. J flaw“ .x E: . ... u .2... . .XB . .. ‘fw . éwmfiu r. . A. A S a... 4.0 K. . a, — .a I. :41 .1 .4 . an i LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE EXTENT TO WHICH MICHIGAN PUBLIC EDUCATION K-12 DISTRICT TEACHER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS SUPPORT INCLUSION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS IN GENERAL EDUCATION presented by CHRISTINE K. CONLEY-SOWELS has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D degree in Education Administration he / filajor Professor’s $ignature u { Date MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 6/01 c;/ClRC/DateDue.p65-p. 15 THE EXTENT TO WHICH MICHIGAN PUBLIC EDUCATION K-12 DISTRICT TEACHER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS SUPPORT INCLUSION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS IN GENERAL EDUCATION BY Christine K. Conley-Sowels A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of K-12 Education Administration 2003 ABSTRACT By Christine K. Conley-Sowels Inclusion of special education students in general education class is a controversial issue for educators. Inclusion is not a new idea. I Over the I past four decades, many parents and professionals have proposed that students with disabilities should have the opportunity to attend school with their non-disabled peers. This study includes a stratified random sample of the 555 Michigan K-12 school districts. District contracts and special education data from a total of 120 school districts are reviewed. The total number of references to the inclusion of special education students in general education within contracts are compared to the total percentage of time special education students are actually included in general education within each district. The study was based on the December 1, 1999 Count. This study suggests that some of the language in teacher contracts dealing with inclusion of special education students in general education may negatively affect the inclusion of special education students, regardless of the nature of their disability. The language in teacher contracts provides a window into the individual districts studied and public education in Michigan as a whole as it relates to the inclusion of special education students in general education. Social constructivist theory explains the teacher contract language dealing with inclusion of special education students, as a response to situations involving inclusion which have already occurred in a district or in preparation for the inclusion of special education students. This study provides insight into myths about inclusion and teacher contracts. The hypothesis was challenged and the results in turn demonstrate that teacher contract language does not seem to negatively correlate with the inclusion of special education students. In fact it may actually assist in working out the concerns general educators have about inclusion. Copyright by CHRISTINE K. CONLEY—SOWELS 2003 lit-i! " - DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my family and friends, who have done without my time, attention and energy for the last five years while I completed this PhD. Special thanks and love go to my husband, Kary; my son John and his wife Richelle; my daughter Racine and her partner Mannie; and my three beautiful granddaughters, Daryan, Ayana and Makiaya for their patience. understanding and support. A very special thanks to my niece, Kendrah Nguyen. gave me many hours of time and understanding as she read and proofed this paper. I have completed my last degree after a lifetime of attending classes. I will always be bound to the need and desire to learn. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks to my advisor, Dr. Stephen Kaagan, who has provided me the encouragement and resources needed to complete the requirements for this degree. Also, a thanks to my committee members, Dr. Susan Peters, Dr. Christopher Dunbar, and Dr. Susan Printy, who have provided their time and commitment to serve on my committee. A very special thank you to my mentor, coach, and friend, Dr. Larry Schaftenaar, who taught me more about research and statistics than I ever, cared to Ieam. I wish to thank Dr. Peter Koper, Tammy Holder, Deb Zileski, and Melinda Sims for the time and energy they provided me in probfreading, editing, and formatting this document. Special acknowledgements to Delta Kappa Gamma Society International, Iota State Delta Kappa Gamma, The Clyde M. Campbell Scholarship and Pi Lambda Theta for the financial assistance provided to me this endeavor. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem ..................................................................... 1 The Need and Purpose ......................................................................... 4 Research Questions ............................................................................. 9 Assumptions ......................................................................................... 9 Limitations .......................................................................................... 1 0 Definitions of Terms ............................................................................ 11 II. A REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE An Overview of Inclusion .................................................................... 18 A Historical Review of Inclusion .......................................................... 20 The Principles of IDEA 97 ................................................................... 23 General Education Concerns with Inclusion ....................................... 25 Collective Bargaining in Public Schools .............................................. 28 Collective Bargaining in Michigan Schools ......................................... 31 The Basics of Collective Bargaining ................................................... 32 Ill. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Introduction ......................................................................................... 38 Sample Selection ................................................................................ 38 Pilot Study ........................................................................................ 42 Entire Sample ................................................................................... 45 Restriction Score ................................................................................ 47 Inclusion Score ................................................................................... 49 Comparison of Restriction Score and Inclusion Data ......................... 50 IV. RESULTS Research Question One ..................................................................... 52 A Breakdown of Total Contract Citations .......................................... 91 Research Question Two ..................................................................... 93 Restriction Score .............................................................................. 94 Select Special Education Criterion .................................................... 96 Research Question Three ................................................................... 97 Inclusion Score ................................................................................. 97 Comparing the Inclusion Score to the Restriction Score ................. 100 No Restriction Score vs. Restriction Score ..................................... 101 Research Question Four.......... ......................................................... 103 vii V. SUMMARY Synopsis ........................................................................................... 108 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 1 10 Implications and Future Research .................................................... 118 APPENDIXES A. Sample Districts and Populations .......................................................... 122 B. A Rubric for Scoring Special Education Criteria ..................................... 127 C. A Chart for Scoring Special Education Criteria ...................................... 128 D. Scoring Results and Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Results ...... 129 E. Final Totals Generated by Scoring Special Education Criteria ............... 134 F. Contract Language Totals in Prorated Format ....................................... 139 G. Districts’ Special Education Populations and Percentages of Inclusion ................................................................................................. 145 H. Districts’ Actual and Expected Percentages of Inclusion and the Differences ............................................................................................. 148 l. Districts' Total Contract Language from Special Education Criteria Rubric and Percentages of Total Inclusion ............................................. 153 J. Scoring Guidelines for Weighting the Special Education Criteria ........... 158 K. A Chart for Weighting of Special Education Criteria ............................... 159 L. The Results of Weighted Special Education Criteria .............................. 160 M. Weighted Restriction Scores Based on Special Eduwtion Criteria ........ 161 N. Districts’ Data for Two-Way ANOVA Scores by Restriction and Population Groups ................................................................................. 167 0. Analysis of Three Specific Criteria (1,2, and 5) ...................................... 170 P. The Summary of Two-Way ANOVA for Sampled Districts and Selected Criteria .................................................................................... 173 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 174 viii Page TABLES 1. Distribution of Pilot Study Districts ........................................................... 42 2. A Guildford Interpretation of Correlation ................................................... 44 3. Distribution of 120 Sample School Districts ............................................. 45 4. Special Edumtion Criteria ........................................................................ 53 5. The Number of Districts with Contract Language Pertinent to Each Section of the Rubric for Special Education Criteria ................................ 54 6. The Total Number of Times District’s Have Language About Special Education Criteria in their Contract .......................................................... 91 7. Totals for Special Education Criterion ...................................................... 93 8. Restriction Score of Example .................................................................. 95 9. The Correlation of Select Special Education Criterion ............................. 96 10. Inclusion Percentages of Two Districts .................................................... 98 11. Pearson Correlation of Inclusion and Restriction Scores ....................... 101 12. Results for No Restriction Score to All Other Restriction Scores ........... 102 13. Comparison of Inclusion Rate and Restriction Score by Student Population ............................................................................................. 103 14. Two-Way ANOVA Group Examples ...................................................... 105 15. The Results of the Two-Way ANOVA ................................................... 105 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM This dissertation study has two parts. In the first section, the collective bargaining agreements of teachers in public school districts were reviewed for language dealing with special education students as a separate entity. This language was coded and categorized. Hence the first section is descriptive in nature. All language compiled from each local district contract is described in the Chapter IV. The second section is analytical, a correlation study that examines the language in each district contract dealing with special education . students and compares it to the actual data about inclusion of special education students, in every district selected for review. A correlation study determines the existence of relationship between variables but says nothing about the reasons for this relationship (Williams, 1991 ). The language in teacher contracts provides a window into the individual districts studied and public education in Michigan as a whole, as it relates to the inclusion of special education students in general education. Social constructivist theory explains the language teacher contracts dealing with inclusion of special education students, as a response to situations that have developed in districts as they attempt inclusion or prepare for it because individuals construct their understanding from situations that occur around them, teacher contracts generallyrespond to situations that have occurred in a district because teachers want parameters around future situations which they believe will impact their working conditions. Bacharach and Mitchell (1981) have argued that, “the issues in which a specific local teachers’ union becomes involved depend, in large part, on the predisposition and attitudes of the members of the union” (p.496-497). This study considers K-12 public school teacher contracts within Michigan during the 1999-2000 school year. As of the 1999-2000 school year, there were 555 K-12 school districts in Michigan, as reported by the Michigan Department of Education. The study does not include Public School Academies because most do not have teacher contracts and there is not sufficient data about their inclusion of special education in general education. The research of the Developmental Disability Institute (DDI) of Wayne State University during the 1999-2000 school year was utilized for each district selected. They used the Michigan Special Education Student Database, December 1, 1999 Count for their data on special education. The general education data is from the Michigan 1999 Pupil Headcount Database. The DDI utilized the Standard and Poor’s School Evaluation Services school district expenditure data (1999), the Michigan Special Education Exit Database and 1999 Michigan School Report to gain other information. This study includes the total number of general and special education students in each district, ages 3-21 years of age. The DDI report is the basis of this dissertation figures for the total population of general and special education students and the percentage of special education students in general education in each district. This dissertation studies a stratified random sample of the 555 Michigan K- 12 school districts. The teacher contracts and special education data for a total of 120 school districts were reviewed. The total number of references to inclusion of special education students in general education within contracts was compared to the total percentage of time special education students are actually included in general education within each district. The study was based on the December 1, 1999 Count. This study also considers the importance of certain contract language and especially the impact of contract language on the inclusion of special education students. The comparisons involved contract language for all disability areas except speech and language and pre-primary impairment. Students determined to have a speech and language disability are normally included in general education for all of their school day. Pre-primary impaired students are younger and would not usually be included in the K-12 population thus they were not included in this study. The hypothesis of this research is that the amount of language contracts have that deals with the inclusion of special educatibn in general education and/or the degree of restriction in the contract language of a district is inversely proportional to the percentage of students with disabilities who are included in general education classrooms. This researcher reviews and compares contract language from 120 school districts in Michigan and compares that language with the data about inclusion available about districts to determine if there is a correlation. THE NEED AND PURPOSE The inclusion of special education students in general education is a controversial issue for educators. Inclusion is not a new idea. Over the past four decades, many parents and professionals have proposed that students with disabilities should have the opportunity to attend school with their non- disabled peers. What is new is that school districts across the continent are placing ever-increasing numbers of children with disabilities in the regular classroom, often without careful preparation of the students themselves, their peers, or the staff (Guetzloe, 1999). The available research on the attitudes of general education teacher toward inclusion shows that while many teachers philosophically support the concept of inclusion, others still have strong concerns about their ability to implement these programs successfully (Shoho & Van Rusen, 2000). Conflicting philosophies are apparent among educators and parents. One assumption, however, appears significant both to parents and educators: both believe inclusion will lead the way toward reform in both special and general education (Kauffman, 1993). Given the philosophical debates over inclusion, teachers have turned to their unions for support, and to language in contracts to assist them in dealing with special education students being included in their general education classrooms. Review of the research yielded only two studies dealing with the inclusion of special education in general education and collective bargaining in Michigan. Carleton C. Corey completed the first study in 1975. “The Perceived Effects of Collective Negotiations on Aspects of Special Education in Michigan”, reviewed teacher contracts from the 1969-70 school year to investigate information found in teacher contracts that appeared to have a direct effect on special education. Corey also reported on perceptions of the special education director’s impact on the negotiation process; he wanted to provide baseline data on these two areas prior to Mandatory Special- Education Act in Michigan (PA 198 of 1971 ). In 1979, Dorothy L. Stewart completed a dissertation titled, “The Effect of Collective Negotiating on Mainstreaming Michigan Special Education Students into Regular Education”. This study reviewed 112 teacher contracts from the 1977-78 school year. Two aspects of her dissertation have relevance to this study: she sought to determine the extent and types of contractual provisions address themselves to the mainstreaming of special education students and to determine what, if any, issues teachers have negotiated into contracts dealing with the mainstreaming of special education students into regular education. This study was completed just three years after mandatory special education took effect in Michigan. Both of these dissertations will be discussed in latter chapters on this study. This dissertation will provide new and updated information to professionals working with contract language and special education. Twenty-four years after the mandate to mainstream special education students in Michigan, it will seek to determine if the language in contracts has a correlation to the inclusion of special education students in general education. State and federal special education mandates have changed the delivery of special education services in every state. The Individual with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA- 97) generated the most significant changes in the placement of special education students in general education programs by requiring that districts ‘consider least restrictive environment (LRE) for each special education student. Robert T. Stafford, the former Republican Senator from Vermont and one of the primary sponSors of the original version of the special education bill in 1994 argued that legislation is essential if we are to allow children with special needs to live ordinary lives (Arnold 8 Dodge, 1994). The change in special education rules and regulations that required that general education be considered for all special education students, led to contracts that included language dealing with the inclusion of special education student in general educafion. Teachers share their frustration with the difficulties of managing these two systems of general and special education on a daily basis, often asking which is more important. Another concern argues that the rights of a special needs child should not supersede the rights of the entire classroom. Even parents of general education students ask about the rights for their children in the general education classroom. Teachers often have difficulty answering these questions which generally come when there is a child with disabilities in the general education classroom who has significant physical and/or behavioral problems that require a great deal of the teacher’s time and energy. Union contracts for K-12 public school teachers now make reference to special education students in general education. These contracts cover various concerns teachers have about inclusion of special education students in their classroom. A pilot study of the language in 20 contracts found concerns about the fact that special education students require more time and preparation from the general education teacher, concerns about who will manage medical concerns, concerns about adequate resources and materials to assist the general education teacher, concerns about the equal distribution of special education students among various classrooms, and concerns about the extra meetings which may be required. These are all topics in teacher contracts that tend to restrict the inclusion of special education students in regular classes. Some of the language in teacher contracts dealing with inclusion of special education students in general education prohibit, delays or otherwise negatively affects the inclusion of special education students, regardless of the nature of their disabilities. The collective bargaining process tends to produce agreements that fail to meet the needs of school districts, teachers, or their students (Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 1998). The collective bargaining process of districts or associations does not have to negotiate issues relating to the inclusion of special education students, although many districts have decided to add this form of language. This research will determine which district contracts contain language dealing with inclusion which may negatively affect inclusion by reviewing the relationship between Michigan public school teacher contracts and the inclusion of special education students in general education. It will also consider whether the language in teacher contracts relating to special education students’ inclusion in general education is restrictive in nature. The lens selected to consider these issues is the social 1 constructivist theory. This theory argues that viewing a disability as socially constructed forces an analysis of the social stmctures that have pushed ' students with disabilities to the margins of institutions and created handicaps out of characteristics. Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist and philosopher in the 1930’s, is most associated with the social constructivist theory. He emphasized the influences of cultural and social context in learning. The way in which special education was developed has allowed and encouraged children with disabilities to remain outside of general education. The resulting separation maintains oppressive social structures that create clear distinctions between superiority and inferiority and disability and ability (Collins, 1991). The social constructivist perspective contends that one’s understanding of the world cannot exist independently of the context within which the individual interacts with the world (Gergen, 1985). To think of disability as a socially constructed phenomenon is to distinguish between the biological fact of disability and the handicapping social environment in which the person with disabilities exists (Jones, 1996). Teacher contracts have constructed another situation in which special education students are socially excluded from their general education peers. From a social constructivist frame of reference inclusion allows special education students to construct a social and cultural context outside in a less restrictive environment, general education. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1. What language do K-12 public school district teacher contracts contain relating to the inclusion of special education students in general education? 2. Which of that language has the potential to be restrictive, that is, to negatively affect the inclusion of special education students in general educafion? 3. To what extent does the amount and kind of language in teacher collective bargaining agreements in Michigan K-12 districts correlate with the number of special education students in general education? 4. Does the size of a district relate to the amount of inclusion provided to special education students? ASSUMPTIONS 1. Defining the least restrictive environment, as reqUired in IDEA 97 to address the inclusion of special education students in general education, is a factor in most collective bargaining agreements. 2. Students with only a speech and language disability are in general education 100 percent of their school day and are not pertinent to the data set. 3. Pre-primary impaired students do not have a general education placement option in K-12 schools, as they fall within the ages of O to 5 years. These students will not be included in this study. 4. The 1999-2000 collective bargaining agreements are reasonably reflective of current practice. These contracts were selected based on the proximity to the passage of IDEA-97 and the Michigan inclusion data obtained from a research projected completed by Developmental Disabilities Institute, Wayne State University, are assumed to be accurate. 5. The 120 district contracts sampled are representative of the school districts in Michigan. LIMITATIONS 1. This is a descriptive study of correlation and one factor is not necessarily the cause of another with which it correlates. 2. When independent variables are considered, such as district student population, the effect of this variable on the inclusion percentages cannot be controlled. 3. Public school academies are not included in this study because relatively few academies have unions. 4. Only students within grades K-12 and within the ages of 3-21 years are included. 10 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS 1. Least Restrictive Environment: this phrase is defined in IDEA 97. Children with disabilities are to be educated, to the maximum extent appropriate, with children who are not disabled, and removal from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of the child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. 2. Inclusion: this term refers to the fact of educating each child with a disability to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would otherwise attend. It involves bringing support services to the child rather than moving the child to the services and assumes only that the child benefit from being in the class, not that the child has to keep up with the other students. (Phi Delta Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development and Research, 1 993) 3. Mainstreaming: refers to the selective placement of special education students in one or more “regular" education classes. (Phi Delta Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development and Research, 1993) 4. Restrictive contract language: language in teacher contracts which appears to negatively affect inclusion. 5. Collective bargaining: this term is defined by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) as “the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representatives of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of 11 employment, or the negotiations of an agreement, or any question arising hereunder, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party, but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession”. 6. Michigan special education eligibility: this is defined in the Revised Administrative Rules for Special Education (including revisions effective October 15, 1996 and April 9,1997). ”The categories of impairment listed below shall not be based solely on behaviors relating to environmental, cultural, or economic differences. a. Severe mental impairment (R 340.1703): (1) (a) development at a rate approximately 4 1/2 or more standard deviations below the mean as determined through intellectual assessment (b) lack of development primarily in the cognitive domain (0) impairment of adaptive behavior. b. Trainable mental impairment (R340.1704): (1) (a) development at a rate approximately 3 to 4 1/2 standard deviations below the mean as determined through intellectual assessment (b) lack of development primarily in the cognitive domain (c) impairment of adaptive behavior. c. Educable mental impairment (R340.1705): (1) (a) development at a rate approximately 2 to 3 standard deviations below the mean as determined through intellectual assessment (b) scores approximately within the lowest 6 percentiles on a standardized test in reading and arithmetic. This requirement shall not apply if the child is not age or 12 grade appropriate for format or standardized testing (c) lack of development primarily in the cognitive domain (d) impairment of adaptive behavior. d. Emotional impairment (R 340.1706): (1) the emotionally impaired shall be determined through manifestation of behavioral problems primarily in the affective domain, over an extended period of time, which adversely affect 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 1 or more of the following characteristics (a) inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships within the school environment (b) inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances (c) general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression (d) tendency to development physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems. (2) The term “emotionally impaired’ also includes persons who, in addition to the above characteristics, exhibit maladaptive behaviors related to schizophrenia or similar disorders. The term “emotionally impaired” does not include persons who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that such persons are emotionally impaired. (3) The emotionally impaired shall not include persons whose behaviors are primarily the result of intellectual, sensory, or health factors. 13 e. Hearing impairment (R 340.1707): (1) the term hearing impaired is a generic term, which includes both deaf persons and those who are hard of hearing and which refers to students with any type or degree of hearing loss that interferes with development or adversely affects educational performance in a regular classroom setting. The term deaf refers to those hearing impaired students whose hearing is so severe I that the auditory channel is not the primary means of developing speech and language skills. The term hearing impaired refers to those hearing impaired students with permanent or fluctuating hearing loss which is less severe than the hearing loss of deaf persons and which generally permits the use of the auditory channel as a primary means of developing speech and language skills. f. Visual impairment (R 340.1708): (1) a visual impairment shall be determined through the manifestation of both of the following: (a) a visual impairment which interferes with development or which adversely affects educational performance (b) one or more of the following (i) a central visual acuity for near or far point vision of 20/70 or less in the better eye after routine refractive correction (ii) a peripheral field of vision restricted to not more than 20 degrees (iii) a diagnosed progressively deteriorating eye condition. 9. Physical impairment (R 340.1709): (1) the physically or otherwise health impaired shall be determined through the manifestation of a physical or other health impairment which adversely affects educational 14 performance and which may require physical adaptations within the school environment. h. Speech and language impairment (R 340.1710): (1) the speech and language impaired shall be determined through the manifestation of 1 or more of the following communication impairments that adversely affects educational performance (a) articulation impairment, including omissions, substitutions, or distortions of sound, persisting beyond the age at which maturation alone might be expected to correct the deviation (b) voice impairment, including inappropriate pitch, loudness, or voice quality (c) fluency impairment, including an abnormal rate of speaking, speech interruptions, and repetition of sounds, words, phrases, or sentences, that interferes with effective communication (d) one or more of the following language impairments as evidenced by a spontaneous language sample that demonstrates inadequate language functioning and test results, on not less than 2 standardized assessment instmments or 2 subtests designed to determine language functioning that indicate inappropriate language functioning for the child’s age (i) phonological (ii) morphological (iii) syntactic (iv) semantic (v) pragmatic use of aural/oral language. (2) Any student who is eligible for special education programs and services and who requires speech and language services shall be eligible for speech and language services pursuant to the provisions of R 340.45 (a). 15 i. Pre-primary impaired (R 340.1711): (1)“pre-primary impaired" means a child through 5 years of age whose primary impairment cannot be differentiated through existing criteria within R 340.1703 or R 340.1710 or R 340.1713 to R 340.1715. j. Specific learning disability (R 340.1713): (1) “specific leaming disability” means a disorder in 1 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. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does not include children who have learning problems, which are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, of autism, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. k. Severe multiple impairment (R 340.1714): (1) manifestation of one of the following: (a) development at a rate of 2 to 3 standard deviations below the mean and 2 or more of the following conditions (i) a hearing impairment so severe that the auditory channel is not the primary means of developing speech and language skills (ii) a'visual impairment so severe that the visual channel is not sufficient to guide without assistance (iii) a health impairment so severe that activities of daily 16 living cannot be achieved without assistance (iv) a physical impairment so severe that the student is medically at risk. I. Autism (R 340.1715) (1 ): “autism” is a lifelong developmental disability, which is typically manifested before 30 months in age. “Autism” is characterized by disturbances in the rates and sequences of cognitive, affective, psychomotor, language, and speech development” (p.18-21). 7. Student with a disability: a person who is determined by an individualized education program team or a hearing officer to have one or more of the impairments specified in the Michigan Rules for Special Education that necessitates special education or related services, or both, who is not more than 25 years of age as of September 1 of the school year of enrollment, who has not completed a normal course of study, and who has not graduated from high school. A student who reaches the age of 26 years after September 1 is a “student with a disability” and entitled to continue a special education program or service until the end of that school year. 8. Special Education: specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique educational needs of the student with a disability and to develop the student’s maximum potential. Special education includes instructional services defined in R 340.1701 b(a) and related services. 17 CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE This review explores two different literatures in the field of education. The first is literature about the inclusion of special education students in general education. This study reviews a selection of research from the vast literature on the topic. The second area explored is literature on collective bargaining in Michigan and how unions are handling the issue of inclusion of special education students in general education classrooms. AN OVERVIEW OF INCLUSION Inclusion is a term used by advocates of the educational reform movement to summarize their belief that all students can learn, even those with disabilities. Inclusion has been a buzzword across the United States for more than a decade, and has been the source of changes in the US. education. Inclusion has evolved from changed attitudes, as well as litigation, legislation, and special education policy (Yell, 1998; Duhaney & Garrick, 1999). Exploring disability as socially constructed encourages inclusive theory- building that “begins with valuing the experiences of those who have been excluded and questioning the assumptions made about all groups” (Anderson 8: Collins, 1992, p.4). The social constructivists’ understanding of disability can significantly change the way in which both general and special education teachers understand students with disabilities (Thomas & Loxley, 2001 ). When society begins to view a disability as socially constructed and 18 distinguishes between the physical facts of a disability and the person with a disability as an individual, inclusion will occur not only in schools but also everywhere in society. Inclusion is intended to “create schools and other social institutions that are based on acceptance, belonging, and community” (Salend, 1998, p.7). Since'the passage of the Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL 94-142) and the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) of 1990, 1997 (PL 101-476) there have been mandates that eligible students with special needs be provided an array of services at the site they would attend if they did not have special needs and that this must be the least restrictive environment (Monahan, Marino 8 Miller, 1996; Yell, 1998; Peltier, 1997). Although inclusion is not explicitly mentioned in PL 94-142 or the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), these mandates have defined the rights of children with disabilities to public education and established the principle that such children need not always be removed from general education classrooms (Lipsky & Gartner, 1997; Yell & Drasgow, 1999). The terms used in special education literature prior to the reform movements were regular education initiative (REI) and mainstreaming. The term inclusion and least restrictive environment (LRE) are the current jargon utilized (Monahan, Marion 8. Miller, 1996) 19 A HISTORICAL REVIEW OF INCLUSION Special education changed schools drastically after the implementation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), Public Law 94-142, which was passed in 1975 and implemented in 1977. Prior to this legislation, children with disabilities existed in school settings that sometimes did not provide appropriate services for them. EHA had a significant impact on the lives of these children. In The Educational System, Its Nature and Logic, Cusick (1992) describes how special interest groups helped formulate ' Michigan’s Mandatory Special Education Act of 1971 (PL. 198). This act required local and intermediate school districts to provide special services to all handicapped persons until they were 25 years of age. Cusick’s book quotes a legislator, who said, “You don’t find anyone more militant than a parent who has a special education kid and feels that the kid is being short-changed. These people have a number of organizations. The special education professionals themselves are kind of an unbelievable group. They’re militant as hell and they wrap themselves in these handicapped students and march everywhere. That’s where the push comes from [They] are so successful that their own superintendents will wash their hands of them, really, there’s no control...” (p.216). When special education mles and regulations were first implemented in Michigan parents were the major force behind helping children with special needs. Students with disabilities began to enter public school classrooms in 20 the 1970's with the passage of EHA, which as an outcome of advocacy by groups for these students. When students with disabilities began to move into the general education classroom, these mainstreamed students were often not considered a student in that classroom they were just visitors for a portion of the school day. A dual system of general education and special education emerged during this period. Special education was viewed nationally as a separate concern and developed with separate rules and regulations that mandated how programs and services were to be delivered to students with disabilities. The dual system perpetuated the need and desire for some to provide programs and services to students with disabilities outside of a general education classroom. Advocates for inclusion have tried to change this philosophy by having the student included as a member of the classroom (Ripley, 1997). The special education student would then be considered a member of a regular education class and only go to receive special education programs or services, just as other students receive special help from Title One service and return to the regular classroom. During the 1980’s, many parents and educators believed “special education faced many challenges. Plagued by criticisms about the inappropriateness of separate programs, cost effectiveness, its (sic) over reliance on the deficit model, its lack of focus on student outcomes, and the continued overrepresentation of minority and economically disadvantaged students, many educators and policymakers argued for radical special education reforrns..these 21 reformers now support the inclusion model for students with disabilities...”