11.111111111111111111 .. 1111 1‘ 10293 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE OF AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND MAINSTREAMING: AN ETHNOGRAPHY presented by Jeffrey L. Miller has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Education .W M a jor professor Date May 19, 1986 "‘ ' ' ' ‘ 0—12771 "(II-Gn- Ah‘ 5‘ ‘ ' " RETURNING MATERIALS: )V153I_J Place in back drop to remove this checkout from w your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. " MAR.3‘,112002 ; .3511 = i‘OCS‘ 3111110 9 5005 A CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE OF AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND MAINSTREAMING: AN ETHNOGRAPHY BY Jeffrey L. Miller A DISSERTATION Submi tted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1986 Copyright by Jeffrey L. Miller 1986 ABSTRACT A CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND MAINSTREAMING: AN ETHNOGRAPHY BY Jeffrey L. Miller There has been an abundance of writings on the tapic of mainstreaming (the education of the handicapped with non-handicapped peers). Yet, little is known about the impact that school staff culture has on the mainstreaming process. The general education teachers are the individuals who are the mainstreaming implementors. Therefore, their receptivity to the principles of mainstreaming may be a significantly more important variable than any public policy or curricular phi1080phy. This study was qualitative in the techniques employed. Participant observation in the natural school setting and individual interviews of school staff provided the data. With the researcher functioning as the key instrument, inductive analysis provided a descriptive account of the staff culture within the setting, and the subsequent findings. The findings revealed that within the Washington Elementary School, two distinctly different and separate staff cultures exist; that of the Northville teachers and the other comprised of the Great Lakes Intermediate School District (GLISD) staff. These polarized cultures do affect the mainstreaming process. Both groups, Northville teachers and GLISD staff, feel that their own underlying assumptions about the mainstreaming process and the staff culture in which they operate is the way things ”ought" to be. A fusion of these two belief systems has not occurred. A Northville Resource Room teacher did transcend organizational cultural differences to become an integral part of the Northville general education staff culture, however. As a result, his mainstreaming procedures, and policies, and consequently the special education students, were more readily accepted in the general education classrooms. The implications of this study revealed that the unity of the cultural aspects of staff, special education and general education personnel, are important for the mainstreaming process to be successful. Special educators depend heavily on the general education classroom teacher for mainstreaming. It is therefore crucial that these special education teachers make every attempt to integrate into the school culture in which they exist. This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Vineta, and our children Stuart and Justin, who gave of themselves more than I could ever return. Their unselfish and enduring support made this project possible. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Sincere gratitude is what I feel at the completion of this dissertation and doctoral program. Numerous individuals assisted in this lengthy and demanding process. The prOper acknowledgment of these exceptional pe0p1e is long overdue. The members of my doctoral committee have all demonstrated a sincere committment to the pe0p1e of the Upper Peninsula, and as a result, to me. Through professional behavior, their action has given meaning to MSU's goal of community service. Dr. Charles A. Blackman, my committee chairperson, engineered and orchestrated the Upper Peninsula extension program. Through his belief in lifelong learning, he encouraged other MSU faculty to participate in a most worthwhile endeavor. Dr. Blackman has allowed the doctoral program to facilitate my growth as a professional. Dr. James L. Buschman taught me the discipline of ethnography. It will continue to serve me as a researcher and practioner. His skillful teaching, insightful commentary and valuable feed-back all were essential aspects of my professional deve10pment; specifically this dissertation. The rigors of his expectations gave me the confidence to undertake and iv complete a project of this magnitude. Dr. Buschman's departure from MSU is a great loss to the College of Education. Dr. Samuel A. Moore provided me with a multi-faceted view of administration, and through his inquiry caused me to think and analyze. Dr. Richard Gardner introduced me to the notion of organizational culture, a concept which became the focus of this study. The collegial relationships I have formed within our Upper Peninsula group, as a result of this doctoral program, provided the impetus for further academic pursuit. In particular, my colleague June Schaefer and my peer Margaret Ritenburgh, both provided perceptive suggestions throughout the organization of this writing effort. The staff of the Washington Elementary School Openly accepted me and this study in the hOpes that education to all students in the school, Special and general education, could be improved. Stan Adams, the principal, the Northville teachers and intermediate school district staff all unselfishly gave of themselves. I have learned through their insight and perceptions. As a result, I view the nature of special education through a different sort of lens. My family has felt the burden of not having a husband and father available throughout this doctoral program and dissertation. For Vineta's unwavering support, through her serving as mother and father to our children, and my personal counselor through times of uncertainty, I am eternally grateful. My children Stuart and Justin provided me with the ultimate motivation for completion of this project with their persistent question; "When will you be done with your dissertation, Dad?". vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ................................ xi CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM ...................... 1 Introduction .............................. 1 Statement of the Problem .................. 4 Purpose of the Study ...................... 6 Significance of the Study ................. 6 Background of the Study ................... 9 The Researcher ....................... 9 Entry Negotiation .................... 12 The Research Site .................... 13 Research Assumptions ...................... 14 Definitions ............................... 15 Limitations of the Study .................. 18 Research Questions ........................ 20 Mid-Level Questions .................. 22 Summary ................................... 24 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................ 26 Introduction .............................. 26 Mainstreaming ............................. 27 Historical Perspective ............... 27 Special Education Service Options.... 33 vii Attitudes ................................. 36 Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming ....... 36 Attitudes Toward the Handicapped ..... 42 Culture .................................. 45 Elements of Organizational Culture... 45 Subcultures .......................... 52 Organizational Socialization ......... 56 Schools as Organizations ............. 58 Organizational Climate .................... 61 Definition ........................... 61 School Climate ....................... 61 Leadership ................................ 66 Interpersonal Communication ............... 72 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY .................... 78 What is Ethnography? ...................... 78 Why Ethnography? .......................... 87 Procedures ................................ 91 Participant Observation .............. 91 Interviews ........................... 93 Data Verification .................... 95 Data Analysis ........................ 96 Validity and Reliability ............. 99 Summary ................................... 100 CHAPTER FOUR: THE SETTING ..................... 102 Introduction .............................. 102 The Community ............................. 102 The School System ......................... 106 The School ................................ 109 viii The Principal ............................. Washington Elementary School Staff ........ Northville Teachers .................. Northville Subgroups ................. GLISD Special Education Staff ........ The Students ......................... Summary .............................. CHAPTER FIVE: THE FINDINGS .................... Introduction .............................. The Questions ........................ Mid-Level Questions .................. The Site ............................. The Findings .............................. Social Climate ....................... Subgroups ............................ Communication ........................ Principal ............................ Personal Traits ...................... Schedules ............................ Location of GLISD .................... Attitudes ............................ Central Administration ............... Policies ............................. Perception of Activities ............. Summary ................................... CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS ...................... Introduction .............................. Discussion ................................ ix 113 118 119 120 125 128 129 131 131 132 132 135 136 136 146 153 162 173 177 181 184 197 202 210 214 218 218 220 Camaraderie .......................... Two Separate Cultures ................ Communication Between Staffs......... Personal Characteristics ............. Two Schedules........................ Facility Obstructs Communication ..... Principal Sets the Tone .............. Mainstreaming Supported--a Burden.... Perception-Central Administration.... Preference for Greater Time .......... Different Standards and Expectations. Conclusions ............................... Implications for Practice ................. Implications for Further Research ......... LIST OF REFERENCES ............................. 221 222 224 225 227 228 229 232 234 236 239 242 244 248 251 FIGURE 1. FIGURE 2. FIGURE 3. FIGURE 4. LIST OF FIGURES CASCADE SYSTEM OF SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES... ............. ........... 34 WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MAP... 111 STAFF ROOM ......................... 138 SCHEDULE ........................... 178 xi CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM Introduction The study of cultures of other nations, societies, regions, and communities is a commonly known practice and a primary endeavor of anthrOpologists. Through the work of these scientists, much has been learned about man as a social being and his behavior within different societies. Although the study of other cultures is generally viewed as worthwhile and beneficial, only within recent years has this notion been expanded to the study of cultural aspects within organizations. The field of organizational culture is relatively new. What research or scholarly work is available has only been submitted within the past few years. There are numerous definitions of organizational culture. However, in a general sense, the term is typically used to refer to the set of important beliefs and values (often unstated) that members of an organization share. Although the schools represent an organization of types, very little has been written about the staff culture of a school organization. The cultural literature concerned with the school setting that does exist typically concentrates on the effect the community has on the school system. Other researchers have investigated the cultural aspects of the student population. A few studies have been limited to an ethnography of one staff member within the school setting. The research on school staff culture is minimal, however, with the literature on corporate organizational culture being more prevalent. The same concepts exist and can be transferred to the context of a school. Conversely, organizational climate is an area of study in which an abundance of research has been conducted. In a general sense, an organizational climate may be conceptualized as a measure of whether pe0ple's expectations about what it "should” be like to work in an organization are being met (Schwartz and Davis, 1981). Consequently, climate is one aspect of the organizational culture. Halpin and Croft (1966) have commented on differences in school climates, maintaining that each building has a climate of its own. They provide the following examples: In one school the teachers and principals are zestful and exude confidence in what they are doing. They find pleasure in working with each other; this pleasure is transmitted to students, ... In a second school the brooding discontentment of teachers is palpable, the principal tries to hide his incompetence and his lack of direction behind a cloak of authority... And the psychological sickness of such a faculty Spills over on the students . who, in their own frustration, feed back to the teachers a mood of despair. A third school is marked by neither joy nor despair, but by hollow ritual. (p. 31) Concurrent with the literature regarding school climate, the field of special education has produced an abundance of studies and writings on the general t0pic of mainstreaming. Although there are numerous definitions for the term "mainstreaming", it generally refers to educating handicapped with nonhandicapped students. The passage of federal legislation requiring "free apprOpriate education" for the handicapped has accelerated a national interest in mainstreaming due to the legal requirement of educating special education students in an environment which is the least restrictive for that individual. While interest has been generated regarding school climate and mainstreaming, it is surprising to note how little information is available linking these two bodies of knowledge. For mainstreaming to be successful, however, it is critical that the proper attitudinal conditions exist. This includes not only the subjective impression general educators have toward handicapped students (Leyser & Abrams 1982, Schmelkin 1982) but also their feelings regarding the efficacy of the principle governing mainstreaming (Larrivee & Cook 1979, Wood & Carmen 1982, Hudson, Graham & Warner 1979). Attitude and communication between general and special education teachers become the critical foundation for successful mainstreaming. Legislation requires that the general educator have input into Special education decisions. In practice, however, the classroom teacher rarely has a voice in the recommendations regarding the placement of a handicapped Student in his/her class. The general education teacher's individual motivation to accept the Student in the class is often overlooked by administrators, Special educators, and advocacy groups for the handicapped. The school culture and the position that the special education Staff occupy within that culture are typically not considered. The potential consequences are great. At risk is the quality of education for the handicapped as well as for the nonhandicapped Students. Although mainstreaming may be imposed by mandatory laws, the receptivity of general education teachers to the handicapped Student may be a significantly more important variable in the success of the placement than any public policy or curricular phiIOSOphy. Statement of the Problem Organizational culture is recognized as a Significant variable affecting the success of corporate groups. In the schools, this cultural concept is not typically an aspect of conventional thinking. Furthermore, staff culture is not paired as an important premise to consider when mainstreaming Special education students in general education classrooms. The receptivity of general education teachers to the concept of mainstreaming and the prOSpective handicapped students are recognized variables important to the students having thriving experiences in general education classrooms. Yet, little is known as to what factors within the school organization help shape the necessary ingredients for successful mainstreaming. Significantly more needs to be known about the environmental conditions surrounding the concept of mainstreaming when one considers that approximately 5% to 8% of Special education students are affected by this common educational practice. The problem is compounded further when one realizes that the existing body of knowledge addressing the issues associated with mainstreaming, has primarily been limited to traditional quantitative techniques of inquiry. The problem is twofold: l. The need for descriptive data in the identification of school staff culture. 2. The develoPment of an awareness relating school staff culture to mainstreaming. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to describe the Staff culture and its apparent effects on mainstreaming in one elementary school. ThrOUgh ethnographic techniques of participant observation and interviews, the researcher sought to interpret the significance of organizational culture on mainstreaming within the setting. Information was gathered from general education and Special education staff, with a heavy emphasise on the former. A study of this nature has importance in two related yet distinctly different areas of school milieu. Neither the identification of the environmental conditions necessary in the mainstreaming of Special education students nor an ethnographic descriptive study of school staff culture have been undertaken by other researchers. This study will be a significant contribution to the body of literature in both of these areas. Significance of the Study A study is needed to identify the operative staff culture within the school setting and the intertwined relationship this culture has with mainstreaming. The researcher believes that teacher bias, school climate, building leadership, and interpersonal communication all affect the attitudes that Special education and general education teachers have regarding mainstreaming. Therefore, in order to deve10p an understanding of how the Staff implementing the mainstreaming concept attach meaning and interpret the events which comprise their work environment, the researcher sought the most valid source for that information: the individuals themselves. These individuals are the mainstreaming implementors. The Staffs' frame of reference provides the Significance of this study. Most Studies in which mainstreaming has been investigated have been limited to quantitative methods of inquiry. Some attempts have been made, however, by various researchers to support procedures employing qualitative techniques in the study of culture within the corporate sector (Barley 1983, Evered & Louis 1981, Schein 1984, Smircich 1983). To study the culture of a school Staff involving beliefs and values Shared, similar qualitative methodology found useful in the corporate sector is applicable to other types of organizations. Therefore, this qualitative Study, commonly referred to as ethnography, was initiated. Several facets of this study illustrate its significance: 1. The existing body of research literature on the t0pic of mainstreaming has been developed through quantitative methods. This Statistical approach tends to exclude the perspective of the research participants. 2. Little or no literature currently exists regarding school staff culture and the effect that the environment has on mainstreaming. 3. Few studies of organizational culture have occurred within the context of a school. Most writings have concentrated on corporate organizations. Schein (1985) indicated that if a new idea is to succeed, those advocating it must recognize that potential resistance might not be to the concept, but rather to the implications of cultural change. In this case, that new idea is mainstreaming. A study of this nature may provide useful information for any educator, whether in special or general education. The organizational culture aspects of the school affect the work quality, positive or negative, of all employees. Teachers devote a Significant portion of their time in work-related environments other than the classroom. Human contact is not limited to Students. An additional system exists which is external to the classroom. This structure may include the professional Structure, reward system of the organization, social structure, contractual parameters of teaching, leadership support, and many other factors which collectively govern classroom activities. Consequently, the students are touched by these external factors. Organizational culture does not discriminate. It exists for all, including the Special education student. The Significance of this Study is that it exposes and delineates the cultural aspects of a school staff which ultimately contribute to the learning which takes place in the classroom. Background of the Study Three aSpects of the background for this study are crucial; the researcher as the key instrument, the research site, and entry negotiations. Each is described in the section which follows. The Researcher In an ethnography, the researcher functions as the key instrument of a study (Wolcott, 1973). Therefore, it is relevant to provide the researcher's background. The researcher has an apprOpriate professional background to conduct a study of this nature. University preparation has included, B.A. & M.A. degrees in Speech Pathology (special education), an M.A. degree in Guidance and Counseling, and an Ed.S. degree in Educational Administration. 10 Professionally, the researcher functioned as a Speech therapist in the public school setting from 1968-1979 working with general and Special education students. That experience provided an understanding of the organizational culture that exists within various school settings. The importance of the interplay between Special education and general education teachers became apparent with a recognition that a Special education program cannot operate in isolation. The researcher's preparation in the field of counseling contributed to develOping and conducting teacher education programs in the acquisition of listening skills. The combination of university preparation and professional experience in counseling has led to heightened observational skills in deriving meaning from the verbal and non-verbal cues of others. For this Study, the counseling Skills proved particularly helpful when conducting open-ended interviews and engaging in participant observation. The researcher has functioned as a Supervisor of Special Education for the Great Lakes Intermediate School District (GLISD) Since 1979. This administrative perspective, and university preparation in the area of administration, contributed to the development of research questions dealing with administrative leadership. 11 One aspect of the researcher's administrative re3ponsibilities include the direct supervision of five Special educational programs administered through the GLISD and housed at Washington Elementary School. The direct contact with the Special education programs at the Washington Elementary School, and the researcher's previous background and experience led directly to an interest in the tOpic; that being the elements of school staff culture and the potential relationship to mainstreaming. Although there was a potential for data to be skewed due to the researcher's role in the special education programs, safeguards were taken in the research design. The general education staff were used as the primary source of information. The researcher was not the supervisor of those classrooms or the general education personnel. They were employed by the Northville Area Public Schools, a different employer than that of the researcher. Previous contact by the researcher with the general education teachers had been minimal. Consequently, the general education staff had little reason to feel threatened by the researcher's professional role. Erickson (1979) discussed problems and limitations of ethnography. Problems with inarticulate informants, misinformation provided by participants, lack of depth and superficial information provided by participants 12 are all issues the ethnographer must be prepared for. Geertz (1973) notes that "insiders” understand the information obtained implicitly in much more differentiated and multi-layered ways than do "outsiders". In this sense, this researcher was analogous to an insider in that he was not new to the site. Consequently, the researcher was in an ideal position to sort and Sift information regarding its validity. Entry Negotiation Prior to the initiation of this study, the researcher began the process of negotiation of entry. This was a combination of an informal/formal approach. A discussion of the primary research concepts began with the principal of the Washington Elementary School. He demonstrated an interest in the study; therefore, the researcher proceeded with formal entry pursuit. In the Northville Area Public Schools, this meant contact with the Director of Curriculum and Staff Deve10pment. In addition to explaining the purpose of the study, the researcher provided a written description of the procedures to be used, the rationale and the overarching questions under study. The study was then explained to the teachers of the Washington School at a general faculty meeting. The research questions were discussed as well as the 13 method of ethnography. The teachers were told that all participation would be voluntary and that confidentiality would be of utmost importance. The Research Site The Site for study was the Washington Elementary School, a building within the Northville Area Public Schools. Washington School houses grades K-5 and one Special education resource room. In addition to the classes Sponsored by the Northville Area Public Schools, there are five special education classes, Sponsored by the Great Lakes Intermediate School District. Students in these programs are bussed into the school from a two county area. The Washington Elementary School was ideally suited for this study due to several factors. First, there is a total of Six Special education classrooms within the building. This large number of Special education rooms within one building means that all of the general education teachers have experienced at least one Special education Student within their classroom. Most teachers have taught many more. Also, the site is located in an area which presented convenient access to the researcher. Therefore, the researcher was able to devote numerous hours within the site, at various times of the day, throughout the Study. An additional factor was that when the prOposed 14 study was discussed initially with the teachers and principal, a strong interest was expressed to participate. These elements all contributed to the research design and the desirability of the site. Research Assumptions The study of culture in any setting involves the values, beliefs and rituals of its inhabitants. In a school setting, this includes the meaning that staff place on events and behavior in the natural setting. The participant observation involved in this study did occur in natural school settings such as the Staff Room, corridors, playground, the school lobby, principal's office, school waiting room, gymnasium, meetings and social functions, within and outside the school building. Denzin (1978) outlined the assumptions which underlie the naturalistic inquiry process. Due to the major emphasis on the natural setting in this study, Denzin's writings provide an outline for the research assumptions of this Study which are as follows: 1. In order to understand how people interact to accomplish goals within social events, those events must be Studied as they naturally occur. 2. During the social interaction, individuals interpret and assign meanings to behavior in order to guide their own behavioral reSponseS. 3. In order to understand the behaviors which occur during an interaction, the behaviors 15 must be examined from the perspectives of the participants in the interaction. 4. The interpretations and meanings that individuals assign to events and behaviors can be discovered by examining the talk and actions of those individuals. 5. A holostic understanding of the event requires that an inductive, Open-ended inquiry approach be taken to examine the event in its totality and within the context in which it occurs. Definitions The educational field of special education is permeated with a plethora of terms, initials and acronyms not familiar to the general pOpulation. Special education is also highly regulated by rules and regulations promulgated by the federal government and by each state. Therefore, the following definitions have been taken from the "Michigan Special Education Rules", 1983, to help familiarize the reader with the terms found in this study: 1. Educable Mentally Impaired (EMI): ”The educable mentally impaired shall be determined through the manifestation of all of the following behavioral characteristics: (a) Deve10pment at a rate approximately 2 to 3 standard deviations below the mean as determined through intellectual assessment. 16 (b) Scores approximately within the lowest 6 percentiles on a standardized test in reading and arithmetic. (c) Lack of deve10pment primarily in the cognitive domain. (d) Impairment of adaptive behavior" (p. 5)- Emotionally Impaired (El): "The emotionally impaired shall be determined through manifestation of behavioral problems primarily in the affective domain, over an extended period of time, which adversely affects the person's education to the extent that the person cannot profit from regular learning experiences without Special education support. The problems result in behaviors manifested by l or more of the following characteristics: (a) Inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships within the school environment. (b) InapprOpriate types of behaviors or feelings under normal circumstances. 17 (c) General pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression. (d) Tendency to deve10p physical symptoms of fears associated with personal or school problems" (p. 5). General Education: Often used synonymously with the term regular education. Handicapped: "A person determined... to have a characteristic or set of characteristics... that necessitates special education and related services" (p. 4). Hearing Impaired (HI): "The hearing impaired Shall be determined through manifestation of a hearing impairment which adversely affects educational performance” (p. 5). Individualized Educational Planning Committee (IEPC): "Individualized educational planning committee means persons appointed and invited by the superintendent to determine a person's eligibility for Special education programs and services and, if eligible and in need of Special education programs and services, to develop an individualized education program” (p. 2-3). 7. 10. 18 Regular Education: Often used synonymously with the term general education to mean "education other than special education programs and services" (P. 3). Special Education: ”Specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a handicapped person... and designed to deve10p the maximum potential of a handicapped person" (p. 4). Special Education Classroom: ”A classroom that is under the direction of an approved Special education teacher and in which a person receives specially designed instruction" (p. 4). Specific Learning Disability (LD): "A disorder in l or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, Spell, or to do mathematical calculations" (p. 6). Limitations of Study There was no intent to generalize beyond the participants' Situation. Nevertheless, the 19 results may have useful implications for other elementary schools implementing a mainstreaming approach to the education of Special education students. The amount of time collecting data was limited. The researcher devoted five months at approximately two hours each day in the site. It would have been more ideal to collect data all day throughout the school year. The greater time Span could have yielded a broader perspective. Access to classroom observation or student interviews were not permitted in the school districts' sanction of the study. Consequently, it was not possible to triangulate data obtained from staff with those of the students. The researcher supervises the Special education staff employed by the ISD. .To safeguard against tainted information resulting from this relationship, the research design relied primarily on the perspective of the general education teacher. It would have been useful to be able to access the special education teachers equally. 20 5. The practice of mainstreaming has been conducted Since the early seventies at the Washington School. This study only pertains to the five months in which data were collected while the researcher was present in the setting. During that period, Staff culture and the relationship to mainstreaming is described. This is not a longitudinal study. Therefore, although the participants might reference prior mainstreaming efforts, direct participant observation of earlier events was not possible. 6. There are many dimensions related to the common practice of mainstreaming special education Students into the general education classroom. Some areas include the curriculum, peer interaction, mode of instruction, criteria for placement, eligibility, teacher training, and others. This Study is only concentrated on the elements related to staff culture and the concomitant effects on mainstreaming. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Erickson, Florio, & Buschman (1980) identify five general questions which ethnographic methods are best suited to address. These questions include: 21 1- What's happening in this field setting? 2- What do the happenings mean to the pe0p1e involved in them? 3- What do pe0p1e have to know in order to be able to do what they do in the setting? 4- How does what is happening here relate to what is happening in the wider social context of this setting? 5- How does the organization of what is happening here differ from that found in other places and times? Within the framework of these first three questions, the research questions for this study were formulated. Areas of inquiry have been selected as a result of a comprehensive review of the relevant literature and the researcher's past experience in the field of Special education. Yet, as Schatzman & Strauss (1973) indicate, teacher insight and questions help redirect the course of research. Consequently, the questions which follow are a result of the researcher's past experience, with refinement and direction provided by the participants within the site. Little information is available regarding the effect of school staff culture on mainstreaming. Therefore, some primary research questions were 22 generated, with three broad overarching questions as follows: —WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF STAFF CULTURE DISPLAYED IN A SCHOOL SETTING? -HOW ARE THESE ELEMENTS INTERRELATED? -HOW DOES THIS INTERRELATIONSHIP AFFECT THE MAINSTREAMING OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN INTO GENERAL EDUCATION CLASSES? These overarching questions provided the basis of this ethnography. More Specific questions needed to be investigated, however, to gain a more thorough understanding of the elements inherent in the school staff culture and the interrelationship with mainstreaming. There is marked overlap between the mid-level questions which follow. They are presented in such a fashion to highlight certain key foci of this descriptive Study. When viewed collectively, the detail provides a clearer understanding of the ways in which school staff culture affect the mainstreaming of Special education Students. Mid-Level Questions At Washington Elementary School: 1. What is the social climate and how is it displayed? 23 How do the various staff subgroups contribute to the composition of the total group culture? What is the nature of communication between the Northville teachers and GLISD staff, and how is it diSplayed? How is the mainstreaming process affected by the personal traits of individual staff members? How do the different schedules of the GLISD and Northville Area Public Schools affect mainstreaming? How does the location of the GLISD special education facility, in relation to the general education classrooms, affect mainstreaming? What role does the principal play in the staff culture and the ongoing implementation of mainstreaming? What attitudes do school Staff have about mainstreaming, and how are these displayed? What is the general education staff's perception of the Northville Area Public 24 School central administration, and how does this affect mainstreaming? 10. How does the staff feel about the established mainstreaming policies, and what methods are actually enacted? 11. What perceptions do general education teachers have of the Special education program activities? Summary This ethnography provides a description of the ways in which school staff culture affects mainstreaming at Washington Elementary School. Participant observation in the natural environment and interviews were used as the primary means of obtaining information. These techniques allowed the inquiry to focus on the school Staff. Through the staff perSpective, the reseacher acquired an understanding of the meaning teachers attach to happenings in their work environment. Through this vieWpoint, a better understanding of the environmental conditions necessary in the mainstreaming of Special education Students was obtained. There are several ways in which this study has value to educators. General education teachers were used as the primary informants. Traditionally, the 25 literature focuses on special education personnel. Also recognized is the worthiness of applying concepts of organizational culture to the educational arena. The attitudes and belief systems of the Staff may have a profound effect on what tranSpires in the classroom. For this reason, the researcher focused on elements and attitudes which comprise Staff culture. This can best be studied in settings other than the classroom. CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The review of the relevant literature for this study began with a computer-assisted ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center) search. In addition, a manual search of the indices was also conducted. Using both methods of inquiry, the following databases were reviewed: - CIJE (Current Index to Journals in Education) — Education Index - ECER (Exceptional Children Educational Resources) - Psychological Abstracts - RIE (Resources In Education) — Dissertation Abstracts International Collectively, these databases included more than 1,800 journals, 2,000 documents of studies supported by the Departmant of Health, Education and Welfare, and dissertations from more than 350 universities. Through the assistance of the computer-assisted tapic search and the researcher's manual inquiry, over 26 27 214,165 Studies were scanned. Of those, the relevant research related to this study was reviewed and selected by the researcher. Upon investigating the variables affecting school staff culture and the relationship this has with mainstreaming, it appears that the literature covers six principal fields of study. These include: -mainstreaming -attitude toward mainstreaming/handicapped -organizational culture -school climate -leadership ~interpersonal communication The relevant literature will be reviewed through a closer introspection of each category. Mainstreaming There is a preponderance of literature available concerned with special education. This literature review is limited to those Studies which apply directly to this research. Historical Perspective Mainstreaming has been regarded as a common practice in the public schools since the mid- seventies. However, the provision of special educational services for the handicapped is not a 28 phenomenon of that decade alone. The establishment of special education practice can be traced back to include more than the last century. An historical perSpective serves as a framework for achieving a clearer understanding of how educators have arrived at the present form of providing educational service to the handicapped. Several authors have provided an historical perspective on special education (Barbacovi & Clelland, 1976; Lilly, 1979; Cohen, 1982; Stephens, et. a1. 