MSU LIBRARIES .—;—. RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is‘ returned after the date stamped below. o’éfifi .1 23:1 THE SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER AS CONSULTANT: AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE AS PERCEIVED BY SELECTED DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENT SCHOOL EDUCATORS By DanieT Robert Turner A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partia] fulfiilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1988 I‘- M.» ~ I" ~. . .. I (x I I“) I ‘( 1:: ABSTRACT THE SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER AS CONSULTANT: AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE AS PERCEIVED BY SELECTED DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENT SCHOOL EDUCATORS By Daniel R. Turner The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceptions of special and regular education teachers regarding the extent of present consultation activities, the perceived desirability and effectiveness of these activities, and factors that may facilitate or inhibit teacher consultation as a means of providing indirect service to mainstreamed handicapped students in the Mediterranean Region of the Department of Defense Dependent Schools. Data were collected using the Classroom Teacher Questionnaire and the Special Educator Questionnaire, which were prepared by the researcher. 0f the 260 DoDDS-M personnel randomly selected to participate, 38 special educators and 95 classroom teachers responded. Twelve hypotheses were tested using either t-tests, the Nilcoxon sign-rank test, or, when appropriate, a test for difference between means for paired samples. The level of significance was .05. In general, the findings of the hypothesis testing revealed that (l) no significant difference was found between the amount of Daniel Robert Turner time classroom teachers and special educators allocated to teacher consultation by special educators; (2) there was I") evidence that prior classroom teaching experience was a significant factor when considering special education teachers’ attitudes and perceptions of the teacher consultation process; (3) special educators with formal training in consulting methods rated the importance and effectiveness of the teacher consultant role higher than those special educators without formal training; (4) special educators with consultation training rated their expertise significantly higher than their counterparts without formal training; (5) special educators wished to become more skilled at teacher consulting; (6) there was no evidence that prior college course work in special education was a significant factor when considering classroom teachers’ receptivity to consultation provided by special educators; and (7) special educators rated themselves significantly higher on all consulting effectiveness items when compared to the ratings of the classroom teachers in the study. As a result of the findings, it was concluded that (l) both educator groups need greater opportunities to communicate with one another during the school day, and (b) both educator groups could benefit from additional education and training in order to enhance the effectiveness of their collaborations. To my wife, Patricia, and children, Natalie and Benjamin, who gracefully understood and encouraged my efforts. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Sincere appreciation and gratitude are extended to many people for their contributions throughout this study. Among those acknowledged are: My wife and children for their patience and understanding. My comittee chairman, Dr. Howard Hickey, for his friendly support, artful guidance, and invaluable assistance. My doctoral committee members, Drs. Richard Gardner, Samuel Moore 11, and Benjamin Bohnhorst, whose excellent advice, guidance, and support have enhanced my professional growth. Dr. Igor Mikolic-Torreira, who provided excellent advice regarding the necessary statistics for this study. The administrators and teachers of the Department of Defense Schools-Mediterranean Region who participated in this study. And finally Sue Cooley for her patience and dedicated hours of typing. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ....................... ix LIST OF FIGURES ....................... xii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY .............. l Background of the Study .............. l Focus of the Study ................ 5 Statement of the Problem ............. 5 Statement of Purpose ............... 6 Specific Objectives of the Study ......... 6 Hypotheses .................... 7 Limitations of the Study ............. 8 Delimitations of the Study ............ 9 Definition of Terms ................ 9 Setting of the Study ............... ll Design of the Study ................ l2 Population ................... lZ Instrumentation ................. l3 Analysis of Data ................ l3 Summary and Overview ............... l4 11. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............. l6 Foreword ..................... l6 Primary Roles of the Special Education Teacher . . 17 Assessment ................... 19 Preparing and Implementing Instructional Programs ................... 20 Consulting Hith the School Staff ........ 20 Past Research and Practice in Special Education Consulting ................... Zl Evaluation Studies of Special Education Consultation Models ............... 28 Consulting Skills for Special Educators ...... 33 Present Problems Associated with the Special Education Teacher Consultant Process ...... 42 Summary ...................... 49 vi III. IV. DESIGN AND PROCEDURES ................ Introduction ................... Department of Defense Dependent Schools- Mediterranean Region (DoDDS-M) ......... Population and Sample ............... Hypotheses .................... Design and Development of the Measurement Instruments ................... Special Educator Questionnaire (SEQ) ...... Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (CTQ) ...... Pilot Studies ................... Reliability .................... Administration of the Questionnaires ....... Procedures for Data Analysis ........... Quantitative Data Analysis ........... Qualitative Data Analysis ............ Summary ...................... ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ................ Introduction ................... Presentation of the Data ............. Results of the SEQ ................ Results of the CTQ ................ Analysis of Training Needs, Motivations to Consult, and Factors That Inhibit and Facili— tate the Consultation Process as Perceived by Regular and Special Educators .......... Introduction .................. Recommendations for Education and/or Training . Results of Qualitative Analysis of Part V of the SEQ and Part VI of the CTQ ........... The SEQ ..................... The CTQ ..................... Similarities Between Educator Groups ...... Hypothesis Testing ................ Introduction .................. Hypothesis 1 .................. Hypothesis 2 .................. Hypothesis 3 .................. Hypothesis 4 .................. Hypothesis 5 .................. Hypothesis 6 .................. Hypothesis 7 .................. Hypothesis 8 .................. Hypothesis 9 .................. Hypothesis l0 .................. vii Page Page Hypothesis ll .................. l03 Hypothesis l2 .................. l04 Summary ...................... l05 V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AND PRACTICE ......... l08 Introduction ................... l08 The Findings ................... llO Conclusions .................... ll3 Implications for Practice ............. ll5 Implications for Further Research ......... ll7 Concluding Statement ............... ll9 APPENDICES A. DoDDS-M CHARACTERISTICS ............... 120 B. CORRESPONDENCE ................... 126 C. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS ................ l28 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ l38 viii Table 2.1 4.9 4.10 LIST OF TABLES Percentage of CGE Staff Time Devoted to the Different Kinds of Recipient Groups ........ Part II Reliability Results of the SEQ Test-Retest . . Part II Reliability Results of the CTQ Test-Retest . . Summary of Special Educators’ Demographic Informa- tion ........................ Ratings of Special Educators’ Attitudes and Percep- tions Regarding the Teacher Consultation Process . . Summary of Regular Educators’ Demographic Informa- tion ........................ Ratings of Classroom Teachers’ Attitudes and Percep- tions Regarding Mainstreaming and the Special Education Teacher Consulting Process ........ Ratings of Types of Education and/or Training Indicated by Special Educators as Having the Potential for Enhancement of Resource Teacher Consultation Effectiveness ............. Ratings of Types of Education and/or Training Regular Educators Believed Would Enhance the Effectiveness of Consultation by the Special Educator ...... Ratings of Factors That Motivate Special Educators to Contact Regular Educators in the Consultant Role . . Ratings of Factors That Motivate Regular Educators to Contact Special Educators for Assistance ...... Ratings of Factors Reported by Special Educators That May Facilitate Consulting Practices ...... Ratings of Factors Reported by Regular Educators That May Facilitate the Consultation Process . . . . ix Page 22 60 60 66 67 70 71 73 74 76 77 78 79 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 .18 .19 .20 .21 .22 .23 Ratings of Perceived Barriers Reported by Special Educators That Limit Resource Teachers’ Consulting Effectiveness ................... Ratings of Perceived Barriers Reported by Regular Educators That Limit Resource Teacher Consulting . . Classroom Teachers’ Ratings of the Effectiveness of Special Educators in Four Role Competencies Rank-Ordered Categories of Factors Special Educators Believed May Facilitate the Teacher Consultation Process in DoDDS-M ................. Rank-Ordered Categories of Factors Classroom Teachers Believed May Facilitate the Teacher Consultation Process in DoDDS-M ................. Teacher Consultation Factors With Corresponding Survey Items .................... Actual and Ideal Amounts of Time Allocated to Various Special Educator Roles ........... Ratings of Attitudes Toward Teacher Consultation Held by Special Educators With and Those Without Classroom Teaching Experience ........... Ratings of Attitudes Toward Teacher Consultation Held by Special Educators With and Those Without Formal Training in Consultation Methods ...... Ratings of Perceptions Regarding Teacher Consultation Held by Special Educators With and Those Without Classroom Teaching Experience ........... Ratings of Perceptions of Special Educators With and Those Without Formal Training in Consultation Skills ....................... Ratings of Self-Perceived Expertise Scores of Special Educators With and Those Without Classroom Teaching Experience ..................... Ratings of Self-Perceived Expertise Scores in Teacher Consultation of Special Educators With and Those Without Formal Training in Consultation Methods Page 81 82 84 86 89 92 93 94 95 96 98 99 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 Ratings of Receptivity to Special Educator Consulta- tion by Classroom Teachers With and Those Without College Coursework in Special Education ...... Ratings of Special Educator Consultation Effective- ness by Classroom Teachers With and Those Without College Coursework in Special Education ...... Ideal Amounts of Time Allocated to Varying Special Educator Roles by Classroom Teachers and Special Educators ..................... Rating of Special Educator Teacher Consultation Effectiveness by Professional Role ......... xi Page 100 102 103 105 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4.l Mean Perceived Present and Ideal Expertise in Teacher Consultation of Sampled Special Educators in DoDDS-M on a Continuum From l (Very Weak) to 6 (Very Strong) ......... l0l xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Background of the Study At present, there are 39 million students enrolled in United States public schools. Will (1986) estimated that between 10% and 20%. of 'these students are "slow learners" and that "a singular challenge facing education today is the challenge of providing the best, most effective education possible for children and youth with learning problems" (p. 4ll). Meanwhile, according to the United States Department of Education, since 198l the federal government has eliminated 500,000 students from federal programs aimed at improving student performance (Toch, l984). This decrease in support comes at a time when public school standards are being revised. The currently popular public school reform movement is intended to make schools more effective by making them more demanding. Stiffening of requirements for high school graduation has occurred in many states. Along with these new requirements has come a concern for the plight of "low achievers.” Cross (l984) noted that The national dialog on excellence in education has paid little attention to the question of what it will take to guarantee that all students have a fair chance to meet the new and higher standards now being imposed on them. Nor has the federal government shown any willingness to support a search for ways to teach the more rigorous ”new basics" recommended by the National Commission to less-able students. (p. 172) Further, Cross observed that contemporary educational reformers have emphasized mastery of basic and higher-level processes but have paid little attention to improving schooling for less-able students, “who will almost certainly constitute one of the greatest problems of the learning society in the let century” (p. 172). In his article entitled “The Dark Side of the Excellence Movement," Toch (1984) concluded that if the U.S. fails to insure that the excellence movement reaches every student, the current calls for school reform may do nothing more than widen the gulf between the educational haves and the have-nots, leaving those citizens who lack adequate training increasingly less able to manage in an increasingly complicated world. (p. 176) Addressing the problem of students "at risk" due to the proposed educational reforms advocated by the various commissions and studies, McDill, Natrillo, and Pallas (1985) examined the potential consequences for these students, concluding that some may benefit while others may not. They believed that raising standards may motivate some low performers to spend more time on school work. "On the negative side, raising standards may increase academic stratification in schools and cause more school failure, with no apparent remedies" (p. 415). The field of special education has experienced a recent upsurge in the numbers of students being referred from regular classroom teachers. It has been estimated that 5% of the entire student population is being referred each year (Algozzine, Ysseldyke, & Christenson, 1983). However, current budgets are inadequate to accommodate these dramatic increases. Many school districts are now faced with the problem of trying to serve more special education students under constraints of limited resource allocation. The field of special education must meet the challenge by moving in new directions to provide appropriate educational services to all students in the least restrictive educational environment. (Graden, Casey, a Christenson, 1985, p. 377) The current trend is to reconceptualize and redefine the role of the special education teacher so as to reduce some of the problems that confront current practice. Historically, the education of handicapped students has been the responsibility of special education teachers working with students in special classes and resource rooms. With the advent of the mainstreaming movement, the education of these students has become a .shared responsibility between both special and regular educators. In fact, "an increasing number of students with special learning and behavioral problems are receiving the majority of their educational services in regular classrooms" (Wojciehowski & Burton, 1984, p. 2). According to these authors, this relatively recent development has created a new need for adult education and training in two ways: 1. Regular mainstream educators who were trained to believe that exceptional students were the sole responsibility of the special educator are frequently faced with the feeling of unpreparedness in educating their new students. 2. The special educator' who previously assumed the major direct teaching responsibility for these special-needs students is being challenged to assume a role of onsite consultant to all teachers. (p. 2) Lilly (1979) maintained that the special education teacher consultant approach will become the dominant role for special educators in the future. If“ students.-with learning and behavior problems are to be educated in the regular classroom, we must consider interventions aimed not only at the student receiving special education, but at the classroom teacher and other students as well. Thus, consultation is increasingly recognized as a part of the role of the special educator. (Lilly & Givens-Ogle, 1981, p. 74) The consulting dimension of the role of the special education teacher is not a new one. Teacher consultants were used to provide informational services to classroom teachers having hearing- and vision-impaired students and speech and language students in their classrooms during the 19505 and 19605 (Paul, 1963; Streng, 1953; Yauch, 1952). Yet, the first attempts to provide consulting services to 'teachers having students: with learning and behavior problems in ‘their' classrooms occurred in the mid-19605. These programs were proposed and provided by clinical psychologists and psychiatric social workers (Lilly & Givens-Ogle, 1981). The first model proposing to use an on-site consulting teacher to provide consultative services was introduced by McKenzie, Egner, Knight, Perelman, Schneider, and Garvin in 1970. Subsequently, discussion has proceeded on two fronts: (a) primary consultation with a focus on the classroom teacher exclusively, and (b) resource consulting, which involves the special education teacher working directly with students and teachers (Lilly & Givens-Ogle, 1981). Attention given the teacher consultant approach as a method of service delivery has grown considerably over the past decade. Chapter II contains an analysis of the content and direction of the relevant literature on teacher consultation models, roles of the special education resource teacher, recommended skills for special education teacher consultants, and problem areas associated with the consultant role of the special educator. Focus of thg_§tggy Although all facets of a special education teacher’s role in the mainstreaming of handicapped children are important to study, it is unrealistic to attempt to achieve this purpose in a single research project. Therefore, this researcher focused on the various aspects of the special educator as advisor and collaborator to teachers who are faced with the challenge of educating handicapped children. The special educator’s role as direct service provider is not within the scope of this study except to the extent that aspects of the role of direct service provider affect the role of being an on-site consultant. Stgtgment of the Problem The problem investigated in this study examined factors that accounted for the relatively minor role of consultation between classroom and special education teachers as a method of providing indirect services to handicapped students in the Mediterranean Region of the Department of Defense Dependent Schools. Attitudes of both regular and special educators toward consultation, perceived effectiveness of ‘the consultation process, the extent to which consultation is taking place, factors that may facilitate the consultation process, perceived barriers to consultation, and the adequacy of special educators’ training for the consultant role are problems areas that were examined in this study. Statement of Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceptions of special and regular: education teachers regarding the extent of present consultation activities, the perceived desirability and effectiveness of these activities, and factors that may facilitate or inhibit teacher consultation as a means of providing indirect services to mainstreamed handicapped students in the Mediterranean Region of the Department of Defense Schools. Sueeific Objectives 9f the Study The primary objective of this study was to collect empirical data that will be useful in understanding the perceptions and attitudes of special and regular educators toward consultation activities. The specific objectives of this study were to investigate Department of Defense educators’: 1. perceptions regarding the actual and ideal amounts of con- sulting activities presently taking place in the schools. 2. past professional experience related to special and regular educators’ attitudes toward and perceptions of’ the consultation process. 3. perceived barriers related to present consultation activi- ties. 4. perceptions regarding factors that may facilitate the con- sultation process. 5. perceived effectiveness of present consultation activities. 6. attitudes toward mainstreaming related to consultation. The factors measured in this study were obtained by means of the Special Educator Questionnaire (SEQ) and the Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (CTQ), which were developed by the researcher. Hypotheees The following hypotheses, formulated as a result of a review of the literature, were developed to investigate the specific objectives of this study. These hypotheses are stated in their testable format in Chapter III. Hypothesis, 1: Perceived actual amounts of time allocated to consulting activities by the special educator will be signifi- cantly lower than perceived ideal amounts of time allocated to consulting activities. Hypothesis 2: Attitudes of special educators with previous regular classroom teaching experience will be significantly more positive toward consultation activities than those of special educators without regular classroom teaching experience. Hyeothesie 13: Attitudes of special educators with formal training in consulting methods will be significantly more positive toward consultation activities than those of special educators without formal training in consulting methods. flypetheei; 5: Perceptions of special educators with classroom teaching experience will be significantly more positive toward consultation activities than those of special educators without regular classroom teaching experience. Hypothesis, 5: Perceptions of special educators with formal training in consulting methods will be significantly more positive toward consultation activities than those of special educators without formal training in consulting methods. Hypothesis 6: Self-perceived teacher consulting expertise scores of special educators with previous classroom teaching experience will be significantly greater than the expertise scores of special educators without previous classroom teaching experience. Hypothesis 1: Self-perceived teacher consulting expertise scores of special educators with formal training in consulting methods will be significantly greater than the expertise scores of special educators without training in consulting methods. Hypothesis 8: Perceived present expertise scores in consulta- tion skills of special educators will be significantly lower than perceived ideal expertise scores in consultation skills. Hypothesis 9: Regular educators’ receptivity toward consultation provided by special educators will be significantly more positive for those regular educators who have had course work in special education. Hyppthesis 19: Special educator consulting effectiveness ratings by classroom teachers with previous college course work in special education will be significantly greater than those ratings of classroom teachers without previous college course work in special education. Hypothesis )1: Perceived ideal amounts of time allocated to resource teacher consultation will be significantly higher for special educators when compared to ideal amounts of time allocated by regular educators. Hypothesis (2: The effectiveness of resource teacher consult- ing will be significantly greater as perceived by special edu- cators when compared to resource teacher effectiveness as perceived by regular educators. Limitetiops pf the Study This study was conducted in the Department of Defense Schools system overseas. To the extent that these schools are unique, generalization cannot be made to other school systems in the United States. This study used a forced-choice questionnaire and open-ended questions as the means for data collection. The writer assumed that perceptions of special educators could be accurately measured and that the questionnaire was adequately designed so as to be valid. It was further assumed that the responses made would be an accurate reflection of the respondents’ practices and attitudes. The researcher relied on principals to distribute questionnaires randomly to teachers in their respective schools. This practice is required by DoDDS-M. It was assumed that the questionnaires were randomly distributed. Delimitations pf the Study This study was intended to analyze the attitudes and opinions of selected elementary and secondary school teachers working for the Department of Defense Schools in the Mediterranean Region during the 1987/88 school year. Attitudes and opinions of administrators, students, and parents were not within the scope of this investiga- tion except as perceived by the selected educators. Definition of Terms Classroom teacher. Any certificated teacher who plans and guides the development of the learning experiences of pupils in classroom situations and is responsible for the activities and conduct of pupils in classroom situations. (The terms ”classroom teacher" and "regular educator" are used synonymously in this study.) ass m Tea h r ues ionn i . The instrument used to survey classroom teachers in the Department of Defense Dependent Schools--Mediterranean Region to provide background information, lO identify perceptions of and attitudes toward consultation activities, and gather information concerning barriers to, and the facilitation of, the special education teacher consultant process. gonsultatipn. .A process that "involves positive interaction between two or more persons for the purpose of identifying and solving problems confronted during the mainstreaming process" (Wojciehowski & Burton, 1984, p. 5). Direct services. The services by a special educator that involve teaching interactions between the special educator and specific students. QpQQS. Department of Defense Dependent Schools. upflu§;H. Department of Defense Dependent Schools—Mediterranean Region. Elementery school. A Department of Defense Dependent School that is organized to include any combination of a majority of grades between kindergarten and sixth grade. Handicepped student. A student who has met one or more of the four DoDDS criteria necessary to be considered handicapped in the DoDDS system. Ipdipeet servjee. Inservice training, demonstrating instruc- tion and instructional materials, and consultation by resource- teachers. Heinstreemjng. The practice of placing handicapped students in regular public school classrooms for either all or part of the school day. ll Secondar o l. A Department of Defense Dependent School that is organized to include any combination of a majority of grades between seventh and twelfth grade. Special educatpr. Any certificated teacher of the learning or communication impaired. (The term "special educator" is used synonymously in this study with the terms ”special education teacher consultant," "resource teacher," and "resource teacher consultant".) S ecial Educator uestionn ire . The instrument used to survey special educators in DoDDS-M to provide background information, identify perceptions of and attitudes toward the consultation process, and gather information concerning barriers to, and the facilitation of, the special education teacher consultant process. Setting of the Study In 1946 the U.S. Armed Services established overseas schools for the dependents of Department of Defense civilian and nfilitary personnel. At present, DoDDs consists of 270 schools in 20 countries around the globe. 00005 is the eleventh largest American school system, with a student population exceeding 149,000. DoDDS offers a K-12 program similar to those provided by public schools in the United States. The headquarters for 00005 is in Alexandria, Virginia. Today, this worldwide school system is divided into five geographical regions. Each region has a headquarters with a director and staff. Subordinate to these directors are 12 superintendents, who supervise the schools within their respective areas of responsibility. The five regions of the Department of Defense Schools are: 1. DoDDS-Germany, which provides educational services to 85,606 students in West Germany. 2. DoDDS-Atlantic, which provides services for 15,579 students in England, Scotland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Iceland, Norway, Newfoundland, Cuba, Bermuda, and the British West Indies. 3. DoDDS-Mediterranean, which has 34 schools serving 14,344 students in Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Bahrain, and the Azores. 4. DoDDS-Pacific, which has 40 schools that provide services for 25,930 students in Japan, Korea, and the Philippines. 5. DoDDS-Panama, which provides educational services to 7,632 students in the Panama Canal Zone (Walling, 1985). Design of the Study The survey method was used for gathering data in this study. The research objectives were incorporated into two questionnaires. The questionnaires were field tested, reviewed by knowledgeable professionals, and revised before being sent to special and regular educators in the DoDDS-M region. Pppulatjpn The population of this study was the teachers working in the Mediterranean Region of the Department of Defense Schools during school year 1987/88. Specifically, the special education teacher population comprised those personnel classified as teachers of 13 communication and/or learning impaired students. Typically, each school in DoDDS-M has several teachers classified as primary service providers for“ handicapped children. The classroom teacher population comprised those teachers who worked in cflassrooms from kindergarten through twelfth grade. Instrumentstipn A forced-choice questionnaire was designed to gather data concerning demographics and pertinent information about the attitudes and opinions of the subjects of this study. The questionnaire contained four categories of questions: questions of (a) information, (b) fact, (c) self-perception, and (d) opinion. The final page» of the questionnaires required those sampled to respond to an open—ended question. The responses to these questions were coded using a qualitative-analysis technique. Before mailing, the questionnaires were reviewed by a number of 00005 employees to determine their clarity and validity. Also, the reliability of the instruments was evaluated. Copies of the questionnaires may be found in Appendix C. Anelysis of pets First, descriptive statistics were obtained concerning demographic data and independent and dependent variables. Later, t-tests and the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test were used to test the hypotheses of this study. Significance was tested at the .05 level. Qualitative methods were used to analyze those questions that 14 required narrative answers. Procedures for analysis of data are explained in greater detail in Chapter III. mm r n v rv w Public policy has mandated that handicapped children be educated to the maximum extent possible in regular classrooms. Studies have shown that regular classroom teachers desire more consulting help from special education personnel to help them cope with the new influx of special students (Speece & Mandell, 1980). Nationally, referrals to special education teachers from regular classroom teachers have steadily increased. Provisions for direct service to all of these newly referred students by special education teachers are not viable at current funding rates. Alternate forms of service delivery have been emphasized by researchers and practitioners. School-based consultation has been identified as a promising method of service delivery to assist handicapped students. Consultation, once a modest role of the special education teacher, has been increasingly viewed as a partial solution to the problem of increasing referral rates. The special education resource teacher is viewed as the most likely professional who will be required to fulfill the consultant role (Evans, 1980). However, few special educators have received training in consultation methods, and there appears to be a discrepancy between consultation activities advocated in the research literature and the consultation that is presently taking place in the schools.- These dilemmas have stimulated a :sharp .increase in studies that have 15 investigated the nature and extent of current school-based consultative practices (Haight, 1984). This writer investigated the teacher consultant approach to special education service delivery in the Mediterranean Region of DoDDS. The purpose of Chapter I was to provide a frame of reference for this study. Chapter II contains a review of the literature that pertains to the special education teacher consultant process. Chapter III describes the design of the study, the population and sample for the study, and the procedures for collecting data. Instrumentation and techniques of analysis are described. Chapter IV contains an analysis of the data. Chapter V includes a description and summary of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations for current practice and future research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Ems! Mainstreaming, the current practice of placing handicapped students in regular public school classrooms, has created a new set of demands on both regular and special educators. Regular educators are being challenged to provide services to handicapped students but often lack the necessary training required to provide successful programs. Consequently, many regular educators are seeking guidance from outside the classroom. Increasingly, school-based special education teachers are being called on to provide consultative services to classroom teachers. However, traditionally, special educators have primarily provided direct service to handicapped students. This new set of demands has prompted, in part, a reexamination of the role of the special education resource teacher. An increase in interaction between regular and special educators is widely recomended, yet little is known about the consultative process as it affects these two groups. Lilly and Givens-Ogle (1981) highlighted the need for research on teacher consultation as it pertains to mainstreaming. Specifically, these authors recommended that research focus on ”the extent, nature and results of various types of consultation services" (p. 76). Their l6 17 article indicated that little was known about the amount of time special educators spend providing consultation and the nature of barriers that might be limiting the consultation process. The literature pertaining to the consultant role of the special educator is reviewed in this chapter. The first section contains an examination of the primary roles presently performed by the special education resource teacher. The next section is concerned with past research and practice of special education consultation. The third section describes several evaluation studies of special education teacher consultation models. The consultation skills advocated for special educators are examined in the fourth section. The final section focuses on present problems associated with the special education teacher consultant process. Primary Roles of the Special Educatipn Teeeheu Special education began to evolve formally during the nineteenth century to meet the instructional needs of students who were deemed exceptional. Thus, two types of education, special and general, exist today. Although special education is technically a subsystem of regular education . . . in effect, a dual system of education has operated, each with its own pupils, teachers, supervisory staff, and funding system. While there have been attempts in recent years to reduce the sharp dichotomy between special and regular education . . . , the dual system basically remains intact. There are still special and regular school personnel, students, and funding. (Stainback & Stainback, 1984, p. 102) Historically, the role of special educators has been confined to the teaching of special students. This teaching has taken place most often in a resource room or a self-contained special education 18 classroom separate from the regular classroom. Increasingly, concern has been expressed regarding the adequacy and desirability of educating students apart from regular classrooms (Lilly & Givens- Ogle, 1981; Stainback & Stainback, 1984; Will, 1986). Lilly and Givens-Ogle (1981) suggested that recent events have led to a "reevaluation of the role of special education as an alternate, largely separate education system” (p. 73). These authors maintained that the mainstreaming movement has increased the need for interaction and cooperation between classroom teachers and special educators, that there exists an increased emphasis on standard curriculum content for handicapped pupils as opposed to a separate curriculum, and that the "once-sharp distinctions between special and regular education teaching methodology have become blurred" (p. 74). These trends, which are clearly associated with the trend toward (education of students in the least restrictive environment, had led to a gradual, but unmistakable, shift in the role of many special education teachers. If students with learning and behavior problems are to be educated in the regular classroom, we must consider interventions aimed not only at the student receiving special education, but at the classroom ‘teacher' and other students as well. Thus, consultetion is increasingly recognized as part of the role of the special educator. (Lilly & Givens-Ogle, 1981, p. 74) Wiederholt, Hammill, and Brown (1983) reviewed some relevant research concerning the consultant role of the special educator. They concluded that recent research has supported the idea that consultation is an essential role of today’s special educator. Gickling, Murphy, and Malloy (1979) surveyed regular education teachers and special educators concerning needed services. Both 19 groups emphasized a need for three types of special service: assessment, teaching of selected students, and consulting. In other studies cited by Wiederholt et al., Dodd and Kelker (1980) asked parents, resource teachers, and classroom teachers to identify the critical role responsibilities of special educators. Each group agreed that pupil assessment, resource-room teaching, and consulting were essential activities of the resource teacher. Speece and Mandell (1980), Evans (1980), and Sargent (1981) conducted studies that supported the conclusions reached in the previously reported research. Importantly, this research has emphasized that consulting activities by the special education resource teacher should be expanded. In their book entitled The Resource Teaeher, Wiederholt et al. (1984) described the three basic types of services provided for referred students. These are assessment, preparing and implementing school programs, and consultation. Assessment Most often, assessments are conducted so that individual programs can be developed for specific students. Assessment activities recommended by these authors include asking relevant questions about a specific problem area, administering appropriate tests, and analyzing test results to include teaching strategies and procedures designed to determine whether or not a given approach was successful. 20 Preparing and Implementing Instructional Programs Wiederholt et al. (1984) identified five purposes for resource teachers providing direct instruction to students. Direct instruction is considered essential in order to: (1) know the dynamics of a particular student’s instructional needs and problems; (2) become proficient in using a variety of educational techniques and programs; (3) demonstrate specific activities to other teachers; (4) become more skillful and insightful in clinical work; and (5) provide a particular student with a particular program. (p. 35) Direct instruction by special educators normally takes place in a resource room or self-contained special education classroom. It should be noted that this has been identified by others as the major role of the special educator (Evans, 1980). Consulting With the School Stet: Because resource teachers share their students with other teachers, Wiederholt et a1. (1984) identified eight essential consultation activities: (1) discussing the educational problems of specific students with teachers; (2) describing the methodology being used in the resource room; (3) presenting ideas that the teachers can use in their classes to reinforce and supplement the resource effort; (4) acquiring information on how separate resource activities can mesh with the student’s regular class program; (5) following up the progress of students who no longer attend the resource program; (6) observing the classroom performance of students who have been referred for resource help; (7) demonstrating techniques by which the teacher can improve the classroom climate, individualize instruction, or manage group behavior; and (8) sharing professional information regarding their respective opinions, new programs on the market, and new methods of teaching. (p. 39) Wiederholt et a1. appeared to define consultation as taking place when two or“ more persons collaborate for the benefit of 21 another person(s). This definition of consulting was put forth by Brown and Srebalus (1972) and earlier by Dinkmeyer (1968). Dinkmeyer maintained that: Consultation involves sharing information and ideas, coordinating, comparing observations, providing a sounding board and developing tentative hypotheses for action. In contrast to the superior-inferior relationship involved in some consultation with specialists, emphasis is placed on joint planning and collaboration. The purpose is to develop tentative recommendations which fit the uniqueness of the child, the teacher, and the setting. (p. 167) The foregoing description of the primary roles of the resource teacher was provided to give the reader an overview of the responsibilities normally assigned to the special educator and to attempt to clarify the content and nature of consultation activities. The fbllowing section examines the past research and practice of special education consultation services provided to classroom teachers in the public schools. Best Reseerch:end Prectice in Soeejel Education Consulting Lilly and Givens-Ogle (1981) noted that during the "Md-19605 teacher consultation services for schools aimed at assisting students with learning and behavior problems began to receive an increasing emphasis. However, the consultation services were not provided by special educators but by community mental health professionals (Knoblock & Garcea, 1965). The provision of teacher consultation services during this period was an outgrowth of the evolution of community' mental health programs sponsored by the 22 Community Mental Health Centers (CMHC). "Consultation and Education (C&E) was one of five services required for a CMHC to receive funding under the Community Mental Health Systems Act of 1963 (Public Law 88-164)" (Ritter, 1982, p. 7). C&E services were aimed at providing help to professionals in schools, prisons, social welfare agencies, and other organizations that serve those with mental health problems. While CGE services were provided to all age groups, children in schools were by far the main recipients. The only data available are for the years 1973 thrOugh 1978 (Ritter, 1982). (See Table 2.1.) These early programs that provided mental health consultation to the schools were very similar to present programs that place the special educator in the role of the consultant (Lilly & Givens-Ogle, 1981). Table 2.l.--Percentage of C&E staff time devoted to the different kinds of recipient groups. Recipient 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 Children 40.4a 38.7a 45.8 42.4 37.2 32.4 General public NA NA 2.9 3.0 12.5 15.0 State and local law 11.7 8.1 9.4 9.1 8.3 7.4 Health services 9.9 8.9 8.6 9.5 7.9 8.6 Substance abuse 7 2 8.7 5.8 7.9 6.8 5.8 Other mental health 6.8 7.1 7.5 8.4 6.7 6.8 Public welfare 12.1 8.6 6.6 6.7 5.8 4.4 Elderly 3.3 4.0 4.2 4.9 5.7 6.7 Other 8 6 15.9 9.2 9.1 9.1 12.9 Source: Cited in D. R. Ritter, Qpnsultation, Education, end Pre- vention in Community Mental Heelth (Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1982), p. 11. aSchool consultation only. 23 Before the 19605, special education teacher consultation was limited to providing indirect services for students having hearing and visual impairments and in speech and language therapy (Haight, 1984). These programs emphasized the desirability of knowledgeable specialists working cooperatively with classroom teachers to develop educational programs for students (Jones, 1969; Lowenfeld, 1952; Paul, 1963; Stephens G Birch, 1969; Streng, 1953; Yauch, 1952). However, students considered nfildly educationally handicapped during the 19505 and 19605 were most often assigned to special classes (Madden & Slavin, 1983). The conventional wisdom at that time argued that handicapped students could be better served in smaller classes taught by teachers with special training, using tailored curriculum materials. Also, the rejecting attitude of many peers and some teachers in regular classrooms was considered detrimental to the well-being of educationally handicapped students (Johnson, 1950). Thus, special class placement appeared to be the logical alternative for these students. During the late 19605, professionals and parents of handicapped children began to reassess the desirability of placing students in special classes (Dunn, 1968). Labeling special education students became a much-debated topic. Special educators were perceived as being less well qualified and therefore less able to provide for the needs of handicapped children. Dissatisfied parent groups evolved, which pressured the schools and the legislature in behalf of their handicapped children. Critical court ruling focused the public’s 24 attention on the inadequacies of educational practices (Hpbspp y. Hemsep, 1967). Many parents (especially minority parents) began to insist on regular classroom placement for their handicapped children (Madden & Slavin, 1983). In conjunction with the foregoing concerns, some early special education teacher consulting programs emerged (Dunn, 1968; McKenzie et al., 1970). Lilly (1981) observed that 'the first direct explication of the ’consulting teacher’ service-delivery model for mildly handicapped students was provided by McKenzie, Enger, Knight, Perelman, Schneider, and Garvin (1970)" (p. 75). This consulting teacher preparation program was designed and implemented at the University of Vermont and five surrounding school districts. The Vermont program involved the training of selected teachers in behavior-modification techniques. The trained teachers shared their expertise with their classroom teacher colleagues throughout their respective districts by providing inservice education and ongoing classroom consultation. Concern for the school-aged handicapped continued into the 19705, culminating in the passage of sweeping legislation designed to ensure certain rights to all handicapped students. Meyen and Altman (1982), in reviewing the significance of legislation during this period, concluded that: In examining the array of legislation at the federal and state levels, including Public Law 94-142 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act) and Sections 504 and 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, it becomes evident that the legislative process has not only been affirmative but has been almost all-inclusive in accommodating the needs of the handicapped. The emphasis has been twofold: (l) in ensuring 25 that all individuals who are "handicapped” in their acquisition of an education are covered by public policy, and (2) on requiring the provision of needed services. (p. 1739) As a result of the passage of this legislation, school districts began to develop educational policies and programs to implement the "least restrictive placement” provision of PL 94-142 (Madden a Slaven, 1983). The goal of mainstreaming is to provide an appropriate education to each handicapped child while placing these children in the regular classroom as much as possible. To this end, school districts have had to develop a continuum of services for handicapped students. Lowenbraun and Affleck (1978) recommended the following continuum of special services: 1. Special class placement: The child is primarily assigned to a special class and is integrated with nonhandicapped students for as much of the day as the child can be successfully placed. 2. Resource room placement: The child is assigned primarily to a regular classroom and receives individualized assist- ance, usually in academic subjects in which the student is behind expectations, from a specially trained ”resource" teacher outside his or her regular class for a portion of each school day. 3. Special services: The child is assigned primarily to the regular classroom but receives assistance in a specialized area, such as reading, mathematics, or speech, from appropriate support personnel on an individual or small group basis, usually one to three times weekly. 4. In-class assistance: The child is assigned to the regular classroom, and receives supportive assistance within the classroom to enable the child to succeed in this setting. This assistance might involve the use of aides, tutors, or interpreters. 5. Teacher consultation: The child is placed in the regular classroom, and support is given to the teacher (usually by a "master teacher”) to design appropriate curriculum and programs for the child. (p. 121) 26 This continuum of services, which is very similar to others in use today, provides for teacher consultation as one form of service delivery to handicapped students, thus recognizing the need for increased interaction between special educators and regular classroom teachers. Wiederholt (1977) stressed that many professionals, in light of the passage of PL 94-142, with its emphasis on educating the handicapped in the ”least restrictive environment,” are concerned about the "quality and quantity of interaction between special and regular educators" (p. 152). At issue at this time was whether or not special educators should be ”limited to serve only the handicapped, or should they provide something more than direct services to identified handicapped children and youths?" (p. 152). While some critics felt that instituting a consulting role for special educators would be counterproductive (Oldridge, 1977), others concluded that increased interaction between special and regular educators was a necessity (Clay, 1977; Haring, 1977; Newcomer, 1977). Newcomer (1977) proposed a teacher consultant model to assist handicapped students in regular classrooms. She described the proposed role of the special educator as follows: In the teacher consultant role, the special educator functions for the most part inside the regular classroom. Although his duties still primarily involve educational planning for children experiencing learning and/or behavior problems, he does not function exclusively as an independent specialist but coordinates his activities with those of the regular educator. In other words, both teachers are involved in planning and implementing strategies, techniques, and methods to resolve learning problems and, in a more general sense, in improving 27 the climate for learning within the classroom. The special educator’s ultimate goal is not to remediate a particular child’s learning problems, but to prevent certain problems from developing and provide the regular educator with the additional skills and competencies required to undertake remedial activities independently. (p. 161) Newcomer maintained that a redefinition of the special-regular education relationship is required for this model to function satisfactorilyu According to Newcomer, "regular educators must accept the fact that changes in their behavior may be necessary to produce changes in children’s behavior“ (p. 162). The special educator role competencies required for the Newcomer model include: 1. Proficiency as a teacher in all specific academic skill areas. 2. Ability to assess students’ academic competencies with appropriate formal and informal diagnostic instruments. 3. Ability to demonstrate the tactics and strategies of good teaching. 4. Ability to display these competencies in the regular class- room so as to evoke modeling on the part of the regular educator. (pp. 162-63) Haring (1977) described a ‘training program that instructed resource teachers in applied behavior analysis (behavior modification), advanced instructional strategies, and precision measurement techniques. This program was reported to have been successful at reintegrating “dozens” of handicapped students into regular* classrooms. While favoring such programs, Haring acknowledged certain weaknesses regarding the special education teacher consultant model: 28 While the teacher consultant model at first glance seems administratively sound, it has one inherent weakness. Since teaching strategies vary from teacher to teacher, there is no way to accurately assess the effectiveness of remediation occurring in the regular classroom as opposed to the special self-contained classroom. In fact, the effectiveness of the remediation occurring under the teacher consultant model hinges largely on the individual performance and personality of the consultant and the teaching procedures that the classroom teacher chooses to employ. Further, since the number of children with learning problems varies in a regular classroom from quarter to quarter, it is unfair to make comparisons of teaching effectiveness against a situation (such as a special education classroom) in which the number of students and the teaching methods used remain constant over a period of time. (p. 194) Concurrently, other researchers expressed concerns about the adequacy of the training of special educators to perform this new role (Brown, 1977), the lack of agreement among professionals regarding the role of the resource teacher consultant (Wiederholt, 1977), the potential damage to the self-image of the regular classroom teacher (Oldridge, 1977), and the types of consultation training required (Pryzwansky, 1977). Evaluatipn Studies pf Special Education tonsultetion deels In spite of the controversy that has surrounded the consultant role of the special educator, models have been developed that make use of resource teachers as consultants. Consequently, several evaluation studies are available for review. . Cantrell and Cantrell (1976) compared first-grade classes that received consulting assistance to those that did not. The, objectives of this research were to determine whether students in classes for which consultation was available would have 29 significantly higher achievement scores than similar students in classes without such consultation and whether teachers with access to expert consultation would make fewer student referrals for special services than teachers for whom consultation was not available. The authors reported significant gains in achievement for students in the treatment group. Also, there were student referrals for special services in the group. In another related study, Miller and Sabatino (1978) contrasted two special education resource service models to determine their effects on student achievement and on teacher and pupil behavior. This study investigated a traditional resource-room model, in which students received special help but where there was little interaction between the resource teacher and the classroom teacher, and the teacher consultant model, in which interaction was maximized. Miller and Sabatino stated that: Teacher consultants can best be described as facilitators, not implementors. In essence, their task was to convey best practice skills to the regular teacher, who then accepted the primary responsibility for implementation. Accordingly, teacher consultant model special educators devoted their energy directly to regular teachers and, through them, to children. (9. 87) Results of this study indicated that both the resource room model and the teacher consultant model were equally effective in improving student achievement scores. Thus, this study suggested that the consultation model was ”surprisingly effective" since academic gains were on a par with the direct service approach. "That is, regular teachers seemingly became as effective in delivering instruction to special children within their classes as 3O resource teachers were in intensive, ’out of mainstream’ classes" (p. 89). Also, significant changes in teacher behaviors, such as increased praise of students and reduced criticism, were found in the teacher group that was exposed to the teacher consultant model. Finally, the authors of this study cautioned that the implementation of the teacher consultation model requires the continuous need to train the consulting resource teacher and assuring opportunities for contact between regular and consulting teachers. Knight, Meyers, Paolucci-Whitcomb, Hasazi, and Nevin (1981) evaluated the effects of consulting teacher service in a number of elementary schools in Vermont from 1975 through 1979. In this study, classroom teachers were provided a combination of inservice teacher education and in-classroom consultation. The inservice education consisted of university-level coursework in behavior analysis, data-based instruction, and instructional design. Teachers were provided specialized workshops as an alternative to the coursework format. Finally, classroom teachers in the treatment group were provided the opportunity of interacting with a consulting teacher. The consulting teacher assisted the classroom teacher through an elaborate series of steps that included assessment, observations of students, joint development of an educational program, conferencing with parents, and program evaluation. Results from this study indicated that students who were in classrooms where the consulting teacher service program was employed 31 had greater gains on standardized achievement tests than did the control group. The authors pointed out that this study ”confirms findings of earlier evaluation studies focusing on consulting teacher service (Hanley & Everitt, 1977; Miller & Sabatino, 1978)" (p. 99). Further, it was concluded that These results also support Bloom’s (1980) premise that certain alterable variables can affect changes in both the processes of teaching and in learning outcomes, although isolation of specific components responsible for these changes remains to be done. The design of the consulting teacher service enables the delivery of service to handicapped children in regular classrooms. By providing inservice teacher education and consultation to teachers, the model also provides a setting in which teacher effectiveness variables (e.g., formative testing and corrective feedback) as well as variables associated with the effects of teaching (e.g. time-on-task) can be manipulated. Further, this combination of inservice teacher education includes the four levels of staff development identified by Joyce and Shower and adheres to the principles of adult development recommended by Sprinthall and Sprinthall. (p. 99) Consultation models have been developed in an attempt to meet the educational needs of classroom teachers and handicapped pupils. Interest in consultation models has increased during the past decade because public policy has mandated that students be educated in the "least restrictive environment." These models are perceived by many as a viable method of increasing the competence of regular classroom teachers so that they can be more effective in providing services to the handicapped and allow for mutual beneficial cooperative relationships to develop between special and regular educators. It is important to note that the early development of special education consultation models has by and large been limited to "exhortations to try consultation to see if it works" (Lilly, 1981, p. 75) rather than careful evaluations to determine in some 32 objective ways whether or not these programs are effective. Consequently, as Madden and Slavin (1983) pointed out, ”research on consulting models as aids to mainstreaming is currently at an early stage. The results at present would justify further research but do not permit conclusions about the effectiveness of consulting programs" (p. 545). In fact, Knight et a1. (1981) referred to only two earlier studies that attempted to evaluate special education consulting models. And, in their review of the literature concerning this subject, Madden and Slavin (1983) cited only two additional studies. Further, these authors concluded that two of the existing studies that they reviewed were methodologically flawed. Therefore, only those studies that appeared to be methodologically adequate have been reviewed in this section. Each of the previously described consultation models advocates specific skill competencies on the part of the resource teacher. Cantrell and Cantrell (1976) required teacher support teams to participate in a six-week training program aimed at enhancing consultant knowledge of behavioral principles, evaluation, academic programing, and methods of contingency management. Miller and Sabatino (1978) emphasized the need for consultants to model I'good" teaching behaviors. These were: (a) accepting feelings, (b) praising and encouraging, (c) accepting/using student ideas, and (d) lecturing and communication. An in-depth examination of resource teacher consultation skills advocated by various researchers is the subject of the next section. 33 Consultjpg Skills fpr Special Educatprs The expansion of the consulting role challenging present special education ‘resource teachers has necessitated the establishment of newer role competencies (Evans, 1980; Wiederholt et al., 1984). In fact, a lack of consultation competency on the part of the special educator appears to contribute to regular educators’ negative attitudes toward mainstreaming (Hudson, Graham, & Warner, 1979; Ryor, 1978; Speece & Mandell, 1980). Evans (1980) indicated that special educators in her survey spent less than 5% of their time providing consultation. She concluded that ”resource teachers fail to support a consultant role due to a perceived professional inadequacy resulting from a lack of training and experience in consulting skills" (p. i). The skills required of special education teacher consultants extend beyond basic instructional theories and techniques (Cohen & Safran, 1981). Knoff (1985) maintained that the current consultation literature implies that ”sound interpersonal, or process-maintenance, skills are the most significant determinants of consultation success (Conoley & Conoley, 1982; Gallessich & MacDonald, 1981)" (p. 193). Knoff derived a set of ten process- maintenance skills from the available consultation literature. These skills are as follows: 1. Acceptanee--The consultant demonstrates nonevaluative, non- judgmental attitudes and/or behavior. 2. Elexibiljty--The consultant varies his/her behavior, con- sultation/communication style, and interpersonal approach according to the situation or environment. 34 w Clarifieatjpnlenelysis pf jssues--The consultation pursues issues when they arise by focusing the discussion on their description and characteristics. 4. Empathy--The consultant is sensitive to the emotional states of others and is able to convey an understanding of that effect and its implications. 5. Confrontetiop--The consultant is able to present salient issues to groups and individuals so that they want to explore those issues. 6. Pereeptjveness--The consultant develops an understanding or insight into underlying or covert consultation issues and their interrelationships, and is able to clearly communi- cate them. 7. Good listening--The consultant is able to listen and inte- grate verbal communication as demonstrated through verbal reflection. 8. Summari;ation--The consultant is able to integrate numerous communications or consultation contacts and provide an accurate, concise statement encapsulating them. 9. Anticipation--The consultant is able to predict the direc- tion of a consultation issue, prepare a consultation strat- egy, and anticipate its impact or consequences. 10. Interpersonal involvement--The consultant maintains an appropriate relationship which facilitates the consultation and communication process and is neither too detached or aloof nor so involved that objectivity is endangered. (p. 193) Newcomer (1977) emphasized the important consulting skill of offering practical, meaningful suggestions for reducing problems in the classroom in such a way that the special educator avoids. "appearing as an expert who is critiquing the regular teacher’s performance” (p. ‘162). She suggested that, a successful special education teacher consultant should possess the following skills and abilities: 35 First, he must be proficient as a teacher in all specific academic skill areas. He must, for example, understand such components of reading as sound-letter associations, word recognition, and comprehension. He must be familiar with the developmental instructional programs in all content areas, as well as with remedial programs. Finally, he must be able to use task analysis to modify instructional programs and adapt them to the needs of individuals. This includes creating supplemental materials which may not be available commercially. Second, the special teacher must be able to assess student academic competencies with appropriate formal and informal diagnostic instruments. For example, he must know how to administer and interpret standardized tests of reading ability and how to devise and use criterion-referenced tests to diagnose specific academic weaknesses. Third, the special teacher must be able to demonstrate the tactics and strategies of good teaching. He should be able to employ classroom management techniques, such as token economy and contingency contracting; employ specific observational and interviewing techniques, such as baseline charts and anecdotal records; use social factors for the children’s advantage through such means as grouping strategies and peer tutoring. Fourth, the teacher must display these competencies in the regular classroom so as to evoke modeling on the part of the regular educator. In other words, the regular teacher must eventually acquire many of the competencies demonstrated by the teacher consultant. Thus, the regular educator must be involved in all operations enacted to remediate a child’s learning problem. Both professionals should plan alternate strategies and cooperate in attempting to implement them. (p. 62) Parker (1975) advocated the importance to special educators of being able to make observations and provide appropriate curriculum and instructional materials to regular classroom teachers and "be knowledgeable about community services which can be brought in to help remedy children’s learning and behavior problems” (p. vi). In addition, Parker stated that the special educator needs to develop consultation competencies in four areas: assessment, negotiation, treatment, and teaching. 1. Assessment involves not only direct assessment of students, but making a determination regarding the regular teacher’s 36 evaluation of a particular student. "Consequently, the consultant must have the additional skill of deciphering and decoding the con- sultee’s filter, of differentiating between what the consultee reports and what was observed" (p. 4). 2. Negotiation is required when the special educator and the regular educator, having differing values, goals, and perceptions, attempt to find agreement concerning the identification of the problem and how best to go about helping to improve the situation. 3. Treatment involves working with and through the consultee (classroom teacher) to help alleviate the problem. 4. Teaching, according to Parker, is used to train the con- sultee to do what the special educator can do. "This function requires the consultant to conceptualize her/his skills and to determine how best to teach them to a person who has neither the background, expertise, nor time to learn them as the consultant did. A difficult task indeed! Nevertheless, it is a critical skill for the consultant" (p. 5). Parker summarized by stating that "a consultant is required to have three new skills: ’reading the reader’; ’negotiating a contract’; and ’teaching the teacher’--skills with which most clinicians and special education personnel have not been equipped by training" (p. 5). Consultation requires collaboration between school personnel. Gaining initial “entry" is often a major obstacle for the consulting special educator. Wojciehowski and Burton (1984) suggested that the 37 "use of appropriate acceptance strategies [is] frequently the key to success of the collaborative consultation process'I (p. 6). Idol- Maestas, Nevin, and Paolucci-Whitcomb (1984) described acceptance strategies (i.e., consultant skills) that may be helpful to the special education teacher consultant: (a) treat others with respect, (b) share information, (c) use appropriate language, (d) listen to others, (e) model use of interview skills, (f) demonstrate willingness to learn from others, (9) give and receive feedback, (h) give others credit for their ideas and accomplishments, (i) use confrontation skills appropriately, and (j) use situational leadership. Wojciehowski and Burton (1984) maintained that "once acceptance, respect and confidence have been gained, the next steps are easier. It is important to proceed carefully through the initial stages of development of the consultative relationship to insure future successes" (p. 6). Graden et a1. (1985) developed a special education intervention system that relied substantially on teacher consultation by school- based school personnel (e.g., special educator, school psychologist). 'Their' model includes four' essential skill areas required by a teacher consultant. These skill areas were previously described by Curtis and Meyers (1984): (a) interpersonal skills (e.g., communication skills, rapport building, listening skills, effective questioning techniques); (b) problem-solving skills (i.e., knowing how to identify, clarify, analyze, and evaluate problems); (c) content expertise (e.g., specific knowledge of children’s learning styles, instructional interventions, behavioral strategies, etc.); and (d) an understanding of systems theory (understanding the 38 process of change, understanding systems variables in classrooms, schools, etc. that have an impact on the referral problem). (p. 383) Wiederholt et a1. (1984) defined consultation by the resource teacher as being composed of "advising and instructing other teachers and following up on these activities" (p. 40). These authors maintained that advising other teachers requires the resource teacher to "assist in diagnosing a difficult case or prescribing a course of action that is not usually known to the generalist" (p. 41). Advice should ordinarily be given "only when their expertise is specifically asked for" (p. 42). Instructing other teachers is considered a form of inservice training. The purpose of this activity is to "increase the teachers’ understanding of the difficulties students encounter in school and to develop competence in the teachers’ coping with the individual instructional and behavioral needs of their students" (p. 42). "Following up" involves determining whether the teacher is “willing and able to implement the suggestions properly" (p. 43). Wiederholt. et al. emphasized the additional skill of being "very perceptive about sensitivities and possible adverse reaction of regular classroom teachers" (p. 43). The need of the classroom teacher to seek outside expertise implies that some form of inadequacy on the part of that teacher may exist. Being sensitive to the vulnerabilities of teachers appears to be an essential skill area for special educators. Haight (1984), describing essential skills required by special educator consultants, emphasized the importance of being able to 39 define problems, enhance participation by teachers, and use communication skills to increase teacher confidence. Haight cited a quotation from Medway and Forman (1980) that stated: 'It appears that the ability to successfully identify and specify a problem may be one of the best predictors of subsequent consultation effectiveness” (p. 348). Haight suggested that consultation effectiveness can be increased when resource teachers have a means of establishing working relationships and process understanding of both individuals and systems. She stated that "the most difficult aspect of consultation is the necessary shift of focus from student skills to teacher skills; careful attention must be paid to the manner' and means of communication” (p. 511). Further, Haight advocated an emphasis on "affective interpersonal communication skills (e.g., warmth, respect, genuineness)" during the consultation process (p. 511). In contrast, Idol-Maestas. et a1. (1981), in discussing the consulting role of the resource teacher, placed a major emphasis on instructional skills. Consulting teachers need to be able to train a student in resource rooms and "systematically prepare the student to exhibit these same behaviors in the regular classroom" (p. 10). Determining the types of skills required in the regular classroom is an essential skill area for the consulting teacher. In addition, working with teachers in regular classrooms is an essential feature of this consulting model. Special educators need to be able to collect data that pertain to problem areas (e.g., 4O frequency of a student’s talking without permission) and then negotiate with the classroom teacher concerning acceptable levels of the behavior and strategies to improve the classroom behavior. Analysis of data and being able to use data are important skill areas required of the special educator. Establishing "communication links" between regular and resource teachers was a major goal of a resource teacher consulting program described by Hauptman (1983). This study, conducted by the South Carolina Child Service Demonstration Center, "envisions the resource room person as a public relations expert and sees the success of the resource room program as dependent highly on the good will of principals, teachers, staff, pupils, and parents" (p. 16). The specific skill areas required to perform in this role are: 1. Ability to hear, understand and listen to what is being said by the regular classroom teacher. 2. Acknowledge openly the skills held by the regular classroom teacher. 3. Be cognizant of the problems faced by regular classroom teachers. 4. Adjust, or modify suggestions to the atmosphere of the spe- cific classroom. 5. Be honest. 6. Seek the exchange of ideas and suggestions. (p. 16) Further, this program emphasized the need for resource teachers to be readily available to meet with classroom teachers on an informal basis. Durham and Hasterok (1981) conducted a review of the available literature on the consulting role of the special educator. These 41 authors condensed the consulting skills advocated by a number of researchers into six areas that rely on social and verbal problem- solving skills. These areas are: 1. Feedback: checking back with the other person in the con- versation that one has understood what has been said. Feedback includes verbatim repetition, paraphrasing with the acknowledgement that these are not the other’s exact words, and traditional active listening. Clarifying/Information—Gathering Questions: asking the other person to expand upon a statement, picking up on a clue or an underlying current in the other’s conversation, and gathering new information to get this person’s unique point of view and facts this person alone may know. Refocusing: acknowledging an emotional comment, appeal or response, then moving on to apply that to a task which will result in a constructive solution to the problem. Refocusing requires the re-directing of feelings to a task- orientation. Consensus Statements: stating or summarizing at the end of a conversation or at intervals in a conversation what points are agreed upon, and what points are not agreed upon but are acknowledged as differences. Providing a Comfortable Retreat: allowing the other person or one’s self to change viewpoints or to modify viewpoints by suggesting in the course of the conversation a range of views, and not defining for the other person what view should be subscribed to. Circumventing an Impasse: recognizing that certain topics are not areas where compromises can be reached easily, acknowledging those areas, and agreeing to tackle other topics as alternatives so the conversation need not be terminated. (p. 45) In addition to specifying essential consultation skills for resource teachers, researchers have attempted to identify problem areas regarding the nature and extent of special education teacher consultation in the public schools. The following section explores these problem areas in detail. 42 resent Pr blem so i d Wi the eci Education leeeher Consultant Emotess Research pertaining to the special education teacher consultant process has expanded significantly during the past decade (Haight, 1984; McLoughlin & Kass, 1978; Miller & Sabatino, 1978; Neel, 1981; Nelson & Stevens, 1981). Many of these studies contained an examination of one or more problem areas associated with the special education/teacher consultant process. True (1979) surveyed administrators, classroom teachers, and special education resource teachers in 45 public schools. True’s research focused on the consultative aspects of the resource teacher’s role. Results indicated that there was wide agreement that an increase in the amount of time devoted to consultation by the special education resource teacher was needed. In another study, Evans (1980) investigated the extent to which resource teacher consultation occurs, attitudes of school personnel regarding the consultation process, and factors that facilitated the consultation process in the public schools. Resource teachers were asked to estimate the amount of time they spent in eight roles. Evans stated that "resource teachers reported less time in consultation than any other role with the exception of miscellaneous activities" (p. 402). That is, 80% of the resource teachers stated that. consultation activities accounted for: 5%. or less of their professional duties. In this same study, respondents were asked to identify ideal amounts of time that should be spent providing 43 consultation. All three educator groups indicated that consultation needed to be significantly increased. Evans concluded that: Consultant activity does not have parity with the resource teacher’s other roles. All three groups agreed that more time should be allotted to consultation between classroom teachers and resource personnel. That is not to say there was support for consultant activity becoming the resource teacher’s primary role; rather it suggests that educators, regardless of professional group, recognize the need to employ special education more fully in this capacity. (p. 403) Nelson and Stevens (1981) investigated how elementary school resource teachers divided their consulting time among various consultation duties. During the 1978-79 school year, 10% of the total consultation time was spent in classrooms, while the greatest amount, of’ consultation occurred as an indirect service (26.9%) during formal meetings (21.4%) and after observations (12.4%). These authors concluded that resource teacher consultation was effective in solving classroom problems. However, Nelson and Stevens concluded that there are a number of obstacles to the consultation process. They cited a lack of administrator support by building principals and higher-level administrators and the practice of stigmatizing handicapped students by labeling as two impediments to the effective resource teacher consultation activities. In ,yet another' study (Landon, 1982), the special education resource specialist’s role was investigated by surveying building administrators, classroom teachers, and resource teachers. The specific purpose of this study was to develop a "prioritized description of the major tasks of the Resource Specialist role, as perceived by three groups of educators involved with pilot Resource 44 Specialist Programs in Master Plan Region schools" (p. 2961-A). The survey asked respondents to rank the various special educator roles according to their perceived order of importance, time on each role, and whether the amount of time for each role was adequate or should be increased or decreased. Results indicated that there were no significant differences in the way all three groups perceived the relative importance of Resource Specialists’ tasks. These tasks were: "(1) student instruction, (2) student assessment, (3) program management, (4) collaboration with educators, (5) student counseling, (6) collaboration with parents, (7) site special education leadership, (8) change agent, [and] (9) collaboration with others" (p. 296l-A). While all three educator groups did agree on the above rank ordering, significant differences did exist among the three educator groups pertaining to the amount of time spent on tasks and the time they perceived should be spent on tasks. Thus, Landon recommended that more research needs to be completed in the following areas: 1. A study to determine more specifically the differences in perceptions of elementary and secondary educators. 2. A study to correlate perceptions with direct observation of time spent on Resource Specialist tasks. 3. A study to investigate the reasons for the differences in perceptions of the various educator groups. (p. 2961-A) In 1983, Haight and Molitor surveyed 42 special education consulting teachers employed in fOur intermediate school districts in Michigan. A majority of these teachers reported that they were confident of their consultation skills. Yet these consulting 45 teachers indicated that they needed further education if they were to become even more effective as teacher consultants. Public relations training, human relations, counseling skills, and inservice training on new materials and tests were cited as areas that had the potential to help these educators improve their consultation practices. In addition, this study revealed that these teachers had very little time available to provide consultation services to teachers and that more time was needed. They recommended that a specific amount of time be set aside per student each week (15 minutes) and one to two hours per week for consulting with parents. Also, 55% of these consulting teachers reported that they were working without a specific job description. Seventy-four percent of the respondents stated that a job description with "prioritized responsibilities" would be beneficial. According to Haight and Molitor, the lack of a prioritized job description may contribute to ”role confusion” among special education teacher consultants. Further, since most time is spent on other duties, with no time specifically allotted to consulting and no training is made available to enhance consulting skills, "a full range of consultant services is probably not being delivered to many of the school districts in the survey area” (p. 55). The problems associated with the lack of agreement concerning the specific roles of the special educator mentioned in the preceding article have been addressed by other researchers. Miller, Sabatino, and Larsen (1980) reported that many special education directors regarded consultation as an important role function, but 46 most of the surveyed special education personnel working in universities did not recommend that secondary school special educators provide any consultation to classroom teachers. Similarly, D’Alonzo and Wiseman (1978) concluded that there was little agreement regarding the specific roles of resource teachers as perceived by learning disability resource teachers and school administrators. However, a majority of the resource teachers did agree that collaboration with classroom teachers was a problem area. After* reviewing ‘the available literature regarding problems faced by special education teacher consultants, Haight (1984) concluded: In addition to the difficulties experienced by many special education practitioners (e.g., lack of time, inadequate resources, and extensive paperwork), teacher consultants face a number of problems indigenous to special education consultation: (a) insufficient role definition of the nature of the services to be delivered; (b) current changes in special education resulting in increased needs of mainstream teachers, increased attention to noncategorical services, and reevaluation of traditional assessment tools and techniques; (c) a lack of consideration of the multiple consultant responsibilities in determining caseload and service duties; and (d) inadequate approval criteria and lack of professional preparation in the multiple skills of teacher consultation. (p. 514) In 1982, Indiana University’s Center for Innovations in Teaching the Handicapped (1982) completed an investigation into the consulting role of the special educator. A questionnaire concerning the consultation role of special educators was administered to 192 Special educators, 236 classroom teachers, and 214 principals. The survey requested subjects to answer questions regarding the competence and attitudes of resource teachers, estimates of time 47 allotted to various duties, skills required of consultants, and problems that interfere with consultation. Significant differences were found to exist among education professionals with regard to attitudes toward consultation. Resource teachers expressed the most favorable attitude toward consultation and classroom teachers the least favorable; principals appeared to fall somewhere in between. Resource teachers were rated as "somewhat skilled" at consulting by all three educator groups. Principals and resource teachers estimated that approximately 7.5% of the special educators’ time was spent on consultation. These same professionals recommended that consultation time should be increased to about 10.5%. Three problem areas that may be obstacles to effective consulting were identified: lack of time, inadequate training, and lack of administrative support. The Indiana University study made a number of recommendations for further research. The recommendations included the following: 1. Investigation to determine whether variables other than those studied in this project are associated with specific attitudes and perceptions toward consultation (e.g., Does completion of special education coursework by regular educators affect their attitudes and perceptions?). 2. Studies to explore the reasons for existing attitudes and perceptions (e.g., Are classroom teachers’ perceptions based upon one or two incidents with resource teachers? Or many?). 48 3. Research needs to be completed to determine the importance of consultation in relation to other resource teacher responsibilities. 4. Studies assessing the impact of consultation on teacher perception of mainstream students (e.g., Does consultation affect regular educators’ attitudes toward mainstreaming and their acceptance of handicapped children?). Two studies by Vasa et a1. (1982) were conducted to examine the difference between the roles of resource teachers advocated in other investigations and the actual amount of time spent in practice. These studies surveyed 371 resource teachers in the public schools and 101 graduate students in a resource teacher training program. Results regarding the amount of time allotted to consultation were consistent with previous studies (Evans, 1980). That is, minimal amounts of time were being allotted to the consultation process. The second study, in addition to investigating allocation of time devoted to consultation, attempted to examine ”specific predictors of consultative activity” (p. 11). Predictors included level of education, teaching experience, training, and grade range of students. Results of this study indicated that the amount of time resource teachers spent providing demonstration teaching was the only variable significantly associated with the amount of time devoted to consultation. "In contrast to Evans’ (1980) finding, attainment of a master’s degree by resource teachers does not necessarily result in a great increase of consultation activity" (p. 20). 49 Further, Vasa et al. (1982) questioned whether the resource consultant role of the special educator is actually being implemented as intended. They stated, ”The results of these studies, along with the findings of other researchers, lead one to conclude that there is discrepancy between practice and the models portrayed in the literature" (p. 21). These authors maintained that the future success of the indirect services role of the resource teacher requires the following changes: First, special education policy needs to acknowledge the legitimacy of the indirect service role in serving handicapped students. Second, teacher training programs need to devise effective preservice and inservice strategies to develop the necessary competencies in resource teachers. Third, the acceptance and support of the school’s administrative and teaching staff must be clearly stated and established. Last, the implementation of the program relies on the effectiveness of the resource teachers in carrying out the indirect service roles. (p. 27) ummar This review of the literature has attempted to examine special educator roles, provide a historical perspective regarding the special education teacher consulting process, and analyze available special education consultation models and recommended consultation skills for resource teachers. Problem areas associated with special education teacher consultant activities were also investigated. The special educator’s role in the public schools has been reevaluated in light of legislation (PL 94-142) and litigation (Hobson v. Hansen, 1967; Spangler-v. Board of Edueetion, 1970; 50 Diana v. Stete uBoard of Education, 1970). Mainstreaming, the practice of educating handicapped students in regular classrooms to the maximum extent deemed to be appropriate, has increased regular classroom teachers’ requirements as they relate to providing educational experiences for these children. The school-based special educator has been widely viewed as the logical education professional with the relevant knowledge to assist regular classroom teachers. Yet few special educators have had sufficient training in teacher consultation. Also, little is known about the nature and extent of present programs. While researchers have widely advocated an expansion of the consultant role of the special educator, studies have indicated that very little teacher consultation does, in fact, take place in today’s schools. Coincidentally, classroom teachers have identified a lack of support from outside the classroom as a major reason for their often-negative attitudes toward mainstreaming. Present circumstances have led researchers to explore the factors that account for ‘the lack of special education teacher consultation taking place in the public schools. At issue are the attitudes of both regular and special educators toward consultation, the professional preparation of both educator groups, the nature and extent of present programs, and the perceived barriers to effective consultation as viewed by both educator groups. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND PROCEDURES Intrpduetjpn The researcher’s purpose for this study was to investigate the perceptions of both special and regular educators regarding the consultation process as a means of providing indirect services to mainstreamed handicapped students in the Mediterranean Region of the Department of Defense Dependent Schools. Department of Qefense Dependent Schools- Mediterranean Region (DoDDS-M) DoDDS-M is located primarily in the countries throughout the Mediterranean Sea (see Figure A1 in Appendix A). Approximately 14,500 students attend 33 schools at locations in six countries. The region’s headquarters is located in Madrid, Spain. DoDDS-M schools are supported by several divisions at the regional headquarters and three area offices located throughout the region (see Figures A2, A3, and A4, Appendix A). DoDDS-M consists of 18 elementary schools, 10 secondary schools, and 5 schools with students ranging in grade from kindergarten through twelfth grade. Elementary schools range in size from 27 students (Sevilla, Spain) to 874 students (Madrid, Spain). Secondary schools range in size from 130 students (Livorno, 51 52 Italy) to 689 students (Naples, Italy). (Refer to Figure A5 in Appendix A.)1 o lation am 1 The population for this study included all of the special and regular educators who worked for the Mediterranean Region of Department of Defense Schools during school year 1987/88. For the purposes of this study, the term ”special educator" was defined as those K-12 school personnel who were either learning impairment or speech and language specialists. DoDDS-M employed 67 special educators during the 1987/88 school year. These personnel were scattered throughout the six countries where DoDDS-M is located. There are approximately three special educators, on average, at each school. Some of the larger schools may have teams of from six to eight specialists. Small schools may have only one specialist. There were 585 regular educators employed in DoDDS-M during school year 1986/87. A stratified random sample of 200 classroom teachers and 60 special educators employed during the 1987-88 school year provided the 133 subjects of this study (38 special educators and 95 regular educators). The sample was stratified on the basis of school size and school building level (elementary or secondary) to ensure representation of these variables in an approximately equal proportion to their presence in the DoDDS-M region. The 1This summary was based on a DoDDS-M publication developed for school year 1985-86. Figures A1 through A5 were taken from this publication, entitled Regional Charaeteristies Profile. 53 original mailing had a 63% response rate for special educators and a 47.5% response rate for regular educators. A follow-up mailing was not deemed necessary for the purposes of this study. Of the classroom teachers, 65.5% had 11 or more years of teaching experience, whereas only 8.9% had 5 or fewer years of experience. Seventy-two and two-tenths percent had earned a master’s degree, and 53.3% had had some college coursework in special education. However, 46.7% had had no coursework in special education, and 24.4% indicated that they had not participated in any inservice programs in special education. Two-thirds of the respondents (66.7%) were elementary school teachers and 33.3% were secondary school teachers. Hypotheses The specific purposes of this study were to gain information from classroom and special education teachers who had experienced ' mainstreaming regarding (a) their respective attitudes toward the consultation process, (b) the perceived effectiveness and expertise of special education teachers’ consulting practices, (c) actual versus ideal amounts of consulting activities, (d) adult education and training necessary to enhance the consultation process, (e) barriers to the consultation process, and (f) actions that might facilitate the consultation process in DoDDS-M. Consequently, the following hypotheses, stated in the null form, were tested to ascertain whether significant differences existed between the stated variables. 54 Ho 1: There is no significant difference between perceived actual amounts of time allocated to consulting activities by special educators and perceived ideal amounts of time allocated to consulting activities. Ho 2: There is no significant difference between special educators with and those without classroom teaching experience regarding their attitudes toward teacher consultation. Ho 13: There is no significant difference between special educators with and those without formal training in consultation methods regarding their attitudes toward teacher consultation. Ho 4: There is no significant difference between special educators with and those without classroom teaching experience regarding their perceptions of teacher consultation. Ho S: There is no significant difference between special educators with and those without formal training in consultation skills regarding their perceptions of teacher consultation. ‘ Ho 6: There is no significant difference between special educators with and those without classroom teaching experience regarding their self-perceived expertise in teacher consulta— tion skills. He ‘7: There» is no significant difference between special educators with and those without formal training in consultation methods regarding their self-perceived expertise in teacher consultation skills. He 8: There is no significant difference between the present expertise scores in consulting skills of special educators and their perceived ideal expertise scores. Ho 9: There is no significant difference between classroom teachers with and those without previous college coursework in special education regarding their receptivity to consultation by the special educator. Ho 10: There is no significant difference between classroom teachers with and those without previous college coursework in special education regarding their ratings of special educator consulting effectiveness. Ho [1: There is no significant difference between the ideal amounts of time allocated to consultation activities by classroom teachers and by special educators. 55 Ho 12: There is no significant difference between classroom teachers and special educators regarding the effectiveness of teacher consultation. Design end Development of the Measurement Instruments To gather the necessary information required for this study, two questionnaires were developed, one for special education teachers and the second for classroom teachers. The design and development of the two questionnaires took place after a careful review of procedures used by researchers of related studies. The completed questionnaires were reviewed by a school psychologist, a special educator, and a classroom teacher for clarity and content. Their recommendations were incorporated into the final versions before a pilot study was conducted. Special Educator Questionnaire (SE9) The SEQ consisted of five parts. Part One requested the resource teachers to answer questions regarding their present teaching assignment, age, past teaching experience, formal education, and sex. Also, Part One requested respondents to estimate the percentage of time they spent performing the roles typically assigned to resource educators and then to assign ideal percentages of time to each role. The second part of the questionnaire sought to investigate the attitudes of special educators toward the consultation process. Questions were posed on a Likert-type scale and related to perceived preparation for the consulting role, perceived support for 56 consultation, importance of the consultation process, and personal effectiveness as a consultant. The third section of the questionnaire was designed to investigate special educators’ needs for education and training, motivations to engage in the consulting process, factors that facilitate consultation, and barriers to the consultation process. Educators were requested to rank order (from 1 to 6) choices that were derived by a careful review of related literature on teacher consultation. Part Four requested special educators to evaluate themselves on specific consultation roles and then to identify their ideal expertise (i.e., the degree to which they would ideally like to possess the‘ability). Each of these ratings was on a six-point scale. In Part Five, respondents were asked to recommend actions they thought would facilitate the effectiveness of consultation activities at their school by completing an open-ended question. A copy of the SEQ may be found in Appendix C. Classrpom Teacher Questionnaire (C19) The CTQ, consisting of six parts, paralleled the SEQ. Part One was concerned with the number of years of experience, formal. education, and school experience of the classroom teachers completing the survey. Part Two was concerned with teachers’ attitudes toward consultation, mainstreaming, and the degree to which teachers 57 perceived special education teachers were prepared to perform the consultation role. The third section of the questionnaire was designed to investigate classroom teachers’ views regarding the types of education and training they thought special educators need to enhance consultation effectiveness, motivations to consult with special educators, factors that would facilitate consultation, and barriers to the consultation process. Teachers were requested to rank order (from 1 through 6) the same items that were contained in Part Three of the SEQ. Part Four asked regular educators to state the ideal percentage of time that they would recommend special educators spend in a variety of roles typically performed by resource teachers in DoDDS-M. In Part Five, classroom teachers were asked to rate the effectiveness of special education teachers in providing inservice training, consultation during the prereferral process, interpretation of tests, and classroom observations. Part Six requested that classroom teachers recommend actions they believed would enhance the effectiveness of the consultation activities they received at their respective schools. A copy of the CTQ may be found in Appendix C. Ejlot Studies The SEQ was field tested using ten special educators from the DoDDS-M region. Seven special educators were from the Naples 58 Elementary School and Naples High School. 'Three additional special educators were from other schools in the region. The ten questionnaires were distributed during the first week of June 1987, and the same ten special educators were asked to complete the SEQ again during the third week of June 1987. Eight special educators responded to both requests. The pilot administration of the SEQ revealed that there were very few questions concerning the clarity of the instrument and that it took approximately 15 minutes to complete. Most of the respondents provided extensive comments on Part Five, which requested the special educators to complete an open-ended question. The CTQ was field tested during the last week of August 1987. Ten classroom teachers from Naples Elementary School were asked to complete the questionnaire. The same ten classroom teachers were asked to complete the CTQ again during September 1987. All classroom teachers responded to both requests. The C105 were well completed on both occasions. Follow-up conversations with teachers revealed little to no problem with the clarity of the instrument. The questionnaire required approximately 15 minutes to complete. Copies of the letters to regular and special educators provided with the CTQ and the SEQ may be found in Appendix C. Reliebiljty Data from the ten matched test-retest forms of the SEQ and the CTQ from the field testing were used to compute reliability 59 coefficients for the SEQ and the CTQ instruments. Responses to the questions posed in Part II of the initial SEQ and CTQ were compared with matched responses on the retest. The SEQ was discovered to possess a very high reliability factor for Part II. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. yielded a reliability coefficient of .87 with significance at the .01 level (see Table 3.1). The CTQ evidenced an even higher degree of reliability on Part II (see Table 3.2). Administration of the Duestipnnaires The questionnaires were distributed consecutively during the month of September 1987. Two hundred C105 and 60 SEQs were mailed to randomly selected schools throughout DoDDS-M. The questionnaires were mailed to the building principal at each surveyed school. The building principal made the final determination whether cn' not to distribute the questionnaires to teachers in his/her school. (This practice is required by DoDDS-M policy.) While no attempt was made to identify a particular school’s returns, it was obvious from the postal codes on the returned envelopes that the questionnaires were widely distributed. 60 Table 3.1.--Part II reliability results of the SEQ test-retest (N - 8). - Correlation Variable Mean S.D. Coefficient SEQ initial test 4.00 1.56 4.01 1.45 -37* *Significant at the .01 level. Table 3.2.--Part II reliability results of the CTQ test-retest (N - 10). Correlation Variable Mean S.D. Coefficient CTQ initial test 4.7 1.41 93* Retest 4.3 1.16 ° *Significant at the .01 level. Principals were requested to distribute randomly the questionnaires they received. It was suggested that one teacher per grade level in elementary schools and one teacher per department in the secondary schools receive a CTQ. Principals were asked to provide copies to all special educators in their respective schools, due to the relatively small number of these educators. Copies of the letters to the principals are contained in Appendix B. All educators new to DoDDS-M during school year 1987/88 were not included in either survey. 