(T rent, Artiles 8 Fitchett-Bazemore, 2002, p.14). The special education system designed nearly three decades ago has significant flaws. “The experience of students with disabilities, their parents, and their teachers is that a dual system of education fails all students, primarily those with disabilities, in terms of student Ieaming, drop-out rates, graduation rates, participation in postsecondary education and training and community living” (Lipsky 8 Gartner, 1997, p.11). Since many children with disabilities were excluded from the typical curricula of their non-disabled peers, they were not given the chance to achieve at higher levels of performance. In 1997, the IDEA was passed as the fifth set of amendments to the Education Handicap Act (EHA) of 1975. It was conceived as the tool to address the concerns of parents and interest groups. With the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, inclusion of special education students in general education has become an even larger issue for educators. The need to incorporate inclusion became a key factor in teacher collective bargaining agreements and led to specific language in contracts dealing with special education issues. Even though the movement for inclusion focuses on students with disabilities, advocates of the movement hope it will change the educational system for all students (Salend, Duhaney 8 Garrick, 1999). Although the term inclusion is not used in the text of IDEA-97, the concept is introduced by particular language that requires providing special 22 education students the opportunity to be educated in the least restrictive environment. THE PRINCIPLES OF IDEA 97 IDEA 97 was founded of six major principles. One principle outlined in IDEA 97 required that special education students would be provided an education in their least restrictive environment (LRE). This principle considers regular education as the first option. General education teachers are being pressured to provide more individualized plans for behavioral and academic instruction of students who qualify for special education. They then must follow the goals and objectives outlined in such Individualized Education Plan (IEP). This provision placed enormous responsibility on general education teachers whose classes had disabled students. General education teachers now need skills in individualized instruction and classroom accommodations for disabled learners (Agran 8 Alper, 2000). Special education appeared to drive many aspects of the K-12 educational system. The requirements of law and policy at the state and federal level now affect general and special educators’ daily instructional delivery. Because of the implementation of IDEA, at risk students, students suspected of a disability, and students who already qualify for special education eligibility consume a great deal of teachers’ and administrators' time and energy. When a child qualifies for special education, the general education teacher, in most cases. is still required to provide some of this student’s educational 23 programming in the general education classroom to comply with the least restrictive environment conditions of the law. An enormous responsibility was placed on the general education teacher to meet the needs of all children. Because general education teachers have many students in their classroom each year that may qualify under IDEA 97, it is essential that they begin to look at addressing the specific needs of all children. General educators often feel they are not equipped to deal with all students. They need additional assistance to handle these students and the child study process would offer this help. Teachers also need assistance realizing that there is no such thing as a “normal” learner. “By seeing students as individual learners with individual instructional needs, teachers could let go of the notion that their instruction could be aimed at “the norm” (Miller 8 Newbill, 1998, p.14). To address the needs of all children in their classroom teachers need the necessary resources, materials, and support. One major issue is the concern of control in the classroom and school building. Tyack and Cuban (1999) both believed that while typical parents are sympathetic to the needs of disabled children, at the same time they want their children to succeed in the competition for economic and social advantage. “Teachers want to teach and those students who interfere with the teaching process seem to easily be removed” as stated by Johns, Guetzloe, 8 Yell (1998, p.23). ' The IDEA Amendments changed the manner in which students with disabilities are served in public education. Regulations implementing the IDEA Amendments of 1997 were written by the Department of Education, and many 24 states will have to make changes in their laws to bring them into compliance with IDEA. The roles of administrators and general and special educators in the education of students with disabilities have been expanded and altered by the IDEA Amendments of 1997. Certainly, the changes and additions regarding the discipline of students with disabilities will be of great importance and will be further clarified in the next years. Research addressing teacher adaptations for diverse student needs in inclusive settings has found that teachers vary significantly in their ability or willingness to make adaptations (McLeskey 8 Waldron, 2002). As part of the LRE consideration, the . Individualized Education Plan team (IEPT) conducting the IEP must consider general education with special education support, moving along the continuum 'of programs and services from least restrictive to morerestrictive. Parents and advocates for special education are challenging school districts to provide every special education student with general education opportunities, even if special education support must be brought into the general education classroom. This has changed the draw of financial resources in education to cover significant special education costs, when funds are low for education. GENERAL EDUCATION CONCERNS WITH INCLUSION For nearly thirty years special education has utilized teachers with certification to teach students with disabilities. Special education teachers had specialized knowledge. Special education teachers could not teach students with disabilities that did not match the teacher's certification area without 25 temporary approval from the Michigan Department of Education to teach out of one’s certification area. Special education teachers certified to teach emotionally impaired students could not work with physically disabled students. The legislation, litigation, and reforms in special education require general education teachers, who likely have no specialized training in teaching special education students, to be the primary teacher of a disabled student. This new development as when mainstreaming special education students was initiated the special education teacher was still the primary teacher for the ‘ student with disabilities, while the general education teacher often provided enrichment and supplemental learning. The concept of inclusion has begun to change the way parents, advocates and educators view the situation. There is now a push for general education to be the central means of instruction and special education to provide the supplemental learning. This change has been controversial for special and general educators because it contradicts their training. Trent, Artiles 8 Fitchett-Bazemore (2002) recognize that “practitioners and researchers engaged in the implementation of inclusion may have incompatible ethics about definitions for inclusion, student groupings and instructional theories and approaches” (p.11). Inclusion really calls for a change in philosophy and possibly a fundamental restructuring of the school districts and schools. It means changes in curriculum, changes in pedagogy and especially changes in teacher education (Hewitt, 1999; Thomas 8 Loxley, 2001). The scale of such changes has been objected to by many competent teachers. 