1982; Wiederholt, et. al. 1983) in the United States. A summary of their reports indicates that the Nineteenth Century, identified as the first stage of special education in America, witnessed the organization of residential institutions for children who were blind, deaf, or retarded. These residential schools became the models and set the dominant early trend for special education. These facilities included residential institutions, Special day schools, or homogeneous self- contained classrooms. Children were placed by category of disability, spending entire days in one classroom. The second stage, the first half of the Twentieth Century, was marked by the trend of program placement in public day schools. Because the children and programs were barely tolerated in the schools, the students were only in school for minimum periods of time. 29 The third Stage, from 1945 to 1970, was characterized by a rapid proliferation of Special education self-contained classrooms for all categories of exceptionalities. In the United States, the number of children served by public education facilities increased more than 600 percent (from 1948 to 1972). During this time period Michigan passed legislation consistent with the national trend of expanded services for the handicapped. Public Act 18 of 1958, commonly referred to as the Special Education Enabling Act, established intermediate school districts within the State of Michigan. This act provided funds for expanding needed services for the handicapped. Subsidies were available only if intermediate boards of education adapted the act by resolution and voter approval of millage. Great Lakes Intermediate School District (GLISD), through voter approval, levied one charter mill in 1965 and as a result, began to provide Special education services. On March 28, 1963, Michigan Public Act 190 became effective. Act 190 defined special education as: . . education of a type designed especially for deaf, hard of hearing, blind, partially seeing, speech defective, homebound, mentally handicapped, crippled or otherwise physically handicapped children having behavior problems, as are defined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The Act allowed local school districts to contract with the intermediate boards of education to establish 30 centers for educating handicapped students. Section 298a (1) (h) of this act also allowed intermediate boards of education to employ special education personnel under state reimbursement provisions. Up to this point in time, the deve10pment of special education programs , on the national level, included only those which occurred in self contained settings. This segregated self-contained classroom approach has been referred to as the "two-box" system. Reynolds and Birch (1977) discuss this format as: Two kinds of classrooms (regular and special), two general classes of children (regular class children and exceptional children), and two sets of teachers (regular education and special education). In effect, two separate school systems are Operated, each with its own supervisory staff and funding system. Beginning in the late 1960's and continuing through the 1970's studies and articles questioning the efficacy of full-time, self-contained Special education placement proliferated the professional journals. These initial Studies (Blatt, 1960; Johnson, 1962; Kirk, 1964; Dunn, 1968; ChristOpolaS and Renz, 1969; Cegelka and Taylor, 1970; Lilly, 1970; Garrison and Hammill, 1971; and Adamson and Van Etten, 1972) pointed out that although enrolled in costly programs specially designed to meet individual needs, children in full-time special education classrooms were accomplishing their objectives at a Significantly lower 31 level than similar handicapped children who had remained in the regular classroom. Although these initial studies were primarily concerned with educable mentally impaired, there has been a surge in the literature of the past decade questioning the need for full—time Special classes for the entire range of exceptionalities. The current stage began about 1970. The focus moved from segregating to integrating exceptional individuals into the mainstream of regular education and the community. It became clear . that literally all children were to be educated; that their claims for education would be made to their local school agencies; and that boundries between special education and regular education were to be opened up (Reynolds and Birch, 1977). Michigan became one of the first states to enact legislation making Special education the mandatory responsibility of the public schools. The law, known as P.A. 198, was passed in 1971 and became effective in 1973. The public act provided that all handicapped persons, birth through the age of 25 be guaranteed Specialized instruction to enable them in meeting their maximum potential. The Michigan Rules and Regulations were amended in 1980 under P.A. 451. Through this process, Michigan's legislation became aligned with Federal Public Law 94-142 known as the Education for all Handicapped 32 Children Act. One of the major mandates in P.L. 94-142 was that: ...to the maximum extent appropriate, handicapped children, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not handicapped, and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of handicapped children from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature of the severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aides and services cannnot be satisfactorily achieved (Section 612, D-5b). Although the word ”mainstreaming” occurs nowhere in the Act, the above mandate clearly indicates the intent of the law, and has greatly encouraged mainstreaming efforts. In reviewing the literature, it was found that there are nearly as many definitions of mainstreaming as there are authors. The following definition covers the main points of the mainstreaming concept: Mainstreaming is the education of mildly handicapped children in the least restrictive environment. It is based on the philOSOphy of equal educational opportunity that is implemented through individual planning to promote apprOpriate learning, achievement, and social normalization (Stephens, et. al., 1982). The United States has seen unprecedented growth in the services for and attitude toward the handicapped. Handicapped children have come from total neglect in isolated residential schools for only a few, to integrated programs in the public schools for all children with exceptionalities. AS stated, the current 33 legislation requires the education of the handicapped to occur, to as great an extent as possible, with non-handicapped peers. Within this frame of reference, Hallahan and Kauffman (1978) purport that handicapped students be segregated as little as possible from their "normal" peers. Therefore, the common mainstreaming practice allows the handicapped Student to Spend part or all of the school day in general education. Special Education Service thions Deno (1970) recognized the continuum of educational settings often necessary in meeting the unique needs of the handicapped. To help clarify these service options, Deno conceptualized a "cascade" system as shown in Figure 1. Typically, Special education classes in the public schools fall in the range from Level I through Level IV. When special education is delivered in the context of a school, the structure is often referred to as a "resource room". Such resource rooms serve to provide instruction supplementary to that offered in the general education classroom. A procedure is often used whereby the handicapped students are removed from their classrooms for times during the day for tutoring in academic subjects. This tutoring is sometimes supplementary to the instruction of the general education classroom, and at other times represents the 34 mon>nmm :Onuooovm Honoomm mo aoummm ovmommo H onswnm Aconmn>nooom one onoo onmmaoz one Hmonvoav mon>nom :Hmconnooavonaoz: Amonoaowo onmmao3 no nufimos An vocno>ow monnnanomm on convnnno no naoacwnmmmv Emnwonm :uaonnmmucH: mwcnuumm vmanonaov no Honnmmon an connoonumaH mconnmum Hmnooam mmoHo Honooom manuuflaom Aaonmam uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Hoosom onn xn moon>nom Hmconuonnumcn hnoucoa vocno>ow manmnm nofiaoom mono moaowcouno mmoao nmflawmm mo ncoaawnmmmv uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu :uoonnomunao: monmononu o>nunooanm wanaomasoo no Hoonpoa noonnnz no nuns muonumpoaaoooo mmmHo noanwon sunz waoam now on mane :vomomo unvcon: omonu wcnwoaocn mommmfio nmanwon an convansu HH> H> >H HHH HH Ho>oq Ho>o4 Ho>oq Ho>oq Ho>o4 Ho>oq Hm>mq 35 basic instruction for a specific subject. Other resource room arrangements are characterized by the Special education teacher providing fill the daily instruction, with little communication with the general education teacher. In this case, the term resource room is misleading. A self-contained special education class seems to describe this educational arrangement better (Blankenship & Lilly, 1981). Lilly (1971), emphasized the importance of the Special education teacher working closely with the general education teacher. He used the term "teacher-consultant approach" to describe the situation where not only are the students seen by the teacher-consultant, but the general education teachers are also assisted in developing a learning environment for the special needs student. Within the framework of the resource room, a variety of Student groupings may exist in the program organization. The two most commonly found are: 1. categorical resource programs- The teacher is trained in one disability area, and all the children have a common impairment; i.e. physically impaired, emotionally impaired, hearing impaired, educably mentally impaired. 2. cross-categorical resource programs- 36 This program is similar to the categorical resource program, however, this program serves students from two or more disability categories (Wiederholt, et. a1, 1983). Attitudes Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming As a result of mainstreaming becoming an integral aspect of the handicapped student's total educational program, the general education teacher has become more involved in the special education process. Presently, the general education teacher has greater involvement with the special education student and Special education teacher. In addition, adaptations often have to be made within the general education classroom structure to accommodate the handicapped student. Kaufman et al. (1975) indicated that a high degree of c00peration must exist between general and special education teachers when mainstreaming a handicapped student. Beery (1975) and Chaffin (1974) emphasized the importance of this c00peration occurring within a school facility. Therefore, it is vital to assess the attitude toward the principle of mainstreaming and the school environment in which the integration will occur. The definition of attitude by Allport (1935) is repeatedly found in the literature. He defines attitude as: 37 ...a mental or neutral state of readiness; organized through experiences, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual.... Extending this concept, Edwards (1957) suggested that an individual's positive or negative feelings toward a psychological object affects favorable or negative attitudes, respectively, toward the object. Edwards suggested that these attitudes were reliable indicators as factors influencing or determining behavior. With this notion in mind, the importance of teachers' attitudes toward the handicapped child in the regular classroom and their relationship to the success or failure of mainstreaming programs has been well SUpported in the literature. Mitchell (1976) wrote: The attitude of the teacher regarding the exceptional Student. . . may be a far more potent and important variable in the successful integration of exceptional students in the regular classroom than any administrative or curricular scheme. Gross (1978) continued with similar notions on teacher attitude: . . .the individual teacher's attitude is crucial in setting up an environment where constructive interaction between normal and Special children can take place. Hudson, Graham and Warner (1979) discussed the requirement of apprOpriate attitudes. They postulate that an effective education for mainstreamed students cannot take place without an adequate understanding of the regular educator's attitudes. The regular education teacher must accommodate the mainstreaming 38 principle. With this tenet in mind, they conducted a study to investigate the attitudes and perceived needs of general classroom teachers regarding mainstreaming. One-hundred fifty-one regular elementary classroom teachers from twenty-eight school districts participated in the study. The results suggest that regular education teachers are not supportive of mainstreaming. Another attitudinal Study was conducted by Graham et al. (1980). They investigated Special and regular education teachers attitudes toward mainstreaming and found: 1. Regular education teachers felt that mainstreaming was an effective educational alternative for handicapped students, while resource room teachers did not. 2. Neither group believed that regular teachers possessed adequate mainstreaming skills. 3. While both groups agreed on the need for integration, resource teachers were more empathic in their belief that handicapped Students would be happier in a mainstream program than a self-contained classroom. Nonetheless, both groups Strongly agreed that a handicapped student in a regular class would restrict the progress of other children. Although resource room teachers supported the concept of mainstreaming, they did not necessarily believe it was an effective approach. This study does not support the investigation of Hudson et al. Watkins & Brown (1980) investigated the attitudes teachers hold of their own grOUp and other teacher subgroups. The teacher subgroups included teachers of 39 elementary students, teachers of secondary students, and teachers of mentally retarded students. The results indicated that teachers of mentally retarded students were perceived by themselves and the other teacher subgroups as being more professionally competent and having greater interpersonal Skills. The authors indicated the Significance of the findings. They point to instances where several teacher subgroups might be involved in a project. In this case, inter- and intra-group attitude, manifested through observable behaviors, might be detrimental to a program and lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the efficacy of the project. Additional literature exists regarding the attitudes of general educators toward the concept of mainstreaming. Schorn (1976) defined attitudes toward mainstreaming as: . a relatively enduring organization of beliefs about children with various degrees and types of handicapping conditions predisposing a teacher to accept or reject these children into the regular school program. Major (1961) found that general education teachers believed that their classroom tasks were being disrupted by mainstreaming Special education students and that they perceived themselves as ill prepared in meeting the needs of the these children. Clark (1976) found that teachers' attitudes toward mainstreaming were influenced by the quantity and quality of the 40 information they received about the handicapped children. Blasovic (1972) conducted an attitudinal study toward the retarded. Vace and Kirst's (1977) work concentrated on the emotionally impaired. Both studies found that general education teachers perceived greater benefits for the handicapped in the Special classes. When mainstreaming did occur, the teacher's attitude reflected negatively on the integration experience feeling that the special education children were detrimental to the class. Guerin and Szatlocky (1974) evaluated the attitudes toward mainstreaming of teachers and administrators in eight Californial school districts. The results indicated that 62 percent of the teachers had positive attitudes toward mainstreaming, 19 percent were neutral, and 19 percent were negative. It is interesting to note that the findings also reflect that those most distant from the mainstreaming process (i.e., central office staff) were consistently more positive in their attitudes than were those staff who were closer to the mainstreaming process. Deleo's (1976) study also supported the notion that different attitudes may exist among various personnel groups. Consistent with the findings of Guerin and Szatlocky, it was reported that the director of Special education has the most favorable attitude; the Special education 41 teacher and the principal had the next most favorable attitude; and the general education classroom teacher had the least favorable attitude. In a Similar study, Moore and Fine (1978) found that Special educators had more favorable attitudes toward mainstreaming than did regular classroom teachers. Barngrover (1971) determined the attitudes toward mainstreaming of Special educators. The results revealed that twenty-seven of the fifty reSpondents believed that the special education class should be retained as a concept. Analysis indicated that differences existed among type of personnel and delivery model preference. Special education teachers favored the retention of the special class model, while administrators and psychologists favored mainstreaming for the mildly handicapped. Another area often investigated has been the effect of mainstreaming on general education teacher attitudes. In one Study, Shotel, Iano and McGettigan (1972) administered a questionnaire to classroom teachers. The purpose of the inquiry was to determine the effects of an integrative resource room on the general education teachers' attitudes toward the handicapped child within the regular classroom. The results indicated that the resource room program had slight to moderate effects on teachers' attitudes. The 42 authors suggested that more exposure to handicapped children was needed to expedite mainstreaming efforts. Bradfield et al. (1973) found that although the educable mentally impaired students made positive academic and social gains while participating in a mainstreaming program, the attitudinal changes among the general education teachers were small and in a negative direction. But a Similar study (Harasymiw and Horne, 1976) yielded Opposite findings. Their report indicated that the teachers from schools with mainstreaming had more favorable attitudes toward the Special educational practice than did teachers from schools without mainstreaming. Although these studies were contradictory, there was general agreement by the authors that more favorable teacher attitudes would enhance mainstreaming programs, while unfavorable attitudes would hinder mainstreaming programs; it would be difficult, therefore, to mainstream a handicapped child into a classroom whose teacher held a negative attitude toward the process (Valletutti, 1969; and Reger, 1972). Attitude Toward the Handicapped The preceeding authors agree that teachers' attitudes toward the concept Of mainstreaming have an effect on the outcomes of such programs. The opinions of these writers are well founded in the literature. 43 There have been a number of studies supporting the hypothesis that a teacher's attitude toward a handicapped child affects the educational, social and emotional develOpment of that child. Haring, Stern and Cruckshank (1958) found that the attitudes and understandings Of general education teachers were influential in determining the intellectual, social, and emotional adjustment of handicapped children in their classrooms. Considered the first study of its kind, it provided the impetus for further investigations. Much of the research that followed dealt with the relationship of teacher attitudes on single handicapping conditions. Studies have been conducted on the relationships between teachers' attitudes and the effects on the educational progress of the educably mentally impaired (Baldwin, 1958; Porter and Milazzo, 1958; Guskins, 1963; Bacher, 1965; Bradfield et al., 1973; and Korn, 1974); physically impaired (Billings, 1963; Ingram, 1965; and Dibner and Dibner, 1973); learning disabled (Hayball and Dilling, 1969; and Ley and Metteer, 1974); hearing impaired (Horowitz, 1962; and Meyerson, 1963); blind (Cutsforth, 1962); and neurologically and emotionally impaired (Morse, Cutler and Fink, 1964; Rubin, Simon and Bitwell, 1966; Grosenick, 1970; and Simek, 1977). Although these Studies varied greatly in methodology and results, a synthesis of their findings 44 reveals that the attitude of general education teachers toward the handicapped tends to underestimate the abilities of the Special education children. Generally, teachers feel that special class placement is more apprOpriate for the handicapped. In addition, the Specific diagnostic labels tend to accentuate teachers' negative stereotyping of handicapped children. Leyser and Abrams (1982) conducted a study which assessed teacher attitudes as related to various exceptionalities in students. They found that the most accepted groups were the normal and gifted population. The perceptually handicapped, physically handicapped, speech impaired, and chronically ill groups were perceived as less acceptable. The mildly and severely mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, and delinquent pOpulations elicited the most negative responses. The data suggest that teacher attitudes toward selective handicapping conditions need to be modified for mainstreaming to be successful. This conclusion is supported by Schmelkin (1982) who also studied perceptions of a variety of disabilities. Wood and Carmen (1982) also studied the importance of teacher attitude toward handicapped children. They generated categories and characteristics of a successful mainstreaming teacher. The following criteria were used: 45 a. affective category- characteristics were primarily based on attitudes, values, beliefs, and/or emotions. b. cognitive category- characteristics were primarily related to factual information, knowledge, and/or skill. The authors suggest that an awareness of the common characteristics is useful in selecting prOSpective teachers open to accepting handicapped Students in their class. The literature, as cited strongly supports the notion that for mainstreaming to be successful the general education staff must have a positive attitude toward the concept of mainstreaming and the handicapping condition presented by the Student. In addition, other factors affect the mainstreaming process. The framework for these elements will be presented in the following sections. Culture Elements of Organizational Culture The term ”culture" is one commonly used in our society and thought to be understood by the average person. Webster's Dictionary (1983, p.444) provides a definition which lays a common framework of understanding: The concepts, habits, skills, art, instruments, institutions, etc. of a given pe0p1e in a given period: civilization. 46 Yet there is a great deal of ambiguity in the precision of this definition. The term culture appears to take on different meanings for a variety of people. This study is concerned with organizational school culture. When the term "organization" is paired with that of "culture" the concept becomes more vague. It is therefore necessary to define what is meant by organizational culture. This definition can best be understood by first reviewing what scholars in the field of organizational culture write are necessary ingredients in the definition. Schein (1985) defines culture as a pattern of basic assumptions- invented, discovered, or develOped by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration- that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (p. 9). To Schein, the essence of culture is to be found in the basic assumptions inherent in his definition. He distinguishes three levels of culture. These levels include: Level 1: Artifacts. These are the most visible aspects of the culture. Artifacts include the physical and social environment. One can observe the physical environment, written 47 and spoken language, artistic productions, and behavior. Level 2: Values. Values reflect what individuals or groups feel "ought" to be. Some values can be articulated by grOUp members but not all values operate on a conscious level. Level 3: Basic Underlying Assumptions. Basic underlying assumptions are typically taken for granted among the group members. For this reason there is little variation in values among the cultural unit. Consequently, the artifacts of the group such as dress, language, and physical surroundings, appear similar. These basic assumptions guide the behavior of the group. Sathe (1983 & 1985) highlights basic assumptions in his definition of culture. In this respect, there are similarities between Sathe and Schein. Sathe's concept of culture is: the set of important assumptions (Often unstated) that members of a community share in common (p 10). Sathe goes on to assert that shared assumptions are not as obvious as communication and actual behavior patterns. Therefore, culture is missed because it is often not apparent visually or auditorily. Some 48 assumptions carry a certain degree of importance to group members. The two primary types of assumptions that members hold in common are beliefs and values. Beliefs include basic assumptions about how things in the cultural group actually work. Values are those ideals which the group members feel are worth striving for. These values and beliefs are not limited to those eSpoused, but rather, include the beliefs and values actually held, either consciously or at the preconscious level. Therefore, culture has a pervasive influence on the organization and its members. The basic assumptions provide a script for the organization to follow and have a powerful influence because they are frequently outside the realm of awareness of the group members. Wilkins (1983) also wrote of shared assumptions. He indicated that: Culture is most usefully thought of as the taken-for-granted and shared meanings that pe0p1e assign to their social surroundings. In essence, Wilkens is saying that culture is the unconscious values and beliefs that guide group members in the way they relate to one another and the way work is to be done within the organization. He suggests that in the Study of organizational culture one must focus on the ”taken-for-granted" assumptions of the group. 49 There are obvious similarities between Schein, Sathe and Wilkins in their definition of organizational culture. All these writers place the greatest emphasis on shared basic underlying assumptions of the group- those values and beliefs which are not readily apparent to its members and provide a basis for social interaction and behavior. Deal and Kennedy (1982), described the elements of a strong culture. They differentiate strong from weak cultures in the consistency by which the group members ascribe to the values and beliefs of the organization. Factors affecting Strong cultures, for Deal and Kennedy, are: Business Environment This is the environment in which an organization operates and determines what must be done to consider success. In the case of schools, for example, the business environment would be the education of students. In special education, the environment would be narrowed to handicapped Students. Deal and Kennedy feel that the business environment shapes the culture of the organization more than any other single factor. 50 Values The "heart of the culture" is formed by the values and beliefs of its members. The basic concepts of what is thought of as "success” are conveyed through these values. Heroes Strong culture companies have many heroes. These are the pe0p1e within the organization who provide role models for others and embody the values of the culture. Rites and Rituals These are the daily routines of the work place. Rituals show the group members what is expected in terms of behavior within the culture. Ceremonial rituals are also included in this element of culture. Ceremonies provide the group members with examples of what the organization values and believes. Cultural Network This is the social/informal means of communication within the organization. The cultural network carries the values and ”heroic mythology" through means such as storytelling. In schools, the teachers' lounge Often provides a convenient location for this to occur. 51 Deal and Kennedy feel that values form the basis of the organization and provide a sense of common direction for all members to follow. They feel that if employees have shared common values, then a common direction within the organization will exist. The shared values also provide a sense of identity for the group members. As Deal and Kennedy place a high priority on values in the definition of organizational culture, so does Uttal (1983). His definition is as follows: A system of shared values (what is important) and beliefs (how things work) that interact with a company's pe0p1e, organizational Structures, and control systems to produce behavioral norms (”the way we do things around here"). Uttal points out that the values and beliefs pe0p1e eSpouse may be different from the ones they hold. These values are not readily observable. Although Uttal does not use the term "basic underlying assumptions," his concept of the discrepancy between espoused values and those which are hidden convey a similar connotation as that included in the works of Schein, Sathe, and Wilkins. AS can be noted in the literature previously cited, the concept of culture embodies all aSpects of the organization. Some elements are behavioral and observable (artifacts), with other components being readily eSpoused by the group members. As indicated in these writings, the more elusive elements of organizational culture carry greater power in providing 52 direction to group members. These underlying assumptions are often taken for granted and convey the essence of the culture. Subcultures The preceding definitions provide a common framework by which organizational culture can be better understood. This is not to imply that all organizations have one common and consistent culture. On the contrary, a culture is typically comprised of many subcultures, depending on physical proximity, shared fate, common occupation, common work experience, Similar ethnic background, or similar rank level (such as labor or management) of the subgroup members (Shein, 1985). The aggregate of the subcultures contributes to the total organizational culture. These subgroups within the organization have their own set of distinctive norms or cultural influences (Silverzweig and Allen, 1976). Often there is conflict among groups within the organization competing to define the nature of Situations within organizational boundaries (Smircich, 1983). A group needs to maintain its identity, and one of the best ways of maintaining that identity is to compare and contrast itself with other groups. Therefore, intergroup comparison, competition, 53 and/or conflict, help build and maintain intragroup culture (Alderfer, 1977). Graham (1969) recognized that the subcultures of a school, taken collectively, comprise the organization as a whole. Whatever the subgroup, i.e. students, teachers, administrators, eleven factors Should be considered in analyzing the subculture. These are as follows: 1. Location- the physical surroundings in which the group operates. 2. Composition- personal characteristics of individuals who belong to the group. 3. Purposes- how the group defines its objectives; the things the group seeks, the groups raison d'etre. 4. Functions- activities carried on to sustain the group in its purposes. 5. Values- the shared possessions and ideals of the grOUp; the things the group prizes. 6. Structure- the relatively permanent organization within the group. 7. Kinship- the internal (social) relationship within the group. 8. Associations- relationships outside of the group that influence its internal behavior. 9. Change— alterations and modifications of the group. 10. Continuity- values, attitudes, and behavior norms that persist in the group. 11. Equipment- tools, supplies, and facilities available for use by the group. Brookover and Erickson (1975) discussed the importance of recognizing informal groups within the context of schools. They define these subgroups as; a network of social relations which constitute part of that total network of social relations which is the social Structure.” Brookover and Erickson emphasize that clique patterns are not found in the written 54 description of the school and may even be denied. Still, the subgroups are maintained by reward, sanctions, and sentiments, and often play very important roles in school conduct, according to the authors. The elements of subcultures within an organization become an important issue when viewing communication. Communication problems often result from real differences in how people from different cultural units perceive their environment. Such problems need to be recognized as inevitable when members of different subcultures try to communicate with each other, thus it becomes a cultural issue rather than one of individual personality (Hall, 1959; Schein, 1981). Three types of subcultures found in an organization have been defined in the literature (Martin and Siehl, 1983; Sathe, 1985). The authors indicate that the artifacts and core values of the dominant culture are expressed by a majority of its group members. The subcultures illustrate smaller groups. These may be represented as enhancing, orthogonal, and countercultural. The terms are defined as follows: -Enhancing subculture: members adhere to the core organizational values more vigorously than the rest of the organization. 55 -Orthogonal subculture: members simultaneously accept the basic values of the organization but hold separate unconflicting values. -Countercu1ture: members hold some values in direct Opposition to that of the dominant culture of the organization. Wilkins (1983) recognizes that the Size of the organization can contribute to the number of subgroups. Large organizations are likely to have many more subcultures. It is, therefore, necessary for those seeking to identify the dominant culture of the organization to decipher those values and assumptions held by the subgrOUpS, and to distinguish the common beliefs that the majority of the group members hold. Physical settings contribute to the formation of subcultures. When organizations provide a certain type of physical environment, elements of the culture or subculture emerge. For example, when an organization is physically dispersed, groups form on the basis of regular contact between group members. Likewise, a change in the physical setting can foster new cultural develOpments by changing the location or mixing work environments of groups. Therefore, organizational settings may foster, enhance, hinder, and/or disrupt the develOpment of the organizational culture, depending on Specific features of the setting (Baker, 1980; Louis, 1983). 56 Physical settings and location also affect the frequency, quality, and membership of social groups within an organization. Some settings are more conducive to accidental or informal contact. Over time, the setting influences the experiences, causing one to feel comfortable with certain kinds of social contact (Steele, 1973; Steele, 1981). Settings also provide a sense of security for groups. Although this aspect can be comforting to the individual, it could be limiting by making pe0p1e unwilling to venture out and risk uncertainties of new experiences (Steele, 1981). Organizational Socialization The preceding sections have defined organizational culture and subcultures. Within the context of groups, however, are individuals. These individuals comprise the groups. It is important, therefore, to have an understanding of how these individuals come to learn the culture in which they work. As described, cultures are very complex. The individual must learn the jargon of the workplace, the ideology which helps direct behavior, values and beliefs, organizational-Specific prejudices, situational social etiquette, rituals and ceremonies, and the behavior considered appropriate for interaction with colleagues, subordinates, superiors, and outsiders. Concurrent with this learning is the 57 subliminal acquisition of basic underlying assumptions, often on the preconscious level. New members must be taught to view the organization in a light similar to their more experienced and senior colleagues if the organizational culture is to survive. "Organizational socialization" refers to the teaching/learning process in which the individual learns the social knowledge and skills necessary to function successfully in the organization (Sathe, 1985; Van Maanen and Schein, 1979). The individual acquires an understanding of the behaviors which are considered customary and desirable. Through organizational socialization the individual learns the ground rules which guide daily social interaction and behavior in all work settings within the organization. Once these inclusionary boundaries are crossed, the individual is viewed as an "insider" with all the rights and privileges that go with the social position. If the socialization process of the individual does not occur within the organization, however, the employee can feel alienated, uncomfortable, and possibly unproductive (Schein 1985). These negative feelings relate directly to job satisfaction. A primary source of job satisfaction lies in the informal interaction shared by members of the work group (Roy, 1960). Sathe (1985) indicates that it is important to assess an individual's fit with the organization. This 58 match has major implications for the effectiveness and satisfaction one has within the organization, and ultimately affects the success of the organization as a whole. Sathe cites three reasons why there may not be a good fit between the individual and the organization. These dimensions include: personal agenda (short and long term personal goals, values and beliefs), personality, and personal ability. Concerning actual employee behavior, Sathe indicates that the individual may not want to behave as called for by the situation (motivation), may not understand how to behave in order to be effective (knowledge problem), and may not be able to behave apprOpriately (skill problem). All three points are salient when viewing the role of the general education teacher in the mainstreaming process. O'Toole (1979) concentrates on the fit of an individual's personality with the culture. He suggests that certain cultures are not compatible with some personalities. Although all societies contain a random cross section of personalities, only certain behaviors are rewarded. Although culture may not determine personality, it greatly influences it. Schools as Organizations The preceding discussion concentrated on organizational culture within the corporate or business 59 sector. These sources were used primarily because scholars within that field of study have recognized the importance of the effect the organizational culture has on the productivity of the organization. It is important to note, however, that schools are also considered organizations. Katz (1968), described the parallel and rationale for the inclusion of schools within the social organizational framework: . . . it (school) is a complex social organization. It is complex because it includes many different functions. It is a social organization because the participants are interdependent and because their actions are socially promulgated and enforced. . . Schools share organizational characteristics with factories, social work agencies, and military units, but they also have unique aspects. Biddle (1970) identified the common characteristics of schools in the context of an organizational entity. 1. Collective Identity This identity is recognized by both its members and by others. 2. Coaliations of Groups Organizations are made up of more than one group. In schools some apparent grOUpS include: students, teachers, office personnel, lower grade teachers, and upper grade teachers. 3. Tasks Organizations function for the purpose of accomplishing a task or product. Schools 60 have a common task of socializing students and imparting knowledge. 4. Coordination System Activities within organizations are coordinated through a system of a hierarchical structure. Within the schools, teachers stand above students, department chairmen above teachers, principals above department chairmen, and superintendents above principals. 5. Stable Interaction Organizations typically exhibit stable interaction. In the school, students' behavior is ordered by rules and the enforcement of rules is predictable. The literature supports the concept of organizations representing unique cultures unto themselves. The culture permeates the organization on the conscious and preconscious levels. Values and beliefs are guided by the organizational culture, as is behavior. In the case of schools and mainstreaming, teachers' attitudes are shaped by the culture. This research supports the premise that the ultimate success of the organization is determined by the organizational culture. In the case of this Study, the success in question could be translated to encompass mainstreaming. Organizational Climate Definition The term organizational climate has been equated with culture (Tagiuri and Litwin, 1968) in previous years. Consequently, there is often confusion over terminology. This researcher draws a distinction between climate and culture. Climate is limited to whether peOple's expectations are being met about what it "should" be like to work in an organization. While climate measures whether expectations are being met, culture is concerned with the nature of these expectations themselves. Therefore, climate measurements actually indicate the fit between the prevailing culture and the individual values of the employees (Davis, 1984). School Climate There is general agreement that every school has its own climate or personality. A multitude of factors lead to this individual climate. Halpin and Croft (1963) described six categories of climate which are listed in rank order from "Open" to "Closed". -THE OPEN CLIMATE: This environment is depicted by teachers working well together without complaining or bickering among themselves. They enjoy friendly relations with each other. There is considerable job 61 62 satisfaction noted. Teachers are motivated to overcome difficulties and find solutions to organizational problems. There is a proud sense of belonging to the organization. The principal is viewed by the teachers as genuine in that there is an integration between his professional role and personality. He demonstrates flexibility by being able to provide specific direction to others or by allowing them to interact with each other. He allows leadership to emerge from the teachers but remains in control and clearly provides leadership to the staff. -THE AUTONOMOUS CLIMATE: This differs from the Open Climate in the almost complete freedom the principal gives to the teachers. Social need satisfaction characterizes this climate. Teachers work well together and accomplish organizational tasks. Teacher morale is high. The principal allows teachers to work at their own pace. He remains aloof, favoring a style providing procedures and guidelines for teachers to follow. However, he does not check to see that the work is getting done nor does he force people to produce. 63 -THE CONTROLLED CLIMATE: This Climate differs from the Open and Autonomous in that it is marked by a priority for production at the expense of social-needs satisfaction. However, morale remains high. Teachers are task oriented with little interpersonal conflict. There is an abundance of paper work and routine tasks. The principal is perceived as directive and domineering, allowing little flexibility. Written standards provide overall direction. The principal is not concerned with how pe0p1e feel but rather in the standardization of tasks. —THE FAMILIAR CLIMATE: The primary element of this climate is the social-needs satisfaction priority. Little attention is directed toward goal achievement. There are personal friendships among staff, and socially everyone is part of "one big happy family". This atmOSphere is promoted by the principal who engages in behavior indicating that he is part of the group. He is reluctant to do anything which might be injurious to this relationship. 64 -THE PATERNAL CLIMATE: This is a Closed Climate characterized by a principal who is perceived as ineffective, "non-motivating" and non-genuine”. Teachers do not work well together. There is low social-needs satisfaction or friendly relationships among staff. The principal is intrusive, wanting to know everything. He is preoccupied with things that should be accomplished but in reality little gets done. Consequently organizational output is low. —THE CLOSED CLIMATE: This climate represents little satisfaction regarding task-achievement or social-needs. The principal is ineffective in providing task- oriented direction, and is not concerned with the personal well—being of others. The teachers do not work well together and group output is minimal. Although organizational output is low, the principal emphasizes production. However, he has little impact on the staff. The literature Strongly supports the supposition that when a school climate approximates the Open Climate end of the continuum a more desirable environment exists for the purpose of education. 65 The Significant effects of the organization's climate upon its members and the people it serves have been documented through research. Based upon this research, Rainey (1983) drew some generalizations. These include the following: 1. Climate is significantly associated with the accuracy of communications in that a hostile, more closed, formal climate tends to block communications while a supportive, relatively Open, informal climate with high levels of trust facilitates accuracy in communications. An open and supportive climate produces greater spontaneity and initiative and tends to improve decision making and problem-solving ability of those affected. An open and supportive climate tends to promote greater production and improved quality on both voluntary and required tasks. An Open and supportive climate tends to build greater commitment to and enthusiasm for the phiIOSOphy and mission of the organization. A closed and hostile climate on the other hand, tends to produce greater dependence upon the formal leaders and less upon group member initiative. A closed and hostile climate tends to promote self-interest, lack of creativity, and lack of enthusiasm for the work of the organization. A closed and hostile climate produces greater anxiety and passiveness toward the organization and its mission. A closed and hostile climate often produces defensiveness and a resistance to ideas and suggestions, whereas a supportive climate tends to produce outgoing, Open, tolerant employees and clientele. A thorough review of the literature revealed only one study which attempted to develop a linkage between 66 organizational climate and mainstreaming. Murray (1976), investigated principals' perceptions of levels of mainstreaming of educable mentally retarded children in their schools and factors of the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire. Murray found a positive relationship between "openness" and level of placement. The hypothesis that there would be a significant positive relationship between organizational climate and principals' perceptions of appropriate levels of placement was supported. Murray suggested that these findings are important because they support the premise that an open climate in elementary schools indicates a general willingness by the principal to support mainstreaming for educably mentally impaired children. Leadership A commonly recognized notion of organizational culture is that the leader is the most influential group member in the maintenance of the culture. The leader's personal beliefs, values and perceptions of the situation influence subordinate behavior more than any other Single element within the organization. The clearer the leader is about what he/she stands for, the more apparent will be the culture of the organization (Davis, 1984; Sathe, 1985; Shein, 1985). 67 Schein (1985) highlighted the means by which leaders reinforce the culture of an organization. These areas are as follows: -What leaders pay attention to. This includes comments and remarks, questions, and even those areas that do not produce reactions. -Leaders' reactions to crises. The manner in which leaders deal with organizational crises, create new norms, values, and working procedures and reveal important underlying procedures are factors which promote the organizational culture. —Role modeling The leaders' visible behavior communicates his/her values and beliefs to other members of the organization, especially newcomers (Baker, 1980 cited similar characteristics). -Allocation of rewards and status. The leader communicates what the organization values through promotions, employee evaluation, and discussions. -Recruitment, selection, and promotion. The selection of new members is one of the most potent ways in which a culture is perpetuated. If those who "fit in" are recruited and hired, and the criteria for 68 promotion applied, ongoing culture can be hard to change. Several authors have postulated that the role of the principal is a critical element in the mainstreaming process (Deleo, 1976; Barngrover, 1971; and Guerin and Szatlocky, 1974). According to Payne and Murray (1974), "If the principal is supportive of mainstreaming . . . then as educational leader he can help insure success”. KlOpf (1979) writes: The school principal's values, attitudes, knowledge and commitment which mark their daily performance of duties, the willingness to provide technical support and foster interpersonal understanding among Staff, parents and children, will largely determine the extent to which handicapped children realize their rights to an apprOpriate education within the school system. Rebore (1979) continues with this concept: . . . the SUpport of the central office Staff, and building principal is critical if mainstreaming, as mandated by P. L. 94-142, is to become an effective method for meeting individual needs. Hanson (1971) investigated the relationship between the principal's attitudes toward handicapped children and mainstreaming. Fifty-nine principals completed the Classroom Integration Inventory (CII). This questionnaire measured acceptance of exceptional children in the mainstream. A trend toward mainstreaming was found in those schools with principals who had more favorable Ell scores. Lamb (1970) found that administrators and supervisors 69 employed in schools where mainstreaming was adOpted had greater knowledge of exceptional children as measured by the gig. McCoy (1981) examined the role of the principal in relation to school climate. The researcher investigated the potential ways in which the building administrator could positively affect the mainstreaming of students. McCoy's work indicated that the principal's attitude toward handicapped children strongly influences the acceptance of these students into general education classes. Harris (1975) reported that due to the dramatic role change mainstreaming represents to many general education teachers, a sense of belongingness may temporarily suffer. With this alteration in professional self concept, staff morale may be affected. McCoy feels that the principal can assist these teachers and manage morale problems by adjusting expectations and involving the teachers in planning for change. Larrivee & Cook (1979) conducted a study of the variables affecting teacher attitude toward mainstreaming. They sampled 941 regular-classroom teachers, grades K - 12, and found a significant relationship between administrative support and teacher attitude toward mainstreaming. They point to the fact that a school principal can promote a positive learning environment for teachers and students. 70 Several authors suggested that the building principal must be supportive of mainstreaming and have technical knowledge and an awareness of research on mainstreaming if mainstreaming programs are to be successful (Sage, 1968; Newman, 1970; and Marro and Kohl, 1972). Collectively, the studies reviewed indicate that general education teachers' attitudes toward the handicapped and the concept of mainstreaming are not favorable. These attitudes are found to be related to the success or failure of mainstreaming programs. The literature also reports the relationship between mainstreaming and the building principal as an influential agent in the acceptance or rejection of mainstreaming programs. In general, successful integration of handicapped children into regular classrooms is directly correlated to the attitudes of those teachers and other professionals involved, with more favorable attitudes most related to successful mainstreaming efforts. Rainey (1983) felt that the administrative leader is one of the most influential factors enhancing the organizational climate conducive to team Operations. Alden (1977) investigated the relationship between informal communications and organizational climate with inferred leader behavior. He found that the 71 principal's informal communication style was positively related to both variables, as perceived by teachers. Bunting (1982) studied leadership style and the instructional role of the principal. A relationship was found between the mode of leadership exhibited by the principal and the educational values adapted by the teachers. Bunting suggests that expectations regarding teaching may be communicated subtly through the principal's behavior. Bhella (1982) researched the relationship between teacher morale and a principal's leadership style. She cites the work of Blocker and Richardson, who comprehensively reviewed the research dealing with teacher morale and job satisfaction over a period of 25 years. They concluded that teacher satisfaction significantly depends upon the quality of the administrative relationship with the teachers. Stewart (1979) investigated the area of school structure and interpersonal climate with student achievement. He found that staff climate at the fifth grade level was highly related to student achievement. The more teachers felt influential with other subgroups of the organization regarding decision making, the higher Student achievement appeared to be. He concluded that climate and structure were both found to have effects on student achievement. Stewart 72 emphasizes that the principal has primary control over the structure of a building. With the inter- relationship of climate and structure, it is the principal who is best situated to make change. The role of administrative leadership or the building principal is inseparable from school climate or culture of the organization. It is rare to find writings on school climate which don't at least make mention of the role of leadership. The Studies cited represent those which have the most relevance to this study. Interpersonal Communication Rainey (1983) states that the environment depends upon the behavior and contribution of every member of the organization. The administrative leader should provide structure and consideration to its members. But without the full commitment and contribution of every organizational member, open communication and team work is not possible. Interpersonal communication attributes appear to be cited consistently in the research on a longitudinal basis. Halpin and Croft (1963) place heavy emphasis on interpersonal relations in their description of the Open Climate. Bloomfield (1981) conducted a study related to teacher conflict-handling Strategies. She found that when teachers were dealing with conflict with peers, constructive rather than destructive conflict-handling 73 strategies were used when the organizational climate, leadership behavior and communication patterns were perceived as participative rather than authoritarian. Several studies (Arends & Arends, 1978; D'Alonzo & Wiseman, 1978; Graham, Burdg, Hudson, and Carpenter 1980; Knight, 1976; Savage, 1980) imply the importance of positive communication between special education and general education teachers. Inadequate communication between these groups, however, seems to be a common problem. D'Alonzo and Wiseman feel that extra effort from both general and special educators is necessary to correct this long standing communication problem. They go on to say: "The foundation of mainstreaming is based on the premise of COOperative effort on the part of all involved personnel. Failure of COOperative involvement jeOpardizeS the Spirit of mainstreaming and has a negative effect on the educational growth of learning disabled youths." Savage calls for communication to occur in new ways for mainstreaming to be effective. She calls attention to the fact that the linkage between general and special education has been weak. "Separate and autonomous groups must be encouraged to behave interdependently for mainstreaming to be effective at a school-wide level." Graham et al. (1980) used a Likert-type questionnaire designed to elicit teachers' attitudes and perceptions as to the effectiveness and 74 appropiateness of mainstreaming. Subjects were 169 elementary teachers, of which 23 were resource room teachers and 144 were general classroom teachers. Each regular education teacher had at least one handicapped student receiving resource room service. Upon analyzing the factor of communication, responses showed that in general, regular classroom teachers did not feel that communication between the resource teachers and themselves was adequate. However, resource teachers responded that adequate lines of communication existed. Arends and Arends (1978) investigated the interrelationship of general and Special education faculties on a university campus. They found that the linkages between both groups were absent. Each faculty Operated in almost complete isolation from the other. Offices were physically separated. The faculties did not team-teach, socialize together, or engage in any joint professional activities. Resentment and distrust toward each other was longstanding. A commonality exists between the work of Arends and Arends and the writings of Ringlaben and Weller (1981). The latter also accentuate the separateness of general and Special educators. The authors point to several factors leading to this isolation, with some possible causes as follows: 75 1. A history of separate facilities or classrooms set apart from the main part of a building. 2. The concept of a "SPECIAL” teacher. The label accentuates the difference. 3. A fear on the part of the general education teachers that agreement with the special education teachers will cause the placement of additional handicapped students in their classes. 4. The fact that Special education teachers do not typically have required extracurricular assignments (i.e. lunch duty, parent-teacher organization). 5. Higher salary increments for Special education teachers. 6. Lack of commonality in teacher training, consequently, little understanding of each other's curriculum. Ringlaben and Weller feel that the gap in communication must be bridged. Suggestions are offered to overcome the dilemma. Adler (1971) wrote of the importance of interpersonal relationships in a residential treatment center for emotionally disturbed children. He states: "The nature of the working relationship among staff members and the quality of their interaction are 76 crucial determinants of a residential treatment center's effectiveness. No single individual and no single discipline can be fully effective working in isolation.”. Angelloz (1976) investigated the interpersonal dimensions involved in the educational setting. The psychosocial characteristics of teachers and the interpersonal climate of a rural school system were identified, measured and interpreted. The Study revealed that interpersonal communication and social interactional problems can be identified at the teacher, grOUp or school system level. He therefore suggests that remediation of interpersonal communication problems can occur. The interpersonal relations of staff have an integral role in the establishment and maintenance of school climate. As the cited studies indicate,1 interpersonal communication between general education and Special education teachers is and should be a prerequisite to mainstreaming. Summary The preceding literature review cited studies which are applicable to the interrelationship between organizational culture and mainstreaming. Based upon this body of knowledge, research questions have been developed. Through the literature review, it is 77 apparent that there are significant gaps in what is known about the relationship of organizational culture and mainstreaming. Ethnographic studies have not been common practice in the investigation of this topic. In fact, it appears that there are no known attempts to Study organizational culture and mainstreaming through qualitative techniques. Consequently, a primary element missing in the literature is a detailed description of mainstreaming within a school from the perSpective of the teachers. This study was an investigation using fieldwork research which is designed to capture teacher behaviors and Opinions as they structure their environment, rather than according to predetermined categories and descriptions. This element of qualitative data is not presently found in the literature. CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY This descriptive study is an attempt to gain a cultural perSpective on one elementary school and the mainstreaming process within that facility. Ethnography was used as a means of gaining that cultural perspective. What is Ethnography? Bauman (1972) defines ethnography as: the process of constructing through direct personal observation of social behavior, a theory of the working of a particular culture in terms as close as possible to the way members of that culture view the universe and organize their behavior within it" (p. 157). Florio (1980) relates ethnography to the educational setting. She states: Given the claims of general ethnography, the particular claim of educational ethnography is that it discovers and describes the ways that members of the school community create and share meaning. Ethnographers are thus aiming to document the Operating knowledge that enables educators and students to navigate everyday life in schools. In this light, teachers, who are perhaps the only enduring and native members of the classroom community, become very important arbiters of the validity of educational ethnography. They are also very Special informants whose knowledge, COOperation, and insight are needed to answer adequately the questions, "What's going on here?” and "What does it mean to educators?” (p. 2) 78 79 Florio goes on to explain the role Of a teacher as an informant: In short, in describing a community, ethnographers report not their own impressions, but their best accounting of the perSpectives of their informants. When the community of interest is a school or classroom, teachers are generally invited to participate as those informants. (p. 4) The purpose of this study and the methodology employed were ideally compatible in that ethnography is "the attempt to describe culture or aspects of culture” (Bogdan and Biklen, 1982 p. 35). When the culture occurs in the confines of a school, and the informants are teachers, better cohesion between inquiry and method is unattainable. Methodology known as ethnography is also referred to by other labels. Some of these phrases include: field research, naturalistic, symbolic interactionist, inner perSpective, phenomenological, case study, interpretive, ethnomethodological, ecological, and descriptive. The purpose of this section is to provide the characteristics and description of the methodology used in this Study. This researcher will use the terms ethnographic and qualitative interchangeably. Although a precise definition will not be offered for the other phrases, the characteristics listed below describe the common procedures found amongst these terms. Bogdan and Biklen (1982, p. 27) provide an outline of five features common to qualitative research. The elements 80 outlined by Bogdan and Biklen, paired with the procedures implemented by this researcher, provide a better understanding of why this study is considered an ethnography. The natural setting is the direct source of data and the researcher is the key instrument. A variety of settings were utilized while gathering data during the course of this study. Because interpersonal relationships were studied, and human interaction involves spontaneity, informal environments were targeted. Participant observation occurred with teachers in the following settings: Staff Room, corridors, playground, school lobby, principal's office, school waiting room, gymnasium, and social functions outside of the school building. In a more Structured sense, the researcher attended general Staff meetings and educational staff meetings on students. In total, the researcher extensively used the ethnographic technique of participant observation. This involved the balance of careful and systematic observation of the participants' action, and the participation in various school functions, while attempting not to affect the normal flow of activity. Through this involvement, a better understanding of the questions "What's going on here?" and ”What do the happenings mean to the people involved?" was obtained. 81 The concept of the researcher functioning as the "key instrument” is very Significant to ethnography. As the researcher became more familiar with the site and the personnel, he was in a better position to sift through the abundance of data and formulate assertions regarding the school staff culture and mainstreaming. As the personnel in the Site became more familiar and comfortable with the researcher, additional information with greater depth was Shared. The researcher, in turn, was able to gather impressions regarding the consistency between observable espoused beliefs and those unstated. For example, if a participant appeared reluctant to share interpretations of events, but responded superficially, the researcher was Often able to perceive this reluctance through the participants' body posture, gestures or tone of voice. These data were recognized for the limitations they represented. An anonymous questionnaire would not have provided the researcher with this type of qualitative information; acting as one's own key instrument did. Still, there were definite cautions involved with the researcher functioning as the key instrument of the Study. Peshkin (1978) summarized his feelings as follows: Since I value intimacy and a sense of community, it follows that I came to admire Mansfield's school and community for their contribution of these qualities to their Student and adult members. This admiration may well affect my objectivity. The 82 transient researcher can afford to be distant from the pe0p1e he studies, but I intended, on the contrary, to remove as much of the distance as I could. As a result, I soon felt a strain between my commitment to objectivity and my increasing involvement with the local pe0p1e. As such involvement grows, one's objectivity erodes, and as I wrote this book I was nagged by the question, "How will this read in Mansfield?” Of course, this ”confusion" does not free me from the obligation to have written as carefully and honestly as I could. I trust, however, that what passed through my subjective filters constitutes a credible and comprehensive picture of the nature of school and community in Mansfield. With an awareness of this natural human tendency, it is felt that the researcher's own subjective filters led to an accurate description of the Site. This accuracy came in the form of disciplined subjectivity. Knowing the importance of the meaning participants place on events, and the recognition that good ethnography evolves over the course of the study, the researcher continuously attempted to place information in proper perSpective. Qualitative research is descriptive. To gain rich written description for the Study, several means of recording data were employed. This ensures accuracy in capturing the necessary detail. This attention to detail enhanced the richness of data and the description of the site. Utilizing several means of data collection, analysis of evidence led to researcher inferences. 83 Interviews were recorded on audiotapes with participant knowledge and permission. Tapes were of assistance in deciphering the linguistic detail of expression such as pitch, stress and tone. It also provided the researcher with the Opportunity to interact with the interviewee without the burden of writing, which may have obstructed communication. Consequently, an accurate transcription of the interview sessions was possible. Another source of data was the collection of artifacts such as written school documents including policies and procedures, rules, previously written descriptions, demographic information, news articles, lists, etc. Fieldnotes were developed and maintained throughout the study. Following each visit to the Site, a description of the pe0p1e, objects, places, events, activities, and conversations were recorded with the assistance of a computer. Entire audiotapes were reviewed and summarized (verbatim transcription occurred at a later time) by the researcher. The careful collection of data proved essential in the compilation of this written study. Through retrieval and analysis of the fieldnotes, descriptive detail was used in this report. The researcher was able to convey what the participants often take for granted within their own school environment, using the descriptions 84 contained in this report. The data included in this ethnography reflect detailed description of the Site and participants. Elements such as dress, gestures, humor, and jargon of the participants are an integral part of the findings. Verbatim transcription and narrative vignettes were a means of conveying this descriptive information. This "thick description" is not possible in a statistical study. Qualitative researchers are concerned with process rather than Simply with outcomes or products. Traditional studies in the area of mainstreaming have investigated students' performance as a result of the Special education process. Compliance with the law has been another area of inquiry. Little effort has been devoted toward investigating the mainstreaming process however. The conditions contributing to mainstreaming within the school staff culture are certainly applicable to the special education teachers and students. The communication between the special education and general education teachers, attitudes about mainstreaming, school climate, and leadership are ever-present in the placement of handicapped Students with non-handicapped peers. It is this process, not the outcome, upon which this ethnography is focused. 85 anlitative researchers tend to analyze their data inductively. Bogden and Biklen (1982) indicate that ethnographic researchers do not collect data to prove or disprove hypotheses he/she states before entering a study; rather, abstractions are built as Specifics are collected and gathered together. Peshkin (1978) emphasizes this point in the first chapter of his study: While dimly aware of this thread at the Start of fieldwork in Mansfield, I nonetheless felt I had embarked on a journey without a map, on an adventure whose plot might remain unknown until the Study was complete. This researcher did not wait until all the information was gathered before beginning the task of data analysis. Rather, the process of analysis occurs throughout the study. This allowed the research questions to be scrutinized and revised continually. Consequently, the assertions more accurately reflected the perspective of the participants and the meaning they attached to events. This process of ongoing data analysis also reduced preconceived researcher bias by allowing the study to follow the path presented by the participants. Through this inductive analysis, the study emerged with an expanded SUpposition having broader meaning. 86 "Meanin ” is of essential concern to the qualitative approach. Throughout this study the Significance of actions and behavior exhibited by the participants and events emerged with alternate meanings. Pike (1967) discussed, what he referred to as, "etic” and "emic" types of information. Etic information is observable from the outside while emic information is the meaning ”insiders" place upon the observation. The researcher continually alternated between the etic level of information and the emic interpretation, provided by the participants, to understand more fully the staff culture at the Washington Elementary School and the relationship this had to the process of mainstreaming. The researcher engaged in several activities as a means of uncovering emic information. Key informants were used. These were Special education and general education staff members who were willing to Share information, had experience in the setting, and were particularly insightful about the happenings. Key informants were questioned about the meanings of researcher observations, and asked to confirm or disconfirm impressions gathered by the researcher. Typically, the participant observations provided the resercher with the etic data and the interviews allowed for the emic information to emerge. 87 At the conclusion of the study, the researcher presented the tentative findings to the staff of the Washington Elementary School. This is known as "teaching the findings.” The staff was told that the findings represented the impressions of the researcher. The group was provided the Opportunity to respond and furnish additional meaning to the data, and confirm or disconfirm the information from their vantage point. This provided an Opportunity for the researcher to "Step back" and look at the data from the point of view of the participants. Why Ethnography? The purpose of ethnography is to assist the researcher in defining the culture of a given people. In the field of education, these methods have been used primarily to study the classroom with some ethnographies describing the school setting. Although these Studies are descriptive in nature, few define the elements of organizational or school Staff culture. The purpose of this study is to report how the staff culture of one elementary school affects the process of mainstreaming. The foci of this Study are the adults in the setting. With an adult population under study, coupled with the concept that schools are organizations, the precedent for investigation in the existing body of knowledge can best be found in the 88 business literature. Researchers and scholars contributing to the corporate literature appear to be the few which recognize that organizational culture is an essential ingredient to the success of a group effort. In this study, the terms organization and culture are treated generically. Culture refers to the phenomena found in group dynamics and grOUp growth rather than in the anthrOpological sense of large cultures such as those found among nations (Schein, 1985). Organizations are viewed as a group entity, regardless of the purpose of its existence. The business environment or product are not this researcher's concern. PeOple in grOUps are the question under study. One organization might be concerned with a product, and the goal of another organization is education. The different organizational goals do not diminish the importance of adults working together toward a common purpose. Although both the business environment and educational settings are different in some respects, both are considered organizations. The milieu for these activities have unique organizational cultures which provide the social fabric or the glue of the particular organization. Barley (1983) provides a discussion and definition of terms typically associated with qualitative research conducted by anthrOpologists: "thick description," 89 ethnosemantics, and semiotic. He cautions the reader that the terms are not as significant as the commonalities the three approaches present. For Barley, each qualitative research term describes a means to understanding a culture. To fully understand that culture a portrayal and analysis of how the members of the organizational culture structure the meaning of their world is the key ingredient. The qualitative approach not only characterizes the ”insiders'" (participants of the setting) interpretations of this world of work, but it is also sensitive to the mundane, but critical, aSpectS of a culture. Deciphering a culture is not an easy task. Values and beliefs that members share are typically internalized (Sathe, 1985). Studying an organizational culture using traditional inquiry techniques such as questionnaires presents very real limitations. Values and beliefs tend not to surface or are half-hidden. What people espouse frequently has little to do with the values and beliefs they actually hold (Uttal, 1983). The underlying reasons for behavior remain concealed or unconscious (Schein, 1984). Therefore, Schein and Uttal urge techniques develOped by anthrOpologists to gain the organizational perspective from all employees, t0p to bottom. 9O Smircich (1983) emphasizes that anthrOpologists often view culture as systems of shared symbols and meanings. When this symbolic perSpective is applied to organizations, like the societal culture, the patterns of symbols need interpreting or deciphering. Davis (1984) stresses that these symbols are often tangible and provide evidence of the beliefs which are operational within the organization. Therefore, as an organization's beliefs are made tangible through actions these happenings are seen as cultural artifacts, similar to the pottery artifacts studied by anthrOpologists. Organizations can be studied using either a qualitative or quantitative approach. Evered and Louis (1981) equate the terms "inside" and "outside" reSpectively. They argue that the researcher can best come to know the reality of an organization by "being there": by becoming immersed in the events and activities, by becoming part of the phenomena of Study. They conclude that of the two approaches, inside research is more useful for exploring organizational phenomena and generating tentative concepts and theories that directly pertain to particular organizations. These scholars provide powerful arguments for the value in using qualitative methods in studying 91 organizational culture. Within this framework, this Study proceeded. Procedures This study was conducted at the Washington Elementary School and focused on the school staff. Specifically, this staff included the general education teachers, Special education teachers, principal, special education teacher aides, and the school secretary. A variety of locations within the school were utilized as a means of obtaining information. Participant Observation Participant observation occurred in a variety of settings within the school where events naturally transpired. Locations included the Staff Room, corridors, playground, general staff meetings, educational Staff meetings on Students, the school lobby, principal's office, office waiting room, and the gymnasium. In addition, the researcher interacted with the staff as a participant observer at social functions outside the school setting. Lutz and Iannaccone (1969 p. 108) outlined three possible roles of a participant observer: 1. The participant as an observer: The researcher is known to the participants and 92 is a member of the group prior to the initiation of the study. 2. The observer as a limited participant: The researcher becomes a member of the group for the purpose of observation. The participants are aware of the researchers' intent. 3. The observer as a non-participant: There is no group membership, whether the presence of the researcher is known or not known by the participants. The primary role of the researcher in this study was that of an ”observer as a limited participant". The primary source of information during the study was the general education Staff. The researcher was not a member of that group prior to the initiation of the study. Extensive time was Spent in their natural environment, however. Within the context of various natural school environments, the Staff Room occupied a major portion of the researcher's time. This setting presented the ideal area for the observation of spontaneity. The researcher also operated at the other two levels of participant observation. He was a "participant as an observer" with the Special education staff. With his professional role as Supervisor of the GLISD Special education classes, grOUp membership was in place prior to the Study. The GLISD Special 93 education teachers were not a primary focus of the participant observation, however. The third level of "observer as a non-participant” occurred during several school functions such as general staff meetings, IEPC meetings, observation in the corridors, and gymnasium during lunch period. During these occasions, participation did not occur and the researcher was not considered a member of the group. A conscious effort was made by the researcher to establish rapport with the general education staff. During the study, they consistently appeared to be receptive to the mutual interaction, often expressing gratitude for the idea of a special educator actively seeking their Opinions and perceptions of the mainstreaming process. Interviews Audiotaped interviews were used as a means of clarifying and verifying information obtained during the participant observation. Therefore, almost all interviews were taped. Interviews were of particular value in approaching tOpics which were not conducive to discussion in a group setting. Most interviews were 30 minutes long. Of the 31 members of the Washington School staff, 26 were interviewed, with 18 being interviewed two or more times. The second interview with these 18 staff typically occurred after most of the teachers had been 94 interviewed once. This additional inquiry provided an Opportunity to clarify and follow-up research questions, and obtain greater depth with the descriptive data of the Study. Therefore, emic information was obtained. Prior to each interview session, the purpose of the study and the parameters of confidentiality was discussed with the interviewee. The researcher developed and prepared questions prior to the interview sessions. These questions were rarely used, although they were available if the interviewee needed prompting. Most questions in the interview were Open-ended to provide latitude to the interviewee in answering the underlying questions: "What's happening in this setting?" and ”What do the happenings mean to the pe0p1e involved in them?". During a majority of the interviews, the researcher encouraged the interviewee to take an active lead role. This style facilitated spontaneity without the problem of researcher-biased questions monOpolizing the session. Follow-up questions were used to help clarify meanings. Factual questions were also asked to establish a context in areas such as mainstreaming procedures. 95 Data Verification Two Specific means of inquiry dominated the research effort of the researcher. These were participant observation and interviews. In addition, document analysis was used to supplement the data. Gorden (1980) discussed the need for multiple methods of verification: Often the nature of the problem under investigation demands a multimethod approach because various methods give totally different kinds of information that can supplement each other, because we do not know how to interpret some of the information unless we can couple it with other information, or because we need a cross-check to verify the validity of our observations. (p- 12) The techniques of participant observation and interviews are an integral part of this ethnography. Certain kinds and amounts of evidence were best Obtained using one approach while other data were more easily obtained through the other technique. It is difficult to draw a clear either-or distinction between the two methods. Participant observation has elements of informant interviews and vice versa. More Specifically, during participant observation the school personnel become increasingly more familiar with the researcher and his role. A pattern of increased familiarity continued throughout the study. The participants' familiarity led to greater COOperation and a willingness to be interviewed. In addition, the information that Staff provided during observations, as 96 well as the observations themselves, shaped some of the questions used in the interviews. Consequently, the interrelationship between both techniques ultimately determined the nature of the data obtained. AS just described, data were gathered through a variety of methods. Cross-checking one source of information against another occurred as a means of establishing validity. This ethnographic method is known as ”triangulation” (Denzin, 1978). Instances of confirming as well as disconfirming evidence were sought as a means of establishing well grounded data for the researcher's hypotheses. Triangulation was an important concept in that a researcher has an obligation to check the validity of data, and use this in formulating working hypotheses. Data Analysis The process of maintaining accurate fieldnotes is essential to the ongoing task of data analysis. Descriptive notes ultimately assist the process of triangulation. As a means of fieldnote organization, this researcher followed a system advocated by Schatzman and Strauss (1973). Categories were developed as follows: "Observational Notes" (ON): These included occurrences which were directly observable; the etic (i.e. direct quotes, gestures, observation of physical setting, etc.) 97 "Theoretical Notes" (TN): These were the impressions or meaning of events perceived by the researcher and informants, based on the observation; the emic. ”Methodological Notes" (MN): These served as stimuli or reminders to the researcher regarding procedural operations which could be included or altered in the Study. When phenomena were observed and documented in the fieldnotes frequently, the researcher was able to deve10p a theory. This Observation needed to occur from many different perspectives, however. These Observational perspectives included the interpretation of the researcher, as well as the meaning placed on events by various informants. The combination of participant observations and interviews were acts of verification. The observations provided etic information while the interviews provided emic data. The various perspectives provided the researcher with a framework from which to Operate in the development of working hypotheses and assertions. It was important to search for supporting evidence as well as disconfirming evidence and rival hypotheses. The participant observation and interview strategy was an important means of achieving triangulation of data. One of the most fundamental Operations in data analysis is the establishment of "key linkages" ch pa de 0C 8C re 98 (Schatzman & Strauss, 1973). This Operational model involves discovering significant classes of things, persons and events concurrent with the elements which characterize them. These linkages formed the research pattern and allowed the theoretical construct to deve10p. Again, it was important that the analysis occurred throughout the study. Consequently, the key linkages did not remain static but changed as the Study achieved depth through participant involvement and researcher familiarity with the site. Once the researcher withdrew from the site, he was in a position to analyze the overall data. Key linkages and triangulation of the information generated approximately 50 “classes" of information. Not all of the impressions of the researcher were supported in the fieldnotes, however. From the 50 possibilities, 26 "classes” of data were supported in the fieldnotes, which interfaced with the 11 research questions. These categories formed the basis of the findings. The researcher had withdrawn from the Site when analysis of the information was approached. None of this rigorous data analysis could have occurred without the benefit of accurate descriptive fieldnotes. 99 Validity and Reliability The primary task of an ethnographer is to present a descriptive, vivid picture of the world under study. For the study to have validity, its findings must coincide with the intentions of the participants as they attach meaning to their happenings. As Bruyn (1966) states: What the researcher says is reality in the minds of those he studies, must be the reality in the same way that they conceive it. (p. 255) Therefore, the question of validity is ”Do the data accurately indicate what happened in the setting?” If the answer is, "yes" then one should assume high validity. The researcher can increase the opportunity for high validity in a study. Homans (1950) suggests that by placing oneself in the social setting (a) over time, (b) working in the same place, (c) in varied social circumstances, (d) with the language of the subjects, (e) develOping a degree of intimacy, and (f) confirming the meanings of the subject, the researcher is able demonstrate a higher degree of validity in the findings. This researcher feels that this ethnography meets all of Homans' criteria. Quantitative methods seldom achieve the validity described by Bruyn. Cusick (1973) supports the abstraction of qualitative versus quantative validity: 100 As one lives close to a situation, his description and explanation of it have a first-person quality which other methodologies lack. As he continues to live close to and moves deeper into that situation his perceptions have a validity that is Simply unapproachable by any so called standardized method. There is a difference, however, between validity and reliability. While validity is concerned with the accuracy of the findings within the site, reliability involves replicability and consistency of the findings across a spectrum of studies. Quantative methods employ standardized statistical instrumentation which implies replicability. The value in qualitative methods is that it does not structure the data a priori, which standardized methods tend to do. Therefore, reliability is more apprOpriately addressed in the quantative paradigm, while validity is an issue for the qualitative model of inquiry. Summary This study employed descriptive methods as a means of portraying an organizational cultural perspective on the process of mainstreaming. It occurred in the natural environment within one elementary school. Characteristics which make this Study qualitative are: (1) the use of the natural environment as a means of data collection, (2) the researcher functioned as the key instrument for the study, (3) the study was descriptive in nature, (4) process rather than merely 101 outcomes were considered important by the researcher, (5) research data were analyzed inductively, and (6) the "meaning" of events to the participants was reported within the study. A multimethod approach of participant observation and interviews was used as a means of obtaining data. CHAPTER FOUR: THE SETTING Introduction The setting in which this study was conducted is the focus of this chapter. A description of the Northville* community, Northville Area Public Schools, Washington Elementary School and staff all provide the context for this ethnography. Information for this chapter was obtained through participant observation, interviews, and document analysis. To fully appreciate the perspective of the participants found in Chapter Five: The Findings, the reader needs to have an awareness of the environment which helped shape the culture of the Washington Elementary School. The Community The site for this prOposed study was the Washington Elementary School, one of eight buildings within the Northville Area Public Schools. Of the facilities housing students within the school district, five are elementary schools, two are middle schools, and one is a high school. *(Pseudonyms have been used for all places and persons to protect the privacy of the individuals involved.) 102 103 The Northville Area Public Schools are located in a rural part of northern Michigan on the Shores of one of the Great Lakes. The school district services the community of Northville, the largest city within the county and region. Because of its central location in the region, it has develOped into the regional center for retail, medical, educational, and governmental activities. Northville has a pOpulation of approximately 23,000 pe0p1e residing within the city limits. The geographic terrain is widely varied. Seventy-eight miles of low beach-type shoreline form the northern boundary, with mountainous terrain crowning the northern tip of the county. The city of Northville is the seat of a county with a pOpulation of approximately 74,000 pe0p1e. Also located in the county are two neighboring cities with a combined pOpulation of approximately 11,000 pe0p1e, and an Air Force Base which is a major influence on the local economy. Great Lakes University (GLU), a four-year institution, located in Northville, has a profound influence on the community, and consequently on the school district. Founded in 1899 as a teachers college, GLU is presently a co-ed university with over 80 fields of degree Study. Great Lakes University has a 300-acre campus, a majority of the buildings having been constructed during a major growth period of the 104 mid-nineteen sixties through the middle of the nineteen seventies. The present enrollment of the university is approximately 8,000 students. Great Lakes University touches almost every aspect of the community. The university is a major employer in Northville. Consequently, the schools serve a high proportion of children coming from these families employed by GLU. The university also has a Significant influence on the teaching staff of the Northville Area Public Schools. Of the teaching Staff, 179 or 78% have a B.A. degree from GLU, and 111 faculty, 84.1% received their M.A. from GLU. Of the teachers who received their degrees at other institutions of higher learning, almost all have taken courses at GLU or have attended workshOps sponsored by the university. Great Lakes University depends heavily on the Northville Schools for the placement of Student teachers. As a result, at any given time, student teachers are in all of the district's buildings. Concurrent with this activity, the professors from the university supervising these students have high visibility in the schools, with regular contact occurring throughout the year. In addition to the effect on the community educational system, the university contributes to the recreational activities of the general pOpulation. Recreation includes 14 university Spectator Sports, with football, basketball, and hockey representing the most greatly 105 attended. These activities provide an excellent source of entertainment and socialization for community members. To call Northville a "typical college town" would certainly be apprOpriate. Northville was founded as a port for Shipping iron ore. Presently, the iron ore industry is the region's largest employer. The ore which is mined locally represents one-fifth of all iron ore mined in the United States annually. This industry has a dramatic impact on the local economy. Within the last five years, iron ore production has been down, as compared with previous years. Consequently, massive layoffs have been seen throughout the county. This employment curtailment affected virtually every segment of the economy; from small businesses, restaurants, and clothing retailers to housing, new construction, and the medical community. As a result of the depressed economy, the schools have been negatively affected due to a lower tax base. Although Northville Area Public Schools were affected by the depressed iron ore industry, communities within the western part of the county felt the pain of depressed economic times to a much greater degree. The mines are actually situated within those communitiies and represent the only major employer. The county is beginning to come back to economic sufficiency. This study was conducted two 106 years after the lowest economic times were seen in the county. Northville itself has more economic diversity than the outlying portions of the county. This multifaceted economy has meant that no one industry or related pOpulation has monOpolized the values and beliefs reflected in the schools. There are other major employers affecting the community of Northville. Until the time the Study was conducted, these employers had been stable forces within the community. A local regional medical center employes 1200 persons. The Michigan Branch Prison provides numerous jobs in the community. The United States Air Force Base has 3800 military personnel, with an additional 400 jobs provided for civilians. These three institutions have a significant impact on the economic base of Northville as well as upon the composition of the student pOpulation. The School System The Northville Area Public School District was established in 1854 and is presently the largest school district in the area. The school district encompasses a total of 135 Square miles (11 square miles within the Northville city limits and 124 in neighboring townships). Northville Schools, rated by the State as Class A in terms of size, had a total student 107 pOpulation of 4840 at the time of the study. Serving the students are almost 400 regular employees. Of those, 277 hold educational certificates (teachers and administrators). The central office administration building, located one mile from Washington Elementary School houses the offices of the Superintendent, the Director of Curriculum and Staff Development, the Director of Special Education, the Business Manager, and the Director of Personnel. Northville Area Public Schools maintain contemporary up—to-date facilities. All buildings have been either built or renovated during the past 25 years. The facilities include Six elementary schools (K-5), two middle schools (6-8), one senior high school (9-12) and one alternative high school for drOpouts or potential drOpoutS (administered through Northville Schools on behalf of other districts within the two-county area). The Northville Area Public Schools conduct their instructional program under the umbrella of The Common Goals of Michigan Education as adOpted by the State Board of Education in 1980. To supplement and compliment the State goals, The Northville Board of Education has adOpted seven locally develOped goals for the district. These goals are as follows: Statement of Philosophy The Northville Area Public Schools believes that its purpose is to provide Opportunities for all 108 children, youth, and adults to acquire knowledge, Skills, and attitudes which will enable them to function as responsible citizens. Goals 1. Basic Skills To provide Opportunities that will assure the acquisition of basic communication and computational skills. 2. Self-Worth, Physical and Mental Well-Being To provide the Opportunities by which an individual may develop a positive self-image and the necessary physical well-being which will enable him to determine, understand, and examine his/her own capabilities, interests, and goals. 3. Sciences, Arts, Humanities! and Environment To provide opportunities to gain knowledge, skills, and appreciation of the natural sciences, the social sciences, the humanities, the creative and fine arts, and to promote the respect, maintenance and protection of the physical environment. 4. Family Life and Career Preparation To provide Opportunities to prepare for the responsibilities of family life, as well as for the selection and preparation of a career, consistent with the individual's capabilities, interest, and desire. 5. Understanding and Preparation of Social Skills To provide opportunities for develOping an understanding of the value systems, cultures, histories, and customs of world societies, and to participate responsibly in the social, economic, and political environment. 6. yocational and Technical Skills To provide Opportunities to develop the individual's Skills which will assist him in his career goals. 7. greative and Critical Thinking To provide Opportunities to develop creative and critical thinking Skills which will allow the individual to act independently, reSponSibly, and effectively, in dealing with every day Situations. 109 The School Washington Elementary School houses grades K-5 and one special education resource room. In addition to the classes sponsored by the Northville Schools, there are five Special education classes, two programs for the hearing impaired and three programs for the emotionally impaired, Sponsored by the Great Lakes Intermediate School District (GLISD). Students in these programs are bussed into the school from a two county area. The GLISD programs housed at the Washington School do not account for the total Spectrum of special education services Operated by the district, but merely one segment and the only aSpect related to this study. The total school population of the Washington Elementary School is 471. The students are divided by grade which include two-half day kindergarten sessions, three first grades, four second grades, three third grades, three fourth grades, and three fifth grades. This school population and the number of classes within the building represent one of the two largest elementary schools within the district (the other school has only four more students). The average class size at the Washington Elementary School is 26.3 students. Classes range in size from 22 up to 29 Students. Compared with other elementary schools within the Northville school district, Washington has 110 the largest classes. This is a point of contention with the teachers of the school. They are quick to compare their average class size with that of another school within the district having a mean class size of 19 students per class. The Washington teachers feel strongly that their classes Should be smaller if they are to mainstream Special education students successfully. Washington Elementary School has the greatest amount of mainstreaming due to the GLISD special education addition to the building. The Washington Elementary School is a contemporary looking building with a flat roof and an exterior constructed with various shades of tannish/orange colored brick. An aerial view of the structure reveals a T-shaped structure (see Figure 2). The original building was completed in 1957. A six-room addition was built in 1963. And, in 1978, the GLISD constructed an addition to house the five Special education classrooms. As the school is viewed from the outside, the wing housing the lower grades appears as a full length wall, approximately 150'. of windows. This visual line of windows is broken at the point of the GLISD addition where bricks comprise the primary view. There are a total of 44,000 square feet in the Washington Elementary School. It is situated on a spacious site 7.2 acres in size. The front of the building reveals a long canOpy which leads to the front 1“ Hoofim 335508 :onufigmmz 1— . 111 .n . .1m.m.m-~-e uni rudtu mu N onswnm on .... an a... - n ....o - n ....o c ....o . ....u a ....o . ...ro . ..m.w.ofiu U... U 73%... _.......SW.LL.LLE SE8... 83o 112 entrance of the building. This is the location where the students board the bus. Adjacent to the back of the school is a playground situated on 0.24 acres. The playground has outdoor recreational equipment which includes a basketball court, swings, and a climber. The playground area is set amongst birch and maple trees. The grass is Sparse because the soil is sandy, the type often found on beaches. This sand, tracked into the school on the feet of the students, has caused a maintenance problem, according to the principal. The typical classroom in the Washington Elementary School is 32' x 30' and equipped to seat 30 students. Each classroom has a green chalkboard across the front with bulletin boards on the back wall. One full wall is lined with thermOpane windows in each classroom. Under the windows are book shelves. On the opposite wall is a work counter with a Sink and drinking fountain unit set in the tOp. A display case, Opened from the classroom but visible from the corridor, is a feature of each classroom. The display case is SUrrounded with pecky cypress wood visible from the corridor. The lower grades have individual toilets adjacent to the classroom, with central bathroom facilities are available for the upper grades. 113 The Principal Stan Adams has been principal of the Washington Elementary School for the past ten years. Prior to that time, he was a teacher, one year in California and eight for the Northville Area Public Schools. Mr. Adams has had more university coursework than all but one of the teachers in the building. This training consists of B.S. and M.A. degrees with a major in education, and an Educational Specialist Degree with a major in administration. All of his training was completed at GLU. Mr. Adams has lived most of his life in the local area (except for one year teaching in California). He was raised in a small mining community 35 miles from Northville. Although the distance from Northville is not that great, a completely different culture exists in his hometown, primarily due to the imposition of the mine and the isolation this has created. For Mr. Adams, leaving the community for college was not considered the norm at that time. At 41 years of age, Mr. Adams is approximately 5' 11" tall with a medium build, and is about 20 pounds overweight. He combs his medium-length light brown hair to the side in a conservative manner. Mr. Adams is always seen wearing a sport jacket and tie unless the school temperature is warm, causing him to remove 114 his Sport jacket for comfort. His dress is consistent with other male principals within the school district. Since Mr. Adams' departure from classroom teaching, he has remained very much child-oriented. He is typically seen milling about the school, his arm around the shoulder of a Student and talking, while remembering minute but important details about the child. As one teacher indicated; "Stan is very much a kid person. He reminds me of someone who Still loves teaching". Mr Adams' other activities also reflect his enjoyment of children. For the past ten years he has voluntarily been the director of a one week camp in the Spring. During this time, all the fifth grades and their teachers go to a sleep-over camp 30 miles North of Northville. School is held at the camp, with outdoor activities being the primary mode of learning. Mr. Adams teaches a class at the camp, sleeps in the students' cabins when necessary, all in addition to carrying out the general overall Camp Director administrative reSponSibilities. In the school setting, Mr. Adams' Strong interest in the natural sciences prompts his initiation of school displays and classroom science lessons. Children also occupy the primary part of Mr. Adams' personal life. Most of his interests involve youth in one way or another. Mr. Adams has been a Big Brother to a boy without a father, and has served on 115 the Big Brothers Board for ten years. He remains very much involved in the activities of his five children. Mr. Adams has been a Cub Scout Den Leader for two years and Assistant Cubmaster for two years. When asked by other Staff to attend a social function, Mr. Adams does not hesitate to indicate that he is going to his son's basketball game, or will be with the family. Because Mr. Adams' wife often works evenings at the community library, his family time appears to be that much more a priority. Mr. Adams has made a major commitment to the supervision of the lunch program. There are two lunch periods; therefore, one hour and twenty minutes each day is devoted toward monitoring the lunch room. Mr. Adams personally handles all discipline during this time. To accomplish this, a table is set on a raised stage in the gymnasium, where all the children eat. From this vantage point, Mr. Adams observes the lunchroom activity, and deals with any misbehaving students. Seated at the table with him then, are students who have not followed school rules in terms of apprOpriate lunchroom behavior. Mr. Adams typically has these Students doing extra written work. During the time that they are seated together, he interacts with them, either talking about their misbehavior or helping the students with their assignments. 116 The literature supports the concept that the principal exert a significant influence on a school. Within this context, Mr. Adams described the framework by which he Operates. The following is an account of his responses: Expertise which enhances your leadership-- I try to utilize the individual abilities and interests of each teacher to provide expertise in instructional, as well as other matters pertinent to the overall school climate. Students-- Each and every student is unique and learns in his/her own way. Students should have the Opportunity to learn in an environment that is Stimulating and exciting. They should know what is expected of them, and they should be expected to perform to the best of their ability. Students Should be provided with Opportunities to deve10p basic academic, as well as social skills. They should feel that the pe0p1e who work with them at the school are their friends. Teachers-- The teaching staff is the key component in providing quality educational activities for children. Teachers need to be aware of the child's emotional, as well as educational needs. Teachers need to be utilized in the delivery of quality instruction, as well as the develOpment of new programs. Teachers need to be involved in the decision-making process of the school. Parents-— Parents need to form a partnership with the school in develOping the best program to meet the needs of each child. There is a need for two-way communication, in that parents need to know what the school expects, and parents need to let the school know what expectations they have for their child's educational program. Parents need to be involved in the child's program and work COOperatively with the school to provide the best learning Opportunities for their children. 117 The Curriculum-- The curriculum defines the purpose for the existence of the educational system. The focus of the curriculum at the elementary school should be an emphasis on the acquisition of basic skills in the areas of Reading, Math, Science, Social Studies, Language Arts, The Arts, and Physical Education. The curriculum should represent a set of values and Should be delivered by the best teachers and the latest technology that is available. Curriculum should be continuously evaluated and changed in a meaningful way. The School Building-- The school building Should reflect the pride of parents, students, and staff. It Should be prOperly maintained, and cleaned on a regular basis. The community should think of the school as a friendly place, and as a community resource. The school building should be well equipped and provide a stimulating learning environment for children. The Principal-- The principal establishes the climate in the school building. The climate is set by how the principal carries out district and school policy, and by how he/she is perceived by the school populace. The principal Should try to facilitate a problem-solving approach to school administration. This type of administrative Style is accomplished by the establishment of a Shared responsibility for the education of each child. Shared responsibility is accomplished by the understanding of the role that each component plays in the overall program, and a mutual respect of that role. Northville 118 Washington Elementary School GLISD Stan Adams Terri Russo Ann Brown Barb Land Pamela Butler Carol Rosen Darlene Lucas Emily Fountain Irene Ford Freda Crawford Gladys Crane Scott Smith Helen Boone Jack Thomas Lynn Hale Mark Steele Neal Jones Kevin Denmar Paul Lance Denise Clark Rene Malo Kay Rush Sally Manis Tina Kosner Carl Krieg William Roth Angie Dixon Liz Dolan Delores Works Brenda Hafer Carla Nelson Fran Hess Gina Goodell Jackie Gordon Kate Roy Harriet Lee Kathy Tucker Staff Principal Kindergarten Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade uumtnc~bnbtoonwrohoNnvhahud Resource Room Chapter I Librarian Secretary Resource Aide Kind. Aide Custodian Custodian Preschool EI Early Elem. EI Later Elem. EI Preschool HI Preschool HI Elementary HI Speech Th. EI Aide EI Aide HI Aide HI Aide 119 Northville Teachers The teachers employed by the Northville Area Public Schools and housed at the Washington Elementary School include 20 full time teaching staff. Of the 20 teachers, six (in addition to the principal) are males. The number of men is disproportionately high in comparison to the other elementary school teachers in the district. As a result, Washington School is known as "a place where all the guys teach”. In fact, over the years, several of the men have transferred into the building to be in a setting with other male teachers. Very little turnover has occurred at the Washington School. At the time of the study, the teachers had an average of 14.5 years of experience in the profession, with 8.3 in their current assignment within the school. The fact of little turnover is further represented in the average age of the teaching staff of 42.8. Very few younger teachers or newer graduates have secured positions within the Washington School. The Washington teachers' formal training at the university level is considered high in the field of elementary education, as compared to the national norms. More than half of the teachers have earned a Masters Degree. With an average of 25.8 credit hours past the Bachelors level, all of the Staff have taken additional university training. One teacher has an Educational Specialist degree. Teachers at the Washington School do not take 120 many sick days. The range for the staff during the year of the study was between one and ten with a mean number of Sick days being 3.8. This is low compared to national norms. Northville Subgroups Although the Northville teachers at the Washington Elementary School have one common employer and work in the same building, very distinct subgroups exist among the staff. It appears that several factors affect the formation of these groups. Some of the more obvious are grade level taught, which determines the teachers' lunch hour and break times, physical location of the classroom, and gender. All of these elements create a situation which produces the Opportunity for greater social contact for some staff. The "fifth grade guys" are located in an addition, added in 1963 to the original structure. The addition is connected to the main part of the building by passing through one double glass door. This gives the impression of physical separation. The term "fifth grade guys" is used generically. The subgroup is comprised of three fifth grade male teachers, one female fourth grade teacher, who in previous years taught fifth grade, one male third grade teacher, and the Resource Room teacher, who is also a male. 121 The ”fifth grade guys" are socially compatible and regularly see each other outside of the school environment. This contact includes a regular Wednesday breakfast and Friday lunches, often referred to as the "lunch bunch”. In addition, activities off the school premises such as tennis, jogging and social functions Often include several of the subgroup members. Light hearted banter typifies their interaction. This joking occurs among themselves and with others with whom they have contact. When one describes the social climate or eSprit de corps of the Staff, it is the "fifth grade guys" who seem to provide the social glue to the fabric holding the staff together. One notable member of the ”fifth grade guys" subgroup is Paul Lance, the special education Resource Room teacher. At 30 years old, Mr. Lance is the youngest member of the staff. The general impression the staff has of Mr. Lance is one of respect for his knowledge and a genuine feeling of acceptance as a peer. Although Mr. Lance is a special education teacher, he socializes and identifies almost exclusively with the general education staff. His regular participation with the "fifth grade guys" is readily observable within the school and outside of the school premises. The "lower grade" teachers represent another prominent subgroup in the school. AS is the case with 122 the "fifth grade guys", this label is also used generically. Not all lower grade teachers participate in membership. The core of the group consists of one first grade teacher and two second grade teachers. Depending on the occasion, other lower grade teachers may join in the group interaction. The ”lower grade" subgroups play a significant role in this study. Their rooms are immediately adjacent to the GLISD addition. It is interesting to note the perception of the ISD staff regarding the "lower grade" teachers. The GLISD staff feel that the "lower grade" teachers are not friendly or receptive to the Special educators' presence. Daily occurrences lead to this perception. For example, if "lower grade" teachers are talking in a small group outside their rooms and another individual passes, the "lower grade” teachers rarely acknowledge that passerby's presence, preferring to continue their group discussion. As a result, the ISD staff has been reticent to pass by the "lower grade" teachers when the group might be in the corridor. It is noteworthy to indicate that the researcher had Similar impressions of the "lower grade” teachers prior to the initiation of the study. Once the research had begun, however, and a greater familiarity was achieved with individuals of the "lower grade" group, passing by in the hall prompted a friendly acknowledgement by the group. 123 Although not a subgroup, as defined by two or more pe0p1e, Specific individuals play significant roles among the staff at the Washington Elementary School. These teachers could be referred to as ”floaters". They are not restricted to one subgroup, but rather go freely between groups, apparently interacting comfortably in each setting. Irene Ford could be thus characterized. Mrs. Ford is in her mid-forties, has a medium build, and black hair. She professes to "speak what's on my mind". Mrs. Ford, presently the president of the teachers' union of the Northville schools, appears to have the reSpect of the staff. When it comes to communicating with the central office administration, teachers will often say; ”Irene will tell them!", with conviction in their voices. Partially due to her role as union president, and because She values a closeness among her peers, Mrs. Ford is often seen in different settings: with the "fifth grade guys", "lower grade” teachers, and talking regularly with the principal. She is personal friends with Lynn Hale, a female fourth grade teacher who is a member of the ”fifth grade guys" clique. Because of this, Mrs. Ford often joins the "fifth grade guys" for Wednesday breakfast. Another floater is Jack Thomas, a fourth grade teacher. Being the only male teacher in his end of the school, Mr. Thomas maintains regular contact with one 124 member of the "fifth grade guys”, Scott Smith, a third grade teacher but located with ”the guys". Mr. Thomas and Mr. Smith formerly taught together in another Northville elementary building. ConSequently, there is a common bond. AS with Mrs. Ford, Mr. Thomas is also known for his outspoken views. In his early fifties, and balding, Mr. Thomas is retired from the military. When referencing his own values or beliefs, Mr. Thomas will often say; "In my narrow military mind. . .", with pride in his voice. Due to Mr. Thomas and Mrs. Ford's outSpoken behavior, the researcher felt that their roles as key informants was central to this study. In addition to the ”floaters", another subgroup among the Northville staff are the teachers comprising the "isolates". These are teachers who, for a variety of reasons, choose not to not be regular participants of subgroup activities. For example, Ann Brown and Pamela Butler, both first grade teachers, are typically seen in their classrooms, engaging in planning activities when the students are not present. They come to school early, 8:00 A.M., and leave late. They take their work very seriously. Mrs. Brown does come to the Staff Room for a quick lunch, frequently consisting of cut carrots or a tossed salad from home, but she leaves before the end of the lunch period to return to the classroom. She often appears preoccupied 125 by her thoughts, not responding to the light conversation of the group. GLISD Special Education Staff With fewer classes in the Washington School, the number of staff employed by the GLISD is significantly fewer than that of the Northville teachers. Ten female staff members comprise the total special education unit in Washington School, administered by GLISD. Of these, seven are professional staff with three being teacher aides. One teaching position is a shared time arrangement between two teachers each teaching one half time. Another of the teaching positions is that of a speech therapist assigned to the Washington Elementary School full time. There is a high ratio of teacher aides among the GLISD staff, as compared with the Northville staff. Consequently, the GLISD special education teacher aides play an integral role in the staff interaction and perception that the general education teachers hold regarding GLISD staff. One teacher aide, Jackie Gordon, served as a key informant for this study. Of all the GLISD staff, she has socially integrated herself with the Northville Staff more than anyone else. With an average age of 33, the GLISD teachers are generally younger than the Northville staff housed at the Washington School. The level of professional 126 training is comparable between the two teaching Staffs. Four of the GLISD teachers have Masters Degrees with all having course work past the BA level. The teachers have had little turnover, with four of the seven staff having been in the present assignment when the addition was built in 1978. In addition, two of the teacher aides have been assigned to the Washington Elementary School 6 1/2 or more years. As is the case with the Northville teachers, the staff of the GLISD do not form a single cohesive unit. SubgrOUps do exist. Speciality areas seem to provide the criteria for subgroup division. The "HI" staff includes those teachers and aides working with hearing impaired Students. These two rooms are physically connected by an Open archway, constructed one year prior to the Study. The teachers of the two rooms recommended the opening to enable joint classroom programming. Members of this staff socialize outside the school setting. During working hours, when Students are not present, the staff is observed engaging in COOperative planning, or just relaxing together through light conversation. Although the speech therapist serves all the GLISD programs at the Washington Elementary School, Gina Goodell allies herself with the HI staff. The other subgroup of the GLISD is the "El" Staff. These three teachers and two aides work with Students 127 having emotional impairments. As a group, these staff members are not as cohesive as the HI staff. They plan their programs separately and rarely socialize, other than at school related functions. One commonality does exist between the Early Elementary and Later Elementary programs for the Emotionally Impaired. Both programs share one teacher aide. This shared arrangement necessitates COOperative planning in terms of schedule. Interestingly, although the El grOUp has little in common, when a program issue arose requiring problem solving, the staff eSpoused Similar thoughts. Jackie Gordon is a teacher aide whose duties are divided between two of the El programs. She functioned as the most Significant key informant in this Study. Of the GLISD Staff, she is the only one to have ”bridged the gap" between the two units. One year prior to the initiation of this study, Mrs. Gordon began making daily visits to the Staff Room for lunch. This activity allowed her to become familiar with all the teachers employed by Northville at the Washington School. A genuine collegial relationship developed. AS the Northville teachers have said; "Jackie has become one of us". Mrs. Gordon has Similar thoughts; ”I really enjoy them--all of them". Because Mrs. Gordon has been accepted as a member of both staffs, she represented the ideal key informant for this study. The researcher checked impressions and potential 128 assertions with Mrs. Gordon on a regular basis. One question which continually plagued the researcher was "Am I seeing and hearing only what the staff wants me to see?", or, "Is this the way things really are?". Mrs. Gordon, an ”insider", was able to confirm or disconfirm the researcher's impressions. The Students Although not a primary focus of this study, a general understanding of the student pOpulation attending the Washington Elementary School is useful to the reader. Most of the students of the Washington Elementary School are caucasian. Of the 471 students, only 5.8% are in a minority grouping (Black, Asian, Hispanic, American Indian). This breakdown of ethnic origin is consistent with other schools within the district and is reflective of the general pOpulation of the community. A majority of the students, 70%, resides with both natural parents, which is above the national average. Almost half of those ordering school lunch (48%) come from families which are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. Attendance rates are high for the school, with an average of 94% for the year. Washington Elementary School is not just a neighborhood school in the community. Roughly half of 129 the students reside in the attendance area of another school building within the school district. Due to overcrowding in that school, students are bussed to Washington. Other students within the city limits take the bus to Washington because the distance from their home to school is more than a mile. Therefore, the attendance area of the Washington School extends beyond the bounds of the surrounding neighborhood. Summary The setting for this Study was the Washington Elementary School, a part of the Northville Area Public Schools which is located in a rural area of northern Michigan. The site presents itself with the five special education classrooms administered through the Great Lakes Intermediate School District. Two different school districts Operate classrooms, general and Special education, within the same facility. There is an unusually high concentration of mainstreaming in the building, as compared with most elementary schools, due to the inclusion of the ISD student pOpulation within the school. Within Washington School, many subgroups and individuals interact to create the staff culture within the building. Stan Adams, the principal of the school helps guide the school climate through his interpersonal approach in interactions with students 130 and staff. The "fifth grade guys", seem to provide the social glue to the staff through their own cohesiveness, and the attempts they make at including other staff in social interaction and gatherings. The "lower grade" subgroup represents another notable subgroup at Washington School. The location of the "lower grade” subgroup is within close proximity to the GLISD special education classrooms. There is limited interaction between these two staffs, however. The GLISD teachers' behavior indicates that their perception of the "lower grade” teachers often represents the Special educators' views of the whole Northville Staff. Among the Northville staff are the "floaters" and the ”isolates" who also contribute to the staff culture through their mingling between the subgroups or through their lack of social interaction. The ISD Special education staff has subgroups which impinge Upon their own staff culture. These subgroups are the staffs of the hearing impaired and those of the emotionally impaired classrooms. Collectively, the subgroups and individuals comprise the two organizational cultures of the Washington Elementary School. CHAPTER FIVE: THE FINDINGS Introduction This study concentrated on the organizational culture of the Washington Elementary School, a building within the Northville Area Public Schools. Participant observation and in-depth interviews were used to investigate the elements of the staff culture and the relationship it has to the mainstreaming of special education students. For this descriptive study, the researcher observed numerous settings within the school. This participant observation occurred in the following settings: Staff Room, corridors, playground, school lobby and waiting area, gymnasium, and in social functions outside of the school building. In more formal Situations, the researcher attended general staff meetings and educational meetings on students. Interviews were also an integral aspect of the data collection. Most interviews were 30 minutes long. Of the 31 members of the Washington School staff, 26 were interviewed, with 18 being interviewed two or more times. 131 132 The Questions -WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF STAFF CULTURE DISPLAYED IN A SCHOOL SETTING? -HOW ARE THESE ELEMENTS INTERRELATED? -HOW DOES THIS INTERRELATIONSHIP AFFECT THE MAINSTREAMING OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN INTO GENERAL EDUCATION CLASSES? These broad research questions provided the basis of this ethnography. Additional mid-level questions were investigated in the identification of the elements inherent in staff culture at the Washington Elementary School. This culture was viewed in relation to the mainstreaming process. There is notable overlap between the mid-level questions which follow. They are presented in such a fashion to highlight certain key foci of this descriptive study. When viewed collectively, the details provide a clearer understanding of the ways in which school staff culture affects the mainstreaming process. The research questions were as follows: Mid-Level Questions At the Washington Elementary School: 1. What is the social climate and how is it displayed? 133 How do the various Staff subgroups contribute to the composition of the total group culture? What is the nature of communication between the Northville teachers and the GLISD Staff, and how is it diSplayed? How is the mainstreaming process affected by the personal traits of individual staff members? How do the different schedules of the GLISD and Northville Area Public Schools affect mainstreaming? How does the location of the GLISD Special education facility, in relation to the general education classrooms, affect mainstreaming? What role does the principal play in the Staff culture and the ongoing implementation of mainstreaming? What attitudes do school Staff have about mainstreaming, and how are these displayed? What is the general education staff's perception of the Northville Area Public 134 School central administration, and how does this affect mainstreaming? 10. How does the staff feel about the established mainstreaming policies, and what methods are actually enacted? 11. What perceptions do general education teachers have of the special education program activities? ReSponses to all of the research questions are a reflection of the culture within the Washington School. No one element comprises this culture. Each description within this chapter provides parts of the culture and collectively they represent the culture as a whole. A factor which emerged as obvious during this study is that the Washington Elementary School has two basic and distinctly different organizational cultures within the same building. One culture is composed of the teachers and staff employed by the Northville Area Public Schools. Included within that group is the teacher of the Special Education Resource Room, administered through the Northville system. The other .separate culture is comprised of Special education [>ersonnel employed by the Great Lakes Intermediate fichool District. Therefore, within the Washington School there are two distinctly different cultures 135 working concurrently and trying to interface. Both have different physical and social environments, values, and basic underlying assumptions about the way things "ought" to be. Consequently, both cultures are uniquely different and separate. The data, narrative vignettes, and excerpts from the interviews have been selected, to provide the descriptive detail of this study, following a thorough analysis of the fieldnotes and audio tapes. The information is representative of the Staff perception of their school environment expressed through either observable behavior or words. SITE The site for this study was the Washington Elementary School, one of eight buildings within the Northville Area Public Schools, located in a rural part of northern Michigan. Washington Elementary School houses grades K-5 and has one special education Resource Room. The Resource Room services students who have been classified as learning disabled or educable mentally impaired. In addition to the classes sponsored by the Northville Area Public Schools, there are five Special education classes sponsored by the Great Lakes Intermediate School District (GLISD). Of these ISD Special education classes, two programs are for the hearing impaired (one preschool and one elementary level) and three programs are for the emotionally impaired 136 (one preschool, one early elementary , and one later elementary level). Students in these programs are bussed to the school from a two county area. During the school year the pOpulation of the ISD special education classes ranges from 30 to 44 students. The Findings WHAT IS THE SOCIAL CLIMATE AND HOW IS IT DISPLAYED? A camaraderie exists among the Northville teachers at the Washington School. Yet, the teachers recognize that this collegiality has been a recent occurrence within the past few years. Mrs. Boone, a teacher at the Washington School for 21 years, commented: I think our staff is very cohesive. There used to be kind of a rift between both ends of the building. I don't think that's true anymore. We've all kind of blended in (Interview 5/17/85). The enjoyable social climate can best be observed in the Staff Room. Mrs. Ford commented on the interaction of teachers within this setting: We have lots of fun in there (Staff Room). And when I think you can learn to laugh at yourself and what other pe0p1e do, I think it's healthy (Interview 5/17/85). This pleasant social climate was observed numerous times by the researcher in the Staff Room. The Staff room is Situated halfway down the hallway between the principal's office and the ISD 137 Special education wing. The room is approximately 15' wide by 25' long. The Staff Room is bright from the full wall of windows and fluorescent lighting. The staff room is decorated in green tones; the walls are light green and the full floor carpeting is a low pile green tweed. A 3' by 5' rectangular table is immediately to the right of the entry. There are two table and chair arrangements along the walls on the right and left sides of the room (See Figure 3). The right wall is covered with a long green chalkboard. This is the location of numerous postings regarding the teacher union, educational issues and even jokes. During a two week Span an 8"x 11" piece of white paper was hung on the board. Afixed to the paper were three pictures. The posting was entitled "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly; in any order you want.” One of the pictures was of Mr. Lance, the Washington School Resource Room teacher. It had been cut from the local community newspaper in which a happy birthday announcement appeared. The other two pictures were of fifth grade teachers Mr. Jones and Mr. Denmar. Mr. Jones' photo was taken when he was approximately twenty years younger; consequently, he had more hair at the time. Another posting was cut from the local community newspaper in which three pictures of Mr. Adams, the principal, appeared on his 40th birthday. One of the three pictures was of Mr. Adams at approximately 138 Staff Room 1—r Windows table u 0 c 0H '3 U 1—_l. '7 sofa J @ m" table 1 1 sofa table table OOOO OO table OOOO Figure 3 139 thirteen years of age. The caption read: "Happy 40th Stan--from the 5th grade wing”. Apparently the fifth grade teachers had submitted the caption to the newspaper for printing. It appeared to the researcher that the photos provided good documentation related to staff camaraderie and the positive relationship teachers have with the principal. This observation also demonstrated the level at which Paul Lance is integrated with the general education teachers. The Staff Room is typically filled with light-hearted humor. One day Mr. Thomas mistakenly was eating Miss Hale's lunch. Miss Hale entered the room and observed the occurrence taking place. She said "Jack, you are eating my lunch". With a chuckle in her voice she repeated the same message, a little louder; "Jack, you are actually eating my lunch. Can't you read my name on the bag?" Judging from the expression on his face, Mr. Thomas appeared surprised at the accusation. He responded "My wife packs my lunch each day. I never know what I'm getting!" A different teacher called across the room: ”Now he's going to blame his wife!" By this time the interaction had gotten everyone's attention with the group all laughing heartily. Miss Hale continued to joke with Mr. Thomas about the lunch while the group 140 continued chuckling, obviously enjoying the interchange. Mr. Thomas entered the Staff Room the following day at 12:30 p.m. From the moment he entered, the staff in the room began to laugh and reminisce about the previous day's occurrence in which he ate Miss Hale's lunch. Mr. Thomas cajoled with one female teacher: "That lunch looks good. Next time I'll get yours (lunch)!" Miss Hale called to Mr. Thomas: "See Jack, I marked my lunch bigger today". Laughter continued in the room while the group recalled the previous day's story. Mr. Thomas added: "If you girls keep riding my ass, I'm going to Start grabbing the first lunch I see". Miss Hale concluded while the laughter continued: "We're never going to let you live that one down." The entire conversation was interspersed with laughter, good eye contact between the staff, and an apparent mutual enjoyment of each other's company. The lunch incident is one example of the enjoyable relationships that exists among the teachers at the Washington School. Although less obvious, ongoing positive interchange does occur between the staff during most days in the Staff Room. The conversation among teachers discussing the upcoming purchase of a 141 microwave oven for the Staff Room was an example of typical dialogue. Miss Hale: Mrs. Boone: Mr. Thomas: Where do you suppose we can put the microwave? How about on that back table. Ya, but look at all that junk on it. I ought to back my pick-up to that window and haul that stuff out of here. The discussion continued with where the microwave could be purchased. Miss Hale: Mrs. Crane: Mrs. Boone: Miss Hale: Do you suppose I should check out that store which advertises free airline tickets when you buy something? I know someone who bought a refrigerator and got one ticket. They were pleased, but the price of the refirgerator was about $100 more than usual. Have you checked on K-Mart? I think they are having an appliance sale now. I will probably pick it up after school today. I'll go to a few of those places and see where we can get the best deal. The preceding conversation was typical, in particular because students are rarely brought up for discussion. Dialogue is filled with lively verbiage, and an absence of silence in the room is noticeable. As Mrs. Ford mentioned: The Staff Room is a place where we can forget the Stress of the classroom and enjoy each other's company (Interview 5/17/85). 142 The Staff Room is not the only place in which the staff camaraderie is readily observable. The socializing of the Northville teachers is not limited to the school premises. The researcher had a 7:30 A.M.interview with the school principal. We decided to meet for breakfast at a restaurant. We both arrived at the designated time and immediatly noticed that, coincidently, some of the teachers from the "Fifth Grade Guys" group had also arranged to meet for breakfast. Initially, Mr. Smith, was by himself waiting for the others to arrive. He had pulled two tables together and placed Six chairs around the perimeter, with one on each end and two on the long side of the arrangement. Mr. Adams and the researcher were seated at a table approximately twenty feet away. Mr. Adams noticed that Mr. Smith was wearing a tie and commented: "Scott, I'm sure glad you are giving a little class to that table (as he laughed).". Mr. Smith retorted with a joke: "Someone has got to set a good impression for the school.". They both laughed. At approximatly 7:40 A.M. Mr. Denmar and Mr. Lance arrived. Mr. Denmar is a fifth grade teacher. Mr. Lance is teacher of the Special education Resource Room administered by the Northville Area Public Schools. Mr. Denmar stOpped by the table at which Mr. Adams and the researcher were seated. Mr. Denmar 143 commented to the researcher, "I almost got a tennis racquet in his hand yesterday.". As Mr. Adams laughed he added, "Paul and I had a Big Brothers meeting, so we went over to see Kevin and Mark batting pOp—ups to each other (Mr. Adams laughed heartily at his joke)". Mr. Lance heard the joke while he was seated at the table arranged for the teachers, and continued the humor about Mr. Danmar and Mr. Steele's tennis game. All the teachers, with Mr. Adams, were obviously enjoying the recounting of the tennis tale which was demonstrated through their laughter. Mrs. Ford, a second grade teacher, entered the restaurant at 7:45 A.M. Mr. Adams called, ”Good morning, Irene". Mrs. Ford responded, ”Are you buying this morning?”. Mr. Adams laughed while Mrs. Ford continued, "Stan you better get back to the school by nine o'clock. Someone better be there. It sure won't be the teachers because they're all herel". The whole table of teachers laughed at the remark. The table of teachers were all seated while Mr. Adams and the researcher tried to continue the interview. It could still be heard that Mrs. Ford was joking about Mr. Smith's tie. There was much laughter from the group. Although the researcher could not hear the Specific discussion occurring at the teacher 144 table, it was apparent that they were enjoying each other's company. There was a preponderance of laughter and an absence of silence at their table. Miss Hale, a fourth grade teacher and member of the "Fifth Grade Guys" subgrOUp, entered the restaurant at approximately 7:50 A.M. She passed the table at which Mr. Adams and the researcher were seated. Mr. Adams joked with her, "Hey Lynn, we have a super sensitive micrOphone here which is picking up everything they are saying!". Mr. Lance heard the joke and called back to Mr. Adams, "And I bet you are going to use that in our evaluation". The group all laughed. Miss Hale walked over to the teacher table and asked the group, "Where's Neal this morning?” Mr. Denmar indicated that Mr. Jones had not arrived yet but was planning on attending the breakfast gathering. Miss Hale and Mr. Denmar then moved an additional chair to the end of the table and jokingly said that the two chairs were for Mr. Jones because he needed the larger seating capacity! Mr. Jones, arrived at 8:00 A.M. As he walked in the restaurant, Mr. Jones stopped by the table at which Mr. Adams and the researcher were seated. Mr. Jones discussed the upcoming Science Fair of which Mr. Adams is the director. After a two minute discussion, Mr. Jones proceeded to the teacher table. He looked at the 145 end chairs and Miss Hale commented, "Those two are both for you.” The whole group rolled with laughter for almost ten seconds. Mr. Jones smiled and seemed to enjoy the joke. He added wryly, "You're (referring to the whole table of teachers) lucky I camel”. The teachers laughed even louder! The group of teachers remained at the table until approximately 8:35 A.M. Throughout the time, the light hearted discussion continued with intermittent laughter. The researcher could readily observe the smiles on the teachers' faces. At one point, Mr. Adams leaned over to the researcher and commented: "Boy, that is some group of peOple-- that is some group of pe0plel". His voice was lowered with little inflection. The researcher immediately got the impression that Mr. Adams has a great deal of admiration for the staff, judging from the way he phrased the statement, his tone of voice and body posturing. The Observation on that Wednesday morning demonstrated a collegial relationship among some of the Staff at the Washington School. Their interaction is not limited to the confines of the school. It is apparent that Mr. Lance is included in that group of teachers. The fact that he is a special education teacher does not seem to set him apart from the 146 camaraderie of the group. In addition to the relationship that the teachers maintain with each other, there is a mutual enjoyment that they feel for Mr. Adams. He obviously feels likewise. The group interaction in the restaurant was comprised primarily of the "Fifth Grade Guys" subgroup. Yet, their group draws others from the staff as indicated by Mrs. Ford's inclusion on that morning. Other staff are encouraged to participate in the social interchange. It is interesting to note however, that while other teachers join in these informal gatherings, GLISD staff ggygg do. The collegial relationship among Staff is limited to Northville teachers. HOW DO THE VARIOUS STAFF SUBGROUPS CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE TOTAL GROUP CULTURE? Within the school there are several subcultures found among the staff. The most apparent are those comprising the Northville teachers and the GLISD staff. A camaraderie exists, in a general sense, among the Northville teachers at the Washington School. Their social grouping does not include the staff of the Great Lakes Intermediate School District. Washington School is not unique in that different value systems are Operational for special education and general education Staff. Furthermore, this difference first presents itself by the fact that there are two employers within 147 the same building. As a result, dissimilar conditions exist for the intermediate school district and the Northville teachers. The staff within the school perceive those differences and attach meaning to the actions, conditions and circumstances surrounding the school environment. The fact that there are perceived differences between the GLISD staff and the Northville teachers was apparent during an interchange which took place in the corridor. The researcher was walking down the hall with Mrs. Hafer, an ISD teacher. We passed Mr. House, the Northville school district psychologist. He began to joke: Oh, I see you are down here (with surprise in his voice). You even crossed the line out of your wing. Do they let you use the bathroom and phone in the office (Observation 2/20/85)? Even though he was joking, Mr. House apparently thought it unusual to see an ISD teacher in the main part of the building. Miss Hale has taught at the Washington school for fourteen years. She feels that a cognitive distance exists between the ISD and Northville teachers. Miss Hale provided an appropriate analogy which described the distinction between the two teacher groups. ...they're hired by different people and on their own time schedule, and we're one family (as she laughs and adds), and they are like a distant cousin of the family. I know they've been here for a long time, but there are some 148 peOple that I don't even know the names of yet (Interview 5/7/85). Mr. Jones, another Northville teacher, provided insightful rationale about some contributing factors leading to the separate cultures of the two staffing units. According to Mr. Jones, the GLISD Staff are not a visible entity within the facility. He feels that if the Special education Staff involved themselves in more school social functions, the cultural differences would be minimized. I think it would be better for the teachers too, if they got done at the same time, went to our staff meetings, eat with us. We're part of flower fund, we're in and out of our staff room. They need to become visible and all of a sudden they would be part of us... They don't get in on the "lunch bunch". When we have an in—service day, often a bunch of teachers go out and eat. And all that stuff, you see, builds acceptance of them as part of the group. They have come to some of our staff parties, and I think that has helped somewhat (Interview 4/19/85). When asked by the researcher to draw a comparision on how well She knew the ISD teachers compared to the Northville general education staff, Mrs. Boone indicated less familiarity with the ISD staff. I know the fifth grade teachers much better. We have more common problems than we have with ISD teachers. Negotiations (she said while laughing), time, calendar, discussion, this kind of thing, School Improvement (Interview 5/17/85). Even though Mrs. Boone indicated that she knows the fifth grade general education teachers much better than the ISD Special education teachers, it is 149 interesting to note that her classroom is located in the adjacent wing, at the same end of the school as the GLISD programs. The physical location of the fifth grade classes is at the other end of the building in a different wing. In this case it appears that the commonality among the general education teachers overrides the physical barriers of the building. Mr. Steele feels that the issue is greater than that of familiarity. For him, there is no question that two cultures exist between the Northville teachers and GLISD staff. Mr. Steele concisely summarized the perception of the Northville teachers: Let's face it. We are two separate schools. We might have the same kids, but, it's the ISD and Northville Public (Interview 5/13/85). Northville teachers perceive two primary staff groups at the Washington School; Northville Public and GLISD. They do, however, recognize that subgroups exist among the Northville teachers within the building. Some teachers know others better for a variety of reasons ranging from scheduled lunch time to commonality of grade taught. Other Northville teachers are not known well by their peers. Yet, the Northville teachers feel even less familiar with the GLISD Special education staff. As a general educator, Mrs. Land explained that her minimal contact with the GLISD staff 150 has produced a distant relationship with the special educators of the ISD. Mrs. I think there is a bit of a difference. I think I see the other pe0p1e (fifth grade teachers) more often. I don't think that the fact that they are hired by the ISD and we're hired by Northville Public makes any difference. I don't have that much contact with the fifth grade wing. Going down there is an experience, because I don't get down there that often. The fifth grade teachers that have come to our building since we Split noon hour, I really don't know that well. But I do feel I know them better than pe0p1e like Delores and Fran (ISD teachers), because I don't ever have contact with them, at all, except to say hi in the hall; and that's it (Interview 4-24-85). Land's explanation provided a comparison regarding her familiarity with the "fifth grade guys” subgroup and the ISD teachers. Conversely, Mr. Steele had similar perceptions of the "lower grade" teachers in relation to his familiarity with the ISD Staff. Mr. Steele commented: But even with our staff, I don't have a whole lot of contact with... our first or second grade teachers. They are way down there. They have different lunch hours, different recess times. Some of those pe0p1e, maybe I see them in the morning, maybe at night, maybe in the office and that's it. We have a lot less to do with them. I'd bet you money that there are peOple here I don't say twenty words to all week. But I do think we know the ISD teachers less than those first or second grade teachers. The ISD teachers are not even involved with our staff meetings. We hardly ever see them in the office. The ISD pe0p1e are further down the hall. So I would say we know them less. There is a separation there. Maybe it's a feeling more than anything else (Interview 5/13/85). 151 Mr. Steele reinforced the same notion as Mrs. Land; that of less familiarity with ISD staff compared with Northville teachers from other subgroups. The perception of the Northville Staff is that the GLISD is a separate entity. The general consensus. among the Northville teachers, however, is that they would like the ISD staff to be an integral part of the total school unit. Mrs. Lucas explained: We've always felt from the beginning that we were ready to have the ISD teachers as part of our group. But we don't see them very often; maybe in the Staff Room once in awhile, or at a school party. (Interview 3-15-85). Mr. Jones encourages ISD Staff participation with the Northville teachers. Still, the interaction between the groups is infrequent, causing disappointment for the Northville teachers. Mr. Jones expressed his feelings: We want them to feel part of the staff. Whenever we have an end of the year party or a Christmas party, we try and encourage them to come. But a lot of times there're ISD parties too. And it's hard to go to two sometimes. We really would like to see more of them (Interview 4/19/85). The isolated feeling among the GLISD teachers is conveyed with great vigor. Mrs. Nelson is one ISD teacher who feels the separatism. At Washington School it's I-- you! It's us and you! You're on your own. I mean even the kids notice it. It's so obvious. Even walking down the hall; if you tell a kid (general education student) to walk, it's like who are you? You're not one of us (Interview 5/10/85). 152 Some members of the ISD staff have made inroads into feeling integrated with the whole staff. Through ongoing interaction involved in the mainstreaming process, these special education teachers have established a rapport with several of the general education staff. Mrs. Dixon, an ISD special education teacher, explained: I feel a small part of the Northville Staff in that I've had a chance to really get to know Ann in working with her as a Kindergarten and first grade teacher. I do feel I know a fair amount of them (Northville teachers) well enough; not all of them. There are some I don't know all that well. It's more a ”Hi” in the hallway, "How are you doing?" kind of thing (Interview 4-23-85). The researcher observed a marked difference, however, between the mutual discussion of a mainstreamed student, described by Mrs. Dixon, and integration into the social environment and staff culture of the Northville teachers. It is apparent that various subcultures exist among the staff at the Washington School. The most obvious staff division is between the GLISD staff and Northville teachers. In addition, there are other subgroups which exist among the general education Staff. In spite of the subgrouping among the Northville teachers, the ISD staff is a further removed entity in terms of staff integration. This pronounced division between the Northville and GLISD staffs represents more than a mere subculture phenomena. 153 Rather, two distinctly different organizational cultures exist. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN NORTHVILLE TEACHERS AND GLISD STAFF, AND HOW IS IT DISPLAYED? Although two organizational cultures exist within the Washington School the importance of communication between Special and general educators is readily expressed by the Northville teachers. The general education Staff's impression is that interpersonal communication is essential in the mainstreaming process. At the Washington School this perception begins at the principal level. Mr. Adams feels that the communication is the responsibility of both general and special education teachers. Mr. Adams explained: I've always felt that the communication that exists between the regular ed. teacher and the special ed. teacher is what makes the critical difference in the way mainstreaming functions. Whenever, for whatever reason, the communication breaks down between the Special ed. teacher and the regular ed. teacher, there is a problem. Either perceived or real, there will be a problem if the communication breaks down. I really believe that a critical key is how much both teachers communicate--not just the special ed. teacher but both teachers staying in touch with each other. And I think no matter what, if the communication starts to break down I really feel that it is imperative that one or the other makes an extra special effort to be in contact with that other teacher so they know how the mainstreaming is going and if problems are surfacing. This is a very critical factor in my opinion (Interview 1/31/85). 154 Mr. Denmar placed a similar value on the need for communication in the mainstreaming process when accepting fifth-grade students in his class. For him, communication with the special education teacher is essential in mainstreaming Special education students in his classroom. He feels that the communication efforts of the ISD staff in the mainstreaming process has been satisfactory. There's no doubt that the communication between the two teachers is the most important variable in the mainstreaming process... The more I mainstream, and I think the others feel the same way, the peOple we work with down there are careful and do COOperate and communicate. They must leave other teachers with the same impression that I've been left with (Interview 4/19/85). Mr. Denmar spoke of the importance of communication while participating as a teacher in the mainstreaming process. Yet many general education teachers at Washington School feel that they have too little social contact with the special education staff from GLISD. For the Northville teachers, increased social interaction would lead to improved relations necessary in the mainstreaming process. With the rationale of the importance of communication related to the mainstreaming process, as stated by Mr. Adams and Mr. Denmar, it is often difficult to separate the various levels or types of communication which take place. Mrs. Brown, a first grade teacher who has had numerous Special education students, provided her 155 feelings about the importance of the relationship of social communication and successful mainstreaming. Mrs. ten years. The informal situations are where issues really get worked out. From that (interaction), attitude will deve10p. That informal stuff is often more important than the formal process. Only recently have any of the ISD teachers come down to the Staff Room. Liz and Jackie both come and that's great (Staff Room observation 5/10/85)! Land has taught first grade at Washington for She feels there is an isolation which hampers communication between the Northville teachers and the GLISD special education staff. Mrs. Land I feel like I would like to get to know them (ISD teachers) better. But I don't feel a sense of camaraderie like I do with the Washington staff. I think there was an isolation when the new wing was put on. I don't feel it with Paul (Northville Resource Room teacher) who is always seen among our staff. I know I say hello to the ISD staff, I speak with them, that kind of thing. But again, there is no time when we're just lumped together as a staff, whether it's at lunch time in the Staff Room or at recess time or whatever. I think that sets up a sense of isolation. I know some of the ISD staff, like Jackie. I don't feel a sense of isolation with her. She gets in there and is around when we're just letting our hair down. Whereas the other (ISD) teachers I don't see. So there is a built-in isolation there (Interview 4/24/85). evidently feels that Mr. Lance and Mrs. Gordon are two educators, one from Northville and the other of the ISD staff, who have bridged the communication gap. Mrs. ISD Staff Ford shared warm feelings about the only two who have availed themselves of the Staff Room 156 and consequently have gained greater familiarity with the Northville teachers. Mrs. Ford also reflected on her desire to know the other ISD staff better. Jackie has really enjoyed going in there (Staff Room). She has a good sense of humor. She laughs and genuinely enjoys! Jackie can really belt out a story. It's been fun having her. And Liz is coming in. I'm glad to see them have a chance to come in and share things. I wish all the ISD staff could. It's a common room for everyone (Interview 5/17/85). The lack of informal contact between the GLISD teachers and the Northville general education Staff is also noted by Mr. Steele, a teacher in the upper grades. For the most part we don't see those people other than just passing in the hall. For the most part, the ISD teachers don't come into the Staff Room. That's not bad mouthing them or us, but it's just we seem to be Operating on two different wave lengths (Interview 5/13/85). It seems that although the Northville Staff values communication with the GLISD Special education teachers, informal interaction is often limited. Communication in the mainstreaming process requires informal interaction. Accordingly, one needs to question the frequency and effectiveness of formal interaction between the two groups when mainstreaming is concerned. One ISD staff member who regularly interacts with the Northville teachers is Mrs. Gordon, a special education teacher aide. Mrs. Gordon makes a point of 157 having lunch in the Staff Room each day. As a result, she has gotten to know the general education teachers quite well. Mrs. Gordon described the shift in her feelings from one of discomfort to one of enjoyment. When I first went down there (Staff Room), I felt a little bit Stiff and uncomfortable. But after awhile, they (Northville teachers) accept you very well. I've made some friends! I know them all now. They have always been friendly and we have fun (raising her inflection to emphasize the point) (Interview 4/29/85)! When viewing the range of integration the ISD staff has achieved with the Northville teachers, Mrs. Gordon would be at one end of the continuum. Most ISD staff, however, would feel as Mrs. Nelson does. She explained: Most of us feel uncomfortable walking down the hall. We all feel that way...I don't like walking past them (Northville "Lower Grade” teachers). If I have to go to the office, I'll wait until five after nine, when they're in their rooms (Interview 4/30/85). Through the course of this study, the researcher has gained some insight into the interaction between the ISD Staff and the Northville teachers. It appears that the ISD Special education staff feel that the general education teachers are not particularly interested in ongoing interaction and communication. The Northville teachers seem to be indicating the Opposite value; "we don't know many of those people but would like to get to know them better". Mrs. Gordon, who readily floats between the two staffing units, 158 concurred that the Northville teachers g2 desire a greater frequency of interaction with the ISD staff (see previous quote). There is an obvious diSparity between the perceptions of the two groups. Actions and events occur at the Washington school which promote communication. Sometimes this is initiated by the ISD staff, while at other times it begins with the Northville teachers making the overture. One general education teacher, Mrs. Crane, provided an example of an ISD staff member initiated interaction. Without my saying anything, Fran came to me and said: "I can see your students are having a reaction to these HI kids. How about on a Friday afternoon, after I'm through, I come to your room and work with your kids." And that was the greatest thing to happen that year. She came here most every Friday. My kids thoroughly enjoyed that, and they took on Jessica and Megan (HI students) just like part of the group. That was a real nice experience (Interview 3/15/85). As an ISD teacher of the emotionally impaired, Mrs. Dixon shared with the researcher some of the effort she has made in fostering communication. A couple of mornings a week I Stop in and talk with Terri (kindergarten teacher). Because we are here earlier than most of the other teachers we have more time to talk. So I make an effort to go down early a COUple of mornings a week. We talk about the kids, but also social things too... We do share some common interests. Terri is a real easy person to talk with (Interview 4-23-85). Analogous to the interaction promoted by Mrs. Dixon, not all communication is exclusively directed 159 toward the establishment of social contact or isolated to the fostering of mainstreaming. Numerous occurrences serve both communication functions. One instance is an annual activity conducted by the teachers of the hearing impaired. As the teacher of the preschool hearing impaired program, Mrs. Hafer, explained: The Christmas tea was pretty much Fran's (elementary H.I. teacher) idea. PR was talked about from the beginning. She thought it would be a nice way of thanking the mainstreaming teachers. I think it started out with just the mainstreaming teachers, then the whole school (staff) was invited (Interview 4/29/85). The relationship between social contact and mainstreaming is a priority for Mr. Lance, the Northville Resource Room teacher. Throughout the study, it was observed that he had a high degree of integration with the general education staff. Mr. Lance's own interpretation of his action provided a partial explanation of his successful acceptance by the general education teachers. Social interaction is a big thing. I go to lunch on Fridays and things like that....A lot of it is being involved in the activities teachers are doing. It's the little things that make you a part of the core group. If the only time you see them is when you want something, they automatically turn you off because they know that you're coming in for something (Interview 4/23/85). In addition to the interaction initiated by the Special education staff, the general education teachers have made some attempts at promoting communication 160 between the two grOUps. Mrs. Gordon has observed that some Northville teachers have extended themselves in an attempt to interact with the ISD Staff. These exchanges sometimes take place in the GLISD facility. Mrs. Gordon notes that although this occurs, the frequency is limited. Barb (first grade teacher) has been coming down here quite a bit because of those two kids (Special education students) she has. I asked her for some art activities, and now she gives me material on her own. So, she's been coming down. I see the kindergarten teacher come down to Angie's (E.I. teacher) room. I know there are reasons because of the mainstreaming, but there seems to be a friendship there. I see Pamela once in a while. Some of them (general education Staff) come down and use our phone; you know. Ann comes down and goes into the hearing impaired room. Jack has come down a couple of times. Kevin comes down when he has a dirty joke for me (Mrs. Gordon laughs). But all in all, they don't come down here a whole lot, but you do see them (Interview 4/29/85). Although general education teacher-initiated interaction does occur, the frequency is limited. Mr. Steele is one who has attempted to maintain some reciprocal contact with the GLISD teachers. This interchange, however, requires the participation of both parties. His discussion provided some insight for the researcher. The absence of certain special education teachers is barely noticed while other staff are more accessible. Mr. Steele explained: I have very little contact with Delores (teacher of E.I). In fact I don't know, is she still here? Is she taking a leave of absence? I haven't seen her, but even when She was here, maybe I'd see her at noon time, 161 and that would be it. Fran (teacher of H.I,) has been understanding and easy to work with. She comes down about once a week. It works out about that. Sometimes I'll poke my head in down there. Maybe I'll do that a couple of days, then I might not see her for a couple of weeks. But it averages about once a week (Interview 5/13/85). Some of the general education teachers have less contact with the ISD staff than Mr. Steele or those previously cited by Jackie. This lack of interaction has led to minimal familiarity between the two groups. The conversation which ensued in the Staff Room crystalized this point. Mrs. Lucas: Did you know a parked car was hit by an ISD bus the other day? Researcher: Not really. I didn't realize a car was hit by a bus. Mrs. Lucas: Fran's (ISD teacher) car was hit. Mrs. Russo: Which one is Fran? Mrs. Rosen: She is the one with no glasses and blond hair. Mrs. Russo: Who is the person with the blond page boy? Mrs. Rosen: That's Carla. It was apparent that Mrs. Russo did not know all the teachers from the ISD. Her level of familiarity with the ISD staff is characteristic of most other Northville teachers. When social functions are planned by the Northville teachers, an invitation is always extended to the ISD staff. It is not always possible, however, for the ISD teachers to attend. Mrs. Dixon explained: 162 We (ISD staff) are made aware of a majority of their (Northville) social functions. I know they have come down and made an effort to remind pe0p1e. But our attendance depends on the function. If it's like a restaurant dinner, Christmas party or Christmas breakfast; things like that, our staff is more prone to attend. If it's a house party we might not. I know lots of times, their party is when our ISD party is. You have to decide which to attend (Interview 4/23/85). When a choice between two social functions, Northville or ISD is needed, the ISD staff almost always elects the activity Sponsored by their own school district. In spite of communication efforts made by both the Northville teachers and ISD staff, interaction remains quite limited. Mrs. Gordon, the one GLISD staff member who has successfully bridged the communication gap, provided her perception of the interactional process. Her insight summarized the conditions accurately. Our staff feels a division. Our staff doesn't go down there (into the main part of the building) much. But then again, they don't come down here either. I'm sure it's a two-way street (Interview 2/6/85). Mrs. Gordon's analysis provides a question for the reader. Where does the reSponSibility for sustained communication rest? WHAT ROLE DOES THE PRINCIPAL PLAY IN THE STAFF CULTURE AND THE ONGOING IMPLEMENTATION OF MAINSTREAMING? While there is common agreement among the Northville teachers that communication is a critical 163 element in the mainstreaming process, no one individual plays a more important role than Mr. Adams. The principal of the Washington School helps set the tone for the environment within the building. The teachers describe the milieu as one in which there are positive feelings about fellow employees. The notion of Staff camaraderie was verbalized by the principal, and general education teachers at a staff meeting. Mr. Adams: I have always felt that we need to like each other. Mrs. Ford: Oh man do we! (The rest of the staff laughed with Irene's comment.) Mr. Jones: I've been here for ten years. The one thing that has improved is the camaraderie. We feel good about each other (observation 2/6/85). Mr. Adams' behavior within the Washington School encourages and promotes the collegial relationship eSpoused by the staff. He makes a point of having informal contact with the teachers. This was evident during one morning observation. The researcher was accompanying Mr. Adams on his morning sociability rounds with the staff. Mr. Adams began by visiting the library and talking with the librarian. During their conversation, Mr. Thomas entered carrying a golf club. Mr. Adams turned to Jack and said: "Is that for students who tee you off"? Mr. Adams laughed loudly and heartily at his own joke. 164 Following the discussion with the librarian, Mr. Adams walked in the direction of the office. On his way down the corridor, he made a point of saying something to each teacher he encountered. Mr. Adams also deviated from the direct route to make a point of leaning into some rooms to say good morning. When Mr. Adams reached the office, be greeted several of the teachers engaged in a variety of tasks. "Good morning Gladys," Mr. Adams directed to the third grade teacher using the c0py machine. Mr. Steele was checking his mail box and picked up three boxes of 16 millimeter projector film. Mr. Adams joked with Mr. Steele: ”I see you have your weekly lesson plans." They both laughed. Mr. Adams added: "Have a good day, Mark." A first grade teacher entered the office. Mr. Adams went over to Mrs. Butler and took a quarter out of his pocket. He asked her "Do you know what this is?" as he rapped the quarter on his hand four times. Mrs. Butler responded: "No I don't. What is that?" Mr. Adams reSponded: "A Finnish quarter pounder!" Mr. Adams is of Finnish heritage. They both laughed, as well as the others in the office within earshot of the joke. By now the time was 8:59 A.M. The teachers had all gone to their classrooms and were ready to begin the day. The particular path taken by Mr. Adams does not represent a ritual in the sense of where he goes in the building or which teachers are visited. The morning 165 time is one in which most teachers are busy preparing for the day, but accessible. Whereas the route does not depict a pattern, his actions and behaviors are predictable. Mr. Adams' interpersonal interaction with the staff is a ritual he apparently enjoys. Mr. Adams shared with the researcher his views on mainstreaming and the role of Special education within the total educational process. His previous role as a general education teacher has helped shape his beliefs. I always believed as a classroom teacher, that I had something to offer ALL (the intensity in his voice went up) kids! ALL (his voice raised higher) kids! Whatever they brought into the classroom with them, so be it. But we were there to do certain things. I felt that I had something as a teacher and as a human being to offer all kids. I believe we Should look at kids that way, because that's what we're here for. We ARE (Stan's voice rose again) here ultimately for the kids; and we're not here to work with kids that fall within certain guidelines. We know they have certain problems, but we are here also to help them with their problems. That's why we have Special programs, but we're here to give them as much Opportunity for a well rounded education as we possibly can. I whole-heartedly endorse that. I try and communicate that with the teachers. I think we have communicated that if you are going to teach here at Washington School, that's one of the things that you have to expect to do--to mainstream (Interview 4/10/85). Mr. Adams' Statements are supported by members of the educational community in Northville. They reminisce how Mr. Adams was one of the first teachers to voluntarily accept special education students. His continued support for mainstreaming has been observed 166 numerous times by this researcher. For example, Mr. Adams gets visibly upset with teachers who express negative views regarding mainstreaming. He stated that no child should be excluded from the educational process. This supposition has helped shape his support for mainstreaming and special education within the Washington School. Mr. Adams encourages teacher-to-teacher contact in the mainstreaming process. His preference is to remain external to the teacher interchange. Mr. Adams explained: I don't see that the principal is always a necessary ingredient in the communication between the Special ed. and regular ed. teachers. Periodically, I feel that I can help or hinder the communication process, although my ultimate goal is to make it run smoothly. I really believe that it is a critical key in how much both teachers, not just the special ed. teacher but both teachers, stay in touch with each other... When a classroom teacher is having a problem with a student from one of the programs, I say hey, this is your responsibility to see that special ed. teacher and work it out (Interview 1/31/85). Mr. Adams does not view his role in mainstreaming as an intermediary between the general and special education teachers. Likewise, the teachers view his role with a similar orientation. Mrs. Hess commented on her experience with Mr. Adams in mainstreaming students from the hearing impaired program in which she teaches: He has encouraged me to work out the details first with the teacher. He likes it better 167 that way... He hasn't roadblocked mainstreaming at all. But he prefers to leave it up to the teacher. He'll always put the ball back in my court: "Go and talk with the teacher". He wants to be aware of what's going on but for the most part leaves individual decisions up to the teacher (Interview 4/29/85). Even though Mr. Adams encourages teacher-to-teacher contact, many of the staff feel that his support is present when needed. As a kindergarten teacher Mrs. Russo feels that Mr. Adams has provided valuable assistance in her mainstreaming efforts. She explained: Stan has really been supportive by asking Angie and me to work it out between ourselves. If there is really a problem, in fact we did have one with a student, he's been helpful. You can go to him for anything. You can just go to him if anything comes up. He has been supportive (Interview 4/19/85). Mr. Lance, teacher of the Resource Room, concurred with Mrs. Russo. Mr. Lance has feelings of admiration for Mr. Adams' assistance in the mainstreaming process. Stan is extremely supportive. He never questions his responsibility in the process. That's what makes it work (Interview 2/20/85). Mr. Adams provided an apprOpriate analogy related to the importance of teacher communication in the mainstreaming process. He feels that communication is something that the special education teacher needs to promote and deve10p. Within this framework, Mr. Adams providedrinsightful commentary: 168 I've always said that a special ed. person is like a hub of a wheel. The way that person Operates is going to determine how the whole Operation is going to go. If a Special ed. teacher does not go around and visit with the mainstreaming teachers, and make himself or herself a visible part of the staff, then I think it's like not servicing an automobile or not servicing the axle with grease. Pretty soon things start to squeak, and the squeak gets louder and louder- then you have problems. A good program is characterized by effective maintenance. Maintenance from the standpoint that a student can't be just thrown into a classroom situation and expected to survive. The regular ed. teacher needs to know that the Special ed. teacher is doing, all he can, to support the student in the room. The classroom teacher should feel that they have a support system to work out any difficulties they might have. Paul goes out of his way to accommodate the needs of all of the kids in that individual classroom, and then works his classroom accordingly. Not only does he work his schedule accordingly, but very effectively works his program (interview 4/15/85). Mr. Adams has a very high regard and is openly complimentary of Mr. Lance. One day the researcher was walking down the corridorin the Washington School. Mr. Adams' voice was heard coming from the library. The researcher stepped in for a moment to chat. Mr. Adams indicated that he was just about to have a School Improvement Project meeting with Mrs. Ford, Miss Hale, and Mr. Lance. He then leaned over to me and said in a whispered voice: "That Paul; he is just great, just great! That guy is tOps in my book!". The researcher was familiar with the manner in which Mr. Adams spoke. Whenever Mr. Adams is highly complimentary, he lowers his voice to a whisper. For Mr. Adams, the whisper 169 indicates his strong feelings and sincerity. Mr. Adams continued talking about Mr. Lance's effectiveness. Paul, now there's a guy who really goes the extra mile. He is always checking on his kids. I have never, never heard one bad thing about him. In my Opinion, he does a better job at communication than anyone in this district (fieldnotes 2/6/85). The researcher had overheard Mr. Adams be equally commendatory statementsabout Mr. Lance on numerous other occasions. When the Staff at the Washington school was asked to comment about Mr. Adams, the phrase "You can't help but like him" was often heard. Consequently, Mr. Adams' personal qualities have had a positive effect on mainstreaming at the Washington school. Mr. Denmar commented: Stan by nature has helped just because he's Stan; he's such a likable person. Stan has bent over backwards when there have been problems on both sides (ISD Special education programs and general education) and feelings on both sides. He's kind of mellowed the whole thing, just because of the type of person he is (Interview 4/19/85). The staff admiration for Mr. Adams was evident one day while the researcher was talking with him in the corridor. Mrs. Crane approached us and asked Mr. Adams where he had been for the previous two days. Mr. Adams indicated that he was at a School Improvement Project workShOp. Mrs. Crane turned to the researcher and said with a big smile on her face: ”He's not half bad. We even miss him when he's gone". The researcher was left 170 with the impression that Mrs. Crane has a high regard for Mr. Adams. Because of Mr. Adams' belief in promoting teacher- to-teacher contact, it is often difficult for the general education personnel to be specific as to Mr. Adams' role in the mainstreaming process. When Miss Hale was asked to comment on Mr. Adams' role in mainstreaming, She thought in an uncomfortable silence for approximatlely 30 seconds before responding. Miss Hale then explained her perception: He's definitely in favor of mainstreaming. I know that. And I know he does his darndest to make things work-- help things along so they go smoothly. Boy that's a tough one. I have to think for a moment, (She thought for approximatlely ten seconds). I do know that I've been on several committees with him on special ed. He always supports whatever the committee's bring up. He works hard to make it work. It seems that if there is a problem, he will always support the teacher (Interview 5/7/85). Other general education teachers are more concrete in their feedback about Mr. Adams' role in the mainstreaming process. Mrs. Ford was able to relate how she feels when mainstreaming Students into her second grade, with Mr. Adams' support: Stan has been very supportive of the staff and mainstreaming problems. Most of us feel that way. And if you know that, it makes you more confident in the classroom and less likely to run into problems (Interview 5/17/85). Mr. Lance had similar feelings regarding Mr. Adams' proactive behavior. He added: 171 Stan is a doer. He doesn't let things sit. He works on it right away. He's the prime motivator for special ed. in this school. Without him, it couldn't work (Interview 4/23/85)! Mrs. Dixon, an ISD special education teacher, concurred with Mr. Lance. She expressed appreciation for Mr. Adams' genuine interest in her concerns and desire to know the students in her class. He's usually available to talk to; some time during the day there is an opportunity to talk with Stan. He always will make time and listen to any problem or concern, no matter how large. And, he does act on it. He does want to know who the kids are; not only a name but matching that name to a body. He likes to know a little bit about what they are capable of. He's a real child-oriented person. He really supports whatever a child needs (Interview 5/17/85). Other ISD teachers Shared their perceptions of Mr. Adams as a principal helping facilitate the mainstreaming of special education students in the Washington School. Mrs. Dolan stated: He's very receptive to anything he could do to build rapport. He wants everything to go smooth, without waves (Interview 4/30/85). The principal of the Washington School is child- oriented and sets a priority on knowing the students. This was clearly displayed one day when the researcher was Speaking with Mr. Adams in the corridor. Mr. Adams was looking and sounding very tired. His voice was labored and slower than usual and his eyes were bloodshot. Mr. Adams relayed that he had just returned from a workshop out of town. He interrupted the 172 conversation with the researcher and Stopped a little boy approximatlely eight years old. "How are you doing, Charlie?" as he put his arm around the boy's Shoulder. ”Did you have a good lunch?" The student responded and continued back to his classroom. It was obvious that Mr. Adams places a priority on students. Even when he is tired or occupied, be typically makes time for the students in the Washington School. As a result of making time to know the students in the Washington School, Mr. Adams has become very familiar with the elementary school children. This was evident when Mrs. Butler expressed a concern about three of her students. Mrs. Butler: Guess what, Stan? I have three little boys you need to see. Mr. Adams: Let me guess. Is it Mr. Bob, Mr Joe, and-- I'm not sure who the last one might be. Is it Mr. Steve? Mrs. Butler: That's right! Mr. Adams: They can all come down and spend some time with me (Observation 2/28/85). The researcher was struck with the fact that Mr. Adams' guess was accurate. The impression of Mr. Adams' familiarity with the school's student pOpulation was apparent. One ISD teacher commented on how Mr. Adams continues to enjoy his role in working with students. 173 This enjoyment has led to meaningful principal/student interactions. I think he's a classic person who still likes teaching. You Still get the enthusiasm; he still likes kids. Even bringing Joshua or Jason in for discipline. That role suits him very well. He is really good with them. He always starts with how much he likes the Student. I always have to sit behind the kids, because I can't keep a Straight face. He'll remember things they did. He'll tell them ”I remember when this happened and I really liked that. And I remember when that happened. And I really liked that. And now this thing disappoints me". That's really important for the Students. And I don't know if there are that many peOple who could accurately recall something that happened to each kid in the school. Even the name of each child. And even when we have special ed. students, he knows them and I think he likes them (Interview 4/29/85). Mr. Adams' enjoyment of the Special and general education students, and familiarity with their individual needs help shape his beliefs and actions related to mainstreaming. HOW IS THE MAINSTREAMING PROCESS AFFECTED BY THE PERSONAL TRAITS OF INDIVIDUAL STAFF MEMBERS? The nature of communication between the Northville teachers and the GLISD staff is most definitely affected by the personal traits of individual staff members. Whereas Mr. Adams' supposition of teacher-to-teacher communication is Operational in the mainstreaming process, the individuals in the setting play a significant role, whereby the mainstreaming process is influenced. Mrs. Goodell, an ISD staff 174 member feels that the receptivity to mainstreaming is contingent upon the individual general education teacher. She explained: It's really individual. Some teachers are supportive and want to keep kids. Other teachers are not supportive at all. Some are COOperative, but others are less COOperative. It just depends on the teacher (Interview 2/5/85). As a general education peer, Miss Hale provided a similar perspective while concurring with Mrs. Goodell. Miss Hale's comments reflect the mainstreaming receptivity of her counterparts. Mrs. You will probably always have some teachers who are not as receptive to taking kids, but (she laughs) that's life (Interview 5/7/85). Crane feels that the personal traits of the various special education staff play an integral part in the mainstreaming process. As a general education teacher, Mrs. Crane has develOped a preference in working with certain ISD Staff. She discussed her views: I think their (ISD staff) personalities are also part of it (mainstreaming). Not everybody can work with everybody else. I think that's a big factor, at least for me (Interview 3/15/85). Similar to Mrs. Crane's thoughts, personal characteristics of the ISD staff affect Mrs. Boone's attitude toward mainstreaming Special education students into her classroom. Mrs. Boone discussed her preferences: 175 I think the ISD teachers (She paused momentarily) fit fine. Some fit better than others. There are certain personalities. Some of the teachers--we prefer taking children from some of the teachers. We feel that they are very responsive to our problems with the kids. Others, we feel, are not quite as responsive (Interview 5/17/85). Mrs. Boone seems to feel that some ISD teachers are more successful at placing special education students in the general education classroom. Mr. Denmar, a fifth grade teacher, described what he feels are necessary components of a special education teacher's personality: You have to be an outgoing, concerned, truly interested person. You can't be an introvert in your own little world and work this out. Because then you're not going to give that second reminder to the classroom teacher. And you're not going to make the effort to go down to the other end when you know you Should; "but hell, it's too far to walk, I'll tell them tomorrow". And you're not going to make that extra effort with the kids. Yah, it takes some effort. It takes some COOperation. Not everyone COOperates on this staff. There is always someone, and unfortunately there are always one or two that give the whole crew down there a bad name... But I usually deal with Delores. I haven't had any problems (Interview 4/19/85). Mr. Denmar feels that the special education teacher must be willing to devote extra effort to the mainstreaming process. He feels that without that additional attention, successful mainstreaming is less likely to occur. One Special education teacher who appears to exude personal traits which are conducive to the implementation of successful mainstreaming is Mr. 176 Lance, the Northville Resource Room teacher. Based on numerous interviews, and extensive participant observation, the researcher was left with the impression that Mr. Lance is reSpected by the entire general and Special education Staff. Mrs. Ford described Mr. Lance's general demeanor: He has a great general attitude. He's super COOperative and never gets defensive. He never gets upset or angry. He talks about it but never Shows that he's upset. He just has the respect of everyone in this building. He is such a fine individual (Interview 2/28/85). As an ISD teacher, Mrs. Dixon has Similar reSpect for Mr. Lance. She added: I think Paul is an exceptional teacher. Things that impress pe0p1e about him are how well he manages his class, how prepared he is, and his very nice personality. I knew Paul before he came here. We lived in the same apartment building. And I even liked him as a neighbor (Angie laughed with her final comment). It appears that drawing a clear distinction relative to mainstreaming success at the Washington School is difficult. One factor which causes the criteria for success to be ambiguous are the individual personal traits of the general and Special education teachers. 177 HOW DO THE DIFFERENT SCHEDULES OF THE GLISD AND NORTHVILLE SCHOOLS AFFECT MAINSTREAMING? While individuals play the primary role in the mainstreaming process, other circumstances hinder the facilitation of mainstreaming. The school day at the Washington School is different for the Northville teachers and those employed by the Intermediate School District. Students, consequently, have dissimilar schedules. Classes for the Northville students begin at 9:00 A.M and end at 2:55 P.M. Northville teachers arrive about 8:30 A.M. and leave just after 3:00 P.M. The ISD hours are earlier. Teachers arrive at 8:00 A.M. with students arrival from the busses at approximately 8:30 A.M. The students' day ends at 2:00 P.M. with teachers permitted to leave at 2:30 P.M. Most of the GLISD teachers have lunch with their students and accompany their special education class at recess time (see Figure 4). It Should be noted that many teachers within both groups deviate from the required schedule for purposes such as planning and meetings. The variance, however, between the two schedules causes extreme difficulty in the opportunity for communication between the Northville teachers and the ISD staff. Mrs. Dolan explained some of the difficulty. Because we are employed by different pe0p1e, our (ISD) schedules are different. It's hard to meet with teachers because of that. All my kids are here by the time they (Northville oo 10: 10: 10: 10: ll: 11: 12: 12: 178 Washington Elementary School Staff Schedules Northville 00 ---. 15 -------------- < 30 --------------- 1 4s-------------- oo-—-----------e-1 50---------------1 GLISD , 00 _______________ ._1:leer11_sa _________ :3o---—--- 322%299é- ,40 _________________ 22-9995 .......... 00----__-__--____1§EE§EEE§-_-______. Students P————————————-————q p——-------~------—dh Recess with .§ssses£§- EI Lunch(Gr.l 2,3 KEEPER??? n ts .Students ___________ 1 .................. . —————--—q) "'1 Studentg ------ - Students Gr;“132, Recess Gr. 3, Recess Gr. 4,5_Recess ----—- Jioubmuse ________ -.QE;-lLZLELEEQEE- Figure 4 00 ________________________________ _ --- 30-__-_--__-..—-..-....El-L§B§b_(_GI_°§JéJ§2 ____ Gr ° 3 ’ 4 ’ 5 ’LUHCh Gr. 1,2,3 , oo .............. 1514'— L.2..3__s_tg.n.c§_.. S tuden t_s _______ :10 --------------- -Siufien£§ .......... ----___stdes£§ ________ :00 _______________ ._Rliflfliflg _______________ J_§EEEEP£§ ________ Gr. 1,2,3, Day Ends Students :30 ---------------- 1—----—-----------‘--- ---- z20___________-____-_____-_____-_-____-____-IEELEEEE; ________ 179 teachers) come. I can meet with them if I want to stay. But it depends upon who wants to donate the time. They would have to come in a half an hour earlier if I want to meet with them in the morning, I would have to Stay a half an hour later if we were to meet in the afternoon (Interview 4/30/85). The most Opportune time for teachers to meet would be when Students are not in class. Mrs. Dolan's explanation of the schedule outlines the basic dilemma in the teachers' time availability. Mrs. Nelson added to Mrs. Dolan's thoughts about how the schedule obstructs interaction and communication between the Northville teachers and the ISD Staff. Hence, mainstreaming is affected negatively. I can't think of a lot of real successful mainstreaming that has gone on in the past. Schedule is the big reason. Well, we (ISD Staff) have to be here at eight; kids start coming at eight thirty. A lot of the (general education) teachers aren't even here til eight thirty, so you can't reach them. After school, we're done at two thirty and they're not done till three, and then they're gone or we're gone. It's hard (Interview 5/10/85). As a general education teacher, Mr. Denmar expressed Similar thoughts to those of the ISD Staff. For him, the schedule has adversely affected communication with the ISD Special education teachers. They (ISD teachers) really mean well by trying to talk with you and tell you things, but it isn't always an ideal time. The schedule is part of it. After school might be bad for them, because they start earlier and are done earlier. That is probably a real limitation. If we began at the same 180 time, it would be a lot easier to set up these meetings (Interview 4/19/85). Miss Hale would like to see a situation whereby the ISD staff ended the school day at the same time as Northville teachers. She feels that the parallel times would permit greater interaction between the two groups. Miss Hale explained: It's hard to talk to the ISD teachers. By the time we're free, they've been off for an hour. They're not going to Sit around for an hour and wait... I would like to see more interaction. I think there is and there isn't because of the schedule. I think if they were here until three o'clock we would have more of a chance to talk (Interview 5/7/85). Mrs. Ford provided direct feedback regarding the schedule. To the second grade teacher, the different working times of the ISD and the Northville teachers have been an obstacle affecting interpersonal communication. That schedule to me is a real pain. The schedule is why we can't talk. I can talk to anybody on our staff about a kid, but the ISD staff can't be expected to hang around until I'm free at three o'clock. It just doesn't work out (Interview 3/14/85). While the dissimilar schedules obstruct communication between the ISD and Northville staff, general educators feel that Special education students absorb a comparable negative effect on learning as a result of the shorter school day. Mr. Thomas feels that the Shorter hours are bound to affect the academic 181 performance of the ISD Special education students. He explained: The ISD pe0p1e send the children home at two O'clock. That's a complete hour lost out of the day. When I was doing my work for my Ed. Specialist, the most consistent thing I found in the research was some form of time on task. That only makes sense. If you work on something fifteen minutes longer a day than someone else, by the end of the year you ought to be further ahead. You can see that if you take a fifth of the day away from educational endeavors, you're short-changing that person twenty percent. That's why things like going at two o'clock or going to swimming class, things that we don't normally do here, have an adverse effect in terms of what I'm trying to do (academic teaching) (Interview 3/25/85). Mr. Jones has been frustrated in attempting to teach the ISD special education students in his general education classroom. He feels that if mainstreaming is to occur, then serious attempts Should be made to overcome scheduling inconsistencies. One of my big gripes is the scheduling. If you're going to mainstream kids, then you don't pull them out of here at two o'clock. That's a big one with me. I realize you have to bus kids to the next county, but buses can go at three o'clock too; they don't have to go at two o'clock. That has to be solved. If they are going to be mainstreamed then they should be mainstreamed (Interview 4/19/85)! HOW DOES THE LOCATION OF THE GLISD SPECIAL EDUCATION FACILITY, IN RELATION TO THE GENERAL EDUCATION CLASSROOMS, AFFECT MAINSTREAMING? Whereas the schedule has an effect on mainstreaming through the obstruction of interpersonal 182 interaction and reduced teaching time for Students, another barrier is superimposed on the communication process for many Northville teachers. That hindrance is the location of the GLISD Special education addition. The ISD facility or wing is approximately 150 feet from the lobby area adjoining the principal's office. According to Mr. Denmar, it is 187 steps from the fifth grade wing. One of his class projects is to draw a map of the school. AS one looks down the hallway, facing the ISD facility, all that is observable is a wall perpendicular to the hallway of the school. The boys and girls bathrooms can be seen, but classrooms are not in Sight. Miss Hale vividly described the proximity of the ISD Special education wing from the perspective of a fourth grade general education teacher. Yeh, yeh it's down there (as She chuckles to help make her point). Definitely, it's almost a separate building... When I think about it sometimes, that hallway seems to go across there like a wall (she chuckles again) or a river, or something that you have to get across; you don't cross that line (she lowers her voice at this point sounding sad). The hall goes for a certain length and then you hit that wall and you can't get through there, not that you can't but you don't... The way it is now, as you look at the wing you only see the wall, with two bathrooms, but you can't see classrooms. It's like going into a foreign country or something (she chuckles again) when you cross over there (Interview 5/7/85). For Miss Hale, and numerous other Northville teachers, the physical layout of the GLISD Special wing and the 183 position within the building obstructs potential interaction with the special education teachers. Mrs. Hafer was able to draw a comparison between her present location in the ISD wing and her former location in the general education portion of the Washington School prior to the ISD construction of the addition. Personally, when we were down in the fifth grade wing, we were in the middle of the fifth grade teachers. I felt more a part of the school being the only ISD classroom in the building, as compared to now, since we've been in this wing. I can see that. It was nice. I liked it (Interview 4/29/85). For Mrs. Hafer, being housed in a classroom adjacent to the general education classes allowed her to feel like more an integral part of the school. There is a sense of physical isolation felt by the ISD Special education teachers resulting from the geographic location of the facility. Many general education staff feel that the position of the wing hampers communication. This perception is not Shared by all, however. Some teachers are closer in distance to the ISD addition than to other parts of the building. As a second grade teacher commented, the distance of the wing has not hampered the cooperative program she has with a teacher of the emotionally impaired. Mrs. Rosen commented: Wherever it is located, it will always be walking distance for someone going from one end of the building to the other. It sure 184 hasn't hampered my work with Liz (Interview 4/16/85). Mr. Thomas maintained similar feelings that the remoteness of the wing has little to do with Staff interaction. I interact with Neal, and he's farther away than these peOple are. I don't think that has anything to do with it (Interview 3/25/85). Although there are mixed feelings about the effect the facility has on communication, to many staff, general and special educators, physical barriers do exist. WHAT ATTITUDES DO SCHOOL STAFF HAVE ABOUT MAINSTREAMING, AND HOW ARE THESE DISPLAYED? While the physical attributes of the GLISD setting hamper communication between staff, the attitudes held by general educators toward the concept of mainstreaming has a profound effect on the process. General education teachers at the Washington School tend to support the basic underlying phiIOSOphy of mainstreaming. Miss Hale even has observed advantages to the general education population resulting from the mainstreaming of handicapped students in her fourth grade classroom. She explained: I never hesitated to take kids, I think it's good. I think it's good not only for them but for the so-called regular kids. I think it's great for them to work with the handicapped, if for nothing else but to appreciate their own ability (Interview 5/7/85). 185 In a separate interview, Mrs. Crane supported Miss Hale's positive feelings about mainstreaming. Mrs. Crane reminisced about the period of time prior to the advent of mainstreaming. I can remember years ago when I first started teaching. There was not a thing like Special education. You had these kids in your room regardless. They were there and that was the situation. Now we're mainstreaming and the Students are coming back to our rooms. I do think that is a big plus. They can still come and be in a classroom for an hour or two a day, which is great. I think that mainstreaming is a real good thing, (as she raised her voice inflection, added) I really do (Interview 5/7/85)! Miss Hale and Mrs. Crane's comments about the positive nature of mainstreaming seem to reflect the general feeling of the school staff. The general support of the mainstreaming thesis by the Northville teachers can be traced and linked to the principal of the Washington School. Mr. Adams views mainstreaming as a sign of progress. He explained his thoughts: Mainstreaming is working well. That room (Washington School Resource Room) has gone from a self-contained to a resource room-- meaning, the kids go into the classrooms for those things that they are able to deal with (interview 1/31/85). Mr. Adams consistently demonstrates behavior congruent with his Stated support for the concept of mainstreaming. This was made evident at an educational planning meeting attended by the researcher. The purpose of the session was to discuss Jenny, an 186 emotionally impaired Student who had been placed full time in Kevin Denmar's general education fifth grade class. Jenny's mother requested the meeting due to her concern regarding her daughter's behavior and performance in Mr. Denmar's classroom. The mother expressed a desire to move Jenny to another school. The possibility of Jenny being placed back into an emotionally impaired classroom was also discussed. Mr. Adams, who was the chairperson of the meeting, felt strongly that Jenny should not be moved. His desire was that Jenny should stay with Mr. Denmar, and certainly not return to the El classroom. These firm feelings were conveyed when he said to the mother: You need to look at where Jenny has come from--she has made tremendous progress. That brings us back to peer relations and placement. I would be very much against moving Jenny. When you look at the big picture, she has made a lot of progress. Mr. Denmar is a very good influence on her. Other kids in the class have even more serious problems than Jenny. It would be a definite mistake to either move her to another school or have her go back to the El room (Observation 1/29/85). The general consensus among the Northville teachers is that the attitude regarding mainstreaming has significantly improved over the years. Mrs. Goodell, a speech therapist with the GLISD concurred. She also feels that resistance to the mainstreaming principle has improved. It has taken a lot of years but things are better now in terms of mainstreaming and relations with the regular ed. staff. There 187 is probably more awareness to mainstreaming. It isn't as scary for them. I don't see the resistance now. PeOple don't say ”no", they won't take a student (Interview 2/5/85). Mrs. Goodell's perception of Significant improvement in attitude on the part of the Northville teachers was reinforced by Mr. Lance, the Resource Room teacher employed by the Northville Area Public Schools. He too has seen a positive shift toward mainstreaming acceptance. Mr. Lance provided a historical perspective: I began here in 1979. At first, things didn't go all that smoothly. It was tough getting kids into the classrooms. Teachers were reluctant at first. It really has changed. Even though Washington was thought of as the special ed. school, there was resistance. Now, things have turned around 100% (Interview 2/20/85). Mrs. Ford has been in a unique position in observing the improved attitude toward special education and mainstreaming. She was a former resource room teacher at the Washington School. Presently Mrs. Ford teaches second grade. Her observation was as follows: Back when I did it, (taught Special education at Washington School) pe0p1e did not understand Special ed. They thought they (Special education students) had three heads or something. Some teachers actually refused to take kids. The attitude toward Paul is better now that it's been 10 years. They are used to it (mainstreaming) and not afraid of the kids anymore. PeOple are just more receptive (Interview 2/28/85). A peer of Mrs. Ford has also observed the marked attitudinal improvement toward mainstreaming. 188 It was really a hot issue five years ago. Now I think it has really improved (Interview 4/16/85). An interesting observation was made by Mrs. Dixon, an ISD teacher. She noted that when greater tension existed over special education issues, committees to study the problems were formed. Mrs. Dixon commented: Things have been better these last couple of years. We haven't even had a committee this year. I don't think there has been a need to. Last year there was not a final (She emphasized the word "final" with resentment in her voice) year meeting about the special ed . kids like there was two years ago. There was not one last year, I'm not anticipating one this year ( she laughs). I think the climate is a lot better this year (Interview 4/23/85). The improved attitude toward Special education and mainstreaming has also been noted by the principal. Mr. Adams commented: There were some real negative feelings initially. I think there are still some, but attitude has changed a great deal (Interview 1/31/85). When it was first announced that the GLISD was planning a special education addition on the Washington School, significant resistance was demonstrated by the Northville teachers. Not knowing the potential implications the special education students would have on the general education classrooms accentuated the Skepticism of the Northville teachers. As a second grade teacher in 1978, and at the time of the study, Mrs. Fountain explained: 189 When the wing was first announced, there was resistance out of fear of the unknown. We really didn't know what we were getting into. All of a sudden there was this other wing and then to find out that mainstreaming was the big thing; that they're (students) going to be in the classroom... There was some resentment; thinking, oh boy here we go again. But I think the resentment has dissipated (Interview 4/19/85). A small minority of general education teachers felt that the attitude about mainstreaming really has not improved but rather less complaining exists. Mrs. Lucas shared her thoughts: I think we're accepting it more (as she laughed uncomfortably, but continued to explain). Through the years we've stOpped a lot of the complaining because we've found it isn't going to do any good. We're here, so I guess we face it. We don't complain about it. We still have a lot of the same feelings but we're not as verbal (Interview 3/15/85). Mrs. Lucas' sentiment was expressed by a few other teachers, yet the overwhelming majority of the staff, general and Special education teachers, feel that the attitude regarding mainstreaming is dramatically more positive than before at the Washington School. The improved attitude toward mainstreaming is due to numerous factors. There are several beliefs among the staff as to what might be contributing to this attitudinal enhancement. The one precept which seems consistent and explainable is the issue of "fear of the unknown". Before teachers engaged in the mainstreaming process, they imagined the students to be more difficult to manage than was actually the case. Once 190 they had an opportunity to have the various Special education students in their classes, the Northville teachers found that the students were not as difficult to manage as originally anticipated. Mrs. Russo had experience with mainstreaming for one year as a kindergarten teacher. She explained her initial fears: I tell you, to be honest, before I started, I didn't know I would have these children. When I first heard it I thought, Ohhh! (her voice inflection raised which emphasized her initial fear). I really had the wrong impression, I really did. And once I got the children and saw what I was dealing with, it wasn't anything like I dreamed. I was expecting kids that, well you know-the worst! I thought I can't deal with those kids, but it's totally different, and I have (dealt with the students) (Interview 4/19/85). AS principal of the Washington School, Mr. Adams has had the Opportunity to observe and discuss the initial mainstreaming fears with the general education teachers. When the GLISD addition was first prOposed, an in-service training session on the tOpic of mainstreaming was provided for the Northville teachers. Mr. Adams feels that the outcome of this session was questionable in terms of allaying the teachers' ambivalence about the incoming Special education pOpulation. Experiential interaction with the Special needs students had a greater effect. Mr. Adams explained: Initially the biggest hurdle or biggest concern was with the El kids. I also think that the kids in the program are not quite as bad as everybody thought... No amount of discussion or inservicing, in my Opinion, did 191 the trick until the kids actually came. Teachers have seen, and had an Opportunity to experience not only the kids, but the support system that's there to help them with any difficulty that they bad. So I think in—service in and of itself is not the answer. Information in and of itself is not the answer. You have to have the experience-- experience is the best teacher, I think in this particular case it holds true (Interview 4/10/85). The Northville teachers support the general principles inherent in mainstreaming. Specifically, they maintain the education of the mildly handicapped within the general school population. Concurrently, the attitude toward mainstreaming has significantly improved over the years. Yet, the Northville teachers are frustrated with the additional burden mainstreaming places upon them. Factors such as additional time requirements, classroom organizational problems, and mainstreaming procedures used by the GLISD staff, all impinge upon the general education teachers' attitude about mainstreaming. As a third grade teacher, Mr. Smith's perspective was revealing. I think mainstreaming is a good idea, I really do. I think these kids should be exposed to regular classrooms, at least socially, even if they can't handle any of the work. Like John, the blind Student, comes in here for recess. Ah, I'm in full agreement with mainstreaming, the principles of it. It's not that I don't think that they should be here. (He breathes heavily and adds) But I just had a hard time with it myself... just the organizing of it, and being able to control him (referring to an E1 student he has in the class). I feel that I could have controlled Pat's behavior better... I just feel that having kids (for a little amount of time) I don't get to know them as well. I don't get a feel for what 192 they can do. Pat does have emotional problems worse than any of the other kids I have. (He pauses then continues) I just think it takes more than 45 minutes a day to really get to know the students (Interview 4/17/85). Mr. Smith, although supporting the principles of mainstreaming, would actually like the students for more time. This he feels, would improve the quality of the mainstreaming experience. Mr. Denmar is anguished by not having the time to devote to the special education students in the general education classroom. As a classroom teacher I get so frustrated with some kids that I don't have the energy to deal with their small yet important problems. I go home at night frustrated that I did not have more patience. But I do have 28 others to deal with (Observation 1/29/85). Mainstreaming places an additional burden on the time of the general education teacher. The added responsibility has an adverse affect on the Northville teachers' attitude toward mainstreaming. A general education teacher provided an example: The feeling with the classroom teachers is, here we are, we don't get paid any more, and our class sizes are even bigger than most of the other schools; and we've got the mainstreaming and the other schools don't. What the hell are we doing teaching here? We don't need this extra grief. I don't need the grief of Gary coming up with that card when I'm trying to Start my next subject. I don't have time to Sign that damn thing. It takes time, you know. It may only take a minute, but that's a minute of screwing around with the other kids when you are not there to settle them down. That's when elementary kids are at their worst, when they are switching in-between subjects. They always think it's a recess when you get done 193 with one subject and are going to another one (Interview 4/19/85). The time required to manage a Special education student's educational program has also been troublesome for Mrs. Land. Even recess has required additional responsibilities for the general education teachers. Mrs. Land explained: You can't watch six or eight kids when you've got 100 kids on the playground. To expect the regular teacher to go through this elaborate fill-out program (point cards) to see if the child has earned recess is a real challenge. It's just not practical (Interview 4/24/85). Although the general education teachers at the Washington School find mainstreaming burdensome, those feelings do not preclude an openness to include the Special education Students in their classroom activities. Mrs. Hess, a GLISD teacher has experienced this receptivity. I had a real nice experience with Mark. He said, "Why don't you come in with us on science?". The whole 5th grade does it, we have movies, field trips, we have the planetarium, we change the whole schedule. I thought that was such a neat offer. The fifth grade has just been real real good about that. And Gladys used to be that way in third grade-- exactly the same way (Interview 4/29/85)! General education teachers do not disagree with the general principles of mainstreaming, but in practice, enough perplexity exists to cause them to question some of the mainstreaming efficacy. 194 The GLISD Special education teachers also question the worth of mainstreaming. Sending students to a general education class for part of the day complicates and often thwarts the activities planned by the Special education teacher. These ambivalent feelings on the part of the Special education teacher were observed during the following special education teacher/student interaction: Teacher: You're supposed to be in math. Joshua: Mr. Jones sent me back. No math now. Teacher: You tell Mr. Jones he is driving me crazy (she said with a slight laughter in her voice). Joshua did not appear to understand the teacher's message, judging from his lack of verbal response and the wrinkle in his brow. The Special education teacher continued: Teacher: I said, tell Mr. Jones that he is driving me crazy (once again with laughter in her voice). He is going to have to make up his mind (Observation 2/20/85). From the view of the Special education teacher, the changeable general education classroom schedule negatively affects the attitude about mainstreaming held by special education personnel. It appears that the attitude about mainstreaming is affected by the type of handicap manifested by the students. Emotionally impaired students appear to create more anxiety for the general education teachers 195 as compared to students with other handicaps. This fact was expressed in numerous Situations throughout the Study. The mainstreaming of the orthopedically impaired and hearing impaired seems natural and has a positive effect on the general education Students, according to Mrs. Fountain. Emotionally impaired students are more difficult for her to accept in the second grade classroom. Mrs. Fountain explained: Mainstreaming in general I think is really good for the child (Special education student) and also for the other children in the room. I don't think the handicapped (referring to orthopedically impaired), and the hearing impaired; they Should be kept separately; I think they Should be part of the group... I really don't think the El (as She said EI there was greater inflection in her voice as she prolonged the syllables) students should be mainstreamed until they are totally ready; especially, because they can be very disruptive in the classroom. Researcher: Do you think that EI students are more difficult to mainstream than others? Mrs. Fountain: Yes I do. I really do because they have more disciplinary problems than you have with the other kids (Interview 4/19/85). In another interview, Mrs. Boone drew a comparison between hearing impaired and emotionally impaired students. She also finds the emotionally impaired more 196 difficult to mainstream in her fourth grade. Mrs. Boone discussed her point: Now Pete (HI student) is a good kid and he's doing well and he's doing his homework. He's "nooo” problem (she prolongs the syllables of the word no to emphasize her feelings). It's not as bad with Fran's students-- it's the El kids. I think that you need to talk over the mainstreaming details more with the Special ed. teacher (Interview 5/17/85). Mrs. Boone's point seems to be that students with emotional problems require more effort to mainstream than students with hearing impairments. Attitude toward mainstreaming has been, and will continue to be, an important factor in the delivery of special education at the Washington School. The attitude has not remained Static. Multiple variables affect mainstreaming attitude. A wide disparity exists between the teachers' espoused values related to mainstreaming and their attitudes related to daily practice and implementation of the Special education process. 197 WHAT IS THE GENERAL EDUCATION STAFF'S PERCEPTION OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION, AND HOW DOES THIS AFFECT MAINSTREAMING? An unanticipated finding of this Study was that factors outside the realm of the Washington facility affect the attitudes of the general education teachers toward mainstreaming. Numerous references were made to the fact that the policies, or lack thereof, of the central administration affect the attitude toward mainstreaming and special education. In particular, the idea of constructing a GLISD special education addition to the Washington School initially was met with a great deal of resistance. Over time, the attitude has dramatically improved, as previously stated. In retrospect, Northville teachers generally feel that the manner in which the addition was announced, with no consultation from them, contributed to initial negativism. AS one teacher explained: At the time when the addition was to be built on to this school, we read about it in the paper. Nobody from within this school was ever consulted, had it ever discussed, or had it even told that there was any remote possibility that anything like this would ever happen, until it came out in the newspaper. By that time it was all done. The effect that that had on everybody, I would say had devastating effects with the whole staff. Whether the decision was cut and dried ahead of time was immaterial. I just think there Should have been some way that this would have been presented to the entire Staff before it ever came out in the newspaper (Interview 4/10/85). 198 Teachers feel a lack of support from the central administration of Northville Area Public Schools. This absence of encouragement often affects the teachers' attitude negatively toward mainstreaming. General education teachers consider mainstreaming an additional responsibility which warrants subsistence. AS one general educator explained: I had a deaf student in my room so I took a Sign language class to help prep for her. I paid for the class on my own and had to get a sitter for my son. They (central office administration) did nothing to help. That really turns me off. I got no support from the system. That's what makes me angry. You talk nicely and nobody listens. A nice approach does not work (Observation 1/31/85). A second grade teacher related to the fact that special education students are not the sole source of general education teacher frustration. The central administration is a contributing factor to the staff's irritation. You know, problems in teaching are basically not with the children. The bottom line is, the things you get angry at have nothing to do with kids in your classroom, it's the way things are handled oftentimes. The main office just doesn't realize the problems. They are so removed from being in the trenches, so removed that they don't understand. They just don't understand (Interview 5/17/85)! Another general education teacher had Similar feelings about the negative effect that teachers' perceptions of the central administration has on attitude at the Washington School. The Northville 199 staff feel a sense of apathy from the central Office personnel. It's like our concerns are falling on deaf earS--like you're getting a paycheck, work with it. That's the way you feel sometimes. It's frustrating for us. It sometimes seems that we're against mainstreaming, but that's not the idea. It's not that at all. It's like nobody cares. Like you're in it alone sometimes (Interview 4/19/85). The teachers at the Washington School hold the central administration accountable for not reducing the class sizes Since the GLISD addition was constructed. Evidently class size was an issue discussed with the administration. A fourth grade teacher explained: I don't think anybody was Opposed to mainstreaming, I really don't; not anybody in this building anyway, as it was first laid out. So mainstreaming as a concept was not a problem. It was the things they (central administration) promised us that they didn't deliver. Regulating the class size is probably the single most important thing that they didn't do; that they Should have done (Interview 3/27/85). A point of contention with the Washington staff is the fact that a means of making accommodations for Special education mainstreamed Students had been discussed with the central administration but nothing had been done. A system referred to as the "Denver Plan" was investigated. With this system, class sizes would have been reduced by counting each special education child in the general classroom as more than one student. This would have meant, for example, that an emotionally impaired student might count as three 200 while a hearing impaired Student would count as two in figuring class loads. A teacher on the original Study committee recalled: Dr. Rogers (superintendent) at one point recommended some kind of numbering system for class size; the "Denver Plan". And when I think, how many years ago and nothing ever was done (Interview 5/17/85)! Although the Denver Plan had been discussed in committee several years prior, the teachers feel that the concept had only been given cursory attention. Mr. Jones expressed his pleasant surprise when an administrator gave mention to the need for class Size consideration due to the Special education Students at Washington School. There was a "Denver Plan" we talked about. For the first time at a board meeting I heard Mr. Webb (assistant superintendent) say, "we have to give special consideration to Washington School because of the amount of mainstreaming that goes on there". That is the first time I heard an administrator say that, outside of Stan. He was actually saying that not only are the classes big at Washington School but they have a lot of special problems there. That was a step in the right direction (Interview 4/19/85). The issue of class size is compounded when one looks at other elementary schools in the same district. The teachers at Washington School feel that an inequity exists among buildings which further complicates the mainstreaming of Special education students. A third grade teacher drew the correlation: Class size can affect morale when you see other schools in the district with smaller classes...What is hard to look at is when 201 another school has less kids in their classes than we do. The teachers here have always said they felt they were taken advantage of. Not only do they have the El classes here, but other schools have classes of 19 kids while some of our pe0p1e have 29. That's not fair, when we have to do 50% more work, correcting papers and with classroom management (Interview 4/17/85). Teachers feel that all Students with special needs are enrolled in Washington School. This perception increases the teachers'resentment toward the central administration. The attitude of the teachers is thwarted by the notion that they are considered the "Special school" within the Northville district. Because of this "special school" perception, the teachers feel that central administration should provide consideration for the circumstances. AS Mr. Denmar explained, teachers are not pleased with the placement of a diSproportionate number of Special educaton students at the Washington School. We just had that feeling for years here, you know, Christ, Washington gets dumped on by everybody- special ed., bussing in; we take kids in from practically every area of town. It is a general feeling that this is a catch- all "special school" (Interview 4/19/85). A second grade teacher expanded on the "Special school" concept. Mrs. Fountain provided additional rationale why the teachers feel that they are being taken advantage of by the central administration. ...we feel that this has become the dumping ground. Like Washington has become the "Special school" because we have a special wing and have handicapped kids. We used to have another room just for the handicapped. 202 I think we just felt that we get all the problem kids. Any school that has a problem, let's just send them to Washington, kind of thing. There was some resentment in that way of thinking; oh boy, here we go again. But I think the resentment has dissipated (Interview 4/19/85). As observed during this study, there are intense feelings at the Washington School toward the central administration. It is felt by the teachers that their concerns are not heard or dealt with seriously. The result is a lack of trust which ultimately affects the mainstreaming process. HOW DOES THE STAFF FEEL ABOUT THE ESTABLISHED MAINSTREAMING POLICIES, AND WHAT METHODS ARE ACTUALLY ENACTED? In addition to the central administration representing an outside influence on mainstreaming at the Washington School, internal factors also converge on the special education process. Mainstreaming policies have an effect. One aspect of those procedures involves the conveyance of information. General education teachers would like information about the Special education students prior to placement in their classrooms. This, they feel, would help them in effective classroom management of the group as a whole. This concern became evident while the researcher was in the Staff Room. At lunch, Barb Land, Emily Fountain, and Darlene Lucas, all general education teachers in 203 the lower grades were discussing some of their frustration related to mainstreaming. Apparently they had received special education students with little information accompanying the child. The dialogue was as follows: Mrs. Land: I would sure like to have an opportunity to sit in on the IEPC before we ever get the kids. It makes me mad when we get class lists at the beginning of the year, without input. I feel like we are railroaded without having input. Mrs. Lucas: I get upset when we get very little information about kids from the El rooms. A few years ago I had that Jimmy kid. I didn't know that he had punched a teacher before he came to the El room. I have a medical condition, where if I were punched, it could have landed me in the hospital. I wish Liz would have told me. Mrs. Fountain: It is mostly the kids with violent behavior that we want to know about (she said directly to the researcher). That concerns us more than anything. We Should at least get to see the file before we get the Student. Mrs. Lucas: That's right. If we get the students we should at least be able to review the records (Observation 2/6/85). It appears that the general education teachers' concerns regarding prior information is accentuated when accepting an emotionally impaired Student in their classes. Many teachers at the Washington School feel that once a child is placed in their classroom, continuous 204 contact from the special education teachers has been helpful. Mrs. Russo feels that the support she has received from a GLISD teacher has made mainstreaming successful for the special education Students in her class. The kindergarten teacher feels that Angie Dixon has provided numerous Opportunities to asist her in the kindergarten mainstreaming. Mrs. Russo described some examples: Angie has been a big help. Things like letting me send the kids back. She always checks; like a progress report and will come down and ask how the kids are doing. If we have any make-up work, you can send it to her and she will do it with the kids. She has the aide who comes down everyday, which really helps... So Angie has been a big help. I feel you need that. We can work together, and know if there is a problem, we're not going to doubt each other. She keeps very close contact (Interview 4/19/85). Other methods used in the mainstreaming process are found helpful by the general education staff. Mr. Denmar, explained that he feels better knowing his input has an effect on whether a special education student remains in his fifth grade. He discussed his thoughts vigorously: I've always had the Strong feeling that if it isn't working I could send them back. That's always been clear cut. For me the best thing in the procedure is the feeling that the kid is not there for the rest of the year automatically, and they dumped him. Dumped is the word I think of. Because of that my attitude is better. I know that I don't have to put up with them if they misbehave. They're not going to ruin my class control...they are not going to be stuck in that room with me come hell or high water. We're going to try this, and it isn't that 205 sinking feeling, like, my god, I got this kid the rest of the year. As long as teachers here know that if it doesn't work they (the students) are going out, it's a hell of a lot easier (Interview 4/19/85)! The Northville teachers' attitude toward mainstreaming is reflective of their posture concerning the methods and policies used in the process. At the Washington School, two basic modes of mainstreaming are Operational. One type of policy is implemented by Mr. Lance, the Northville Resource Room teacher. In general, he works with Students from the general education classroom on instructional material, when necessary. The special education students are in fact assigned to the general education teacher. The GLISD enacts a policy Opposite to that of Mr. Lance. Specifically, the Special needs students are assigned to the GLISD program, with time in the general education classroom as determined appropriate by the Special teacher. The GLISD methods are being challenged at the Washington School. Northville teachers have a definite bias for the procedures employed by Mr. Lance. It appears that most general education teachers feel they would like the special education Students placed in their classroom for more rather than less time. General education teachers would like to see a reversal of the present procedure implemented by the GLISD staff. The Northville teachers suggest that the 206 special education students be homebased in the general education classroom. The general education teachers would like the special students to go to the special education programs for additional help , only when appropriate. They seem to feel that increased general education time allows teachers an Opportunity to provide more instruction to the mainstreamed student. General education teachers often get frustrated when the mainstreaming time does not permit ample instructional time. Consequently, the special education student tends to fall further behind the rest of the class. Mr. Thomas explained: I think we have the cart before the horse. I think whenever they're ready, emotionally, they ought to be sent to the classroom full time all day. Then if they need any additional help we should send them back down to the ISD wing; rather than have them in the ISD classroom and sent here. The way it's presently done, I have no time during the day to give them extra help, if they're have trouble with an assignment. Or, if for some reason we have to change our schedule for the day, for whatever reason, the kid from the ISD wing misses the lesson. With the rest of the class, I have a chance during the day to to make up the lesson. Consequently, the special ed. kids fall further and further behind. You can't correct the situation if you don't have them all day (Interview 3/25/85). Typically, the ISD teachers begin the school year with the the Special education students spending most of the day in the special education program. AS the students progress in behavior and academic proficiency, they are gradually phased into the general 207 education classroom throughout the year. Although this is common practice, the general education staff would rather have the Special education students for more time beginning in their classroom on the first day of school, as is done with Mr. Lance's Students. Miss Hale, a fourth grade teacher, reinforced this notion and had comments which represent a many of the Northville teachers. Lots of teachers like to have the kids (Special education) on day one, when the year starts. Then they (Special education students) know the rules. They just get right in with the whole group right at the beginning. I think that's a valid point... Yeh, (She continues with greater intensity in her voice) yeh, I mean isn't that funny. Really, when mainstreaming first started they didn't want those kids in their room and now they want them more time or all day. It's the same teachers, we've had very little turnover. Really (as Lynn laughed She added) that's interesting (Interview 5/7/85)! Miss Hale's observation seems to indicate a new phase in the attitudinal adjustment toward the mainstreaming concept. Teachers no longer question the efficacy of mainstreaming, but rather challenge the policies related to how mainstreaming is enacted. Similar thoughts were expressed by Jack Thomas. He feels that it is difficult to integrate a special education student into his fourth grade once the class is already established. After the first month, if they (ISD teachers special education teachers) come down and want to mainstream a kid, you don't have a good feeling about it. You already have your hands full with what you got, especially if 208 you have a class of hell raisers (Interview 3/15/85). General education teachers also seem to feel that when Special education Students Spend more time in the general education classroom, acceptance by their general education peers is more likely to occur. Mrs. Boone provided an explanation of the special education students' placement in the general classroom leading to greater peer acceptance. I would rather have them home based here. They have such a stigma coming down for just a few classes. They re not liked immediately because the kids perceive them as being different. However, all the kids seem to go out for something. There is select choir, Paul's class (Northville Resource Room), Indian education class, and others. To see children leave the room is just accepted. But to have them come in only for certain classes is not good... When kids come in for just a few classes a day, the kids don't accept them as part of the class. It's like they're "retarded." At least that's how the kids look at it. Even when the kids are smart from that end (ISD wing), they're apt to be called "retards". That's the perception of the program from the kids (Interview 5/17/85). When the Northville teachers Speak of desiring more time with the special education students in their general education classroom, their assertion originates from experience. Mr. Lance Operates his mainstreaming procedures differently from the GLISD teachers. The Washington School general education teachers overwhelmingly prefer Mr. Lance's mainstreaming methods. Mr. Lance explained his procedure: My kids are in there (general education classroom) the first day of school. They are Mrs. 209 on their roster and part of the classroom right from day one. I determine each student's schedule around their schedule in the regular classroom. Actually, I do a reverse mainstreaming. They are in that classroom and come here for some extra help. No matter how much time they spend in here, the Student's home base is considered the regular ed. room (Interview 4/16/85). Boone's preference for Mr. Lance's procedures is representative of the Northville Staff. The fourth grade teacher explained: The kids who go to Paul are definitely (she raised the inflection and intensity on "definitely") in our rooms. They only go to him for Special classes. Where with the ISD mainstreaming, a lot of times they only come to us for certain classes. If they are in Paul's room, we consider them definitely a part of our classroom (Interview 5/17/85). As discussed earlier in this chapter, the researcher was impressed with the cultural integration achieved by Mr. Lance with the general education teachers. This Single factor has also contributed to the teachers' bias toward his methods of mainstreaming. Consequently, because the Northville teachers accept Mr. Lance, his procedures are preferred. The Washington School principal contrasted the two procedures implemented for the mainstreaming of special education students by Mr. Lance and the GLISD teachers. Mr. Adams explained: All of Paul's kids get a homeroom. They go right to the homeroom, and that's where they Start the day. It might be just to bring their jacket down, but that's where they start. With the ISD kids it's different. Some Students might spend 90 percent of the day in regular ed., yet Still consider the 210 Special education program their homeroom. There is a sharp contrast in the procedures implemented by Paul and the ISD (Interview 4/15/85). Mr. Thomas had definite feelings about the mainstreaming procedures used in the Washington School. His thoughts provide an apprOpriate summary of the Opinions of the general education staff which favor Mr. Lance's methods. Paul is in a different Situation. If I want that child today, I just tell him. I don't send him down to Paul. The student is homebased here and goes to Paul if he needs extra help. With the ISD it is the opposite situation. Let's face it, it works with Paul and it doesn't work with the ISD (Interview 3/25/85)! The data suggest that the general education teachers in the Washington Elementary School are not Opposed to mainstreaming. Quite to the contrary, they would prefer the special education students homebased in their classrooms and spending a greater portion of the day. The issue then is the Northville teachers' attitude and preference toward the mainstreaming procedures and policies, not their attitude regarding the efficacy of mainstreaming. WHAT PERCEPTION DO GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHERS HAVE OF THE SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM ACTIVITIES? Along with the irritation felt by the Northville teachers about the methods of mainstreaming used by the GLISD staff, there cis another source of frustration. The criteria used by the GLISD teachers in determining 211 the apprOpriateness of mainstreaming a special education student conflicts with the beliefs of the general educators. In a broad sense, the general education teachers feel that Special education students Should be able to keep pace with the class academically. Mrs. Boone explained: It is important for the children to adjust socially to the other kids. But also, they need to be able to keep up with the work. They should do the work the same as the other kids and not expect special favors. They don't have to be academically up with the rest of them, but if they are more than a grade level or two behind there is no way they can do the work. They Should be at least at 3rd grade level. If they are much behind that they can't do the 4th grade work (Interview 5/16/85). Mr. Denmar had similar feelings. As a fifth grade teacher he, along with other general educators, has been confused as to the primary objective of mainstreaming. From his perspective, the Special education teachers do not have a clear understanding of the academic requirements of the general education classroom. Mr. Denmar explained: In reality, a lot of times the Special ed. kids don't succeed academically at grade level, but the social part is important. There is some confusion on that though. We talk about it on our end (fifth grade wing). What are we supposed to do with the kids? Take them in when they're not doing the work and realize that the socialization is important? Sometimes they (Special education teachers) tell us, no, they should be doing the work and keeping up. But it doesn't happen that way, at least what I've seen, because they are low in ability 3 lot of times. I think the special ed. teacher has some honest feeling that the kid could keep 212 up with the typical fifth grader, whereas in reality they can't. Maybe the teachers don't realize that. The special education teachers are not in the classroom. What they consider fifth grade work is not our idea of fifth grade work. We can't give them the individual attention, so the kids don't achieve as well (Interview 4/19/85). Irene Ford also feels that it is difficult for the student to integrate into the second grade for a academic subject when the child is ill prepared for the material. It's difficult for me to work with a child more than six months below grade level skills. I don't want to waste their time sitting here vegetating for the time they're here. It's hard on them when they can't do the work (Interview 3/14/85). Another factor leading to some frustration on the part of the general education teachers is the issue of different standards and orientation between the general and Special education teachers. One Operational factor which causes a perceived difference among the ISD teachers and the staff employed by Northville Area Public Schools is the structure of the Special education program as compared to the general education classroom. The general education teachers do not agree with some of the methods used in special education. Activities such as swimming are implemented by the GLISD Staff which the Northville teachers disagree with in principle. Irene Ford explained: One thing that really bugs me, which the ISD does have control over, is the swimming. I think swimming is excellent, but not at the cost of pulling them out that one day a week 213 for swimming. Swimming is important but not more important than science or social studies or English. Not (her voice raised on ”not") when we want thEse kids to be normal kids. Other kids just don't break off their day and go swimming (She laughs, indicating how ridiculous it sounds) (Interview 3/14/85). Often, the general education teachers feel that the special education students are ”coddled", a term commonly used by the Staff. This statement refers to the notion that the standards, academic and behavioral, for the special education students are not set at an adaquate level by the GLISD teachers.' As Mr. Steele indicated: What you hear every now and then are teachers saying, "What that kid needs is a good swift kick in the ass!" (Interview 5/13/85). Mrs. Fountain provided an example of the different expectations she has as compared with the Special education teachers. She is bothered by the thought of Special education students being required to do less work than her other second graders. Mrs. Fountain explained: You know, at times you'll give the child something to do, that he's capable of. Then they'll take it back (to the Special education teacher) and get help where they shouldn't be getting help. Someone will almost do it for them. They'll bring back this corrected paper with all the right answers. Also at times they'll (special education teacher) say their (students) attention Span is not as long as the regular students so let's cut down on what they have to do. I don't believe in that. I think that if they are ready to come into the classroom they should do exactly what we are doing. If we are doing a whole page, they should be expected to do a whole page. The 214 rest of the kids say 'How come he only had to do ten problems and then goes back and gets a reward'. So I think that has made it really hard because you do have two different teachers and two different ways of doing things (she emphasized her point). Mainstreaming is good for the kids but I think only when they are really ready (Interview 4/19/85)! For the Northville teachers mainstreaming is a reality of the school environment. Yet, for these general educators, the Special education students should not be programmed differently from the general education pOpulation of the school. In daily practice, the general education teachers prefer the mainstreaming process as supplemental to the general classroom instruction. Summary This investigation revealed that within the Washington School, two distinctly different cultures exist. One culture is comprised of the teachers and Staff employed by the Northville Area Public Schools. The other culture is that of the Great Lakes Intermediate School District. The description and account of the culture, from the perspective of the participants, contain elements of these two cultures. Each segment of the school staff cultures, detailed in the preceding chapter, is one small part of both cultures within the Washington School. Taken collectively, the whole can be better understood by 215 studying the individual components. The findings describe the artifacts, values, and basic underlying assumptions of both cultures. The attitude of the general education Staff relative to the concept of mainstreaming appears to be supportive. However, although the general education staff purports to support mainstreaming, enough perplexity exists for the Northville teachers over issues which complicate the classroom Operations to question the worthiness of the endeavor. These issues have included mainstreaming procedures and policies, schedules, criteria for accepting Special education students, class size, the type of student handicap, and the additional burden mainstreaming places on the general education teacher. The data SUpport the conclusion that there are two basic cultures among the Washington School staff: the Northville teachers and the ISD employees. Some factors contributing to this phenomenon are the location of the ISD wing, separate schedules, staff meetings, lunch breaks, and staff parties. This separateness has led to mainstreaming difficulties. Conversely, the Northville teaching Staff describes the relationship among themselves as collegial. Numerous instances were observed by the researcher to support this notion. Teachers feel communication to be the key component in mainstreaming. Both staffs, however, view 216 the frequency of informal contact, between both grOUps, as intermittent. The general education teachers feel that the Northville central administration negatively affects mainstreaming. Examples of this negative effect include the lack of class Size control in comparison to other schools within the district. In addition, the teachers feel that there is a disprOportionate number of special education Students housed at the Washington School. The principal of the Washington School helps set the tone for camaraderie among the Northville staff. In addition, mainstreaming is completely supported by the principal. He feels that ALL children Should be served, not just those without problems. Consistent with the staff feedback, the principal feels that communication is the most important ingredient in the mainstreaming process. General education teachers prefer a procedure consistent with that implemented by the Northville Resource Room teacher. They would like special education students homebased in the general education classroom, going to the special education program only for Special help. The GLISD Special education teachers do not have a similar belief. Furthermore, a disparity exists related to a clear understanding of each others' programs and the related goals. 217 With the multitude of differences which exist between the GLISD and the Northville staffs, it is not surprising that two distinct cultures exist within the Washington School. These conflicting cultures do affect the mainstreaming process. Both groups, Northville teachers and GLISD staff, feel that their own underlying assumptions about the mainstreaming process and the staff culture in which they Operate are the way things "ought" to be. A fusion of these two separate belief systems has not occurred. CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS INTRODUCTION The researcher's purpose was to describe and determine how the Sgggg culture affects mainstreaming at the Washington Elementary School. The study concentrated on general education teachers, special education teachers, and the principal of the Washington School. The ethnographic technique of research was used, applying the inductive approach and stressing the teacher's personal beliefs. Participant observation and individual interviews were used as a primary means of data collection. A majority of the participant observation occurred in the natural setting of the school in locations such as the Staff Room, corridors, playground, the school lobby and waiting room area, and gymnasium, as well as at meetings and social functions. Outside of the boundaries of the school building, social functions of the school staff were attended by the researcher. Follow-up interviews were used as an important source for clarifying and Strengthening the observable data. 218 219 The overarching questions of this study were: -WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF STAFF CULTURE DISPLAYED IN A SCHOOL SETTING? -HOW ARE THESE FACTORS INTERRELATED? -HOW DOES THIS INTERRELATIONSHIP AFFECT THE MAINSTREAMING OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN INTO GENERAL EDUCATION CLASSES? The following eleven mid-level questions served to guide this inquiry: At the Washington Elementary School: 1. What is the social climate and how is it displayed? 2. How do the various staff subgroups contribute to the composition of the total group culture? 3. What is the nature of communication between Northville teachers and the GLISD staff, and how is it displayed? 4. How is the mainstreaming process affected by the personal traits of individual staff members? 5. How do the different schedules of the GLISD and Northville Area Public Schools affect mainstreaming? 220 6. How does the location of the GLISD Special education facility, in relation to the general education classrooms, affect mainstreaming? 7. What role does the principal play in the staff culture and the ongoing implementation of mainstreaming? 8. What attitudes do school Staff have about mainstreaming, and how are these displayed? 9. What is the general education staff's perception of the Northville Area Public School central administration, and how does this affect mainstreaming? 10. How does the staff feel about the established mainstreaming policies, and what methods are actually enacted? 11. What perceptions do general education teachers have of the Special education program activities? Discussion Based upon the eleven exploratory questions of tflnis study, the researcher presents eleven correSponding and conSpicuous assertions regarding staff culture in this chapter, together with 0111 10 221 observations about the relationship staff culture has to the mainstreaming process. 1. A camaraderie exists amogg the Northville teachers housed at the Washington School. The Northville teachers demonstrate a genuine mutual enjoyment of each other. The staff acknowledges that this cohesiveness did not always exist. However, within the past two years the social environment has dramatically improved. This collegial relationship is diSplayed in the Staff Room, and at social gatherings within and outside the school premises. In social settings, students are rarely brought up for discussion. Rather, conversation is typically filled with lighthearted humor, laughter and bantering. The Resource Room teacher employed by the Northville Area Public Schools is an integral part of this collegial relationship. Members of the special education Staff employed by the Great Lakes Intermediate School District are clearly not part of this close relationship. The Staff Room is a hub of daily social activity. Dhast teachers find their way to this room at least once each day. Many teachers drOp by even more than once a .jayu Teachers are drawn to the Staff Room before <31ass, after class, at recess time and for lunch. 222 Outside-of-school socializing is also prevalent among some of the Northville staff of the Washington School. Social activities may include gatherings such as regular Wednesday breakfasts, lunch outings on Thursdays and Fridays, tennis engagements or jogging together. AS a whole, the Northville teachers of the Washington School Staff enjoy each other. 2. Two distinctly separate cultures exist at the Washington School. These cultures are diSplayed by the teachers employed by Northville Area Public Schools and the Great Lakes Intermediate School District Special education staff. The corroboration between the participant observations and interviews supports the assertion that there are several subgroups among the staff of the Washington Elementary School. The GLISD staff represents the most distinct and separate culture within the building however. As one general education teacher indicated ". . . we're one family, and they (ISD) are like a distant cousin of the family." Many factors contribute to this dual culture within the same school. Students attending classes in GLISD and Northville programs are scheduled separately. Staff meetings, lunch break arrangements, and staff social functions are all conducted differently and at 223 separate times. A fifth grade general education teacher summarized the arrangement by saying, "Let's face it. We are two separate schools. We might have the same kids, but it's the ISD and Northville Public.” Even though Northville teachers perceive two separate Staffs at the Washington School, Northville and GLISD, they recognize that subgroups exist even among the Northville teachers. The "fifth grade guys" is one obvious subgroup with the "lower grade" teachers representing another. These Northville subgroups rarely interact. The general consensus among the Northville staff however, is that the ISD teachers are known even less than other general education subgroup members. The existence of separate staff cultures between the Northville and GLISD staffs does not preclude a desire for change among the general education teachers. The Northville staff would like the GLISD teachers to be an integral part of their unit. Often stated is the comment, "We want them to feel part of the staff." The GLISD staff is not cognizant of the Northville receptivity, however. The GLISD Staff is also not aware of the camaraderie that exists among the Northville teachers. Due to the ISD isolation and minimal contact with the Northville teachers, the Special educators' perception of the school environment differs remarkably. To the ISD Staff, Northville 224 teachers are not interested in mutual peer grOUp interaction. Schein (1985) referred to this type of situation as "overprojection." As he indicates, when in a new cultural situation, pe0p1e tend to exaggerate the degree to which the setting actually reflects clear intent on the part of other participants. Therefore, if a Northville teacher does not say "good morning" on a particular occasion, the ISD staff member might take this verbal omission as hostility or lack of desired interaction. The data strongly support the observation that two primary cultures exist in the Washington School. These subcultures, Northville and ISD, present themselves differently than do the subgroups among the staff. 3. The communication between the Northville and ISD Staffs is limited. The staff at the Washington Elementary School feels that communication is the single most important element in the mainstreaming process. Yet, as the data indicate, communication between the Northville general education teachers and the ISD special education teachers is quite limited. The Northville teachers feel that they have too little contact with the special education teachers from the GLISD. The Northville teachers would like to have an increase in teacher exchange with the GLISD 225 personnel. They seem to adhere to the belief that there is a relationship between the quality of mainstreaming and social contact with the special education teachers. However, this interaction occurs rarely and without regularity. The lack of initiation of social communication is displayed by both groups. Although attempts are made, the efforts are often erratic and inconsistent. Passing in the corridor often is the extent of contact. Mrs. Gordon, 3 GLISD key informant in the study, summarized the situation as follows: Our staff feels a division. Our staff doesn't go down there (into the main part of the building) much. But then again, they don't come down here either. I'm sure it's a two-way street. It seems that although communication is a value purportedly eSpoused by the Northville and ISD Staffs, behavior directed toward improving the quantity and quality of the exchange is not displayed by either staff on a consistent basis. 4. Successful mainstreaming is contingent upon the personal characteristics of the teachers involved. It is difficult to generalize regarding the receptivity of general education teachers to the concept of mainstreaming. Individual Special education teachers display a variety of personal traits which 226 affect the mainstreaming process. Teachers who are willing to devote extra effort to the mainstreaming process are more successful at placing special education Students in the general education classroom. Paul Lance, the Northville Resource Room teacher, is an example of one Special education teacher who has been highly successful in the mainstreaming process. He is liked and respected by the total staff; special and general educators alike. A second grade teacher described Mr. Lance: He has a great attitude. He's super COOperative and never gets defensive. He just has the respect of everyone in this building. He is such a fine individual! Mr. Lance's personal characteristics are not limited to the mainstreaming process. As a Northville teacher, he is considered an "insider." It is important to note that having a common employer is not the criterion used by Northville teachers in assessing Mr. Lance. From an organizational cultural perSpective, Mr. Lance has bridged the gap between special and general education. Mr. Lance regularly socializes with the general education Staff, within school and outside of the building environment. As he expressed, "You can't just talk with them (general education teachers) when you're after something." For Mr. Lance, the interaction be promotes with the general education teachers appears to come effortlessly. For 227 the GLISD Special education teachers, however, this natural interaction is not observable. 5. The different schedules of the GLISD and the Northville Area Public Schools negatively affect the mainstreaming process. The difference in schedules between the Northville schools and the GLISD has a dramatic effect on the mainstreaming process. Alternate time blocks are detrimental to the frequency of communication between Staffs. Due to the lack of contact imposed by the different schedules, the separate cultures of each group are promoted and reinforced. There seems to be no Opportunity for members of each staff subgroup to assimilate into each others culture or to meld the cultures. In addition to the problems imposed by scheduling on the staff, Students have less time available for mainstreaming. Classes for the Northville students begin at 9:00 A.M. and end at 3:00 P.M. Northville teachers arrive about 8:30 A.M. and leave just after 3:00 P.M. The ISD hours are earlier. Teachers arrive at 8:00 A.M. with students arriving on the busses at approximately 8:30 A.M. The students' day ends at 2:00 P.M. with teachers permitted to leave at 2:30 P.M. Further limitations are incurred due to different break schedules. The Northville teachers receive duty-free lunch periods, 228 and alternate on recess duty. This provides a time for them to interact with each other. The GLISD teachers, however, are required to eat with their students during lunch on a daily basis and monitor behavior on the playground during recess. Therefore, teacher accessibility for interactional purposes is Egg present between the Northville teachers and GLISD staff. In addition to the obstacle the schedule places on staff communication, Similar negative effects are seen with the students' scheduling limitations. The ISD special education Students end their day one hour before the Northville general education pOpulation. This time difference limits the classes available for mainstreaming and provides one hour, or 20 percent, less time each day for instruction. This time variance is a continual frustration to the general and special educators alike. 6. The location of the GLISD Special education facility obstructs communication between the Northville teachers and the ISD Staff. Consequently, the mainstreaming process is negatively affected. Located 150 feet from the lobby of the Washington School is the GLISD addition. As one looks down the hallway, facing the ISD unit, all that is observable is 229 a wall perpendicular to the corridor of the school. A Northville teacher described the GLISD addition: . .that hallway goes across there like a wall or a river, or something that you have to get across; you don't cross that line. It's like going into a foreign country or something when you cross over there. The location and design of the GLISD additon does not promote communication, nor is it conducive to communication between the general education and special education staffs. The HI program was located at the Washington School prior to 1978 when the addition was constructed. Brenda Hafer then relocated to the ISD facility at the Washington School. She was able to draw a comparision between the two classroom locations, feeling "more a part of the school" when She was located in the fifth grade wing. Presently the GLISD teachers feel a sense of isolation from the rest of the Northville Staff. The physical isolation created by the GLISD addition is yet another cultural wedge driven between the Northville and GLISD Staffs. 7. The principal of the Washington School helps set the tone for the environment within the building and the relationship this climate has in the mainstreaming process. Stan Adams, principal of the Washington School, encourages and promotes the collegial relationship espoused by the Washington staff. He does this through 230 his verbal communication and behavior. Mr. Adams values a close camaraderie among the staff. He Openly expresses his views on this: "I have always felt that we need to like each other." Mr. Adams purposefully has informal contact with the teachers. He is often seen in the corridors, or momentarily stopping by the classrooms to just say a friendly "good morning” to the teachers. This appears to be a daily ritual which he, as well as the staff, enjoys. His lighthearted banter with the teachers is echoed down the empty halls prior to the students' arrival. Mr. Adams also has a definite effect on the mainstreaming process at the Washington School. He believes that no child Should be excluded from the educational process. He emphatically states his views to the teachers: . . if you are going to teach here, that's one of the things that you have to expect to do--to mainstream! Mr Adams' beliefs help shape his support for mainstreaming and the Special education programs within the Washington School. He feels that teacher-to- teacher contact is the most vital ingredient in the mainstreaming process. Teachers are aware of his beliefs and act accordingly. Typically, mainstreaming details are develOped between the special and general education teachers prior to Mr. Adams' involvement. If 231 action is needed, however, the teachers can usually depend on Mr. Adams' support. The Resource Room teacher commented: Stan is extremely supportive. He never questions his responsibility in the process. That's what makes it work. . . Stan is a doer. He doesn't let things sit. Most of us feel that way. And if you know that, it makes you more confident in the classroom and less likely to run into problems. Mr. Adams encourages two-way communication between the general education and special education teachers. Nonetheless, he feels that the special education teacher needs to make the extra effort if the mainstreaming process is to be successful. I've always said that a special ed. person is like a hub of a wheel. The way that person Operates is going to determine how the whole Operation is going to go. If a special ed. teacher does not go around and visit with the mainstreaming teachers, and make himself or herself a visible part of the Staff, then I think it's like not servicing an automobile or not servicing the axle with grease. Pretty soon things start to squeak, and the squeak gets louder and louder--then you have problems. The Staff members at the Washington School like Mr. Adams. Often the phrase "You can't help but like him" is expressed by the teachers. Consequently, the staff's admiration for Mr. Adams' personal characteristics has helped create a positive effect on mainstreaming at the Washington School. Mr. Adams is child-oriented and sets a high priority on knowing each student in the school. His interaction with the students is evident in the 232 corridors, at lunch and during recess. Mr. Adams is often seen talking with students, his arm placed on their shoulder. Mr. Adams' enjoyment of the Special and general education students, and familiarity with their individual needs help shape his daily action related to mainstreaming. 8. The concept of mainstreaming is generally supported at the Washington School. Yet, mainstreaming is burdensome for those who implement the process. Northville teachers support the general concept of mainstreaming. This support can be linked to the principal who actively promotes activities which integrate special and general education students. Most staff within the Washington School are quick to add that the attitude toward mainstreaming has not always been one of receptivity. Mainstreaming was practiced in the Washington School prior to the construction of the GLISD special education addition. During those years, and for several years after the wing was added to the school, teachers were reluctant to take special education Students into their classes. Some teachers even refused to take Students. Teachers now believe that the prior negative attitudes toward mainstreaming can be attributed to "fear of the unknown." Teachers imagined the students to be more 233 difficult to manage than was actually the case. Once the general educators had the various Special education students in their classes, they found that the students were not as difficult to manage as they had originally anticipated. Teachers now view mainstreaming as part of the school norm and are receptive to taking special education students. Although the attitude toward mainstreaming has improved significantly over the years, the general education teachers remain frustrated. They feel an additional burden is placed on their time, schedule, and classroom organization, as a result of the mainstreaming policies enacted by the ISD staff. The general education teachers do not disagree with the general principles of mainstreaming, but in practice, perplexity exists. This uncertainty is enough to cause the general education teachers to question some of the mainstreaming efficacy. Questioning the principles of mainstreaming is not isolated to the general education staff. Mainstreaming also creates complications for the special education teachers. Schedules need to be coordinated, extra conferencing is required, and additional coordination of lessons is needed. As one special education teacher stated, "Mainstreaming is not an efficient use of time." Thus, mainstreaming only questioned not only by 234 general educators, but by special education staff as well. Related to the issue of teachers' attitudes toward mainstreaming is the factor of the specific student's handicap. Emotionally impaired Students appear to create more anxiety for the general education teachers at the Washington School than do students with other handicaps. At the Washington School, attitude about mainstreaming is not an either-or issue. As stated, many elements affect teacher attitudes. 9. The Northville teachers' perception of the central administration negatively affects mainstreaming at the Washington School The negative feelings about the central administration held by the Northville teachers are quite pronounced. This negative feeling permeates the mainstreaming process. When the GLISD addition was announced in 1978, the reaction of the Northville teachers was one of great resistance. One factor related to this Opposition was the manner in which the central administration announced the plans. The staff members remain resentful that they were not consulted. To the Northville teachers at the Washington school, this act of omission demonstrated a total lack of concern on the part of the central administration. Teachers continue 235 to feel an absence of encouragement and understanding from the central administration. At the time of this study, a primary point of contention among the Northville teachers was class size. They hold the central administration accountable for not reducing the class Sizes at the Washington School. The general education teachers feel that no accommodations have been made for them, since the GLISD special education addition was constructed. There is a heavy emphasis on mainstreaming caused by the ISD Special education pOpulation. Therefore, reduced class sizes have been discussed at great length. A plan, often referred to as the "Denver Plan", was discussed with central administration and teacher committees. If implemented, the plan for reducing class size would have involved a system of counting a Special education Student at a greater weight than a general education student. For example, if two emotionally impaired students were in one class, and they would be calculated at 1.5 each, the two students would count as three in the total class size. The Northville teachers supported this system, but class size reduction reportedly has never been fulfilled by the central administration. Consequently, teachers are resentful and the attitude toward mainstreaming has suffered. The issue of class size is compounded when one looks at other elementary schools in the Northville 236 district. The Washington Elementary School has the highest class sizes in comparison to the other schools. The fact that the Washington School has significantly more mainstreaming than the other schools magnifies the teachers' frustration. The Northville teachers label their school the "special school." They use this term in a noncomplimentary sense to refer to the central administration assigning a disprOportionately high number of special education students to the Washington School. The teachers' perception is that in addition to the GLISD students, Washington School receives an inordinate number of Northville's resident special needs Students. The fact that the teachers are not compensated for their efforts in any tangible manner causes negative feelings toward the central administration, some of which is projected into the implementation of the mainstreaming process. 10. General education teachers at the Washington School prefer Special education students in their classes for greater periods of time. Two basic approaches to the implementation of Special education services are enacted at the Washington Elementary School. The Northville Resource Room, taught by Paul Lance, Operates on a concept which places the students in the general education classroom 237 as a homebase. Mr. Lance's service is considered supplementary to the classroom instruction. The student is considered part of the general education class by the teacher and classmates. Mr. Lance works with the Special education student, in the Resource Room, for those academic subjects which present the most difficulty to the student. The amount of time the student is with Mr. Lance varies from a brief period to most of the day. This arrangement represents a typical resource room concept often found in other school districts. The data indicate that Mr. Lance maintains close contact with the general education teacher, not only working with the student, but providing support to the general education teacher. This is known as the "teacher-consultant approach" (Lilly, 1981). At the Washington School, a combination of a teacher- consultant approach and resource room approach is used by Mr. Lance. The programs administered by the GLISD resemble the concept of self-contained classrooms. The students are placed primarily in the Special education class, with most of the instruction occurring in that setting. Gradually, the student is mainstreamed into the general education classroom. General education instruction usually begins with music, art, and/or gym. If the student is successful, time in the general education classroom may be increased. On a continuum of possible 238 educational settings ranging from the most restrictive environment to the least restrictive, the GLISD Special education programs place the greatest emphasis on self contained Special classroom programming. Part-time special education placement is available, however. Mr. Lance's Resource Room, administered by Northville, places the emphasis on general education class attendance plus supplementary instructional services, although part-time special class instruction is available. A basic difference exists between Northville and GLISD in the mode by which special education programs are Operated. The general education teachers at the Washington School have a Strong bias for the stratagies implemented by Mr. Lance. They prefer a homebase placement of the special education students in their classroom, with supplementary assistance provided by Mr. Lance. The teachers report that this approach allows the Special education students to receive more instructional time while allowing them to feel like an integral part of the class. The resource room approach is also less burdensome to the general education teacher in terms of the classroom schedule. Consequently, the classroom can be organized the same, with or without the special needs student. The teachers say that they are not Opposed to working with students with Special needs, but actually 239 prefer a reverse mainstreaming approach. Teachers would like the students for more rather than less time. The method of mainstreaming implemented by GLISD is found to be frustrating to the general education teachers. The teachers find the mainstreaming stratagies of the GLISD less productive for the special education students, academically and socially. A general education teacher provided a summary, ”It works with Paul (Lance) and it doesn't with the ISD." 11. Different standards, expectations, and teaching Strategies exist within the values and belief systems of the general education and Special education teachers. The criteria used by Special education teachers in mainstreaming decisions are often contrary to the beliefs of general education teachers. These general educators often feel that the special needs students are not sufficiently prepared academically for the general education setting. It is commonly thought by general classroom teachers that if a student presents too great a lag in academic proficiency, classroom mainstreaming is not apprOpriate for the subject in question. In addition, there is no consensus between general and special educators on the goals relative to the distinction between mainstreaming for the purpose of academic advancement and social development. 240 The differences in teaching Strategy between general and Special education teachers also presents disagreement. General education teachers question the efficacy of the methods used by the special education teachers. The classroom teachers feel that the expectations are too low in the special education program. The general educators often use the term "coddled" to describe their point of contention. Conversely, special education teachers lack an understanding of the structure of a general education classroom. The lack of consistency between the values of these two groups of educators impedes the coordination of a special education student's total program, when mainstreaming is involved. Summary of the Findings 1. Two distinctly different staff cultures exist within the Washington Elementary School. The staff employed by the Northville Area Public Schools represents one culture, with the staff of the Great Lakes Intermediate School District presenting the other culture. The differences between these two groups impede the mainstreaming process. 2. The primary tangible obstacles to the formation of one culture are the different schedules, Staff meetings, lunch breaks and 241 social functions, and the GLISD location within the building, Communication with the GLISD staff is an eSpoused value of the Northville teachers. Due to the separate cultures that exist, the communication displayed is intermittent between the two staffs. The general education Staff verbalize their belief in the merits of mainstreaming. However, the manner in which mainstreaming is implemented by the GLISD is not supported by the general education staff. The reverse mainstreaming approach, implemented by the Northville special education teacher is preferred. The Northville teachers have negative feelings toward the central administration of their school district. This perception has an adverse effect on mainstreaming at the Washington School. The principal of the Washington School helps set the tone for camaraderie among the Northville Staff and for mainstreaming support. 242 Conclusions The separate staff cultures at the Washington Elementary School hinder the mainstreaming process. Based on the findings, this researcher found no evidence to permit the conclusion that a fusion of the two cultures is likely to occur. It is assumed that as new staff are introduced into the Washington School environment, Northville teachers and GLISD staff will assimilate them into their own respective cultural networks. The espoused values of desired fusion of the two groups are not sufficient to alter the organizational framework. Tangible contributors to the maintenance of the two cultures include separate schedules, staff meetings, lunch breaks, and locations within the building. Minimal effort has been expended by either group in overcoming these obstacles. One aSpect which promotes the continuance of culture in an organization is the predictabiliy and comfort that the culture patterns present for its members. This appears to be the case at the Washington School. A potential change in these interactional patterns represents a threat to existing cultures within the setting. A desire for the maintenance of the two cultures is more pronounced than the espoused values of staff unity. Teachers derive job satisfaction from numerous sources beyond the act of direct teaching. The camaraderie at Washington School that exists among the 243 staff within their own cultural framework provides gratification for its members. Mainstreaming is not an area of teaching responsibility which yields contentment for the GLISD staff or general education teachers. The process is burdensome for the Staffs of both groups. Little tangible, positive reinforcement is provided for those who implement mainstreaming. For the Special education students of the GLISD programs, mainstreaming conditions are less than Optimal. The students enrolled in the Northville Resource Room program continue to be exposed to ideal mainstreaming conditions in terms of general education teachers' receptivity. The cultural affiliation of the Special education staff appears to be the primary determiner of general education teachers' receptivity to special education Students. Where cultural fusion has occurred, as is the case with the Northville Resource Room teacher, general education teachers are more inclined to be supportive of mainstreaming efforts. In summary, the researcher draws the following conclusions: 1. The staffs which comprise the two separate cultures represented within Washington School prefer the maintenance of the present organizational cultural division. 244 2. One primary source of job satisfaction for the staff of Washington School is the collegiality which exists among the teachers within the culture with which they affiliate. 3. Tangible positive reinforcement for mainstreaming efforts is not present for GLISD or general education teachers. 4. Mainstreaming of GLISD Special education students is inhibited by the separate cultures of the Northville and GLISD staffs. 5. Mainstreaming of Northville Resource Room students is enhanced by the cultural integration achieved by the teacher of that program. Implications for Practice This Study raises several issues relative to the mainstreaming of Special education students in school settings. 1. The cultural environment in which the staff Operates is an important factor to consider. The key element to the success of a mainstreaming environment is the teacher component including both general and Special education teachers. Together, their interaction shapes the values, beliefs and underlying assumptions by which they Operate. If Special and general education teachers Operate from a different cultural orientation, the coordination of mainstreaming 245 efforts will be undermined. Through this inconsistency, the mainstreamed Special education student will suffer. It is vital that the frame of reference of the Special education teacher and the general education teacher be consistent. 2. If Special education teachers Operate from a different frame of reference or cultural orientation than general education teachers, who has the reSponSibility for accommodation? This study uncovered an ethnocentric element of "it's up to them to change." Each Staff, general and special, felt that the other teaching unit should make accommodations. Who then is responsible for change? This researcher feels that special education functions within the general educators' environment. The reverse is not the case. The Special educator is a minority. Successful mainstreaming will ultimately depend on the receptivity of the general education teacher. In the present system of education, the general education teacher is the one who will be "burdened" with additional difficult Students. The "success” of the special education student, and consequently his/her special education teacher, depends upon the efforts of the general education teacher assisting in the mainstreaming process. The special education teacher has a great deal at risk. He/she cannot afford the luxury of contemplating, "Who has the responsibility?" 246 Clearly, it is the Special educators who have the reSponSibility for the "first step." Assimilation into the mainstream of staff culture is then a critical issue for special education teachers. It is assumed that once the initial effort is made by special education teachers, reciprocal behavior will be exhibited by the general education staff. Special education must assimilate into the mainstream of education, just as their students are expected to integrate into general education. This assimilation includes becoming an integral part of the general education culture. This Study demonstrated that this is possible. The Northville Resource Room teacher was considered an "insider" in every sense. When the Northville staff referred to special education, they almost always meant the ISD programs. The acceptance of Mr. Lance by the rest of the staff was clearly translated to the acceptance of his students. A definite preference existed at the Washington School for the integration of Mr. Lance's students as compared with those from the GLISD. This researcher believes that Mr. Lance, being a part of the Northville teacher culture, was the primary factor. This element has many implications for the special education practitioner. Special education teachers need to make every attempt to attend school Staff meetings, visit the Staff Room for lunch and coffee 247 breaks, attend social functions, join the flower fund, take recess duty, and generally engage in any and all activities common to the general education staff. If this were to occur, greater commonality would deve10p between the cultures, Special and general education. 3. This study indicated that the employer was not the critical difference leading to separate cultures between special and general education staffs. The Washington Elementary School is not unique in the way Special education programs are administered. Low incidence programs for the hearing impaired and emotionally impaired are often sponsored by an intermediate school district. Factors such as schedules and physical location were, however. Certainly, if special education programs are administered by the same district, inconsistencies would be reduced. When this administrative arrangement is not possible, every effort should be made by the Operating district and the school in which the programs are housed, to coordinate programming. Elements such as schedules, lunch breaks, staff meetings, and social functions should be identical for the special and general education teachers. A close proximity of Special education and general education classrooms would promote an environment conducive to cultural integration. Significant communication barriers 248 between the special and general education teachers would be reduced. 4. Mainstreaming takes greater effort than regular programming on the part of the general education teacher. Central administration needs to recognize this fact with the adjustment of class sizes, ongoing inservice training, and the provision for additional planning time. Tangible positive reinforcement should be an integral aspect of the mainstreaming process. Recognition of teachers, general and special, for excellence in mainstreaming effort needs to be included in the process. 5. The literature is conclusive that the principal of a building Should be the educational leader of the school. It is important to seek out and place those principals who through their proactive behavior actively support the concept of mainstreaming in buildings with Special education programs. 6. University programs have concentrated on the elements of mainstreaming which relate to special education students' performance. Equal emphasis needs to be placed on the importance of effective Staff interaction. Implications for Further Research Ethnography is a method of studying cultures. Besides this study, no other known research exists in 249 which the staff culture effects on the mainstreaming process have been investigated. Further Studies are needed to explore this researcher's assertions. 1. Additional fieldwork research needs to be conducted in this area of inquiry. To enhance reliability, the question should be asked: Do similar cultural patterns exist in other settings? Quantitative research methods would be useful in the further investigation of school staff culture and its alliance to the mainstreaming process. Ethnographic methods are particularily well suited in the development of good research questions. This researcher develOped questions as a result of the present study. Quantitative methods could be used in further investigation of these research questions. Further studies need to be conducted in which the relationship of staff culture to the special education student's success in the mainstreaming environment is investigated. Further research should concentrate on the effectiveness of various mainstreaming Strategies. Differences in the manner in which mainstreaming is implemented were revealed in this study. 250 These additional studies would enhance the insight and perception of staff culture affecting mainstreaming and in turn, reinforce the chances of success for a mainstreamed special education student. REFERENCES Adamson, G. & Van Etten G. Zero reject model revisited: A workable alternative. Exceptional Children, 1972, SS, 735-38. Adler, J. Interpersonal relationships in residential treatment centers for disturbed children. Child Welfare, 1971, 29, (4), 208-217. Alden, R. T. Informal communications as related to organizational climate and inferred leader behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple Univ., 1977. Alderfer, C. P. Group and intergrou relations. In J. R. Hackman & J. L. Suttle (Eds.§, Improving_life at work. Santa Monica, Calif.: Goadyear, 1977. Allport, G. W. Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.) Handbook of Social Psychology, Worchester: Clark Univ. Press, 1935. Angelloz, R. E. A Study of the psycho-social characteristics of teachers and the interpersonal climate of a county school system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Southern Mississippi, 1976. Arends, R. I. & Arends, J. H. Processes of change in educational settings: An application to mainstreaming. In J. Grosenick (Ed.), Teacher education, renegotiating roles for mainstreaming. Minneapolis, Minn., 1978, 33-45. Bacher, J. H. The effect of special class placement on self-concept, social adjustment, and reading growth of slow learners." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1965. Baker, E. L. Managing organizational culture. Management Review, 1980, 92, 8-13. Baldwin, W. The social position of the educable mentally retarded child in the regular grades in the public schools. Exceptional Children, 1958, 25, 106—08. 251 252 Barbacovi, D. R. & Clelland, R. W. Public Law 94-142 Special Education in Transition. Arlington, Va. American Association of School Administrators, 1976. Barley, S. R. Semiotics and the study of OCCUpational and organizational culture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1983, gg, 393-413. Barngrover, E. A study of educators' preferences in special education programs. Exceptional Children, 1971, 21, 754-55. ‘ Bauman, R. An ethnographic framework for the investigation of communicative behavior. In R. D. Abrahams & C. Troike (Eds.), Language and cultural diversity in American education. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972. Beery, K. E. Mainstreaming: A problem and an Opportunity for general education. In E. L. Meyen, G. A. Vergason, & R. J. Whelan (Eds.), Alternatives for teaching exceptional children. Denver: Love Publishing Company, 1975. Bhella, S. K. Principal's leadership style: Does it affect teacher morale? Education, 1982, 102, (4), 369-376. Blatt, B. Some persistently recurring assumptions concerning the mentally subnormal." Training School Bulletin, 1960, El, 48-59. Biddle, B. J. The institutional context. In W. J. Campbell (Ed.), Scholars in context: The effects on environments on learning. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1970. Billings, H. K. An exploratory study of the attitudes of non-crippled children toward crippled children in three selected elementary schools. Journal of Experimental Education, Summer 1963, S1, 381-87. Blankenship, C. & Lilly, M. S. Mainstreaming students with learning and behavioral problems: Techniques for the classroom teacher. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981. Blasovic, R. R. The attitudes of teachers, parents, and students toward integrating programs for borderline educably mentally retarded students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States International Univ., 1972. 253 Bloomfield, J. S. Organizational variables and teachers' peer-conflict-handling strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yeshiva Univ., 1981. Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 1982. Bradfield, R. H., Brown, J., Kaplan, P., Richert, E. & Stannard. R. The special child in the regular classroom. Exceptional Children, 1973, 82, 384-90. Brookover, W. B. & Erickson, E. L. Sociology of education. Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press, 1975. Bruyn, S. T. The human perspective in sociology: The methodology of participant observation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966. Bunting, C. Leadership style and the instructional role of the principal. Psychology in the Schools, 1982, 19, (4), 570-572. Cegelka, W. J. & Taylor, J. The efficacy of Special class placement for the mentally retarded in prOper perspective. Training School Bulletin, 1970 61, 33-80. Chaffin, J. D. Will the real "mainstreaming" program please stand up! (or... should Dunn have done it?). Focus on Exceptional Children, 1974, 6, 1-18. Christ0polas, G. & Renz, P. A. Critical examination of special education programs. Journal of Special Education, 1969, 8, 371-79. Clark, E. A. "Teacher attitudes toward the integration of children with handicaps. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 1976, 11, 333-35. Cohen, J. H. Handbook of resource room teaching. Rockville, Maryland: Aspen Systems Corp., 1982. Criswell, D. Integration is a two-way street. Education Canada. 1973, 1;, 4-7. 254 Cusick, P. A. Inside high school. Chicago, 111.: Holt, Rinehart and Winnston, Inc., 1973. Cutsforth, T. D. Personality and social adjustment among the blind. In R. A. Zahl (Ed.), Blindness, New York: Hafner, 1962. Davis, S. M. Managing corporate culture. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1984. Deal, T. E. & Kennedy, A. A. Corporate cultures. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1982. DeLeo, A. V. The attitudes of public school administrators toward the integration of children with Special needs into regular educational programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston College, 1976. Deno, E. N. Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children. November 1970, 11, 229-37. Denzin, N. K. Sociological methods: A sourcebook. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978. Dibner, S. & Dibner, A. Integration or segregation for the physically handicapped child? Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1973. Dunn, L. M. Special education for the mildly retarded--Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 1968, 12, 5-22. D'Alonzo, B. J. & Wiseman, D. E. Actual and desired roles of the high school learning disability resource teacher. Journal of Learnin Disabilities, 1978, 11, 390-397. The education for all handicapped children act of 1975, Public Law 94-142. Amends P.L. 93-380. (20 USC 1401). Edwards, A. L. Techniques for attitude scale construction. New York: Appleton-Century Croft Inc., 1957. Erickson, F. Mere ethnography: Some problems in its use in educational practice. (Occasional Paper No. 153. East Lansing, Michigan: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, 1979. 255 Erickson, F., Florio, S. & Buschman, J. Fieldwork in educational research. (Occasional Paper No. 36). East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, August 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 196 882) Evered, R. & Louis, M. R. Alternative perSpectives in organizational sciences: "Inquiry from the inside” '3' and inquiry from the outside". Academy of Management Review, 1981, 6, 385-395. Florio, S. Very special natives: The evolving role of teachers as informants in educational ethnography. (Occasional Paper No. 42). East Lansing, Michigan: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, 1980. Garrison, J. & Hammill, D. D. Who are the retarded? Exceptional Children, 1971, 18, 13-20. Geertz, C. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1973. Gorden, R. L. Interviewing: Strategy, techniques, and tactics. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1980. Graham, G. The public school in the new society: The social foundations of education. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1969. Graham, 8., Burdg, N. B., Hudson, F. & Carpenter, D. Educational personnel's perceptions of mainstreaming and resource room effectiveness. Psychology in the Schools, 1980, 11, (1), 128-134. Gross, J. C. Making mainstreaming work. Curriculum Review, October 1978, 254-57. Grosenick, J. K. Assessing the reintegration of exceptional children into regular classes. Teaching Exceptional Children, 1970, 1, 113-19. Guerin, G. R. & Szatlocky, K. Integration programs for the mildly handicapped. Exceptional Children, 1974, 41, 173-79. Guskins, S. L. Social psychology of mental deficiency. Handbook of mental deficiency, N. R. Ellis (Ed.), New York: McGraw Hill, 1963. Hall, E. T. The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday, 1959. 256 Hallahan, D. P. & Kauffman, J. M. Exceptional children. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1978. Halpin, A. W. & Croft, D. B. The organizational climate of schools. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago, Interstate Printers, 1963. Halpin, A. W. & Croft, D. B. Theory and research in administration. New York: Macmillan Company, 1966. Hanson, R. M. Factors affecting elementary principals' decision to mainstream handicapped children in the regular classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse Univ., 1971. Harasymiw, S. J. & Horne, M. D. Teacher attitudes toward handicapped children and regular class integration. Journal of Special Education, 1976, 19, 393-400. Haring, N. G., Stern, G. C. & Cruckshank, W. H. Attitudes of education toward exceptional children. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse Univ. Press, 1958. Harris, B. M. Supervisory behavior in education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1975. Hayball, H. L. & Dilling, A. J. Study of students from special classes who have been returned to the regular classroom. U.S., Educational Resources Infbrmation Center, February 1969, (ERIC Document ED 050 508). Homans, G. C. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt Brace and Co., 1950. Horowitz, L. S. Attitudes and information about deafness. The Volta Review, April 1962, 64, 180-89. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Random House, Inc. 1978. Hudson, F., Graham, S. & Warner M. Mainstreaming: An examination of attitudes and needs of regular classroom teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1979, 1, 58-62. 257 Ingram, T. S. Education. . . for what purpose? In J. Lorring (Ed.), Teaching the Cerebral Palsied Child. Suffolk, England: Lavenham Press, 1965. Johnson, G. 0. Special education for the mentally retarded--a paradox. Exceptional Children, 1962, 29, 62-69. Katz, F. E. The school as a complex social organization. In R. M. Pavalko (Ed.), Sociology of Education: A book of reading, Itasca, 111.: F. E. Peacock Pub. Inc., 1968. Kaufman, M. J., Gorrlieb, J., Agard, J. A. & Kukic, M. B. Mainstreaming: Toward an explication of the construct. In E. L. Meyen, G. A. Vergason, & R. J. Whelan (Eds.), Alternatives for teaching exceptional children. Denver: Love Publishing Co., 1975, 35-54. Kirk, S. A. Research in education. In H. A. Stevens and R. Heber (Eds.), Mental retardation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Klopf, G. J. The principal and staff develOpment in the school. U.S., Educational Resources Infromation Center, December 1979, (ERIC Document ED 168-730). Knight, N. Working relationships that work. Teaching Exceptional Children, 1976, 8, (3), 113-115. Korn, M. The integration of handicapped children with non-handicapped children in a municipal day care center. Deficience Mentale, 1974, 14, 26-30. Lamb, J. R. A comparison of administrator and supervisor knowledge of and acceptant attitude toward exceptional children in two Florida counties using diverse organizational patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse Univ., 1970. Larrivee, B. & Cook, L. Mainstreaming: A study of the variables affecting teacher attitude. The Journal of Special Education, 1979, 11, (3), 315-324. Ley, D. & Metteer, R. The mainstreaming approach for the Specific learning disabled child: A public school model. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 1974, 13, 130-34. 258 Leyser, Y. & Abrams P. D. Teacher attitudes toward normal and exceptional groups. The Journal of Psychology, 1982, 110, 227-238. Lilly, M. S. Special education: A teapot in a tempest. Exceptional Children, 1970, 11, 43-49. Lilly, M. S. A training based model for Special education. Exceptional Children, 1971, 11, 745-749. Lilly, M. S. (Ed.) Children with exceptional needs. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1979. Louis, M. R. Organizations as culture bearing milieux. In L. R. Pondy and others (Eds.), Organizational symbolism. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1983. Lutz, F. & Iannaccone, L. Understanding educational organizations: A field study approach. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1969. Major, 1. How do we accept the handicapped? Elementary School Journal, 1961, 11, 328—30. Marro, T. D. & Kohl, J. W. Normative study of the administrative position in special education. Exceptional Children, 1972, 11, 5-13. Martin, J. & Siehl, C. Organizational culture and counterculture: An uneasy symbiosis. Organizational Dynamics, Autumn 1983, 11, 52—64. McCoy, K. M. Interest, leadership, and implementation: Views on the role of the mainstream principal. Education, 1981, 102, (2), 165-169. Meyerson, L. A. Psychology of impaired hearing. In W. M. Cruickshank, Psychology of Exceptional Children and Youth, EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Michigan special education rules. Lansing, Michigan: State Board of Education, August, 1983. Mitchell, M. M. Teacher attitudes. The High School Journal, April 1976, 302-12. Moore, J. & Fine, M. J. Regular and special class teachers' perceptions of normal and exceptional children and their attitudes toward mainstreaming. Psychology in the Schools. April 1978, 11, 253-59. 259 Morse, W. C., Cutler R. L. & Fink, A. H. Public school classes for the emotionally handicapped: A research analysis. Washington D. C.: Council for Exceptional Children, 1964. Murray, C. J. Organizational climate and the perceptions of suburban elementary school principals regarding placement of educable mentally retarded children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1976. Newman, K. 8. Administrative tasks in special education. Exceptional Children, 1970, 11, 521-24. O'Toole, J. J. Corporate and managerial cultures. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Behavioral problems in orgsnizations. EnglewoodCliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1979. Payne, R. & Murray, C. Principals' attitudes toward integration of the handicapped. Exceptional Children, October 1974, 41. Peshkin, A. Growing up American: Schooling and the survival of community, The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1978. Pike, K. Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human7behavior. The Hague: Mouton, 1967. Porter, R. B. & Melazzo, T. C. A comparison of mentally retarded adults who attend a special class with those who attended regular school classes. Exceptional Children, 1958, 14, 410-20. Rainey, E. B. How to communicate with your professional staff: Build the prsper climate. 1983, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 242 010). Rebore, R. W. Public law 94-142 and the building principal. NASSP Bulletin. April, 1979. Reger, R. Let's get rid of special classes, but . . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1972, 442-43. Reynolds, M. C. & Birch, J. W. Teaching exceptional children in all America's schools: A first course for teachers and principals. Reston, Va.: Council for Exceptional Children, 1977. 260 Ringlaben, R. P. & Weller C. Mainstreaming the Special educator. Education Unlimiteg, 1981, 19-22. Roy, D. F. "Banana time": Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization, 1960, 11, 158-169. Rubin, E. 2., Simon, C. B. & Bitwell M. C. Emotionally handicapped children and the elementary school. Detroit, Mi.: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1966. Sage, D. D. Functional emphasis in special education administration. Exceptional Children, 1968, 11, 69-70. Sathe, V. Implications of corporate culture: A manager's guide to action. Organizational Dynamics, 1983, 11, 5-23. Sathe, V. Culture and related corporate realities. Homewood, 111.: Irwin, 1985. Savage C. A. Breaking down the barriers to mainstreaming: A perspective for administrators. The Journal for Special Educators, 1980, 11, (1), 71-77. Schatzman, L. & Strauss, A. L. Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973. Schein, E. H. SMR forum: Improving face-to face relationships. Sloan Management Review, 1981, 11, 2, 43-52. Schein, E. H. The role of the founder in creating organizational climate. Organizational Dynamics, Summer 1983, 13-28. Schein, E. H. Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review, 1984, 11, (2), 3-16. Schein, E. H. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass, 1985. Schmelkin, L. P. Perceptions of disabilities: A multidimensional scaling approach. Journal of Special Education, 1982, 14, (2), 161-177. 261 Schorn, F. R. A study of an inservice practicum's effects on teachers' attitudes about mainstreaming. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Mass., 1976. Schwartz, H. & Davis, S. M. Matching corporate culture and business stratagy. Organizational Dynamics, 1981, 19, 10-48. Sergiovanni, T. J. & Corbally, J. E. (Eds.). Leadership and organizational culture: New perspectives on administrative theory and* practice. Chicago, 111.: Univ. of 111. Press, 1984. Shotel, J., Iano, J. F. & Gettigan, J. F. Teacher attitudes associated with the integration of handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 1972, 38, 677-84. Silverzweig, S. & Allen R. F. Changing corporate culture. Sloan Management Review, 1976, 11, (3), 33-49. Simek, R. An investigation of the relationship between Specific organizational variables and integration of emotionally disturbed and neurologically impaired students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State Univ. of New York at Buffalo, 1977. Smircich, L. Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1983, 11, 339-358. Steele, F. 1. Physical settings and organization develOpment. Reading , Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1973. Steele, F. I. The sense of pJace. Boston: CBI Publishing, 1981. Stephens, T. M., Blackburst, A. E. & Magliocca, L. A. Teaching mainstreamed students. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1982. Stewart, J. W. Bureaucratic structure, interpersonal climate and student achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Kansas, 1979. 262 Tagiuri, R. & Litwin, G. H. (Eds.). Organizational climate: Exploration of a concept. Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Graduate School of Business, 1968. Uttal, B. The corporate culture vultures. Fortune, October 1983, 11, 66-72. Vace, N. & Krist, N. Emotionally disturbed children and regular classroom teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 1977, 77, 309-17. Vallettuti, P. Integration vs. segregation: A useless dialectic. Journal of Special Education, 1969, 400-405. Van Maanen, J. & Schein, E. H. Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Vol. 1. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1979. Watkins, M. W., & Brown, R. D. Competency and interpersonal ratings of teacher specialties: What teachers think of each other. Psychology in the Schools, 1980, 11, (1), 102-105. Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983. Wilkins, A. L. The culture audit: A tool for understanding organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 1983, 11, 24-37. Wiederholt, J. L., Hammill, D. D. & Brown, V. L. The resource teacher: A guide to effective practices. Boston, Mass., Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 1983. Wolcott, H. F. The man in the principal's office: An ethnography. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973. Wood, J. W. & Carmen, M. A profile of a successful mainstreaming teacher. The Pointer, 1982, 27, (1), 21-23. _—