'In addition, the CTQ was not 61 distributed to small schools that relied on itinerant special educator services (at the request of the DoDDS-M regional office). Eroeedures for Data Analysis The data derived from the questionnaire were both quantitative and qualitative. Consequently; the data analysis performed to interpret Parts One through Four of the SEQ and Parts One through Five of the CTQ was quantitative, whereas the analysis of Part Five of the SEQ and Part Six of the CTQ relied on qualitative techniques. The .05 level of significance was used for all hypothesis tests. Quantitative Data Analysis I;test. T-tests were used to determine whether specific groups within each professional role differed significantly from one another on specific items. Resource educators were divided into groups based on whether they had regular classroom teaching experience and whether they had had formal training in consultation. Regular educators were divided into groups based on whether they had taken a college-level course in special education. The t-test was also used to examine whether the two educator groups differed significantly from one another. Further, the t-test was used to compare the ideal time estimates for specific special educator roles by both educator groups. Since Hypothesis 1 required analysis of dependent data, a hypothesis test for differences between means for paired samples was performed. Hileoxon sign-rank test. The Wilcoxon sign-rank test was used to examine differences between special educators’ perceived present 62 expertise and perceived ideal expertise scores regarding their consultation activities (Hypothesis 8). e cri i s ' ' . Descriptive statistics were used in the' examination and interpretation of the following data: (a) demographic, (b) training and education in consultation, (c) barriers to the consultation process, (d) motivations to consult, and (e) factors that may facilitate consultation practices. Duelitetive Data Analysis Qualitative data analysis was used to examine educators’ responses to Part Five of the SEQ and Part Six of the CTQ. These open-ended questions asked respondents to recommend actions they thought would facilitate the effectiveness of the consultation activities provided at their respective schools. Initially, a typological analysis of the data was performed. That is, responses to the questions were grouped into categories (e.g., barrier statements, specific recommendation statements). Second, enumeration (i.e., frequency counts of each category) was conducted. Last, a narrative was written, describing the responses of both educator groups. An attempt was made at the coordination (triangulation) of qualitative findings to the data that were analyzed using quantitative methods. Summary This chapter provided a description of the setting, the population, instrumentation, survey procedures, and data-analysis methods used in planning and conducting this study. A random sample 63 of 200 regular educators and 60 special educators was asked to respond to respective surveys concerning consultation processes in DoDDS-M. Ninety-five regular educators (47.5%) and 38 special educators (63%) completed the questionnaires. Questionnaire results were examined using both quantitative and qualitative data-analysis methods. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA MM The present study was designed primarily to determine whether significant differences existed between specific variables related to the consultant role of the special education teacher as perceived by both special and regular educators in DoDDS-M. Survey data were gathered from 38 special educators and 95 regular educators, using the Special Educator Questionnaire (SEQ) and the Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (CTQ), respectively. The results of the analysis of the data collected from the surveys are presented in this chapter. The analysis of the data includes a restatement of the original hypotheses of the study and provides appropriate tables and explanations for each hypothesis. A statement of whether the hypothesis was accepted or rejected has been included. The chapter concludes with a summary of the findings. Presentation pf the Deta Both questionnaires began by requesting respondents to answer questions that pertained to their years of experience in education, regional employment history, extent of their formal education, and their present teaching assignments. In addition, the SEQ requested 64 65 information regarding the age of those special educators completing the questionnaire and whether they had ever been regular classroom teachers. Also, the CTQ requested respondents to answer questions about completion of college-level coursework in special education, inservice training in special education, and whether they had had an educationally handicapped student in their classroom. Results of the SEO Copies of the SEQ were sent to a random sample of schools in DoDDS-M. Principals were requested to provide a copy to. each special educator. Thirty-eight special educators completed the SEQ. This represented 56.7% of the special educators working in DoDDS-M during school year 1987/88. . Table 4.1 depicts the results of Part I: General Information. The majority of special educators had worked only in the Mediterranean Region. About 25% of the respondents had been employed in other regions within DoDDS during previous years. The youngest special educator was 25 years old, while the oldest was 55. Their median age was 36. Exactly one-half of the respondents had had previous classroom teaching experience before school year 1987/88. Part II of the SEQ surveyed attitudes and perceptions regarding the teacher consultation process. Special educators responded to eight items on a scale of one to six. Table 4.2 summarizes the results of Part II. 66 Table 4.1.--Summary of special educators’ demographic information (in percent). Age (years) 25-30 31-36 37-55 15.8 39.5 44.7 Years as a Special Educator 5 or less 6—10 11 or more 26.3 34.2 39.5 Level of School Elementary Secondary K-12 57.9 26.3 15.8 Classroom Teaching Experience Yesa No 50.0 50.0 Highest Degree Held in Education B.A. M.A. M.A. + 30 8.0 50.0 42.0 Regional Employment in 00005 Atlantic Pacific Germany Mediterranean Only 8.0 10.5 5.0 76.5 aOf those subjects indicating classroom teaching, 84.2% had five years or less of experience. 67 Table 4.2.--Ratings of special educators’ attitudes and perceptions regarding the teacher consultation process (in percent) Statement Rating Somewhat Well Wd Prepared 12. How well prepared do you feel to act as a consultant with teachers, parents, and administrators regarding main- 0 31.5 68.5 streamed handicapped students? Very Few A Number All Teachers of Teeghers Teachers 13. Do you believe that classroom teachers at your school wish to have you provide more consultation regarding the main- 31.6 47.4 21.0 streamed handicapped students in their classrooms? Slightly is r es n ur es Encourages 14. The administration at my school values my role as a consultant regarding main- 10.5 34.2 55.3 streamed handicapped students. Strongly Slightly Strongly Djsegree Agree Agree 15. Teacher consultation is an important part of my role and should be increased. 0 28.9 71.1 16. I feel I have an adequate amount of time to provide the consultation that is 71.0 15.8 13.2 required at my school. 17. Teacher consultation by the special edu- cator is an effective means of service delivery to assist mainstreamed handi- 7.8 21.0 71.2 capped students. 18. Classroom teachers perceive consultation provided by the special educator as an effective service delivery method to 23.7 55.3 21.0 assist mainstreamed handicapped pupils. 19. I am an effective consultant to teachers, 0 39.5 60.5 parents, and administrators. 68 Sixty-eight percent of the surveyed special education teachers rated themselves as "well prepared" to act as school-based consultants regarding mainstreamed handicapped students, and 71% strongly agreed with the perception that consultation is an effective means of service delivery for these pupils. Further, 71% agreed strongly with the statement, "Teacher consultation is an important part of my role and should be increased." Sixty percent of the special educators strongly agreed with the statement concerning their self-perceived effectiveness as a consultant. However, only 21% of the surveyed special educators indicated that they believed all regular educators wish to have more consultation provided. And only 21% agreed strongly with the statement regarding the effectiveness of consultation as they believed it is perceived by regular educators. Seventy-one percent strongly disagreed with the statement concerning the adequacy of the amount of time available to provide consultation. The results of Parts III and V of the SEQ are compared with the identical items in the CTQ and included on pages 73 to 86 of this chapter. Results of the C19 Ninety-five randomly selected classroom teachers completed the CTQ. This represented 47.5% of those classroom teachers who were originally surveyed. According to a coordinator in the regional office, a 50% return rate fOr surveys is typical for the region. 69 The 95 respondents constituted 16.2% of all classroom teachers employed in the Mediterranean Region during school year 1987/88. ' The classroom teachers who responded to this survey were an experienced group (65.5% having 11 years or more of teaching experience) who also possessed a high degree of formal education. Almost 54% had had some college coursework in special education. Also, a large percentage of these teachers had worked in other regions within the 00005 system during previous years. (See Table 4.3.) Part II of the C10 required subjects to respond to 13 items dealing with classroom teachers’ attitudes toward special educator consultation, mainstreaming of handicapped pupils, and perceptions concerning the consultation process in DoDDS-M. Subjects were asked to indicate whether or not they agreed with statements presented by circling a number from 1 to 6 (1 indicating strongly disagree and 6 indicating strongly agree). Table 4.4 depicts the 13 statements, with the total percentage for each rating beside the item. Ratings of l and 2, 3 and 4, and 5 and 6 are shown as combined percentages. Sixty-five percent of the classroom teachers surveyed strongly agreed with the statement, "Teacher consultation by the special educator is an effective means of service delivery to assist mainstreamed handicapped students. This is only slightly less than the 71% indicated by special educators. Somewhat fewer (46.4%) classroom teachers strongly agreed with the statement concerning how well prepared special education teachers are to act as consultants. 70 Table 4.3.--Summary of regular educators’ demographic information (in percent). Years as a Regular Educator 5 or less 6-10 11 or more 8.9 25.6 65.5 Highest Degree Held in Education B.A. M.A. M.A. + 30 27.8 34.4 37.8 Level of School Elementary Secondary 66.7 33.3 College Coursework in Special Education Yes No 53.3 46.7 Inservice Training in Special Education Yes No 75.6 24.4 Presence of Educationally Handicapped Student in Classroom Yes No 95.6 4.4 Regional Employment in 00005 Atlantic Pacific Germany Mediterranean Only 11.1 21.1 33.3 53.3 71 Table 4 4.--Ratings of classroom teachers’ attitudes and perceptions regarding main- streaming and the special education teacher consulting process (in percent). Rating Statement Strongly Slightly Strongly Disagree Agree Agree (1/2) (3/4) (5/5) 8. Special education teachers are well prepared to act as consultants to classroom teachers 11.6 42.0 46.4 regarding mainstreamed handicapped pupils. 9. Classroom teachers wish to have more consulta- tion with special educators regarding main- 4.2 43.1 52.7 streamed handicapped pupils. 10. Administrators value consultation activities between special and regular educators. 16.8 34.7 48.5 11. Teacher consultation by the special educator is an effective means of service delivery to 6.3 28.4 65.3 assist mainstreamed handicapped students. 12. There is an adequate amount of time for con- sultation between regular and special educators 52.7 30.5 16.8 at my school. 13. Contact between regular and special educators is often haphazard and ineffective. 26.3 30.5 43.2 14. Placing handicapped students in regular class- rooms for all or part of the day is an effective 21.0 44.2 34.8 way of providing educational services for these students. 15. Special educators generally lack understanding of the problems which face regular educators 23.1 35.7 41.2 who teach mainstreamed handicapped pupils. 16. Special educators lack adequate training in consultation skills. 34.7 46.4 18.9 17. If I received more consultation from the special educator, I would spend more time trying to 13.6 54.8 31.6 modify my classroom practices to the benefit of mainstreamed handicapped pupils. 18. My attitude toward mainstreaming is generally positive. 10.5 40.0 49.5 19. My attitude toward mainstreaming would be more positive if I received more consultation help 20.0 35.7 44.3 from special educators. 20. A single negative experience regarding consulta- tion and mainstreaming has made my attitude 59.0 28.4 12.6 about this subject less than positive. 72 This contrasts with the 68.5% of special educators who rated themselves as well prepared. Both educator groups appeared to agree that time for consultation is inadequate. Fifty-two percent of the regular educators strongly agreed with the statement, "Classroom teachers wish to have more consultation with special educators regarding mainstreamed handicapped pupils." Approximately 68% of the special educators indicated that from ”a number of teachers“ to "all teachers" wish to have them provide more consultation. Less than 20% of the classroom teachers surveyed strongly agreed with the statement concerning the lack of adequate training in consultation skills possessed by special educators. However, 46% "slightly agreed" with the statement. Anelysis of Training Needs, Motivations to Consult, end Eectors Thet Inhibit end Feciliteteuthe Consultetipn ProcessuesePerceived by Regular and Special Edueatprs Introductipn Both special and regular educators were requested to respond to survey questions concerning education and training needed to enhance teacher consultation by the special educator. Also, both educator groups were surveyed to determine their views on factors that motivate them to participate in consultation and those factors that either inhibit or facilitate the consulting process. Respondents were asked to rank order factors from most important to least important by numbering them in order of importance from 1 to 6, with 1 being most important and 6 being least important. 73 Recommendatipns for Edueetipn end/or Treining Subjects were asked to indicate which specific type of education and/or training they believed would enhance the special educator’s ability to provide consultation services. Table 4.5 sumarizes special educators’ perceptions of needed education and training, while Table 4.6 summarizes the views of regular educators. Table 4.5.--Ratings of types of education and/or training indicated by special educators as having the potential for enhancement of resource teacher consultation effective- ness (in percent). Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 Type of Education or Training Counseling skills 11.4 11.4 20.0 28.6 22.9 5.7 Human-relations training 11.4 14.2 17.1 22.9 22.9 11.4 Knowledge of adult development 0 5.7 5.7 11.4 11.4 65.8 Knowledge of behavior- management strategies 17.1 14.2 20.0 14.2 22.9 11.4 Knowledge of specific consult- ing models and strategies 25.7 25.7 20.0 17.1 8.6 2.9 Knowledge of new teaching methods and materials to 34.3 28.6 14.2 8.6 11.4 2.9 aid the handicapped Note: A rating of l = most important; 6 . least important. 74 Table 4.6.-—Ratings of types of education and/or training regular educators believed would enhance the effectiveness of consultation by the special educator (in percent).a Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 Type of Education or Training Counseling skills 2.1 16.8 23.1 24.2 16.8 6.3 Human-relations training 15.8 10.5 16.8 20.0 23.1 4.2 Knowledge of adult development 1.0 2.1 3.2 10.5 8.4 64.2 Knowledge of behavior- management strategies 18.9 20.0 22.1 10.5 12.6 6.3 Knowledge of specific consult- ing models and strategies 13.7 21.0 16.8 16.8 20.0 2.1 Knowledge of new teaching methods and materials to 41.0 21.0 7.3 7.3 8.4 6.3 aid the handicapped Note: A rating of l - most important; 6 a least important. aPercentages do not equal 100 because some subjects did not answer all of the items. Knowledge of new teaching methods and materials was identified by more than 34% of those special educators as being most important as a factor that may enhance resource teacher consulting effectiveness. Indeed, if ratings one and two in importance are. combined, knowledge of new teaching methods and materials accounted for approximately 63% of those special educators who were surveyed. Knowledge of specific consulting models and strategies was identified as being next in importance. Combining one and two 75 indicators of importance gave this item a total of 51.4% of those subjects surveyed. Knowledge of adult development, counseling skills, and human-relations training were identified by special educators as less important as potential enhancers of the consultation process. Classroom teachers surveyed attached the same importance to knowledge of new teaching methods and materials, with 41% selecting this category as item one. If the first two measures of importance are combined (one and two), knowledge of behavior-management strategies and knowledge of specific consulting models and strategies were rated as the most important subject areas, respectively. Counseling skills, human-relations training, and knowledge of adult development were rated as having less importance as potential enhancers of teacher consultation. Concerning their motivators to contact classroom teachers in the consultant role, special educators identified personal observation of students and compliance with teacher requests as the two most important motivators. (See Table 4.7.) Compliance with case study committee requests, administration requests, and parental requests were viewed as of less importance as motivators for special educators to contact classroom teachers in the consultant role. Like their special education teacher colleagues, regular educators identified personal observations of students as the most important factor that motivated them to make contact with the special educator. (See Table 4.8.) Combining the first two 76 categories of importance revealed the importance of parental requests (33.6%). Compliance with administration requests was rated as the least important factor that accounted for contact between the two educator groups. Table 4.7.--Ratings of factors that motivate special educators to contact regular educators in the consultant role (in percent). Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 Motivating Factor Compliance with parental requests 2.9 25.7 25.7 37.1 8.6 0 Compliance with teacher requests 31.4 28.6 25.7 2.9 11.4 0 Compliance with administra- tion requests 0 2.9 8.6 25.7 48.5 14.2 Compliance with case study committee requests 14.2 28.6 20.0 17.1 20.0 0 Personal observations of students 45.7 20.0 17.1 8.6 8.6 0 Note: A rating of 1 . most important; 6 . least important. 77 Table 4.8.-—Ratings of factors that motivate regular educators to contact special educators for assistance (in percent). Rating Motivating Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Compliance with parental requests 2.1 31.5 26.3 17.8 14.7 3.2 Compliance with teacher requests 1.0 22.1 36.8 22.1 7.3 3.2 Compliance with administra- tion requests 1.0 4.2 11.6 28.4 36.8 8.4 Compliance with case study committee requests 6.3 18.9 15.8 21.0 25.2 2.1 Personal observations of students 82.1 9.5 2.1 2.1 3.2 O Note: A rating of 1 . most important; 6 - least important. When ratings one and two for each facilitating factor were combined, "Inservice training for all teachers that demonstrates the value of consultation" emerged as the factor considered most important by special educators. (See Table 4.9.) Specific times set aside for consultation and a redefinition of the special educator’s role were rated as second and third in importance, respectively. Consulting being made a critical element, inservice training in consultation methods, and a decrease in the amount of direct service to handicapped pupils were rated as less important when considering factors that may facilitate the consultation process. 78 Table 4.9.--Ratings of factors reported by special educators that may facilitate consulting practices (in percent). Facilitating Factor Rating 2 3 4 Consulting being made a critical element in per- formance appraisals Decrease in the amount of direct service to pupils provided by the special educator Inservice training in methods of consultation Redefinition of special educa- tors’ role, placing greater emphasis on consultation Inservice training of all teachers that demonstrates the value of consultation Specific times set aside for consulting with teachers during the school day 14.2 17.1 2.9 17.1 25.7 31.4 2.9 11.4 11.4 14.2 11.4 28.6 31.4 25.7 34.2 8.6 20.0 11.4 8.6 22.9 25.7 14.2 22.9 8.6 25.7 37.1 17.1 14.2 22.9 8.6 8.6 2.9 5.7 2.9 11.4 17.1 Note: Classroom teachers rated A rating of l - most important; 6 - least important. ”Specific times set aside for consulting with teachers during the school day" as most important and "Inservice training of all teachers that demonstrates the value of consultation as second in importance when considering factors that may facilitate the consultation process. service was rated as least important. (See Table 4.10.) A decrease in direct 79 Table 4.10.--Ratings of factors reported by regular educators that may facilitate the consultation process (in percent). Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 Facilitating Factor Consulting being made a critical element in 10.5 9.5 9.5 4.2 13.7 35.8 performance appraisals Decrease in the amount of direct service to pupils provided by the special 2.1 4.2 6.3 9.5 33.7 29.5 educator Inservice training in methods of consultation 6.3 13.7 26.3 17.8 12.6 9.5 Redefinition of special educa- tors’ role, placing greater 3.2 14.7 17.8 33.7 10.5 7.3 emphasis on consultation Inservice training of all teachers that demonstrates 15.8 26.3 16.8 12.6 10.5 3.2 the value of consultation Specific times set aside for consulting with teachers 54.7 15.8 7.3 8.4 4.2 2.1 during the school day Note: A rating of l = most important; 6 . least important. Special educators rated lack of time for consultation and the classroom teacher’s perception that the special educator’s role is to provide direct service to students as the two most important factors that limit the consultation process. The lack of preparation for consulting and a lack of desire to consult on the part of the special educator were rated as least important factors. (See Table 4.11.) Table 4.11.--Ratings of perceived barriers reported by special educators that limit resource teachers’ consulting effectiveness (in percent). Perceived Barrier Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lack of support from the administration for the role Lack of time to perform con- sultation activities Teachers’ perception that your role is direct service to students Your lack of desire to perform consulting Your lack of preparation for the consulting role 2.9 14.2 14.2 37.1 22.9 8.6 57.1 31.4 8.6 0 2.9 0 40.0 37.1 17.1 2.9 O 2.9 0 O 14.2 20.0 45.7 20.0 0 17.1 34.3 25.7 20.0 2.9 Note: A rating of l - most important; 6 - least important. Classroom teachers identified lack of time as the most important factor that limits resource teacher and classroom teacher contacts. In addition, when ratings one and two were combined, lack of administration support for the concept of consultation and lack of regular educators’ desire to participate in consulting were rated as important barriers by more than 30% of the classroom teachers in the survey. (See Table 4.12.) 81 Table 4.12.--Ratings of perceived barriers reported by regular educators that limit resource teacher consulting (in percent). Rating Perceived Barrier 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lack of support from the administration for the con- 3.2 30.5 18.9 22.1 6.3 3.2 cept of consultation Lack of time to perform consultation activities 70.5 9.5 10.5 4.2 2.1 0 Special education teachers’ lack of preparation for 9.5 16.8 35.8 13.7 9.5 O the consulting role Your lack of desire to par— ticipate in the consulting process because you feel 10.5 20.0 11.6 40.0 1.0 3.2 consultation lacks effec- tiveness Note: A rating of l . most important; 6 - least important. Part V of the CTQ required respondents to rate special educators on their effectiveness in four areas. The areas were selected because they constitute main points of interaction between special and regular educators. Special educators were rated on a six-point scale, with l - not effective and 6 - very effective. The ratings were combined into two groups and presented as mean percentages. (See Table 4.13.) 82 Table 4.13.--C1assroom teachers’ ratings of the effectiveness of special educators in four role competencies (in percent). Rating Special Educator Role Not Very Somewhat Very Effective Effective Effective (1/2) (3/4) (5/6) 26. Provision of special edu- cation inservice opportu- 25.0 53.3 21.7 nities 27. Provision of consultation during the prereferral 22.8 45.7 31.5 process 28. Providing teachers interpre- tation of assessment data 22.8 43.5 33.7 that is useful in planning for mainstreamed pupils 29. Provision of classroom obser- vations and subsequently con- sulting with regular class 33.7 35.9 29.3 teachers regarding main- streamed handicapped students Classroom teachers rated special educators as most effective at providing prereferral consultation and useful interpretation of assessment data, of the four major role competencies. Nearly 34% of the classroom teachers rated special educators as not very effective at providing classroom observations. Also, only about 22% evaluated special educators as very effective at providing inservice training opportunities. 83 Results pf Qualitetive Anelysis of Bert V of the_SED end Pert VI of the_§ID Part V of the SEQ and Part VI of the C10 requested subjects to recommend actions that they believed would facilitate the effectiveness of the consultation activities that were provided at their respective schools. Many of the respondents provided extensive written statements in response to this item. Approximately 10% of the subjects elected not to complete this section. The subjects’ responses were analyzed using methods described by Goetz and Le Compte (1984) and Patton (1980). First, the statements made by respondents were scanned until categories emerged. Thus, a typological analysis was developed that required "dividing everything observed into groups or categories on the basis of some canon for disaggregating a whole phenomenon" (Goetz & Le Compte, 1984, p. 183). Separate typologies were developed for special educators and classroom teachers; then, responses were compared and contrasted. The second step required that relative frequency counts be obtained for each category. Third, a narrative was written that describes the results of the topological analysis. Chapter V includes a section that compares the results obtained from qualitative methods with the quantitative methods employed by the researcher. The SEQ Special educators were asked to reconmend actions that they thought would facilitate the effectiveness of the consultation 84 activities they provided at their schools. Analysis of their responses revealed eight discrete categories. The eight categories were rank ordered and are depicted in Table 4.14. Table 4.14.