education Services Region must have
a local staff development plan, which is submitted to the state.
Under AB 125Q, schools are allowed to claim ADA for two days of
released time for staff development. AB 65 (School Improvement Act)
provides up to a total of 8 days of released time for staff develop
ment for schools which are participating in School Improvement Grants.
AB 551 concerning school staff development also offers up to a total
of 8 days for released time for staff development.
Encourage your principal and other staff members to explore these
options, possibly assign a task force to plan, implement, and evaluate
local school staff development activities. Be on the alert for staff
development activities provided by the Personnel Development Unit,
Office of Special Education, 721 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, California
95814.
185
ACTIONS 5
(Blue)
Teacher Rights: and
Responsibil iti.es.
READINGS
1. Senf, G. The teacher’s rights in P.L. 94-142: A conversation with.
Reed Martin. Journal of Learning Disabilities;, 1978, 11 (6) ,
• ;■ • 4-14. '
2. Turnbull, H. Accountability : An overview of the impact of liti
gation on professional. In F ..‘ .Weintraub, A\ Abeson, J .
Ballard, & M . LaVor (Eds'.) , Public policy and the education
of exceptional children. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional
Children, 1976.
3. Turnbull, A. & Turnbull, N. Parents speak out: Views from the
other side of the two-way mirror. Columbus, OH: Charles E.
Merrill Publishing Co., 1978.
4. Neintraub, F. & McCaffrey, M. Professional rights and responsi
bilities. In F . Weintraub, A. Abeson, J. Ballard, & M- LaVor
(Eds.), Public policy and the education of exceptional chil
dren . Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, 1976.
186
Films,trip Center: ACTIONS 5
Regular Education Involvement in the IEP." Child Study Team Training
Program, Special Education Associates, Austin, Texas;,
187
ACTIONS, 5
Te.agher Rights and
Responsibilities
POST-TEST
1 . With, the passage and implementation of PL 14-142, teachers. ’
rights:
a. have been taken away and given to parents of handicapped
children
h. have been set aside in favor of the rights of the handi
capped
c . have been clarified with respect to providing instruction
to individuals with exceptional needs
d. are being defined by much of the litigation filed in
response to the new law
e . both a and d
f . both c and d
2. Classroom teachers, can expect to find themselves:
a . being trained to accommodate more variance in students
b. playing a more integral role in the disposition of problem
learners
c. communicating more frequently and more directly with
parents concerning educational programs
d. with more ready access to special materials, resources,
services and consultative expertise
e . all of the above
f . none of the above
3. Parents * and students' rights related to special education
are to be the concern of:
U. special services providers
b, building principals
c , SAT/EAS members
d. classroom teachers
e . all of the above
f. none of the above
188
4. Te^ch.er^; are not to be held responsible for confidentiality
regarding a student and his/her family.
a. This is because the Buckley Amendment only deals with
official office records.
b. Teachers are to honor guidelines of the Family Educa
tional Right to Privacy Act and, at the same time, provide
access to records and information to the parents, and the
student whom the information concerns.
c. This is because no information which teachers produce or
have access to is significant enough to warrant confi
dentiality.
d. This is because teachers are too busy with educational
problems to be responsible.
e. This is because the authors of the Family Educational
Right to Privacy Act conducted nationwide site visits to
teacher's lounges and, in despair, wrote in this exclu
sion.
5. Court cases filed by parents against school districts are:
a. Based on violations of rights to an education or equal
protection of the law.
b. Efforts to hold professionals accountable for their
actions.
c. Usually decided in the parents' favor.
d. All of the above.
6. Teachers can best assist in involving parents by:
a. Mailing out due process forms,.
b. Reading parents their rights before a meeting begins.
c. Giving them a complete copy of the IEP prior to the start
of the meeting.
d. Making personal informal contacts with parents as. soon
as a problem is identified-
e. All of the above.
p 'p 'tj 'e '0 'J : SH3MSNY
189
1. Review your school. *s current procedures, for insuring that teach t-
ers1 rights, under PL 94^14 2 are protected, such as staff develops
inent opportunities;, program planning time, etc. List any recom
mended changes or new procedures which, might add support to the
teacher■s role.
CURRENT RECOMMENDED
2, Review your school's current prc
voivement. List any recommendec
might improve parent-school relc
CURRENT
>cedures for assuring parent in-
1 changes or new procedures which
itionships.
RECOMMENDED
190,
APPENDIX K
PERMISSION TO USE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
191.
RUCKER-GABLE ASSOCTAT
.S to ry s , CT 05268
December 3, 1979
copyrighted m aterial from
e in her d is s e rta tio n
1 rns rnay supoly s in g le cor: 1 es
has our permission
ucationa'i Programs
on on
Very t r u ly your
• > ^
Chauncv' N. Rueke
' ‘Robert
CNR:rnvl
192

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Educational philosophies and intercultural ideologies: A study of the belief orientations of preservice teachers

PDF

The intercultural knowledge and attitudes of prospective teachers in the United States

PDF

Teacher centers: Alternative structures and valued purposes

PDF

The relationship between classroom experience and the anxiety of practice teachers beginning an intensive period of student teaching

PDF

Methods in teacher recruitment, November 1946

PDF

The evolution of a continuing teacher education program at Ethiopia's Haile Sellassie I University : A case study with a proposed model

PDF

A competency-based curriculum for teaching prospective college teachers "Educational Research Methodology" in Brazil

PDF

The effects of twenty hours of systematic human relations training on the classroom behavior of experienced self-selected elementary school teachers

PDF

An evaluation of a professional physical education curriculum

PDF

A method for evaluating a university physical education program

PDF

Bilingual teacher certification : a study of the California bilingual certificate of competence examination

PDF

The development of professional salaries for public school teachers commensurate with educational and social contributions

PDF

A survey of the attitudes of school teachers toward problems in education

PDF

Influence of different cultural backgrounds on teacher pupil interaction and teacher attitudes of Israeli and American teachers in Jewish education

PDF

The California Teachers Association: Its development, structure, and program

PDF

A study of teacher expectancy induction as related to expectancy information, teacher dogmatism, and student sex

PDF

The effect of Kohlberg's theory of moral development in the parochial secondary classroom on levels of moral judgment and dogmatism

PDF

A proposal of professional performance objectives for the teacher education programs in Viet Nam

PDF

The effect of conceptual tempo on teacher student dyadic interaction in the classroom

PDF

A summative evaluation of a teaching program in prosocial behavior and social cognition for primary school children assigned to regular, special education, or Title I classrooms

Asset Metadata

Creator Male, Marilyn Clare (author)

Core Title Development and evaluation of a workshop to increase classroom teachers' knowledge of special education issues and legislation

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, special,Education, Teacher Training,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c26-540980

Unique identifier UC11245896

Identifier usctheses-c26-540980 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP24714.pdf

Dmrecord 540980

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Male, Marilyn Clare

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA