L o R at TL v . ~ . c If v in“ . ~ . . . . ‘ p \ . . ~ .. 1 . .14.... h. .95.... . 1W3”? , . : . . r .v.Mv 10.31.00: .vt v.fl 7 .3 v . .. O In"! ‘ OII firxug.‘cv‘l1‘xu I. p Q I. X o .I.O .1! 0V. u‘.I4I ‘IA\ 447.“. x- l .t .o 0 «all lw"...a§ c 3. .w 7:! .(.uy‘0.(l\ tn {‘1‘ . II a ‘0; 4 t u ‘a . . .1 c §§Olliv0lll(tfila .M..:I . i... n. . ‘ . . . . .- . v .u. . nhuflqntnt... 1‘??va u ‘ . .. . ‘ . .5 . .o 9\ . . . . ‘3‘! . c113... . . y ‘. .. .4 IAIIL‘ . . ”w. aurasvrshfin. . v. Ivnmbr aquuhh.n..(.l.. . A} .....uh.§om.uc.u m hush. ‘ 6 I if‘ 1 '5'? ‘ I r-“v l * fl . k «i 157: "n ’1 - {2H ‘1‘" , 1‘34“ v; '4‘“ I .1" v1 y. p ll. . .Il . A. . . .r. ... . y I. . . 1" .VI. 1“ .1: .‘l’ ? L1\ 1H , {'50.} \1 Ir 1... n1. I hit b n! 9:." £433 lii!..9! LIIU—d. .. _ ‘ x &hurill.ll.{v ‘ .,. . 3‘ 3 N“ .15 4.1 7211 . . '11“ I“! II oo-in. v .v . .I v. u. v. . 2 3. $1.. .I . . . 1 INSE‘XHZBEJfllflusdzu I. . . 0., , (I! . - In “ . . b r c. flab...” . nmunNtf-Vfiflflrnul . . 10a. 55.13“; . .nvn.§.\.bv.lu. “1......” . : qt.v0"”u4‘:~.t!|\l~! 7|. 1;; .56 I 1 t :5 .. '2: "i; a. .3 r; 2.3- ts. J Iggy. 0.1! . J H‘ l d. t 3‘. '1‘?“le 3*? 1 UV! W. .bw. I"? THE mg.- V| 1 ‘ I %\4 Nb 0: L. ‘ , . lelc..!‘louvvvhvfl. ..... A. y ‘ ‘10 A» .\Obl|l‘c~.4oa! -Itv..u.un.t. u -.w.v.v . I. llu) hilq ‘h! ‘ofiiflfil..buwm. .ILWWHLUKWA . 1 I Inc: Hal - | ( alltluynt u mini!!! hh’wuhvfi‘h supra“. . . .. ...:o...vblcw new mmoauooud emHv.> oomh.oa oomh.m ommH.mH whov.aa vvv¢.oa ocacoomp mocmco cu nooz .n noooooaococ mop mo memo.ha emav.em oooo.m~ ooom.m~ mmmm.vm >m05.mm honeymonoo deacon :0 muoonmm .m onenmoaococ mop mmmm.na mama.mm ommo.m~ ommo.o~ onmo.m~ vhov.mm comma on oocmoamcoo Hmcoooe .m mucoooum ooomooaococcoc hoae.oa mmam.va ombm.aa ommm.ma omom.va mamv.ma co ocaemouumcame mo muoommm .v omooooaococ ecu mo nonsmooao ~eoo.aa oomm.om oomm.am omem.mm mmmm.am whoe.ma amazon“ oHosou monouauua. .m coaumoooo new xuo3.ca omhm.ma mmmm.ea oooo.ha oom~.ma oooo.ma mawv.ma pomeuoouu Hmaooou How nooz .m voodooaocmc mop mmhm.va mmmm.Hm ooom.a~ ommo.mm vowm.mm HHHH.om _oHosou mmoouwuum anymore .H some coma some $8 who umom mum ”mom PE 833.5,. ufiufiomc coon: Hound cmnuonsm .mccmanomecc uoowosmncomsumo you muaommu ummunu .N.N.v manna 56 Table 4.2.2 (ccn't.). Table 4.2.2 illustrates the comparisons between the pre- and posttest mean scores for the teachers in the three geographic locations examined in this study. Pre—test scores indicated the rural teachers had the most positive attitudes of the three groups studied. Posttest scores indicated a highly significant difference in the scores of the suburban teachers and the urban teachers. The suburban group showed improved means for each of the eight variables. There was a decrease in the mean scores of the rural teachers from the pre- to the posttest. The urban group showed higher mean scores on the pre-test than did the suburban teachers and showed the most significant decrease in means on the posttest. 57 H03 - There are no significant differences in tie attitudes toward mainstreaming of participants in an in-service program based upon years of teaching experience . Table 4.3. Analysis of covariance table of participants by years of teaching experience . Source of variation Sum of Degrees Mean F Probability Squares of Squares Ratio Freedom Covariates 5670 . 848 1 5670 . 848 1 . 166 0 . 284 Main effects 15345.961 7 2192.280 0.451 0.866 Personnel 12137 . 902 4 3034 . 476 0 . 624 0 . 647 Experience 4438.867 3 1479.622 0.304 0.822 2-way interactions 25928.207 9 2880.912 0.592 0.799 Personnel x experience Between-group 46945. 063 17 2761 .474 0 . 568 0 . 903 Within-group 311365.938 64 4865.090 Total 358311.000 81 4423.590 H03 - Tiere are rn significant differences in attitudes toward mainstreaming of participants in an in-service program based upon years of teaching experience could rnt be rejected. The F-ratio was .30, a probability of .82. Tie difference between the attitudes of teaciers based on tieir years of teaching experience was rnt significant. T'ie analysis of covariance results in Table 4.3 support the null hypothesis that the differences between teaciers of varying years of experience would not be pronounced. Teaciers in the four levels of teaching experience Table 4.3 (con't.) . 58 held corparable attitudes toward mainstreaming hadicapped students . H04 - Tiere are no significant differences in the attitudes toward mainstreaming of male and ferale participants in an in-service program. Table 4.4. Analysis of covariance table of participants by sex . Source of variation Sum of Degrees Mean F Probability Squares of Squares Ratio Freedom Covariates 8280.664 1 8280.664 1.876 0.175 Main effects Sex 180.869 1 180.869 0.041 0.840 Between-group 8461.533 2 4230.767 0.959 0.388 Within-grotp 353067.889 80 4413.349 Total 361527 .688 82 4408 . 871 H 4 - There are re significant differences in tie attitudes toward 0 mainstreaming of male ad ferale participants in an in-service program could rnt be rejected. probability of 0.84. F ratio was .04, a Table 4 . 4 provided data concerning differences in the attitudes toward mainstreaming of male and ferale teachers in an in-service program. No interaction effect was present. significant. Tiere was no significant difference between the two groups. Tie F-ratio of .041 was rnt 59 H 5 - There are no significant differences in the attitudes 0 toward mainstreaming of participants in an in-service program.based upon grade level teaching assignments. Table 4.5. level teaching assignments. Analysis of covariance table of participants by grade Source of variation Sum of Degrees LMean F Probability Squares of Squares Ratio Firxkam' Covariates 8280.645 1 8280.645 1.700 0.197 Rain effects 11999.11? 7 1714.159 0.352 0.926 Personnel 10439.574 4 2609.894 0.536 0.710 Grade 1672.171 3 557.390 0.114 0.951 2-way interactions 14931.344 7 2133.049 0.438 0.875 Personnel x grade Between-group 35211.125 15 2347.408 0.482 0.942 ‘Within-group 326316.563 67 4870.395 Total 361527.688 82 4408.871 H05 — There are no significant differences in the attitudes toward mainstreaming of participants in an in-service program.based upon grade level teaching assignments could not be rejected. The FeratiO'was .11, a probability of 0.95. The results of the analysis of covariance shown in.Tab1e 4.5 support the null hypothesis that there would be no significant difference in teacher attitudes based upon their grade level teaching assignments. were comparable. F = 0.114, p<0.95. .Mean scores for each of the groups 60 seer To facilitate the mainstreaming of handicapped students, teachers should have positive attitudes toward special needs students and they sinuld be knowledgeable ad well prepared . A one-way analysis of variance and an analysis of covariance were used to determine if the in-service activity designed as a graduate course made an impact on the attitudes of teachers toward mainstreaming and the relationship between the variables of experience, geographic teaching locations , teaching positions, sex, and teaching assignments. Duncan's:mu1tip1e range test.was given to identify the area of significance in the analyses where significance occurred. Mean scores and F-ratios on the attitude scale for regular class, special education, and.physica1 education teachers were summarized in Table 4.1. These scores were subjected to a one-way analysis of variance. No significant F-ratio was obtained. The results supported the null hypothesis that there would be no significant differences between the attitudes of these teachers. NEan.scores and F-ratios between-groups and within-groups were sumarized in Table 4.2. These scores were subjected to an analysis of covariance. Ansignificant difference attributable to a teacher's work location was found. Duncan's multiple range test for variable scores of teachers of suburban, rural, and urban locations determined that there was significance in the mean score of the urban teachers, 100.09, ard that of tie suburban teaciers, 144.70. Tie mean score for the rural teachers was slightly less than that of the suburban teachers at 142.08. These results rejected the null hypothesis that there would be 61 no significant difference based on.work locations. The variable scores are sinwn in Table 4.2.1. Corparisons of group differences on the eight variables are shown in Table 4.2.2. Eben scores and.F-ratios for the analysis of covariance of participants by their years of teaching experience are shown in Table 4.3. Teachers at the four levels of teaching experience showed similar attitudes toward mainstreaming and there was no significant difference in attitudes. These results failed to reject the null hypothesis that there would be no significant differences. There were no interaction effects between the scores and the F-ratios of participants in the in-service training activity by sex. Both males ad fetales were corparable in tieir attitudes, sinwn in the scores in Table 4.4. This failed to reject the null hypothesis that there would be no significant differences in the attitudes of teachers by sex. In the final analysis, scores shown in Table 4.5, there were no significant differences in the scores resulting from the analysis of covariance for participants in the in-service activity by grade level teaching assignments. machers of varying levels from kindergarten through high school held similar attitudes toward.mainstreaming special needs students. These results failed to reject the null hypothesis that there would be re significant differences. CHAPI'ERV SUDMRY, CCNCLUSICNS AND RECIX‘TlENDATIONS Tie intent of Public Law 94-142 was to provide all teaciers with the training necessary to inelp them to educate handicapped children with varying educational needs in the regular classroom environment. In-service programs which provide practical experiences in working with handicapped children and youth were reportedly designed to assist teachers in gaining tinse skills required to meet their social, erotional ad academic needs. The attitude of the teacher toward handicapped children has been identified as a critical elerent in providing effective educational programs for the special child when that child is placed in a regular classroom environment. The question which directed this research was "does participation in a university developed in-service class result in participants demonstrating a more positive attitude toward handicapped children and youth as measured by Baker ' s Mainstreaming Inventory ad AttitLdes Toward Disabled Persons Scale (AT'DP) ?" The data for this investigation were collected from 166 teachers enrolled in an in-service activity designed as a graduate course for physical education, special education, ad regular class teachers from three diverse areas - urban, suburban, and rural. The major objective of this study was to examine the impact of a 62 63 professional development in-service treatment on teacher attitudes toward tie mainstreaned hardicapped. Tie specific purposes were to determine if attitudinal differences existed between educators by tieir positions , their geographic erployment, their experience , their sex, and tieir grade level assigments . A review of literature relevant to in-service activities for teachers of the hadicapped related the importance of the teacier's attitnde toward the hardicapped student ad the effect which it might have on the student. The research also supported an expectation that the teacher's attitude toward the hadicapped would be affected by tie degree of training to accomodate the handicapped learner within tie regular class environment. The following hypotheses were tested: H01 - Tiere are no significant differences in the attitudes toward mainstreaming between regular class, special education ad physical education teaciers as a result of tieir participation in an in-service program. H 2 - Tiere are no significant differences in the attitndes toward mainstreaming between rural , urban ad suburban teaciers win participated in an in-service program. H03 - T'lnere are no significant differences in attitudes toward mainstreaming of participants in an in-service program based upon years of teaching experience. H 4 - There are no significant differences in the attitudes toward mainstreaming of male ad ferale participants in an in-service program . 64 H05 - There are no significant differences in the attitudes toward mainstreaming of participants in an in-service program.based upon grade level teaching assignments. There were no significant differences in the attitudes toward mainstreaming between regular class, special education, and physical education teachers as a result of their participation in an in-service programu The educators in the various positions were affected similarly by the inrservice treatment. The findings revealed a significant difference attributable t0nan educator's work location. The mean for the suburban educators differed significantly fromnthe mean for the urban and rural group at the .05 level. This finding was important in that suburban teachers demonstra- ted a more positive attitude toward.mainstreaming the handicapped student and toward the mainstreamed student. The next series of analyses which investigated the influence of the educator's experience on the attitudes toward the handicapped showed no significant differences attributable to an educator's experience. The inrservice affected the educators with.varying degrees of experience similarly. The data collected on the attitudes of male and female partici- pants toward mainstreaming, after analysis, showed no significant differences between.males and females toward mainstreaming the handicapped student. The final series of analyses of the data concerning the impact of the inrservice treatment on the attitudes of the educators by grade level assignments showed no significant differences attributable to an educator's grade level assignment. 65 Conclusions Several points emerged with respect to attitudes and lack of change in those attitudes. First, bringing about significant positive changes in attitLdes did not occur as a result of participation in this activity. Twenty-eight percent of instructional time dedicated to affective considerations was not sufficient in improving teacher attitLde . A second consideration was that the nature of the affective activities provided in the program was not of sufficient intensity or quality to improve the attitndes of the participants. There was also evidence that attitudes toward the hardicapped were multidimensional ad intervention procedures may differentially affect the different components of attitLdes . Several sttdies concerned with the impact on teacher attitude of mainstreaming programs have shown both positivel ad negative results. 2 Teacher attitude reportedly was influenced by many factors, i.e. , information level, knowledge attainment, specific skill acquisition, and contact ad experience with the special needs student. 'Ik-aachers were said to be accepting of hardicapped children if support from other resource personnel was provided . These findings revealed a significant difference, attributable to an educator ' 3 work location. The mean for suburban educators was l . ’ Stefan J. Harasymiw ad Narcia D. Home, "Teacher attitudes toward handicapped children and regular class integration." Journal of Special Education, v. 10, 4, p. 395. 2 Jay R. Shotel, Richard P. Iano, ad Jates F. McGettigan, "Teacher attitudes associated with the integration of handicapped children," Exceptional Children, 1972, 38, p. 683. 66 significantly higher than the mean for the urban group. Being employed in a smaller and more affluent area has allowedthe teacher to have access to support personnel on a daily basis, in addition to having on-going inrservice activities. Budget reductions which have affected similar programs in larger cities, especially in the inner- city, have reduced the number of support personnel. School districts have been.decentralized in the urban school setting and more diversity in programming has been evident, contingent upon the priorities of the local school boards and administrators. 'Where the need.was greater for materials and supplies for the student, less money was allocated for support staff ad for staff development activities . Most certainly these variables have contributed to the urban teachers being less positive in their attitudes. This study failed to support the theory advanced by Haring, Stern, and Cruickshank3 in their classic study that inrservice workshops resulted in more positive attitudes. There may be a need in future in-service workshops offered by this particular project staff to develop specific training programs aimed at modifying teacher attitudes , through more intensive training and involvement with handicapped students as a part of the in-service itself. 3 James Haring, George Stern and William M. Cruickshank, AttitLdes of Educators Toward Exceptional Children, (Syracuse: Syracuse university Press. 1958). 67 Implications for future research Change occurs across ad in an incremental manner. Hall ad Ioucks related that any viable evaluation model must recognize by its very design that "change is a process, not an event". Measurement of change mmnst, therefore, be process focused. It is recommerded that a longitndinal study be coducted to determine the long range effects of continued in-service activities on attitudes. Traditional approaches to evaluation of in-service have measured change in terms of knowledge, skills, or attitudes acquired at the close of the in-service program. Evaluation models stould be developed which examine the extent to which whatever is learned during in-service is incorporated into classroom practice by the teacher. The reccmrendation, therefore, would be for a study to be done of the residual groups involved in previous years of this project as well as others. Changes in affective responses to handicapped children do not accrue as a side effect from cognitively developed experiences. Researchers slrould consider examining the potential for reverse phenomenon . 68 Reflections The collaborative model for the class was designed by the project director during a year of field stndy prior to being instituted as a federally funded grant. Input from project staff ad researchers was not solicited. The parameters were set prior to involvement of the research ad teaching assistants, the implementers of instruction, data gathering, ad the research design. The extramural course was designed as a knowledge-to-practice offering. Many class activities were devoted to the basic krowledge necessary in planning, implementing, ad evaluating programs. The personnel trained in the project had the urderstading that their goals were to learn new skills, lmowledge ad attitudes for their own situations, as well as "learning to learn" for teaching their colleagues. The purpose was to instill new and increase positive attitLdes and practices regarding the delivery of services to the hadicapped stndent. An essential aspect of the design was to involve heterogerous groups of scl'ool personnel from various professional roles ad tasks in the course. The prevalence of professional interaction occurred as the participants implemented "role study" ad "role task" groups to address problems ard solutions . The calibre of instructors for the project classes was acceptable with two notable exceptions. An attempt was made to rectify this in one area by reassignment of duties by the project director. In the second case, ro changes were made. An extensive staff developrent 69 training session would serve to insure that the intent of the project objectives ad desirable instructional practices would result. A greater participant commitment could evolve through the institution of fee payment , stringent atterdance requirements , ad stated quality of work ad student performance acceptable for grading purposes . The involvement of more administrators could demonstrate a genuirne interest on the part of the school district through release time ad follow-up in-services at the local school level. Audio-visual materials and equipment to be used as a part of the Class should be in place ad available for use at the specified time according to class syllabus. These materials sfould rot be utilized as "fillers" in place of substantive class sessions. Site designations for classes stould be planned in advance ad posted, to eliminate constant shifting of class location, thereby losing a portion of the class in the process. If a change in personnel is unavoidable, every effort should be made to fill the position with a staff person who is dedicated to meeting the project objectives ad following through on course content ad metrods as outlined in course syllabus ad student manual . Coordination between staff members ad offices for a project covering such a diverse geographic area sfould be mandated . Project office must have staff knowledgeable about the project on hand during reasonable hours to facilitate meeting the needs of the staff and course participants . APPENDICES APPENDIX A OPINICN INVENI’ORY 7O OPINIO‘I INVENTORY Before completing the inventory, please fill in the background information requested below. For the first item, identification number, provide the last for digits of your social security number. Identification Number Male Female Years of professional teaching experience Have you ever taught a special education class? Yes No Credentials Held : General elementary General secondary Special education Other (specify) Check highest degree : Bachelor ' 5 Master ' s Doctorate Current teaching assignment : Regular class or; __ Special class Grade level taught Type of classroom (check one) Type of classroom (check one) ID ED Open - ungraded EMH TMH Traditional single grade level___ Regular PE Traditional multi-grade level Special PE Other (SPeCify) Other (SpecifY) 71 l. 3. 72 INSTRUCTIONS Fill in your identification number, the last four digits of your social security number, in the spaces provided at the top of each page of the inventory. This inventory consists of a set of statements about hadicapped individuals, followed by a scale from "1" - strongly disagree, to " 5" - strongly agree . In all staterents, the word "hardicapped" refers to those students who fird achievement in a sclool setting "unusually difficult" because of intellectual, erotional, sensory, physical, or perceptual deficits. All persons conpleting this form, regardless of their actual roles in their schools, skould complete the inventory as if they were assigned to a classroom teaching situation. For each staterent, please circle the number which most accurately represents your current opinion about the statement . Please turn the page ard begin. l. 10. 73 ID# strongly no disagree disagree opinion I think that the full time 1 2 3 special education class is the best placenent for hadicapped stLdents. I believe that average 1 2 3 children will profit from stLdents . Hadicapped students are more 1 2 3 like normal stndents than they are different from them. It wouldbebest if hadicapped 1 2 3 persons would live and work with nonhadicapped people. As with nonhadicapped students 1 2 3 teachers stould require hadi- capped students to share account- ability for their learning. Having to teach hadicapped l 2 3 pupils places an unfair burden on the majority of classroom teachers. Assignment of a hadicapped l 2 3 child to a regular classroom is a wise administrative decision. What hadicapped persons want 1 2 3 more affection ad praise than other people . Integration of hardicapped l 2 3 stLdents will require most teachers to learn ad use new techniques ad materials. I believe that placing a hardi- l 2 3 capped student in a typical classroom would danage the stLdent' s self—concept. agree 4 strongly agree 5 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 74 strongly disagree disagree A hardicapped child will 1 ‘ 2 be motivated to learn in a regular classroom. I am confident that I will 1 2 be able to make hardicapped students feel comfortable in my classroom. Hadicapped children should 1 2 compete with rnormal children. As a result of placement in a l 2 regular classroom, a hadi- capped child will develop a more positive attitLde toward sclool. The integration of hadicapped l 2 stLdents into a regular class- room represents an opportunity for the teacher to grow both personally and professionally. Inmyroleasaneducator,I l 2 have little confidence in my ability to control whether students make scapegoats out of "mainstreaned" hadicapped. With a hardicapped child in a 1 2 regular classroom, there will be an increase in the number of behavior problems anong the other children. The presence of a handicapped l 2 child in a regular classroom will be a cause for complaints from the parents of other children. Hadicapped persons are usually 1 2 more sensitive than other people . Placement of a hadicapped l _ 2 child in a regular classroom will likely result in his becoming socially witrdrawn . ID#_ no strongly opinion agree agree 3 4 5 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 75 ID# strongly no disagree disagree opinion Hadicapped people stould l 2 3 not have to compete for jobs with normal persons . A hardicapped child will be 1 2 3 disruptive in a regnnlar classroom. I think that tlne integration 1 2 3 of handicapped stndents into the regular classroom will harnm the educational achieve- ment of average students . The driving test given to a l 2 3 hardicapped person slnould be more severe than the one given to the nnonnlnandicapped . A hadicapped child will not 1 2 3 even respond to your best teaching efforts. There is not enough time in l 2 3 a teacher's day to deal satisfactorily with the different needs of both average ad hadicapped pupils . I believe that average stndents l 2 3 are uncomfortable when they are with children who have obvious physical deformities. Hadicapped workers cannot be 1 2 3 as successful as other workers. Integration of hardicapped l 2 3 students will require most teachers to change the physical arrangenents and managerent of their classrooms to inncrease the variety of learnning environments available to children. A hadicapped child will develop 1 2 3 a more positive self-concept as a result of being placed in a regular classroom. agree strongly agree 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. If I were the parent of a child who led a learning problem, I would want him to be in a regular classroom for most of the scrool day. A hadicapped child will likely fornm positive social relationships with other children in a regular classroom. Hadicapped people usually do not make much of a contribution to society . Handicapped persons do not want any more sympathy than other people . I generally look forward to the challenge of working with handicapped children. The experience of being in a regular classroom will increase the chances of a hardicapped child attaining a more productive and independent place in society . I believe that average students need the experiennce of being in contact with handicapped students in an academic setting. Given my current under- standing, I believe that "mainstreaming" will benefit me as a teacher, as well as all children. 76 strongly disagree disagree 1 2 ID# 110 opinion agree 3 4 strongly agree 5 39. 40. IfIweretheparentofa child wlo had an enotional problem, I would want him to be in a regular classroom for most of the school day. Integration of handicapped stndents will require most teachers to use classroom time differently and perhaps more efficiently than is now the case . 77 ID # __ _ __ __ strongly no strongly disagree disagree opinion agree agree 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 APPENDIX B CURRICUHMOVERVIEW 78 79 Resources 1. Course manual 2. Arm P. Turnbull ad Jane B. Schulz. Mainstreaming Handicapped Students: A Guide for the Classroom Teacher (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1979). 3 . Herbert Goldstein, Sennior author. Readings in Mainstreaming (Guilford: Special Learning Corporation, 1978) . Definition of terms Role study group - a homogenons group of educational professionals . The group is made up of persons from a discipline area such as physical education or special education. The function of this group is to allow professionals of a specialized area to interact ad discuss comron educational responsibilities, subject matter and instructional techniques . Role task group - a heterogenous group of educational professionals . The group is made up of persons from various discipline areas such as physical education and special education. The function of the group is to allow professionals in diverse areas of specialization to interact and discuss their different educational responsibilities, subject matter, teaching metlods and instructional techniques. 8O PURPOSE I . Introduce Participants to Each Other' 8 Professional Roles General Objective: To better understad the various professional roles of class members; to appreciate the importannce of these individual contributions ad the need for professional cooperation anong and between these educators to effectively and efficiently physically educate all stndents. Specific Objectives: 1 . Describe the roles ad contribution of the following professionals: Physical education teacher; classroom teacher; special education teacher; administrator; and support personnel . Identify the interactive roles and responsibilities of various groups of educators . Identify the problems which school personnel must resolve to fulfill their expected roles and functions in providing services to students in schools. Describe the relationships that need to exist between the regular educators and the special educators . Turnbull, Ann P. and Schulz, J. B. Mainstreaming Handicapped Stndents. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1979). pp. 66-74. ‘ 81 PURPOSE II . Introduce Participants to Physical Education for the Handicapped General Objective: A) To introduce participants to the general history ad goals of physical education for students ages 3 - 21. Specific Objectives: 1. Participants will understand the following general objectives for the goals of physical education. a. To develop the human movenent potentialities to an optimal level. b. To develop a basic understading ad appreciation of hunan movenent . c. To develop ad maintain optimal physical and motor fitness. d. To develop skills, knowledge, ad attitudes basic to voluntary partici- pation in physical activities . e. To develop personally rewarding and socially acceptable behaviors through participation in enjoyable movenent activities. 2. Participants will becone familiar with the history of physical education for special populations. 3 . Participants will understand the philosophy of a physical education program that attenpts to meet the needs of all children. General Objective: B) To present information to participants about the extension of physical education to accommodate students with a variety of motor skills. Specific Objectives: 1. Participants will understand that good physical education is adapted physical education. 2. Participants will understand that tl'e regu— lar physical education teacher engages in adapted physical education each time she/ he plans special activities for stndents . 82 3 . Participants will understand the varia- tions and similarities in instructional roles of teachers who work with students in various levels of educational settings . General Objective: C) To inform participants about the role of physi- cal education within the total educational framework of scrooling. Specific Objectives: 1. Participants will nmderstand that physical education is the only subject area that has motor skill acquisition as its primary focus of attention. 2. Participants will understand that physical education is the only subject area that has physical fitness development as its primary focus of attention. 3 . Participants will urderstad the diverse roles of physical educators in meeting tlne educational needs of stLdents in normal and special sctool settings. References D'Alonzo, B. J. Rights of exceptional children to participate in interscholastic athletics. Readiings in Mainstreaming, pp. 186-192. Turnbull, Ann P. ad J. B. Schulz. Mainstreaming hadicapped students: A onide for the classroom teachers. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon) 1979, pp. 271-290. 83 PURPOSE III . Introduce Participants to the Purposes and Philosophy of Mainstreaming . General Objective: A) To review the background of mainstreaming. Specific Objectives: 1. Understand the past educational practices which contributed to the development of the concept of desegregation of handicapped individuals . 2 . Understand that the philosophical basis of mainstreaming lies in the belief that handicapped children are entitled to equal educational opportunities . 3. Participants will know the historical passage of Public Iaw 94-142. 4. Participants will lonow the forces that operate on behalf of the handicapped to inclLde legislation , litigation and advocacy groups. 5 . Participants will have a basic understand- ing of the history and philosophy of mainstreaming. 6. Participants will understand the place in society of hadicapped individuals . General Objective: B) To present information about the purposes of mainstreaming. Specific Objectives: 1. To understand that mainstreaming is a technique to provide handicapped children an opportunnity to have "normal" social and educational experiences . 2. To know the definition of mainstreaming presented by Jack W. Birch (p. 4 in Readings in Mainstreamim) . 3. Participants will describe tire "nomaliza- tion principle" as it applies to the handicapped. 84 4 . Participants will explain the rationale for mainstreaming mildly hadicapped stLdents . 5. Participants will specify what main- streaming is ad what it is not. 6. Participants will be familiar with the principle of least restrictive environ- ment. General Objective: C) To present information about shared responsibility anong educational professionals for mainstreaming. Specific Objectives: 1. To understand that a_ll_ professional staff who are involved with a specific child are responsible to make input into the educational process of that child. 2 . Participants will have a basic knowledge of various mainstreaminng models; e. g. , consulting teaclners, resource personnel, etc . 3 . Participants will conpare ad contrast the major factors of mainstreared educa- tion with those of traditional special education and regular education. 4 . Participants will be made aware of educa- tional programs for children who require special services and facilities to maxi- mize their potential. 5 . Participants will identify criteria for predicting success of handicapped stLdents in different educational environments . Referennces Readings in Nainstreaming Turnbull ad Schulz l. Milbauer, pp. 4-6 1. Chapter 2, pp. 51-74 2. Lance, pp. 7—15 3. Zufall, pp. l6-18 4. Abeson, A., Bolick, N. and Hass, J., pp. 23-29 5. Molloy, pp. 52—53 6. War-nook, pp. 56-59 7. Martin, pp. 68-71 8. Lippnan, pp. 72-77 9. Stephens, p. 84 85 PURPOSE IV. Introduce Participants to Federal and State Laws Affecting the Handicapped. General Objective: A) To deliver information to participants about Public Law 93-380 and Public Iaw 94-142. Specific Objectives: Participants will: 1. Understand the 7 principles of P. L. 94- 142. 2. Be familiar with the continuum of placement for handicapped students . 3 . Appreciate the importance of parent participation in plannning activities for handicapped strdents . 4. Be able to describe the process and conponents of the IEP. General Objective: B) To deliver information to participants about Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Specific Objectives: Participants will: 1. State the purpose of Section 504. 2. Know the similarities and differences in Section 504 and in P. L. 94-142, with regard to: Federal Funding, Free ad Appropriate Public Education, IEP, and LRE. General Objective: C) To deliver information to participants abont Section 615 of P. L. 94-142. Specific Objectives: Participants will: 1. Be able to describe the importance of the principle of due process . 2 . Be able to state the rights of parents and teachers as provided by Section 615 . 3. Understand the steps of the due process. 4. Urderstad the major issues related to the due process procedure. 86 General Objective: D) To deliver information to participants about Illinois special education legislation. Specific Objectives: Participants will: 1. Understad the State Education Agency (SEA) responsibilities in implenenting the mandates of P. L. 94-142. 2 . Understand the local Education Agency (LEA) responsibilities in implenenting SEA Special Education Rules and Regulations, P. L. 94-142. 87 PURPOSE V. Introduce Participants to Educational Characteristics of Hadicapped Students (Etiology - Normal and Special StLdents) General Objective: A) To present information to participants about the characteristics and etiology of mentally hadicapped students ages 3 - 21. Specific Objectives: 1. Participants will have a basic understand- ing of the following ternms: a. educable mentally handicapped b . trainable mentally handicapped c. severe and profound mentally handicapped General Objective: B) To present infornmation to participants about the characteristics ad etiology of physically handicapped stLdents ages 3-21. Specific Objectives: 1. Participants will have a basic understad- ing of the following hadicapping diseases or conditions: cerebral palsy, spina bifida, epilepsy, hearing and speech impair- ed, visually impaired, and diabetes. 2. Participants will becone familiar with the working definition of cardiac disorders, muscular dystrophy, post-polio, deaf-blind. 3 . Participants will becone aware of other health impaired handicaps. General Objective: C) To present information to participants about the characteristics and etiology of stndents ages 3—21 with learning and behavior problems. Spedific Objectives: 1 . Participants will becone knowledgeable of the definitions: cognitive, physical, social behaviors; and , educational charac- teristics of the enotional, learning, ad behavioral problem stndents . General Objective: D) To present the implications that these character- istics of handicapped stndents have for teaclners. References Neisworth, J. T. & Greer, J. G. Functional similarities of learning dis- ability and mild retardation. Readings in Mainstreaming. pp. 126-7. Turnbull, Ann P. & Schulz, J. B. Mainstreaming Hadicapped Students: A guide for classroom teachers. Chapter 1. 88 PURPOSE VI . Introduce Participants to the Issues Undergirding Positive and Negative Attitndes Toward the Hadicapped General Objective: A) To provide an opportunity for participants to understand the importance of sctool personnel and student peer group attitudes that prevail in the educational setting . Specific Objectives: 1. Participants will understand the importance of teachers ' favorable attitndes toward handicapped stLdents. 2 . Participants will understand the importance of stndent peer group having favorable attitudes toward hardicapped peers. 3. Participants will list sote potentially negative attitudes that professional educators may have toward handicapped stndents. General Objective: B) To present information to participants about the influence of teacher behavior and expectation on stndennt learning . Specific Objectives: 1. Participants will describe ways in which expectations and stereotypes affect learning and relationships of children. 2. Participants will describe or be aware of attitude differennces toward various handicapping coditions. 3. Participants will list personal character- istics that denonstrate the professional corpetence to teach handicapped children . 4 . Participants will describe the influence of teachers on the intellectual growth and social adjustment of children. Referennces Readings in Mainstreaming Turnbull and Schulz, Mainstreaming I. Donaldson, pp. 19-22 Handicapped Students: A Guide 2. Case History, pp. 80-83 for the Classroom Teachers, 3. Today's education, pp. 93-98 pp. 341-345 4. Cook, Wollersheinm, pp. 110-116 5. Neisworth, pp. 126-127 6. Lax, 3., pp. 148-150 7. Macmillan, pp. 151-157 8. Lilly, pp. 168-170 9. Zeigler, pp. 184-185 89 PURPOSE VII . Introduce Participants to Parental and Guardian Concerns Regarding tlneir Handicapped Children in Educational Institutions and Society General Objective: A) To inform the participants of the need for educational planning , teaching , and evaluation of hadicapped children. Specific Objectives: 1 . Participants will understand the importance of parents as participants in the main- streaming process. Participants will be able to describe ways to involve parents in making place- ment decisions for their children . Participants will understand the importance of team approach utilized in interdiscipli- nary staffing. General Objective: B) To present information about parents ' experiences as members of a family with a handicapped child. Specific Objectives: 1 . Participants will obtain knowledge about the personal experiences of parents of handicapped children. Participants will analyze their experiences ad relate them to teaching handicapped students . Participants will be able to list the difficulties that parents of hadicapped children experience , and , ways in which teachers may assist parents in meetinng challennges. General Objective: C) To present information about the anti-discrimina- tion movenent in society, particularly as this movenent affects the handicapped. Specific Objectives: 1 . 2. Participants will describe the history of efforts to educate the handicapped. Participants will list the individuals, groups and legislation most responsible for improvemennt in educational and employ- ment opportunnities for the handicapped . 90 PURPOSE VIII. Introduce Participants to Referral, Screening and ENaluation (interdisciplinary - from different points of View) General Objective : A) To present information to participants about the referral process . Specific Objectives: 1. Participants will investigate and record tlne referral process in practice at tlneir scrool. 2 . Participants will understand support service personnel roles in assessment and evaluation. General Objective: B) To present information to participants about the screening and assessment of individuals. Specific Objectives: 1. Participants will understand the various screenning metlods which occur in the educational settings . 2 . Participants will understand tte importance of efficient and effective screening. 3 . Participants will know that negative labels are a possible outcone of screening. 4. Participants will be aware of differences of educational diagnosis ad formal screenning of stLdents. 5. Participants will understand the effects of discriminatory testing in the educa- tional opportunnity of stndents . 6 . Participants will becore knowledgeable of the 10 points in tie educational diagnostic process as defined by Birch and Reynolds (pp. 124-125). 7. Participants will become aware of the different sources of information to aid in tle educational diagnostic process. General Objective : C) To present information to participants about program evaluation . 91 Specific Objectives: 1. Participants will comprehend 12 ways in which programnewaluation can be conducted (Birch and Reynolds, pp. 133- 153). References Turnbull and Schulz, pp. 164-169 (Reading) Turnbull and Schulz, pp. 212-224 (Arithmetic) TUrnbull and Schulz, pp. 271-280 (Physical Education) 92 PURPOSE IX. Introduce Participants to the Roles of the Support Service Personnel General Objective: To infbrm.participants about what.professional and instructional support staff are available, for what duties, and for how much time. Specific Objectives: 1. Be familiar with role tasks and availability of the following school service personnel: a. Occupational therapist b. Physical therapist c. Speech and hearing clinician d. School psychologist e. School nurse f. Social worker 9. Other selected service personnel 2. To identify the interactive roles and responsibilities of various groups of educators in promoting the approach of shared responsibility in order to successfully implement least restrictive policies. 93 PURPOSE X. Introduce Participants to the Prinnciples of Developing an Individualized Educational Program ( IEP) General Objectives: A) To infornm participants about the placenent committee. Specific Objectives: 1. To understand tie conposition of the placenent committee. 2 . Participants will becone knowledgeable about the three functions of tie placenent committee. a. preplanning b. plannning c . implementing General Objectives: B) To present infornmation to the participants about the elements of an IEP Specific Objectives: 1. Participants will understand the following seven elements of an IEP: a . Statenent of student ' 3 present level of educational achievement. b. Statement of annual goals. 0 . Statement of srort term instructional objectives. d. Statenent of specific educational services . e. Date of conmenoenent and termination of services. f. Description of the extent the child will participate in regular education programs. 9. Annnnual review of student performance . General Objectives: C) To assist the participants in understanding the IEP process. Specific Objectives: 1. Participants will demonstrate a working knowledge for implenenting tl'e IEP as it may occur in a given regular education setting . 2 . Participants will understand tie necessity to cooperate with colleagues in developing appropriate objectives for each child . 3. Participants will understand their role as a member of the interdisciplinary team in planning an IEP for pupils with special needs. 94 References Turnbull and Schulz, Chapter 3 ad 4. Individualized Education Programs Auxter, D. Tie teacher of individually prescribed instruction in perceptual motor development. JOHPER, June, 1971, 42, 41-42. Daniel, A. N. Ann exanple of individual instruction in developmental physical education. JOHPER, May, 1969, 50, 56. Garcia ad Pinkleton. Tne teaoer's role in development for IEP's. A Primer on Individualized Education Programs, 1978, pp. 37-40. Hayden, A. H. and Edgar, E. Developing individualized education programs for young hadicapped children . Teaching Exceptional Children, 1978, 10, p. 67. Hayes, J. and Higgins, S. T. Issues regarding tl'e IEP: Teachers on the fron line. Exceptional Children, 1978, 44, pp. 267-273. Hedbring, C. ad Holmes, C. Getting it together with P. L. 94-142: Tie IEP in the classroom. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 1977, 12, pp. 212-224. Johnson, E. C., Karl, H. A case history. JOHPER, February 1973, 44, pp. 71-72. Orr, R. E. Does the IEP really deal with the handicapped individual's special need? Physical Educator, 1980, 37, 4-6. Slerr, R. Meeting to develop the individnalized education program. A Primer on Individualized Education Programs, 1978, Chapter 6, pp. 31—36. 95 PURPOSE XI . Introduce Participants to Classroom Managenent Techniques ad Implenentation General Objective: A) To inform participants about the purposes of class managenent techniques. Specific Objectives: 1. Participants to becone knowledgeable of * behavior managerent as a function of organization for structure which requires attention to teacher, child and group behavior and also environmental situations . General Objective: B) To present information to participants for tying together practice and t‘reory in classroom mannagenent technniques . Specific Objectives: 1. Participants will becore knowledgeable of three behavior management approaclnes ad tteir theory-to-practice bases . a. Sensory-neurological b. Psyclodynamic - interpersonal c . (perant 2 . Participants will obtain information about how the above behavior managnnent principles can be applied to an individual or a group. General Objective : C) To provide information for participants to implenent classroom managerent technniques . Specific Objectives: 1. Participants will identify accurately, orally, or in writing, at least five of seven design ad managenent strategies for enhancing behavior values as practiced by self or others (I. E., modeling, structuring , physical environment , planned ignoring, regulated permission , stating and reinforcing consequences , contracting) . 2 . Participants will understand that behavior management inclndes three primary conponents: a . metrods for preventing behavior problems b. metrods for teaching students the skills necessary for coping with stress c . methods for intervening in disruptive stLdent behavior 3 . Participants will gain knowledge about the surface managerent techniques: 96 a. planned ignoring b. signal interferennce c . proximnity control d. interest boosting e . tension decontamination through hunor f . hurdle lessons 9. restructuring the classroom program h. direct appeal to values 1 . support for routine j. removing seductive objects k . antiseptic bounce l . physical restraint References Fagen, Stanley and Hill, Jeffrey M. Behavior Managenent. Psyctoeduca- tional Resources, Inc. Washinngton, D. C., 1977. Kazdin, A. E. Behavior Modification in Applied Settings. Homewood, 11.: The Dorsey Press, 1975. Goodwin, D. L. and Coates, T. J. Helping Stndents Help Themselves: How ypu can put behavior analysis into action in jour classroom. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1976. Duke, D. L. (Editor) Classroom Managenent. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1979. Homme, L. How to Use Contingency Contracting in the Classroom. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press, 1974. Turnbull, Ann P. and Schulz J. B. Mainstreaming Handicapped Stndents: A Guide for Classroom Teachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1979. (Chapter 9 , Changing Behavior). APPENDIX C VARIABLE GKDUPING 97 98 Variables The variables were based on tie 40 items from tle attitLde inventory that was administered to the participants. For analysis, there was an eight variable grouping. l . General attitndes toward tre hadicapped Item# 4 - It would be best if hadicapped persons would live and work with nonhandicapped people . 8 - Nbst hadicapped persons want more affection and praise than other people . l9 - Handicapped persons are usually more sensitive than other people. 28 Hadicapped workers cannot be as successful as otter workers. 33 - Handicapped people usually do not make mob of a contribution to society. 34 Hadicapped persons do not want any more sympathy than other people. 2 . Need for special treatment in work ad education 3 - Handicapped students are more like normal students than they are different from them. 5 - As with nonhardicapped stLdents, teachers should require handicapped students to share accomtability for tieir learning. 13 - Handicapped children sl'ould not conpete with normal children 21 - Hadicapped people slrould not have to corpete for jobs with normal persons . 24 - The driving test given to a handicapped person stould be more severe than the one given to the nonhandicapped. 99 3. AttitLdes toward regular placenent of the handicapped l - I think that the full-time special education class is the best placenent for handicapped students . 7 - Assignment of a hadicapped child to a regular classroom is a wise administrative decision. 18 - Tie presence of a handicapped child in a regular classroom will be a cause for complaints from the parents of the other children. 22 A handicapped child will be disruptive in a regular classroom. 37 I believe that average stLdents need the experience of beinng in contact with handicapped students in an academic setting . 38 - Given my current understading, I believe that "mainstreaming" will benefit me as a teacier, as well as all children. 4. Effects of mainstreaming on nonhandicapped stLdents 2 - I believe that average children will profit from their contact with handicapped students . 17 With a handicapped child in a regular classroom, there will be an increase in the number of behavior problems anong the other children. 23 - I thinnk that the integration of handicapped students into the regular classroom will harnm the educational achievenent of average students . 27 I believe that average stndents are unoomfortable wwhern they are with children wro have obvious physical defornmities . 5 . Teacher confidence to teach the handicapped 6 Having to teach handicapped pupils places an unfair burden on tIe majority of classroom teacrers. 12 - I am confident that I will be able to make hadicapped stndents feel comfortable in my classroom. 15 - Tie integration of hadicapped stndents into a regular classroom represents an opportunity for the teacter to grow both personally and professionally. 16 - In my role as an educator, I have little confidence in my ability to control wtether students make scapegoats out of mainstreaned stndents wto are handicapped. 100 25 - A handicapped child will not respond even to your best teaching efforts. 26 - Tl'ere is not eough time in a teacher's day to deal satisfactorily with tie different needs of both average and hadicapped pupils. 35 - I generally look forwward to tie challenge of working with handicapped children. 6. Effects on social adjustment of the handicapped 10 ll 14 20 3O 32 36 I believe that placing a handicapped stndent in a typical classroom would damage tte student's self-concept. A hadicapped child will be motivated to learn in a regular classroom. As a result of placenent in a regular classroom, a hadicapped child will develop a more positive attitLde toward scl'ool . Placement of a hadicapped child in a regular classroom will likely result in his becoming socially witldrawn. A handicapped child will develop a more positive self-concept as a result of being placed in a regular classroom. A handicapped child will likely form a positive social relationship with other children in a regular classroom. The experience of being in a regular classroom will increase the chances of a handicapped child attaining a more productive and independent place in society. 7 . Need to change teaching practices and environment 9 - Integration of hadicapped stLdents will require most teaciers to learn to use new techniques and materials. 29 - Integration of handicapped students will require most teachers to change the physical environment ad mannagenent of tl'eir classrooms to inncrease the variety of learning environments available to them. 40 - Integration of hadicapped students will require most classroom teachers to use their time differently and perhaps more efficiently than is now the case. 101 8 . Parent reactions 31 - If I were the parent to a child wlo had a learning problem, I would want him to be in a regular classroom for most of tire scrool day. 39 - If I were the parent of a child wro had an enotional problem, I would want him to be in a regular classroom for most of the school day. BIBLICIIRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY _ Archibald , David , Mainstreaming; A Practical Racher Inn-service Manual to Get from Here to There. Neshaminy Sclool District, Langlorne, Pennsylvania, 1978, p. 67. Binkley, Betty et a1 . , In-Service Training for General Education machers in Conpliance with P. L. 94-142 under tl'e Tennessee State Plan. Memphis, Tennessee, 1978. Burrello, Ieonard C. et al., "Training all educators to better serve handicapped children", Education Unlimited, June, 1979, p. 37. Carpbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Stanley, Experimental ad Quasi-Experi- mental Desigg‘ for Research, Chicago: Rand McNally and Conpany, 1966, pp. 53-54. Carroll, Andrea and Joseph Purdy, In-service program development to assist teachers to effectively service students with exceptional needs in the mainstream, California State Department of Education, 1977. Cronbach, Iee Joseph and Richard E. Snow, Aptitndes and Instructional Metl'od: A handbook for'research-onr'interactions, New York: Irvington Press, 1977. Dunn, Lloyd M. "Special Education for the Mildly Retarded - is much of it justifiable?", Enoeptional Children, September, 1968, p. 6. Fine, Marvin J. , "Attitudes of regular and special class teachers toward tl’e educable mentally retarded child. " Exceptional Children, 1967, 33, p. 429. Fiorentino, Michael, A Study of the Effects of a Stortterm In-service Education Program on Regular Classroom hackers' Attitudes Towards and Knowledge of Mainstreaming , Doctoral dissertation , University of Massachusetts, 1978,. p. 116. Fitzpatrick, John and Allen Beavers, Mainstreaming and the Handicapped: Meier, Administrator, ad: Community Attitudes. Paper, 1978. Ford. Karen ad Lloyd Stjernberg , Meeting the least restrictive environ- ment challenge: Preliminary considerations for educators . Ann inmservice training package, Drake University, 1979, 206. 102 103 Gentry, Ruben. The Mini-Course: A. Delivery Approach for Training In- service Personnel in the Education of the Handicapped, Paper, 1979, Dallas, Texas. Goldhammer, Keith, Billie Rader ad Philip Reuschlein,‘ Maimtreaming: Teacher Conpetencies , East Lansing: College of Educatioin, Michigan State University, April, 1977. Harasymiw, Stefan J. , and Narcia D. Homer, "Teacher attitudes toward hadicapped children and regular class integration." Journal of Special Education, 10, 4, p. 395. Haring, James, George Stern ad William M. Cruickshank, Attittdes of Educators Toward Exceptional Children , Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1978. Hodges, Iarry and Robert Hodges, "Sclools of education ad in-service training of teachers", Educational Technology, 1975, 15, p. 60. Ingram, Sylvia Hibbler, An assessment of regular classroom teachers ' attitudes toward exceptional children subsequent to training in mainstreaming . Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan , 1976 , 165 pp. Jones, Reginald L. et al., "Evaluating Mainstreaming Programs: Models, Caveats, Considerations and Guidelines. ", Exceptional Children, 44, 8, p. 594. King, Jares, Paul Hayes and Isadore Newman, "Sane requirenents for successful in-service education", Phi Delta Kappan, 1977, 58, p. 687. Kirk, Roger B. , Statistical Issues: A Reader for the Behavioral Sciences, anterey: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1972, p. 258. Iarrivee, Barbara, "Effect of Tin-Service Training Intensity on Teachers' Attittdes Toward Mainstreaming", Exceptional Children, 1981 , 1, p. 35. McDaniel, Lindy, "Clnanging Vocational mackers' Attitudes Toward the Handicapped", Exceptional ”Children, 1982, 4, pp. 377-378. Mitchell, Marlys M. , "Teacher Attitudes", The High School Journal, 1976, 59, p. 308. Nborman, James , "Vocational education for the handicapped: A study of attittdes" , The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 1980, 2, pp. 25-26. ” 1‘ Ii” ' E‘ 104 Mortz, D. M. J ., Sister Mary Eileen, An Investigation of a Faculty Controlled In-service Traininng Nbdel on Attitndes ad Knowledge Related to Handicapped Children in Regular Classrooms. Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1977, 159 pp. National Education Association, Teaclners ' Rights . Education for All Handicapped Children: Consensus, Conflict ad Challepgg, Washington, D. C.: NationaI Education Association, 1978, p. 4041 . Nelson, Calvin C. , and Ieo J. Schmidt, "Forum: the question of the efficacy of special classes", Exceptional Children, 1971, 37, p. 381. Overline, Herbert, "Mainstreaming - Making it happen" , Sacranento, California State Department of Education, 1977. Reynolds, Maynnard C. and Jack W. Birch, Teaching Exceptional Children in All American's Sclools - A First Course for TeaEIers and Princi- pals, Reston: The Council for Exceptional Children, 1977, p. 697. Rice, John P. , An Interstate Consortium of Directors of Special Educa- tion Confront the Problems of Mainnstreaming , editor , Phil Mann, Shared Responsibilipy for Handicapped Students: Advocacy and Programming, Coral Gables, Floriday : University of Miami, I976, p. 513. Schliefer, Mary, "Tie Teacher ad Mainstreaming" , T‘te Exceptional Parent, October, 1978, p. 3. Shaw, Marvin E. and Wright, Jack M., Scales for tie measurement of attitudes, New York: McGraw-HilI Conpany, 1967. Slotel, Jay R., Richard P. Iao and Janes F. McGettigan, "Teacher attittdes associated with the integration of handicapped children", Exceptional Children, 1972, 38, p. 683. Singleton, Karin, Tre Role of the Research Specialist in Increasinng Positive Attittdes Toward Having Individuals with Special Needs Enrolled in Regular Classrooms, Final Report, Culver City Unified Schools, Californnia, June, 1976, p. 28. Turnbull, Annnn P. ad H. Rutlerford Turnbull, Free Appropriate Public Education: Iaw and Implenentation , Denver: love Publishing Conpany, I978. United States Congress, Public Law 94-142, Washington, D. C.: Unnited States Government Printing Office, 1975, p. 3008. 105 Walthams, Gretchen Markle, "The Effects of a Professional Development Seminar on the Attittdes, Knnowledge and Behavioral Strategies of Counselors Toward Handicapped StLdents, Doctoral Dissertation, Wayne State University, 1975. Watson, Myron, Mainstreaming the Educable Mentally Retarded, Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1975, p. 365. Yuker, Harold E., J. R. Block and Janet H. Younng, "The Measurenent of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons" , Hunan Resources Study Number 7, Albertson, New York: Human Resources Center, 1966.