--Rank-ordered categories of factors special educators believed may facilitate the teacher consultation process in DoDDS-M. Rank Category Freq. 1 Specific time(s) set aside for consultation during the school day 13 2 Decrease in the amount of paperwork and procedures presently required 10 3 Provision of more inservice training for regular educators 9 4 A redefinition of the role of the special education teacher that increases the emphasis on 5 teacher consultation 5 Improve the clarity of existing job descriptions written for special educators 5 6 More and better support from the administration 5 7 Provision for more inservice training for special educators 4 8 More and better special education curriculum materials 3 special educators frequently emphasized problems arising due to time constraints. Primary responsibilities of teaching, committee meetings, and paperwork left little time for teacher consultation, according to many subjects surveyed. Setting aside specific times 85 during the school day for consulting was mentioned more often than any other category. One teacher recommended a procedure used in one school where she had worked. In that school the special educator spent one instructional day per quarter to confer with classroom teachers and parents. A substitute teacher was provided to go to classrooms as needed, according to a prearranged schedule. Thus, many of the special educators in this survey apparently believed that setting aside specific times for consulting during duty hours would facilitate the consultation process in DoDDS—M. Increasing the amount of inservice training provided classroom teachers was the third most frequently cited statement. A number of special educators suggested that the classroom teacher needs to understand better the necessity and effectiveness of teacher consultation. Also, inservice was recommended to help classroom teachers better provide for mainstreamed handicapped students in their classrooms. Another item frequently stated was the need to redefine the role of the special educator by placing a greater emphasis on teacher consultation and to refine the existing job descriptions of special educators so that all concerned "know specifically what they are expected to do." The 919 In Part VI of the CTQ, classroom teachers were asked to identify factors they believed would enhance the teacher consultation process at their respective schools. Five discrete 86 categories were established. These were rank ordered, based on the frequency in each category. Table 4.15 depicts the five categories. Table 4.15.--Rank-ordered categories of factors classroom teachers believed may facilitate the teacher consultation process in DoDDS-M. Rank Category Freq. 1 Establishment of time(s) during the duty day to participate in discussions with special education 20 personnel 2 Increase the amount of time special educators spend conducting observations in classrooms 8 3 More inservice training of special education personnel 7 4 Streamline special education paperwork and procedures and classroom teacher paperwork 6 5 Increase the amount of time special educators spend with teachers discussing students after 4 observations have been conducted A substantial number of the 95 classroom teachers surveyed indicated that setting aside specific times during the duty day for teacher consultation would facilitate the consultation process. Second, a number of classroom teachers mentioned the need for increasing the amount of time special educators spend in classrooms and expanding time spent discussing relevant students after classroom observations by the special educator. More inservice training of special educators was cited by some classroom teachers as an area needing improvement. Some classroom teachers commented 87 that new special education personnel received little or no training and therefore were too busy learning their jobs on their own to provide the needed consultation to classroom teachers. The need to streamline paperwork and procedures was frequently stated. A number of classroom teachers observed that the paperwork requirements of the classroom teacher, combined with the paperwork and procedural requirements for' serving the handicapped, leave little time for teachers to discuss specific students. Similarities Between Educetpr Grpups There were several similarities between the responses made by both educator' groups concerning the facilitation of the teacher consultation process. First, both educator groups frequently identified the need to establish time for consultation during the duty day. A number of classroom teachers and special education personnel suggested that some type of traveling substitute program is required biweekly or at least quarterly to provide coverage for classroom teachers. Second, both educator groups emphasized the need to reduce or modify paperwork and procedures so that more time is available for consultation. Third, increasing the inservice training opportunities for teachers was frequently mentioned by both educator groups. Special educators recommended further education and training for classroom teachers and more inservice for special education personnel. Classroom teachers indicated a need to increase inservice training and education for special educators. 88 Introduction Parts 11 and IV of the SEQ required respondents to rate their attitudes and perceptions toward teacher' consultation and their effectiveness as teacher consultants. The 12 items that comprised these two parts were divided into three factors. The first factor consisted of two items concerned with the attitudes of special educators toward the consultation process. This factor was labeled Attitude. (See Table 4.16.) The second factor was labeled Perceptions and comprised five items. Third, a factor combining five items was labeled Expertise. This item comprised specific consultant roles associated with the special education teacher consultation process. Parts 11 and V of the CTQ were designed to evaluate the attitudes and perceptions of classroom teachers toward the special education teacher consultation process. Eight items were selected from these two parts. Two factors comprising four items each were concerned with the classroom teachers’ receptivity to the consultation process, labeled Receptivity, and classroom teachers’ evaluation of special educators’ consulting effectiveness, labeled Effeetiveness. A final factor evaluated both classroom teachers’ ratings of effectiveness and special educators’ self-ratings, which was labeled Combined Effectiveness. (See Table 4.16.) 89 Table 4.16.--Teacher consultation factors with corresponding survey items. Factor 1: Attitude Toward Teacher Consultation by Special Educators (Attitude) Item 15. (SEQ) 17. Teacher consultation is an important part of my role and should be increased. Teacher consultation by the special educator is an effective means of service delivery to assist main- streamed handicapped students. Factor 2: Perceptions of Teacher Consultation by Special Educators (Perceptions) Item 12. (SEQ) 13. 16. 18. 19. How well prepared do you feel you are to act as a con- sultant with teachers, parents, and administrators? Do you believe that the classroom teachers at your school wish to have you provide more consultation regarding the mainstreamed handicapped students in their classrooms? I feel I have an adequate amount of time to provide the consultation that is required at my school. Classroom teachers perceive consultation provided by the special educator as an effective service delivery method to assist mainstreamed handicapped pupils. I am an effective consultant to teachers, parents, and administrators. 90 Table 4.16.--Continued. Factor 3: Self-Perceived Expertise in Teacher Consultation by Special Educators (Expertise) Item (SEQ) 24. 26. 27. 28. 29. As a special educator, I provide inservice training opportunities to classroom teachers at my school. As a special educator, I provide effective consultation activities during the prereferral process. As a special educator, I help teachers interpret assess- ment data in a way that is useful in planning for main- streamed handicapped students. As a special educator, I conduct observations of main- streamed handicapped students and subsequently consult effectively with the relevant teachers. As a special educator, I use established consulting approaches to provide a frame of reference for my consultation activities. Factor 4: Classroom Teachers’ Receptivity to Consultation by the Special Educator (Receptivity) Item (CTQ) 8. 11. 17. Special education teachers are well prepared to act as consultants to classroom teachers regarding mainstreamed handicapped pupils. Classroom teachers wish to have more consultation with special educators regarding mainstreamed handicapped pupils. Teacher consultation by the special educator is an effective means of service delivery to assist main- streamed handicapped students. If I received more consultation from the special edu- cator, I would spend more time trying to modify my classroom practices to the benefit of mainstreamed handicapped pupils. 91 Table 4.16.--Continued. Factor 5: Classroom Teachers’ Perceptions Regarding Effectiveness of Special Educator Consultation Activities (Effectiveness) Item 26. Provision of special education inservice opportunities. (CTQ) 27. Provision of consultation during the prereferral process. 28. Providing teachers interpretation of assessment data that is useful in planning for mainstreamed pupils. 29. Provision of classroom observations and subsequently consulting with regular class teachers regarding main- streamed handicapped students. aFactor 6: Combines Factor 5 and Factor 3 (Combined Effectiveness) aItem 29 was deleted from Factor 3 so that the items of Factor 5 could be compared directly with those of Factor 3. The factors in Table 4.16 were treated as dependent variables in analyzing differences within and between the two educator groups. Analysis was completed by summing the responses to the respective items to represent a total score, and by examining individual items. The above-mentioned factors and method of analysis were used when testing Hypotheses 2 through 7, 9, 10, and 12. The .05 level of significance was used for all hypothesis tests. Hypothesis 1 He 1: There is no significant difference between perceived actual amounts of time allocated to consulting activities by special educators and perceived ideal amounts of time allocated to consulting activities. Special educators were asked to estimate the percentage of time spent providing a variety of professional roles in a typical week. 92 Then, the same subjects were asked to indicate the ideal percentage of time they would assign to each role. Table 4.17 summarizes the results of these two survey questions. Table 4.17.--Actual and ideal amounts of time allocated to various special educator roles (in percent). Mean Mean Role Activity (Actual) (Ideal) z-Score Assessment of students 9.30 6.23 -3.08* Consultation 12.18 11.25 -l.07 Direct instruction 57.87 65.46 2.29* IEP development/report writing 12.81 6.10 -3.62* Preparation for instruction 6.92 7.04 2.85* Miscellaneous .92 3.92 -- Note: N - 32 (Six subjects omitted or incorrectly completed this section of the survey.) *Significant at the .05 level. The mean percentage of actual consultation reported by the subjects was 12.18. Ideally, the special educators indicated consultation activities should constitute a mean of 11.25% of a typical week. A hypothesis test for differences between means for paired samples was performed to determine if there were significant differences between the actual and ideal consultation means. The alpha level used for this test was .05, and the critical value of z . 1.64. The computed z - -l.07. Since the z-score was less than the critical value of z, the null hypothesis of no significant difference was not rejected. 93 However, special educators under ideal conditions did recommend a reduction in the time spent conducting student assessments and completing IEPs and other reports. Direct instruction of students would be increased under ideal conditions. Hypothesis 2 He 2: There is no significant difference between special educators with and those without classroom teaching experience regarding their attitudes toward teacher consultation. A t-test was performed on the Attitude factor and on each item that comprised that factor. No significant differences were found between the means of the two educator groups at the .05 level. (See Table 4.18.) Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. Table 4.18.--Ratings of attitudes toward teacher consultation held by special educators with and those without classroom teaching experience. With Without Variable (n - 19) (n - 19) t Attitude 9.89 9.84 -.088 Item 15 5.00 5.00 .000 Item 17 4.78 4.84 -.040 94 Hypothesis S Ho S: There is no significant difference between special educators with and those without formal training in consultation methods regarding their attitudes toward teacher consultation. Of the 39 special educators who completed this survey, 28 indicated they had had some formal training in consultation skills. Accordingly, data were sorted into groups as depicted in Table 4.19. The Attitude factor was used for this hypothesis test. Table 4.19.--Ratings of attitudes toward teacher consultation held by special educators with and those without formal training in consultation methods. With Without Variable (n - 28) (n . 10) t Attitude 10.31 8.40 2.77* Item 15 5.10 4.70 1.32 Item 17 5.21 3.70 3.89* *Significant at the .05 level. Significant differences in attitudes toward consultation were found between the two educator groups. Special educators with formal training in consultation methods rated the importance and effectiveness of the teacher consultation role higher than their counterparts with no formal training in consultation methods. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no significant difference was rejected. However, caution should be used in interpreting this finding due to the small sample size. 95 Hypothesis 4 Hp_yl: There is no significant difference between special educators with and those without classroom teaching experience regarding their perceptions of teacher consultation. Factor 2: Perceptions comprised six items designed to evaluate the views of special education personnel as they pertained to specific aspects of the consultation process. Each item was responded to on a six-point scale, with 1 considered the most negative perception and 6 the most positive perception. Means were calculated individually for each item. T-tests were performed on the mean responses of the two educator groups. (See Table 4.20.) Table 4.20.--Ratings of perceptions regarding teacher consultation held by special educators with and those without classroom teaching experience. With Without Variable (n . 19) (n . 19) t Perceptions ‘ 23.65 22.21 .595 Item 12 5.10 4.60 1.66* Item 13 3.36 3.21 .22 Item 14 4.68 4.36 .71 Item 16 2.42 2.15 .54 Item 18 3.52 3.26 .42 Item 19 4.57 4.63 -.21 *Significant at the .05 level. A significant difference between the two educator groups was found for Item 12 only. Item 12 asked special educators how well prepared they felt they were to act as teacher consultants. However, no overall significant differences were found for Factor 2: 96 Perceptions. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no significant differences regarding perceptions toward teacher consultation of special educators with and those without classroom teaching experience was retained. Hypothesis S Ho S: There is no significant difference between special educators with and those without formal training in consultation skills regarding their perceptions of teacher consultation. Special educators were grouped according to whether or not they had received formal training in consultation skills. ‘Twenty-eight educators reported that they had received formal training, whereas ten reported they had not. Means and t-tests were calculated for each item for the two educator groups. (See Table 4.21.) Table 4.21.--Ratings of perceptions of special educators with and those without formal training in consultation skills. With Without Variable (n . 28) (n - 10) t Perceptions 19.44 15.80 4.65* Item 12 5.10 4.20 2.68* Item 13 3.60 2.40 2.44* Item 16 2.21 2.50 -.50 Item 18 3.71 2.50 3.88* Item 19 4.82 4.20 2.75* *Significant at the .05 level. Analysis of the means of the two groups did reveal statistically significant differences (.05 level) for several items. 97 Item 18, which pertained to the receptivity of the regular educator to teacher consultation, revealed the greatest differences between the two educator groups. The Perceptions factor revealed statistically significant differences between the two groups of special educators at the .05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no significant difference was rejected. However, the results should be viewed with some caution due to the small sample size. Hypothesis S H_o_6: There is no significant difference between special educators with and those without classroom teaching experience regarding their self-perceived expertise in teacher consulta- tion skills. Special educators were grouped based on their previous professional experience. Nineteen special educators had had regular classroom teaching experience, whereas another group of 19 had had none. Respondents completed Part IV of the SEQ, which requested that they rate themselves as to their present ability to perform a variety of consultation tasks. (See Table 4.22.) Of the scores on self-perceived expertise in consulting, only Item 29 revealed a statistically significant difference at the .05 level. Item 29 asked subjects to rate themselves as to their use of established consulting approaches when performing teacher consultation duties. The overall measure of Expertise was not significant at the .05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no significant difference was retained. 98 Table 4.22.--Ratings of self-perceived expertise scores of special educators with and those without classroom teaching experience. With Without Variable (n - 19) (n - 19) t Expertise 20.56 20.03 .36 Item 24 3.73 3.94 -.54 Item 26 4.05 4.52 -l.21 Item 27 4.63 4.63 0.00 Item 28 4.42 4.10 .81 Item 29 3.73 2.84 1.76* *Significant at the .05 level. Hypothesis 7 Hp__Z: There is no significant difference between special educators with and those without formal training in consultation methods regarding their self-perceived expertise in teacher consultation skills. Special educators were grouped based on their previous professional preparation. Twenty-eight special educators had had formal training in consulting methods. Ten had had no formal training. A comparison was made between the two educator groups on five items of the SEQ. (See Table 4.23.) On the first three items that comprised Factor 3 (Expertise), no significant differences were found between the two educator. groups at the .05 level. However, Items 28 and 29 revealed substantial differences between the two groups. Item 28 stated, ”As a special educator, I conduct observations of mainstreamed handicapped students and subsequently consult effectively with the relevant teachers.” Item 29 stated, "As a special educator, I use 99 established consulting approaches to provide a frame of reference for my consultation activities.” Thus, the overall effect was to indicate significant differences regarding the Expertise factor at the .05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Table 4.23.--Ratings of self-perceived expertise scores in teacher consultation of special educators with and those without formal training in consultation methods. With Without Variable (n - 28) (n - 10) t Expertise 21.04 18.50 2.97* Item 24 3.82 3.90 -.49 Item 26 4.28 4.30 -.12 Item 27 4.60 4.70 -.16 Item 28 4.42 3.70 4.41* Item 29 3.92 1.90 11.41* *Significant at the .05 level. 11193115151 Hp_§: There is no significant difference between the present expertise scores in consulting skills of special educators and their perceived ideal expertise scores. Items 24 through 31 requested subjects to evaluate themselves concerning their present ability to provide consultation and then to indicate how well they would ideally like to be able to perform the stated skills. A Wilcoxon signed-rank procedure was performed, using a random sample of 20 subjects who completed the SEQ and an alpha level of .01. The critical value of d - 43. Computations revealed that R' . -210. Since R’ was below the critical value of d (43), the null hypothesis was rejected. Indeed, 100 by examining Figure 4.1, it is clear that there were substantial differences between the mean perceived actual expertise scores and the corresponding perceived ideal expertise scores. The greatest differences between present competencies and ideal competencies occurred in the provision of inservice training and the use of established consultation approaches. The least difference was in consulting with parents. Hyppthesjs 9 Ho 2: There is no significant difference between classroom teachers with and those without previous college coursework in special education regarding their receptivity to consultation by the special educator. Classroom teachers were grouped according to their previous professional preparation. Fifty-one subjects had had college coursework in special education, whereas 44 had had none. Means for the Receptivity factor were calculated and are shown in Table 4.24. Table 4.24.--Ratings of receptivity to special educator consultation by classroom teachers with and those without college coursework in special education. With Without Variable (n = 51) (n - 44) t Receptivity 17.83 16.96 .85 Item 8 4.57 3.95 2.42* Item 9 4.59 4.50 .38 Item 11 4.75 4.61 .54 Item 17 3.92 3.90 .08 *Significant at the .05 level. h 4.: *' >5 '— U - v- D '- 'U< 'U-v- 0 0.0 >¢J >< 0": - 00 U.— Ulfi U0 L0 LG: UL 0'0 $0. 9.0—! 101 o ’ y’ 'x, 4“, \/ \I‘ /\a w\/ 7' ’\"‘-/\o"\‘\r""v “’1'! ‘ "K-x v 's V 7% IV V‘ y vv~(\( 3);? yr' )1. \a‘gy \( y 31 .V.. v ~’\/'v~ x51)! V y yYy ‘y' -..F’:.‘<,y- 'y >1 \Vy NV _\(> ’4]: I (">571 1r- '[:;'_x 4., {VII \. in y x x \- an x {u " {:2 £3; 5 ‘v x \r'x x'V'y‘x‘ m Lm“ m '1 '- -. . 's'. \ ‘ s‘ -. > - _ \ x I” u. \ ; \.\ 4 '2'" F ‘ 1"‘\ ' ‘ \> \ - " .‘ ‘. ' . i. I .\~".v.. I 'I. 1 .5 x} x44 ks 'x\ x4. ._x 5445 x .x_‘ x w L a - ;xx;xx) -L“ A n -1 A_.._‘ an a WMWMWMz/‘W .: rMMeziwemMizf; .. ”25* M” . L 2. xxx ‘x ("- ..,:: )4’ fix )2 3a ‘2: >< '12-‘28). .. x’ x"; ‘47); :1; t A .4 A535. 3. .4. A .- 4 54""): ,(1. "3); >: .21).] m .._4 f -.. \‘\ V. \. >\' V ‘_ ‘ V ‘ .‘._ .“ \.' K.“ .“ . ‘ :‘ :‘Y ‘ V "a“ -. V. \. ‘ -. .__' fl'. a... ‘ '- -. a“ ‘ ‘. _" ‘I v yv Vvv Y V VI W V V V- g; vxx‘xx YV 22R? . ‘47)!)4 XYQZW\YY)X(I¢ sxfuyyyxxywvxyvxg . XXX K')‘.XX>‘X)‘.XXX)’.XX>C1XXXXfoVQQXXXXAKImem .MLga. ’3 ‘. \ “- 5 ~~ ‘3“ \ i“. .\ \. . . _. ~ ‘- -. 8 {Ix-IV“. \ "\ ‘._ K K. I‘.,"‘\. \\.. \:.‘. \ ~ .\x. \ ‘37“: \ n- \ C ‘ ‘. "4 . ‘x’x\‘xk‘x‘x\1-“\\‘x‘\\‘x L_~.\ L ;x"L ‘ M \D J..WXFJJ.VI‘-X"V"- W‘DW :vV‘K Kfiwfixr\31x7‘w\'7xny‘ N yfl'v‘y'~¢"’~./‘V‘y”:4y>(y” yy 34' :(‘y ."/\>(V\g x“); yX~/y~’~/v :(V vxvvv wvvav 1’- . -.:.:::":'f\./‘-:"'. ' \' . ..4 «\1'3’1: \’_‘ ‘ m uyvu-erx-“vvy v‘ {)1 v;\/:'u"'-I tx/vvvf \ quvvfiuu~ NF. "~.:“‘u.‘"-. ‘.-'-._ ~.__"~ I A-'\\ '\\ ‘~‘ '-\~. \_ - "a: ‘u. ‘\\\f:' -._“\ .:\\ _ \ \‘ ...' a“. nu."- IV'.‘ _‘ > \. '-. ~ \ ‘ . "I 4"\\‘\."'§\4‘2_"-\"-.X“~;'x\\ \1 \\"'\"\ x s N( DC5DCXDCVC XDCXDC )CXDCY ,5 YK ..\.{:;4;‘~< . \-_ ‘I‘\ w . . \4 v\_ a x "A \;\ - D<,?( '«nyr >< y] VCYT a" .5 .‘ \ \ ‘ \“pxxx‘g' \\\\\\‘1‘\ \. 4!; ~' ' '~ . "78?) ‘ny9vx 5734.229¢e~449~xxw56n5» rxxnxxxxxvxxx«xx;\~8x\XX%AxAxx>xXxxxXxxxkxxxxL co 'v‘o' .vr‘gy ‘ -. ' ‘7 I‘ 1" \ \\. \ \ '\ ~ ‘\._ ‘\ l‘x. ‘-._,’-x .x \._‘ \ '..““‘\L‘.Im‘\\L‘x‘lhxr\\L‘lK‘XX‘IA'LVA \VXKV ‘5‘". \ ‘\ -‘\, ‘\_ “- ~. V’\ x K \ h"- I'“. \p ~‘.. "~. \_ \ u'ul \‘., ~. "V'V Vyvxyvy‘ wad ”My 4.,4 VV"¢:’1 mf’xxmfi tflvXXYYXVY;Y¥:$V5, .ny;§§ijj:§;.,\_.vyyy 4:: «I ." - . V ‘* 3‘ W‘ ‘ ‘ V..;<."‘.‘<~. .. u n \N VJ} “(KIMV irfiéi: "u‘ ‘1 a. n Velez), {WVkL 15)\)\)\)W'. ". 1' ‘A‘u‘aALw‘ K‘\ \ '.‘~ " - \u - ‘\ ‘- {\‘f :\‘. ‘- ‘ ‘ :Q‘fi- - - « ‘ \ \ ‘. V ’ f. 1 -_. ‘. ‘\ \ ‘2."-., ‘-. ‘4, \ " ‘65 ‘, "- D D “ \ \ . ‘~ \-, ‘4 ‘. \ "— ‘x “-. ‘- ‘ \'. \u \ s o \\\\\. \ \“f‘x‘x 7““ ‘4 . ‘ ‘\\ 4 . ' “x 4 ”a . \ 4. \ ‘\\‘«.‘;\\\;\‘k‘\\‘~. \\\l\‘\\ x \\ \ 5 \\\'\’~. \Aw U; 5V3 ~o~vwxii fife: 4M 5%» “x4MT;3§§$CV“KD- X}; ' ' gngxparqr M3}:’ ;)cri. 9;;gun2’ ‘-\ 4 ‘\~.\"‘-\ \.‘\~ "EXXXU 4‘ \._‘\ \_ "\“".\ \~.‘ \\. \.V\\ .x xx .1” \ \_‘i 3 :\\~ xxx \\\\m\\\f5\fi\3\\5h\\ra\u ; \ x x x x \\ '\ '\‘\'\ \ 'x"k‘x"\ 5 ":E \ \"x‘x L'x'x‘x \L_._ . 4") I l 1 I I 51 u) ‘f 1" .1 IN «- C) sauaued uagn butzlnsuog eclimsiuswpe 941 411" butulnsuog sauoeoadde 5U} 1nsuoo paustl -qe:sa Io asn SUOI1PAJBSQO Jaaje Dugzlnsuog :uamssasse [idnd bugpuefiaJ 6u;11nsuog [eaaataaaad au; 6uIan 6utalnsu03 saaqmam 353 W4!" butalnsuog 6uguteua antauasu; )0 UOtStAOJd DoDDS-M on a continuum from 1 (very weak) to 6 (very strong). Figure 4.l.-Mean PEFCEived present and ideal ex ertise in teache ° . educators in P r consultation of sampled SpeCTal 102 Although Item 8, which asked subjects to rate how well prepared special educators were to act as consultants, was significant at the .05 level, the overall measure of Receptivity was not. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no significant difference was not rejected. Hypothesis 10 HQ I0: There is no significant difference between classroom teachers with and those without previous college coursework in special education regarding their ratings of special educator consulting effectiveness. Classroom teachers were grouped according to their previous professional preparation. The Effectiveness factor was calculated for each educator group. (See Table 4.25.) Table 4.25.--Ratings of special educator consultation effectiveness by classroom teachers with and those without college coursework in special education. With Without Variable (n - Sl) (n - 44) t Effectiveness l5.l4 12.72 l.93* Item 26 3.58 3.12 1.53 Item 27 4.04 3.35 2.33* Item 28 3.79 3.30 1.45 Item 29 3.73 2.95 2.84* *Significant at the .05 level. Items 27 and 29 revealed statistically significant differences (.05) between the two educator groups. Item 27 dealt with consultation during the prereferral process, whereas Item 29 required respondents to rate the effectiveness of classroom 103 observations and subsequent teacher consultations by the special educator. Item 26 (inservice training) approached significance at the .05 level. Therefore, the overall Effectiveness factor did reveal significant differences at the .05 level. Consequently, the null hypothesis was rejected. flypgthgsis !| fig ll: There is no significant difference between the ideal amounts of time allocated to consultation activities by classroom teachers and by special educators. Classroom teachers and special educators were requested to state the ideal amounts of time they would allocate to the various roles of the special educator. Mean percentages were calculated and compared. (See Table 4.26.) Only 54 classroom teachers’ surveys were used for this table because of omissions and/or incorrect completion of this part of the survey. Table 4.26.--Ideal amounts of time allocated to varying special educator roles by classroom teachers and special educators (in percent). Classroom Special Role Activity Teachers Educators t (n - 54) (n - 32) Assessment of students 9.3 6.2 3.l0* Consultation l0.3 ll.3 -.52 Direct instruction 58.l 65.5 -2.04* IEP development/report writing 7.8 6.1 1.18 Preparation for instruction l0.7 7.0 2.50* Miscellaneous 3.8 3.9 -- *Significant at the .05 level. 104 The two educator groups did differ significantly (.05 level) on the ideal amounts of time allocated to several role activities. However, there was no significant difference between the ideal amounts of time allocated to consulting by the two educator groups. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. Hypethesis IZ fle_1z: There is no significant difference between classroom teachers and special educators regarding the effectiveness of teacher consultation. In Part IV of the SEQ, special educators were asked to evaluate their effectiveness as teacher consultants. Part V of the CTQ requested that classroom teachers rate special educators’ consultation effectiveness on four items taken from Part IV of the SEQ. Two factors were developed to compare the overall ratings of both educator groups. These were: Expertise (special educators’ self-perceived effectiveness in teacher consultation) and Effectiveness (classroom 'teachers’ ratings of special educators’ teacher consultation effectiveness). One item originally developed for the Expertise factor was omitted so that the same statements for both educator* groups could be compared. ‘The two factors were combined to form one main factor labeled Combined Effectiveness. (See Table 4.27.) Special educators rated themselves significantly higher in effectiveness (at the .05 level) on each of the four items than did the 95 classroom teachers in the survey. The greatest difference was on Item 27, which dealt with the useful interpretation of 105 student assessment data. Consequently, the overall factor labeled Combined Effectiveness revealed significant differences between the two educator groups at the .05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Table 4.27.--Rating of special educator teacher consultation effectiveness by professional role. Professional Role Variable Special Classroom Educator Teacher t (n - 38) (n - 95) Combined Effectiveness l7.0l 14.36 2.62* altem 24(26) 3.84 3.46 1.58 Item 26(27) 4.28 3.76 2.15* Item 27(28) 4.63 3.72 3.47* Item 28(29) 4.26 3.42 3.20* aItems are displayed with Expertise items first, followed by the corresponding Effectiveness items in parentheses. *Significant at the .05 level. Summary Thirty-eight special education teachers and 95 classroom teachers were surveyed regarding their perceptions of the teacher consultant role of special educators employed in the Mediterranean Region of the Department of Defense Schools. Specifically, both educator groups were asked to rate their attitudes, perceptions, and effectiveness of' the present teacher consultation process. In addition, all teachers were requested to indicate the types of education and training special educators needed to further enhance 106 their consulting effectiveness. Finally, teachers were asked to indicate factors they believed were barriers to effective consultation and factors that have the potential to enhance the teacher consultation process in DoDDS-M. In the results of this study as presented in this chapter, six of the 12 null hypotheses were rejected and six were accepted. Statistically significant differences were found to exist between special educators regarding their attitudes, perceptions, and self- perceived effectiveness at providing teacher consultation. Also, statistically significant differences between classroom teachers were found to exist regarding their perceptions of the effectiveness of consultation provided by the special educator. In addition, statistically significant differences were found to exist between classroom teachers and special educators regarding the effectiveness of the special educator in the role of teacher consultant. Further, hypothesis testing revealed no significant differences between special educators regarding previous classroom teaching experience and stated dependent variables. In addition, no significant differences were found to exist between the actual and ideal amounts of time allocated to teacher consultation by the special educator. Classroom teachers were not found to differ significantly in their receptivity to consultation. Finally, the ideal amounts of time allocated to teacher consultation by both educator groups were not significantly different. 107 Qualitative analysis methods revealed a concern by both educator' groups with the present amount of time available for teacher consultation. Classroom teachers indicated a desire for more classroom observation, with greater amounts of time being spent on discussions of relevant students. Both educator groups underscored the need for further education and training. Chapter V presents the conclusions reached, based on the data analysis completed in Chapter IV. In addition, a section is devoted to recommendations for practice and implications for further research. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AND PRACTICE Introductien The researcher’s purpose for this study was to investigate the perceptions of special and regular education teachers regarding the extent of present consultation activities, the perceived desirability and effectiveness of these activities, and factors that may facilitate or inhibit teacher consultation as a means of providing indirect services to mainstreamed handicapped students in the Mediterranean Region of the Department of Defense Dependent Schools. Two questionnaires were develOped to collect the necessary data for this study. The questionnaires required classroom teachers and special educators to rate the same components of the teacher consultation process and to identify factors that may facilitate or inhibit the consulting activities of the special educator. Items from each questionnaire were grouped to form five factors that were. treated as dependent variables for the purpose of this study. The five factors were attitude, perception, expertise, receptivity, and effectiveness. Data were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative methods. The hypothesis tests employed in this study were the 108 109 t-test and the Hilcoxon sign-rank test. The level of significance for each test was alpha - .05. Qualitative methods included the use of categorizing data, frequency counts, rank-ordering, and narrative descriptions. The researcher attempted to answer the questions listed below: l. Is there a significant difference between the actual and ideal amounts of time special educators allocate to teacher consultation? 2. Is there a significant difference between special educators with and those without prior classroom teaching experience in terms of their attitudes, perceptions, and self-perceived expertise in teacher consultation? 3. Is there a significant difference between special educators with and those without formal training in consultation methods in terms of their attitudes, perceptions, and self-perceived expertise in teacher consultation? 4. Is there a significant difference between the present self- perceived expertise of special educators at teacher consulting and their ideal expertise? 5. Is there a significant difference between classroom teachers with and those without prior course work in special education regarding their receptivity to teacher consultation and their ratings of the effectiveness of consultation provided by the special educator? 110 6. Is there a significant difference between special and regu- lar educators in terms of the ideal amounts of time allocated to teacher consultation? 7. Is there a significant difference between classroom teach- ers’ and special educators’ ratings of the effectiveness of teacher consultation provided by the special education teacher? 8. What factors do classroom teachers and special educators perceive as barriers to teacher consultation provided by the special educator? 9. Hhat factors do classroom teachers and special educators identify as having the potential to enhance teacher consultation by the special educator? The Findings The findings of the 12 hypotheses that were tested and results of the qualitative data analysis of the study are listed below. 1. No significant differences were found between the actual and ideal amounts of time allocated to teacher consultation by special educators. 2. No significant differences were found between special edu- cators with prior classroom teaching experience and those without such experience regarding their attitudes toward teacher consultation. 3. Significant differences were found between special educa- tors with formal training in consulting methods and those without such training regarding their attitudes toward teacher consultation. 111 Special educators with formal training in consulting methods rated the importance and effectiveness of the teacher consultant role higher than did those special educators without formal training. 4. No significant differences were found between special edu- cators with prior classroom teaching experience and those without such experience regarding their perceptions of teacher consultation. 5. Significant differences were found between special educa- tors with formal training in consulting methods and those without such training regarding their perceptions of teacher consultation. Special educators with formal training rated selected aspects of the teacher consultation process higher (more positively). 6. No significant differences were found between special edu- cators with prior classroom teaching experience and those without such experience regarding their self-perceived expertise scores as teacher consultants. 7. Significant differences were found between special educa- tors with formal training in consulting methods and those without such training regarding their self-perceived expertise scores in teacher consulting. 8. Significant differences were found between the present expertise scores in consulting skills of special educators and their perceived ideal expertise scores. Special educators indicated that, ideally, they would like to be more proficient at teacher consulta- tion. 9. No significant. differences were found between classroom teachers who had had prior college course work in special education 112 and those without such college course work regarding their receptivity to consultation provided by the special educator. 10. Significant differences were found between classroom teachers who had had prior college course work in special education and those without such college course work regarding their ratings of the effectiveness of consultation provided by the special educator. Classroom teachers with college course work in special education rated the effectiveness of the consultation provided by special educators significantly higher. 11. No significant differences were found between the ideal amount of time allocated to special educator consultation activities by classroom teachers and the ideal amount of time allocated by special educators. 12. Significant differences were found between classroom teachers and special educators regarding the effectiveness of teacher consultation provided by the special education teacher. Special educators rated themselves significantly higher on all items of effectiveness when compared to the ratings of classroom teachers. 13. Classroom teachers and special educators indicated that lack of time to engage in consulting activities was the greatest barrier to the consultation process. 14. Classroom teachers and special educators indicated that providing specific times during the school day for teacher consulta- tion would do the most to enhance the teacher consultation process at their respective schools. 113 15. Both educator groups agreed that the most beneficial training to enhance the consulting effectiveness of special educators would be in the area of new teaching methods and materials to aid the handicapped. Second, many special educators indicated a need for further training in the use of consultation methods and the provision of effective inservice experiences for teachers. genelusiens Conclusion 1: At present, the consultant role of the special educator in DoDDS-M is a relatively minor one and would remain so under ideal conditions. Special educators in DoDDS-M indicated that they presently spent approximately 58% of their time providing direct instruction to students and ideally would spend about 65% of their day providing direct instruction. In contrast, special educators presently allocated, on average, approximately 12% of their time to consultation and ideally would allocate about 11% to the consultant role. Most classroom teachers, if given a choice, would allocate approximately 10% of the special educator’s duties to consultation activities. The relatively minor role allocated to the consultation activities of the special educator is consistent with previous research in this area (Evans, 1980; Landon, 1982). However, the time presently allocated to consulting by DoDDS-M personnel is substantially greater than their counterparts in CONUS (12% versus 5-7%). This may account for the absence of a recomendation to increase the consultant role of the special educator by most Special 114 education personnel in DoDDS-M. The ideal amount of time allocated to consulting by those educators surveyed by other researchers in CONUS would increase the allocated time to approximately 10%. DoDDS-M special education teachers frequently indicated their desire to spend most of their time teaching students. In fact, under ideal conditions, special educators would substantially increase the amount of time allocated to teaching duties (see Table 4.17). Therefore, the self-image and personal preferences of V special educators may substantially affect the amount of time that is allocated to consultation activities. Conelgsien 2: Some existing mainstreaming practices in DoDDS-M need improvement. Effective mainstreaming practices are seriously hampered by the lack of opportunities for special and regular educators to communicate with one another during the school day. Consideration should be given to providing a rotating substitute for classroom teachers one day per marking period so that individual classroom teachers can meet with relevant special educators according to a prearranged schedule to discuss mainstreamed handicapped students. School personnel would need to ensure appropriate parental involve- ment for these meetings. Also, DoDDS-M needs to upgrade education and training relating to some aspects of mainstreaming. Education and training opportunities need to be made available to both special and regular education teachers concerning the special educator consultation process. Special educators in DoDDS-M indicated that they would 115 like to improve their' consultation skills in several important areas. DoDDS-M supervisory personnel need to consider providing university-level course work to enhance consultation skills. Also, school psychologists in the district could be used to provide inservice training to special educators. Teacher consultation has been a major role of the school psychologist in the past. Therefore, school psychologists have had more education, training, and experience in teacher consultation. Since school psychologists already spend a good deal of their time with special educators, provision of teacher consultation inservice could easily be arranged. Importantly, a large body of literature devoted to enhancing the effectiveness of teacher consultation was contained in Chapter II of this dissertation. This and other information could be used to develop a curriculum for use by DoDDS-M personnel. Finally, special educator .job descriptions and performance- appraisal formats need to specify precisely their teacher consultant role functions and the recommended amount of time that should be allocated to teacher consultation when compared to other duties performed by special education personnel. Regional office policy and guidance concerning this subject needs to be made clear to all DoDDS-M personnel. Implieetions for Prestige The emphasis placed on the need to improve and expand the consultant role of the special educator by numerous researchers and practitioners is due to the perceived need to facilitate the 116 integration of handicapped students into regular classrooms. A primary purpose of this research was to develop a set of recommendations aimed at improving educational practice as it relates to the provision of teacher consultation by special education personnel in DoDDS-M. Based on an analysis of the available data, the following actions are recommended: 1. Regional office personnel should, through policy, stress the value and necessity of enhancing the teacher consultant role of special educators in DoDDS-M. 2. Emphasis needs to be placed on hiring special education personnel who are competent teacher consultants and who value the teacher consultant process as a means of assisting mainstreamed handicapped students. 3. Education and training Opportunities aimed at upgrading collaboration between special and regular educators need to be made available to school personnel presently employed in DoDDS-M. 4. Opportunities for collaboration between special and regular educators need to be increased. 5. Greater effort needs to be made to streamline special edu- cation paperwork and procedures so that more time is available for collaboration between special and regular educators. 6. Finally, provisions need to be made to evaluate the quality and quantity of the special education consultations that are provided after the necessary education and training have been completed. This could be accomplished by surveys, informal 117 discussions, and observations by administrators and special education supervisors. Imelieetions for Further Reseeeeh This investigation represents a first step in examining the teacher consultation role of the special educator in the Department of Defense Dependent Schools. The findings of this study indicated that teacher consultation is a valued practice, most special educators wished to improve their consultation skills, and formal training in consultation methods was effective at enhancing special educators’ perceptions of the consultation process. However, since this investigation was necessarily limited in scope, the following recommendations for further research are made: 1. Further research is needed to verify or refute the findings of this study in other DoDDS regions. 2. Effective teacher consultation programs provided by DoDDS-M special educators need to be investigated to determine the reasons for their success. 3. Studies should be undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of teacher consultation as a service delivery method for mainstreamed handicapped children. 4. Observational studies using ethnographic methods need to be undertaken to investigate specific educator behaviors so as to gain a better understanding of the special educator teacher consultant process in DoDDS-M. Questions needing answers include: 5. 118 How much time is actually allocated to the consultation process? If more time is made available during the school day, would consultation between educators increase? Do classroom teachers encourage increased contact with the special educator (and vice versa)? Is there evidence that administrators encourage the special educator teacher consultant process within their respective schools? Can change in pupil behavior be readily observed as a result of teacher consultations? A study needs to be undertaken to investigate the feasibil- ity of developing an overseas teacher consultation training program for special educators in DoDDS-M. Areas to be evaluated include: School psychologists’ willingness to participate as instructors. The adequacy of the professional preparation of school psy- chologists. Available time for consultation training. Content of the consultation training curriculum. Support for such training by teachers and administrators. Feasibility of obtaining college credit for the training. Specific course requirements and evaluation procedures. 119 Concluding Stetemegt Effective communication between and among education professionals is essential if we are to fulfill our obligations to the students whom we serve. Unfortunately, the pressures of increasing nonteaching duties have left little time for both classroom teachers and special education personnel to communicate with one another. Hhile some contact between these two educator groups does exist, opportunities to enhance the quality of collaboration need to be addressed. Professional-development programs appear to be the only viable means to accomplish this feat. Increasing the effectiveness of the consultation process in DoDDS-M will depend, to a large degree, on the readiness and encouragement of supervisory personnel. APPENDICES APPENDIX A DoDDS-M CHARACTERISTICS Source: "DoDDS-M Regional Characteristics Profile." Madrid, Spain: DoDDS-M Regional Office, 1988. Brace OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 120 JOINT CHIEFS STAFF fl OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE(FM&PI J DASD FAMILY SUPPORT. EDUCATION AND SAFETY 1 00005 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY , DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY , DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS @ENERAI. cows?— OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE fiNTERNAL CONTROL SERVICES DIVISION J J I j EDUCATION PERSONNEL LOGISTICS DIVISION DIVISION "5°“ D'V's'o" DIVISION r I T j ATLANTIc REGION GERMANY REGION PACIFIC REGION MED'gggf’oAN’VEA” T J T I DISTRICTS DISTRICTS DISTRICTS DISTRICTS PANAMA REGION 121 00008 REGIONS CEOGRAPHIC CG'PARISUI OF PEDITERRAI‘E'IN REGICN SCI-IIILS T0 TIE CGITIGDUS UNITED STATES mm a") ncuu (Ill) fil .—_ w (m m on: m m a)-——- am m m m m (Mb—- puma: um P Q m an) mm— l ‘- I 5“? I--”" ‘4‘». 7n ‘1 'I 1" ” " WI K m m... {W \ Ian (III) menu: (III) C ’l A.” am 5 f (As—m) ' C fl'- do-V“ \\ ma (‘1‘, .oo‘ ‘ \_ \. o... . \ It.“ (I) V 122 DEPARTI‘ENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS SCKDLS I‘EDITEHRANEAN REGIGV r OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR [EXECUTIVE SERVICES DIVISION I I e I l .UCATION PERSONNE LOGISTICS DIVISION *1 , I - , [smmoamfl [ my I Efisggggmm I _ I , _ 1 , _ I ROTA ES (N) AVELLINO ES (A1" ) ATHENS ES (A?) ROTA as (N) AVIANO ES (AF) IRAKLION E/JHS (AF) ROYAL OAKS ES (AF) AVIANO HS (AF) SEVILLA ES (AF) BRINDISI ES (AF) ANKARA E/HS (AF) TORREJON ES (AF) BRINDISI HS (AE) INCIRLIK ES (A?) TORREJON HS (AF) COMISO E/HS (AF) INCIRLIK 85 (AF) ZARAGOZA ES (AF) DECIMOMANNU ES (AF) IZMIR E/HS (AF) ZARAGOZA HS (AF) GAETA ES (N) LA MADDALENA ES (N) BAHRAIN E/HS (N) LAJES ES (AF) LIVORNO ES (A) LAJES HS (AF) LIVORNO 85 (A) NAPLES ES (N) NAPLES HS (N) RIMINI ES (AP) SIGONELLA E/HS (N) VERONA ES (A) VICENZA ES (A) VICENZA 35 (A) The expression in parenthesis represents the military service that provides local support services: A - Army, AF - Air Force, N - Navy. SCHOOL SIZE . . ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I Under 0 Avellino, Italy (K-8) Sevilla, Spain (K-8) Decimomannu, Italy (K-8) Rimini, Italy (K-8) 100-292 Verona, Italy (K-8) Gaeta, Italy (K-8) La Maddalena, Italy (K-9) Livorno, Italy (K-6) 300-499 Brindisi, Italy (K-6) Zaragoza, Spain (K—6) Lajes, Portugal (K-6) Over 500 Athens, Greece (K-6) Aviano, Italy (K-6) Torrejon, Spain (K-7) Incirlik, Turkey (K-6) Vicenza, Italy (K-6) Naples, Italy (K-6) Rota, Spain (K-6) Royal Oaks, Spain (K-7) Total 123 . SY 1987-88 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT (Schools listed smallest to largest) 128 250 280 368 414* 480 505 527 606 630 752 770 807 815 7,604 CONDARY CHOOLS 10 Under 300 Livorno, Italy (7-12) Zaragoza, Spain (7-12) Brindisi, Italy (7-12) Lajes, Portugal (7-12) Incirlik, Turkey (7-12) Aviano, Italy (7-12) 300-499 Vincenz, Italy (7-12) Rota, Spain (7-12) Over 500 Naples, Italy (7-12) Torrejon, Spain (8-12) Total - 2 Scho 1 Iraklion, Greece (K-lO) Comiso, Italy (K-12) Ankara, Turkey (K-12) Izmir, Turkey (K-12) Sigonella, Italy (K-12) Bahrain (K-12) Total 155 204 205 243 251 286 447 454 600 605 3,450 251 300 425 466 721 730 2,893 *An additional 34 preschool-age children are projected for enrollment in the prekindergarten program. 124 DoDDS-M REGION PROFILE GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSION: 6 Countries 24 Locetions Portugal (Azores) Spain Italy (Incl. Sicily and Sardinia) 1 Greece (Incl. Crete) Turkey Bahrain dwNw-hd SCHOOLS AND ENROLLMENT 35 Schools 13.947 Students Projected for SY 1987-88 19 elementary 7,604 10 secondary (one with 7-day dorm) 3,450 6 K-12 (one of which is a K-lO) 2,893 RANGE OF SCHOOL SIZE (based on SY 1987-88 projections) ElementerYISchools From: 25 students (K-B), Avellino, Italy TO: 815 students (K-7), Royal Oaks, Madrid, Spain Secondary Schools From: 155 students (7-12), Livorno, Italy To: 605 students (7-12), Torrejon, Spain NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION ACCREDITATION (NCA) All secondary schools are accredited. All elementary schools are accredited except --Avellino, Rimini, Sevilla, and Verona (Schools with less than 150 students. On-site review made every five years by NCA, but not formally evaluated or accredited.) --Comiso, Decimomannu (New schools scheduled for initial accreditation visit in school year 1990-91.) 125 PROJECTED SCHOOL-LEVEL STAFFING (SY 1987-88) PUBLIC LAN PERSONNEL Principals with teaching responsibilities 4 Education program managers 3 Secondary (4,758 students)** 255.5* (Ratio 18.6) Elementary (7,643 students)*** 306 (Ratio 24.9) Kindergarten (1,452 students)** 30.5 (Ratio 47.6) Resource personnel 254.5*** Total 853.5 RESOURCE PERSONNEL Art 8.5 Communication impaired 17.0 Compensatory education 7.0 Dormitory counselor 4.0 English as a second language 13.0 Guidance 27.0 Learning impaired 44.5 Librarian/media specialist 25.5 Music 13.5 Nurse 18.5 Physical education 13.0 Preschool pilot 1.0 Preschool special education 5.0 Psychologist 6.0 Reading improvement 23.5 Special education 5.0 Special education specialist 3.0 Talented and gifted (TAG) 18.5 *Includes 2 JROTC instructors and 2 training and vocational education instructors **Does not include 94 special education students (i.e., 4,758 + 7,643 + 1,452 plus 94 produces the total projection of 13,947 students for SY 1987-88). ***Resource personnel includes 1.5 OFT area representatives. APPENDIX B CORRESPONDENCE 126 September 1, 1987 FROM: Daniel R. Turner P.O. Box 39 FPO NY 09521 SUBJ: Classroom Teacher Questionnaire T0: Selected Classroom Teachers in DoDDS-M Dear Fellow Classroom Teachers, 1 am presently a classroom teacher and doctoral degree candidate working at the Naples Elementary School in Naples, Italy. As part Of my studies, I am required to complete a DoDDS-M approved research project. I am requesting that selected classroom teachers complete a questionnaire concerning the consultation activities that they receive from the special education personnel at their respective schools. The purpose of my research is to investigate the views of selected DoDDS classroom and special education teachers regarding the extent, nature, and effectiveness of the consultation activities provided by school-based special education personnel. It is my intention to administer the attached questionnaire to selected classroom teachers who are willing to participate. The questionnaire, developed by the researcher, will take approximately fifteen minutes to complete. All results of this study will be treated with strict confidentiality. NO attempt will be made to code your questionnaire so that your personal identity could be revealed. Only group data will be reported in the final report. Participation in the study or the decision to withdraw is voluntary, and there is no penalty for nonparticipation. The return of the completed questionnaire constitutes your informed consent to participate freely in this project. Please do not identify yourself on the questionnaire. This will ensure your complete anonymity. You may contact me for a summary Of the results after January 1, 1988. Your cooperation is appreciated. A self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Sincerely, Daniel R. Turner APPENDIX C RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS 10. 11. 128 SPECIAL EDUCATOR QUESTIONNAIRE PART I: GENERAL INFORMATION Hhat is your present assignment? LD___ Speech & Language___ How many years have you been employed as a special educator? years Hhat is your present age? years In which DoDDS regions have you been employed? Atlantic___ Pacific___ Germany;___ Mediterranean___ Have you ever been a classroom teacher? No___ Yes___ (Number of years: ) Please indicate the extent Of your formal education: M.A.___ M.A.+30___ Ph.D.___ Your present teaching assignment is: E1ementary____ Secondary___ Male___ Female___ Please estimate the pereentage of time you spent in a typical week performing the following roles: ___ assessment of students ___ consultation with parents, teachers, and administrators ___ direct instruction Of students ___ IEP development and report writing ___ preparation for instruction miscellaneous Ideally, what percentage of time would you spend performing the following roles in a typical week? assessment of students consultation with parents, teachers, and administrators ___ direct instruction of students ___ IEP development and report writing ___ preparation for instruction ___ miscellaneous Hhat types of training have you received in consulting methods? formal training during college coursework inservice training while being employed as a special educator both Of the above none of the above 129 PART II DIRECTIONS: For the following questions and statements, please circle the number Of your choice on the continuum from one extreme to the other as indicated. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. How well prepared do you feel you are to act as a consultant with teachers, parents, and administrators regarding mainstreamed handicapped students? Unprepared 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hell prepared DO you believe that the classroom teachers at your school wish to have you provide more consultation regarding the mainstreamed handicapped students in their classrooms? Very few teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 All teachers The administration at my school values my role as a consultant regarding mainstreamed handicapped students. Discourages 1 2 3 4 5 6 Encourages Teacher consultation is an important part of my role as a special educator and should be increased. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly agree I feel I have an adequate amount Of time to provide the consulta- tion that is required at my school. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly agree Teacher consultation by the special educator is an effective means of service delivery to assist mainstreamed handicapped students. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly agree Classroom teachers perceive consultation provided by the special educator as an effective service delivery method to assist mainstreamed handicapped pupils. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly agree I am an effective consultant to teachers, parents, and adminis- trators. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly agree DIRECTIONS: 130 PART III For the following questions, please indicate which items are from most important to least important by numbering them in order Of importance. The number one is mes; important; six is leest important. 20. Hhat types of education or training do you feel would enhance 21. 22. your ability to be a more effective teacher consultant? counseling skills human relations training knowledge of adult development knowledge of behavior management strategies knowledge Of specific consulting models and strategies knowledge of new teaching methods and materials to aid the handicapped What motivates you to make contact with teachers in the role of a consultant? compliance with parental requests or concerns compliance with teacher requests or concerns compliance with administration requests or concerns compliance with CSC requests or concerns personal Observations Of students other (please explain) Hhat factors would facilitate the consulting practices that you undertake at your school? consulting between special educators and regular classroom teachers being made a critical element on individual per- formance appraisals decrease in the amount Of direct service you are required to provide inservice training in methods of consultation redefinition of your role by DoDDS that places a greater emphasis on consulting inservice training of all teachers that demonstrates the value of the consulting relationship between regular and special class teachers ___ sgecgfic times set aside for consulting with teachers during t e ay 23. 131 What barriers do you perceive to exist that limit your effective- ness as a consultant? ___ lack Of support from the administration for the role ___ lack of time to perform consultation activities ____teachers’ perception that your role is direct service to students ___ your lack of desire to perform consulting ___ your lack of preparation for the consulting role ___ other (please explain) PART IV DIRECTIONS: On the continuum beneath each question labeled Perceived Present Expertise, please evaluate your present ability to perform the stated activity. Then, on the continuum beside indicate your Perceived Ideal Expertise (i.e., the degree to which you would ideally like to possess this ability). ne w i h' h. 24. 25. 26. 27. As a special educator, I provide inservice training Opportunities to classroom teachers at my school. Perceived Present Expertise Pereeived Ideal Expertise l 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 As a special educator, I consult effectively with other members Of the CSC. Perceived Present Expertise Perceived Ideel Expertise 1 2 3 4 5 6 l 2 3 4 5 6 As a special educator, I provide effective consultation activi- ties during the prereferral process. Perceived Present Expertise Pereeived Ideel Exoertise 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 As a special educator, I help teachers interpret assessment data in a way that is useful in planning for mainstreamed handicapped students. Perceived Present Expertise Perceived Ideal Expertise l 2 3 4 5 6 l 2 3 4 5 6 132 28. As a special educator, I conduct observations of mainstreamed handicapped students and subsequently consult effectively with the relevant teachers. Perceived Present Expertise Pereeived Ideal Expertise I 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 29. As a special educator, I use established consulting approaches to provide a frame of reference for my consultation activities. Perceived Present Expertise Perceived Ideel Expertise l 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 30. As a special educator, I provide the administration with effec- tive consultation when questions about mainstreamed handicapped students arise. Perceived Present Expertise Perceived Ideal Expertise 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 31. As a special educator, I provide effective consultation to,par- ents regarding their educationally handicapped child. Perceived Present Exoertise Perceived ideal Expertise l 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 PART V Please recommend actions that you think would facilitate the effectiveness of the consultation activities that you provide at your school. 133 CLASSROOM TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE PART I: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. How many years have you been employed as a teacher? years 2. In which DoDDS regions have you been employed? Atlantic___ Pacific___ Germany___ Mediterranean___ Panama___ 3. Please indicate the extent of your formal education. B.A.___ M.A.___ M.A.+30___ 4. Have you ever taken a college-level course in special education? Yes NO 5. Have you ever participated in an inservice training program in special education? Yes___ No___ 6. Have you had an educationally handicapped student in your classroom? Yes___ No___ 7. Your present teaching assignment is: Elementary___ Secondary___ PART II DIRECTIONS: For the following statements, please circle the number at the left on the continuum from one extreme to the other. Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. Special education teachers are well pre- pared to act as consultants to classroom teachers regarding mainstreamed handicapped pupils. l 2 3 4 5 6 9. Classroom teachers wish to have more consultation with special educators regard- ing mainstreamed handicapped pupils. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. Administrators value consultation activities between special and regular edu- cators. 1 2 3 4 5 6 11. Teacher consultation by the special educator is an effective means of service delivery to assist mainstreamed handicapped students. _‘ ~ b": TE;"“_ Strongly Disagree 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 l 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 l 2 3 4 Strongly Agree 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 134 12. There is an adequate amount Of time for consultation between regular and special educators at my school. 13. Contact between regular and special educators is often haphazard and ineffec- tive. l4. Placing handicapped students in regular classrooms for all or part Of the day is an effective way Of providing educational services for these students. 15. Special educators generally lack under- standing Of the problems which face regular educators who teach mainstreamed handicapped pupils. 16. Special educators lack adequate train- ing in consultation skills. 17. If I received more consultation from the special educator; I would spend more time trying to modify my classroom practices to the benefit of mainstreamed handicapped pupI s. 18. My attitude toward mainstreaming is generally positive. 19. My attitude toward mainstreaming would be more positive if I received more consul— tation help from special educators. 20. A single negative experience regarding consultation and mainstreaming has made my attitude about this subject less than posi tive. - i n. Ina:- __q.._x...‘-.An-u—n__‘ “Amy. , .A E- MD 135 PART III DIRECTIONS: For the following questions, please indicate which items are from most important to least important by numbering them in order of importance, the npmber pne eeipg most important, six being leest important. 21. Hhat types of education or training do you feel would enhance the ability of special education teachers to be more effective as teacher consultants? counseling skills human relations training knowledge Of adult development knowledge of behavior management strategies knowledge of specific consulting models and strategies knowledge Of new teaching methods and materials to aid the handicapped 22. Hhat motivates you to make contact with special education teachers? compliance with parental requests or concerns compliance with teacher requests or concerns compliance with administration requests or concerns compliance with CSC requests or concerns personal Observations of students other (please explain) 23. What factors would facilitate the consulting activities that you participate in at your school? regular consulting between special educators and regular classroom teachers being made a critical element on indi- vidual performance appraisals decrease in the amount of direct teaching provided by special education teachers to resource room pupils inservice training in methods Of consultation redefinition of the role Of the special education teacher that places a greater emphasis on consulting inservice training of all teachers that demonstrates the value of the consulting relationship between regular and special class teachers ___ specific times set aside for consulting with teachers during the school day 136 24. What barriers do you perceive to exist that limit the effective- ness of consultation between regular and special educators? ____ lack of support from the administration for the concept Of consultation ___ lack Of time to perform consultation activities ‘___ special education teachers’ lack of preparation for the consulting role ___ your lack Of desire to participate in the consultation pro- cess because you feel consultation lacks effectiveness ___ other (please explain) PART IV 25. Typically, special education teachers perform the roles listed below. Ideally, what percentage Of time would you recommend that they spend performing the following roles in a typical week? .___ assessment of students . ___ consultation with parents, teachers, and administrator ___ direct instruction Of students ___ IEP development and report writing ___ preparation for instruction miscellaneous PART V DIRECTIONS: On the continuum beside each question, please evaluate the effectiveness of' special education 'teachers at providing the stated activity. Not Very Very Effective Effective l 2 3 4 5 6 26. Provision Of special education inserv- ice opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 27. Provision of consultation during the prereferral process 1 2 3 4 5 6 28. Providing teachers interpretation of assessment data that are useful in planning for mainstreamed pupils. 1 2 3 4 5 6 29. Provision Of classroom Observations and subsequently consulting with regular class teachers regarding mainstreamed handicapped students. " ‘w"'“"""_‘".".‘f’t':_n"~2r w l'lq.‘.-£ - 137 PART VI Please recommend actions that you think would facilitate the effectiveness of the consultation activities that you experience at your school. A“- ;-°( r- _.,___--p..f-‘ s _ ‘ .A. .2 '~--. ‘- w~ *T Eva STE m.|r..l:|.Ek GI DICE ' BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Algozzine, B.; Ysseldyke, J. E.; and Christenson, S. ”An Analysis of the Incidence of Special Class Placement: The Masses Are Burgeoning." qurnal of Special Educatipn 17 (1983): 141-47. Brown, D., and Srebalus, D. J. Contemporary Guidance Concepts and Practices. Dubuque, Iowa: Hm. C. Brown, 1972. Brown, V. L. "’Yes, But . . .’ A Reply to Phyllis Newcomer." Journal of Special Education 11(2) (1977): 171-77. Cantrell, R., and Cantrell, M. "Preventive Mainstreaming: Impact of a Supportive Services Program on Pupils.” Exceptionel - Children (April 1976): 381-86. Center for Innovations in Teaching the Handicapped, Indiana Univer- sity. "The Development and Validation of an Instrument to Assess Resource Teachers’ Knowledge, Perceptions, and Attitudes Toward Consultation." Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduc- tion Service, ED 244 495, 1982. Clay, M. M. "An Emphasis on Prevention." Journal of Special Education 11(2) (1977): 183-88. Cohen, S. B., and Safran, J. "A Conference Training Model for Learning Disabilities Resource Teachers." teerning Disebili- ties Quarterly 4 (Summer 1981): 302-306. Conoley, J. C., ed. Consultation in Schools: Theory. Research, Eteeeeeyes. New York: Academic Press, 1981. , and Conoley, C. H. Schopl Consultation: A Guide tp Practice and Training. New York: Pergamon, 1982. Cross, K. Patricia. ”The Rising Tide of Reform Reports.” Phi Delta Kappan (November 1984). Curtis, M. J., and Meyers, J. "Best Practices in School- Based Con- sultation.” In Best Practices in School Psycholpgy (pp. 79- 94). Edited by A. Thomas and J. Grimes. Hashington, D.C.: National Association for School Psychologists. 138 139 D’Alonzo, B. J., and Hiseman, D. E. ”Actual and Desired Roles Of the High School Learning Disability Resource Teacher." Journel of Learning Disabilities 11(6) (1978): 390-97. Diana v. State Board Of Education, C-7037 RFP, District Court of Northern California (February 1970). Dinkmeyer, D. C., ed. Guidancetend Counseling in the Elementary School--Reedings in Theory end Prectiee. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968. Dodd, J. M., and Kelker, K. A. "The Role Of the Resource Teacher: Role Conflict and Role Consensus." Paper presented at the Montana Council for Exceptional Children Convention, Great Falls, Montana, 1980. Dunn, L. M. "Special Education for the Mildly Retarded: Is Much of It Justified?" Exeeotionel Children 35 (1968): 5-22. Durham, D. J., and Hasterok, G. "The Acquisition Of Consultation Skills by Means Of Two Simulation Techniques for Regular Class Teachers Engaged in Joint Planning of Education Programs for Learning Disabled Children." Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 214 341, 1981. Evans, S. "The Consultant Role Of the Resource Teacher." Exeep; tionel Children 46 (1980): 402-404. Gallessich, J., and MacDonald, J. "Facilitating Professional Development Through Group Analogic Methods.” Professional Psychology 12 (1981): 209-215. Gickling, E. E.; Murphy, L. C.; and Malloy, D. H. "Teacher’s Refer- ences for Resource Services." Exceptional Children 45 (1979): 442-49. Goetz, J. P., and Le Compte, M. D. Ethnognephy and Ouelitetive Design in Educetionel Researeh. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press, 1984. Graden, J. L.; Casey, A.; and Christenson, S. L. "Implementing a . Prereferral Intervention System. Part I. The Model." Excep- tionel Children 51 (1985): 377-84. Haight, S. L. "Special Education Teacher Consultant: Idealism vs. Realism." Exeeptionel Children 50(6) (1984): 507-15. , and Molitor, D. ”A Survey of Special Education Teacher Consultants." Exceptional Children 49(6) (1973): 550-51. 140 Haring, N. G. ”Special Education Services for the ’Mildly Handi- capped.’" Journal of Special Edueation 11(2) (1977): 169-94. Hauptman, E. ”Communication Between Special Educators and the Mainstream Teachers." Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 231 173, 1983. Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 401 (1967). Hudson, F.; Graham, S.; and Harner, M. "Mainstreaming: An Exami- nation Of the Needs of Regular Classroom Teachers." Learning Disabilitie uart r 2(3) (1979): 58-62. Idol-Maestas, L. et al. "The Role of Resource/Consulting Teachers: Strategies and Outcomes.” Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Repro- duction Service, ED 204 960, 1981. ; Nevin, A.; and Paolucci-Hhitcomb, P. Eecilitetors Manual for Collabgretive Consgltetign: Principles and Technigues. Reston, Va.: The Council for Exceptional Children, 1984. Johnson, G. 0. ”A Study of the Social Position of the Mentally Retarded Child in the Regular Grades." American Journeltof fiental Deficiency 55 (1950): 60-89. Jones, J. H. The Visually Hendieapped Child at Hometend School. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Helfare, 1969. Knight, M.; Meyers, M.; Paolucci-Hhitcomb, P.; Hasazi, S.; and Nevin, A. "A Four-Year Evaluation of Teacher Consulting Service.” Behavior Disgnders 6(2) (1981): 92-99. Knoblock, P., and Garcea, R. A. ”Toward a Broader Concept of the Role Of the Special Class for Emotionally Disturbed Children." Exeeptionel Children 31 (1965): 329-35. Knoff, H. M. ”Assessing the Development of Professional Consulta- tion Skills: An Evaluation Procedure for Training and Super- vision." hni ues: ourn r Rem i l duca ion and Counseling 1 (January 1985): 192-97. Landon, E. "The Resource Specialist Role in California: An Analy- sis Of Perceptions.” Dissertation Abstracts International (1982): 2961-A. Lilly, 5., ed. Children Bith Exeeptipnal Needs. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979. , and Givens-Ogle, L. "Teacher Consultation: Present, Past and Future." Behavior Bisorders 6 (1981): 73-77. 141 Lowenbraun, S., and Affleck, J. Least Restrictive Environment. Seattle: University of Hashington, 1978. Lowenfeld, B. ”The Child Who Is Blind." Exceptional Children 19 (1952): 96-102. Madden, N., and Slavin, R. "Mainstreaming Students With Mild Handi- caps: Academic and Social Outcomes.” Reviextof Educetionel Research 53 (Winter 1983): 519-69. McDill, Edward L.; Natriello, Gary; and Pallas, Aaron M. "Raising Standards and Retaining Students: The Impact of the Reform Recommendations on Potential Dropouts." Review pf Educational Research 155 (Hinter 1985): 415-33. McKenzie, H. S.; Egner, A. M.; Knight, M. F.; Perelman, P. F.; Schneider, 8. M.; and Garvin, J. S. "Training Consulting Teachers tO Assist Elementary Teachers in the Management and Education of Handicapped Children." Exceptipnal Children 37 (1970): 137-43. McLoughlin, J., and Kass, C. E. "Resource Teachers: Their Role." Learning Disabilities Querterly 1 (1978): 56-62. Medway, F. J., and Forman, S. G. "Psychologists’ and Teachers’ Reactions to Mental Health and Behavioral School Consultation." Journel of School Psychology 18(4) (1980): 338-48. Meyen, E. L., and Altman, R. ”Special Education.” In Handbook for Research on Teeching. 1982. Meyers, C. E. "Realities in Teacher Recruitment: Some Data on Students and Teachers." Mental Retardation 2 (1964): 42-46. Miller, S. R.; Sabatino, D. A.; and Larsen, R. P. "Issues in the Professional Preparation Of Secondary School Special Edu- cators.“ Exceptional Children 46(5) (1980): 344-49. Miller, 1. L., and Sabatino, D. "An Evaluation of the Teacher Consultant Model as an Approach to Mainstreaming.” Exeeptional Children 45 (1978): 86-91. Neel, R. 5. "How to Put the Consultant to Work in Consulting Teach- ing." Behavioral Disorders 6(3) (1981): 78-81. Nelson, 0. M., and Stevens, K. B. "An Accountable Consultation Model for Mainstreaming Behaviorally Disordered Children." Behaviorel Disorders 6(2) (1981): 82-91. 142 Newcomer, P. L. ”Special Education Services for the ’Mildly Handi- capped’: Beyond a Diagnostic and Remedial Model." degrnal of §pecia1 Eddcatidn 11(2) (1977): 153-65. Oldridge, O. A. ”Future Directions for Special Education: Beyond a Diagnostic and Remedial Model." dpurnal of Special Edueation 11(2) (1977): 167-69. Parker, C. A., ed. Esycholpgical Consultation: HelpingTeachers Meet Special Needs. Reston, Va.: Council Of Exceptional Children, 1975. Paul, R. L. "Teachers’ Forum: A Resource Room for Hard Of Hearing Children in the Public Schools." The yglta Review 65 (1963): 200-202. Pryzwansky, H. 8. "Collaboration or Consultation: Is There a Difference?" Journal of Special Educatipn 11(2) (1977): 179- 81. Ritter, D. R. Consultation, Educationreand Prevention in Community Mental Health. Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1982. Ryor, J. "94-142--The Perspective of Regular Education." Learning isabilit u erl 1(2) (1978): 6-14. Sargent, J. V. An Easier Bay: A Handbook fer the Elderly and Handieapped. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1981. Spangler v. Board of Education, 311 F. Supp. 501 (1970). Speece, D., and Mandell, C. "Resource Room Support Services for Regular Classroom Teachers.” Learning Bisability Quarterly 3 (1980): 49-53. Stainback, R., and Stainback, S. "A Rationale for the Merger Of Special and Regular Education." Exceptipnal Children 51(2) (1984): 102-111. , and Courtnage, Janrn, Y. "Facilitating Mainstreaming by Modifying the Mainstream." Exeeptional Children 52(2) (1985): 44-52. Stephens, T. M., and Birch, J. H. "Merits Of Special Class, Resource, and Itinerant Plans for Teaching Partially Seeing Children." Exeeptional Children 35 (1969): 481-85. Streng, A. "The Child Who Is Hard Of Hearing." Exeeptional Children 19 (1953): 223-26, 244. 143 Toch, Thomas. "The Dark Side Of the Excellence Movement." Ehi Belta Kappan (November 1984). True, M. "A Delivery System Model for the Learning Disabilities Resource Teacher as a Consultant.” Bissertatipn Abstraets (1979): 3993-A. Vasa, S. F., et al. "The Special Education Resource Teacher as a Consultant: Fact or Fantasy." Paper presented at the annual international convention of the Council for Exceptional Chil- dren, Houston, Texas, 1982. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 218 918, 1982. Halling, Donovan R. "America’s Overseas School System.” Phi Delta Kappan (February 1985): 424. Hiederholt, J. "Interaction Between Special and Regular Educators: Serving the ’Mildly Handicapped.’" Journal of Special Educa- tion 11(2) (1977): 152 ; Hammill, D. D.; and Brown, V. The Resouree Teaeher: A Guide to Effective Practices. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1983. Hill, Madeleine C. "Educating Children Hith Learning Problems: A Shared Responsibility." Council f xc ional Chi dr 52 (January 1986). Hojciehowski, T. H., and Burton, L. F. ”The Special Education Teacher as Consultant.” Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 262 539, 1984. Yauch, H. A. “The Role Of a Speech Correctionist in the Public Schools." Exeeptional Children 18 (1952): 97-101. "TTTTTTTTTTTTTT