26 “Teacher attitudes become critical as students with disabilities present characteristics that typically place them outside of teacher tolerance teacher concern for these students and the extra attention required appear necessary for students with disabilities to succeed in inclusive environments” (Shade 8 Stewart, 2001, p.37). Snyder (1999) stated, “T he inclusion movement has primarily been a special education movement. Very few general educators have been involved even though they either are or will be an extremely effected group” (p.74). Liberrnan (1985) stated the movement is like “a wedding in which we, as special educators, have forgotten to invite the bride (regular educators)” (p.513). General educators have been a bit resistant to a movement by special educators to shift the workload. Special education nIIes, regulations, advocates and litigation have not provided general education teachers with the knowledge or expertise they feel necessary to teach children with disabilities. General education teachers look to special educators to assist with the inclusion of special education students. The culture of separation has developed in education from the being of formal education. To change this culture has been very difficult. Today’s public schools are a microcosm of the communities that they serve. We have the opportunity to use a public school experience to teach children with disabilities the many cognitive and social skills needed for assimilation into the community. To construct a learning environment that will transfer into the community as a whole is a positive change for all students. 27 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS For the first hundred years the American public education system did not have collective bargaining, unions or contracts (Munk, 1998; Sharp, 1993). This study will only consider the two largest teacher unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). The other smaller unions have not such an influence on collective bargaining or school reform. On August 26, 1857, forty-three educators met in Philadelphia to create the National Teachers Association. This new organization included teachers, principals, and the presidents of state teacher associations (Moo, 1999). Their purpose was “to elevate the character and advance the interests of the profession of teaching, and to promote the cause of popular education in the United States” (Murphy, 1990). In 1870, the National Teacher Association changed its name to the National Education Association (NEA), (Moo, 1999). Most of the founders of NEA were school administrators. It remained an anti- union organization for over one hundred years (Lieberman, 1997). After 1910 administrators left the NEA and developed an independent organization of school administrators. NEA is now one of the largest teacher unions in America. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the second largest teacher union, is directly affiliated with the American Federation of Labors. This union has strong local and national support but lacks the state level initiatives. AFT was formed in April 1916 and considered an organization of the teachers, 28 opposed to administrative hierarchy and close supervision, (Murphy, 1990). Representatives from four unions met in South Chicago to organize the AFT. Three of the locals were from Chicago and the other from Gary, Indiana. The New York Teachers’ Federation sent their support and regards to these locals (Lieberman, 1990). This new national organization experienced some internal strife over leadership, hierarchy and use of tactics. It was not until after the AFT arose in 1916 that the NEA began to actively recnIit teachers to their union. The differences between the AFT and NEA appeared immediately in the formation of the new national unions and continued as they developed policies on academic freedom (M00, 1997). “Teachers in AFT were concerned with academic freedom and teacher rights, while the NEA emphasized professionalism and character" (Murphy, 1990, p.100). Until the 1960’s, the union had the same struggles in economics and politics as general society. The depression changed the NEA and AFT in fundamental ways. Both organizations refashioned policies in hopes that education would gain importance (Murphy, 1990). “In 1954 the realization finally sank in that education would never become a national priority but rather would remain at the mercy of tax revolters and an often parsimonious public” (Murphy, 1990, p.149). Collective bargaining changed the basic relationship between administrators and teachers in public schools. “Before 1961 unions in less than a dozen school districts could claim they represented only a small fraction of schoolteachers” (Murphy, 1990, p.209). Collective bargaining in the public 29 sector was not initiated until after President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988, entitled “Employee-Management Co-operation in Federal Service” in January 1962. This order affirmed the right for federal workers to organize and negotiate, but also stated they did not have a right to strike (Corey, 1975; Murphy, 1990; Moo, 1999). It was the philosophy of both unions that collective bargaining softened the lines between both organizations (Murphy, 1990). Since public school teachers were not federal workers, but state workers, this executive order did not legally cover them (Sharp, 1993), but the NEA and the AFT began lobbying state legislators to pass state laws giving teachers the right to organize and negotiate (Lieberman, 1997). This created a significant change for public school education and teachers in the area of bargaining. By the late 1970’s, almost 72 percent of all public schOol teachers were members of some union that represented them at the bargaining table (Murphy, 1990). Macke (1998) outlined how teacher unions in the 1960s and 1970s became participants in the civil rights revolution that challenged authority throughout the nation. The process of collective bargaining assisted the unions in altering the power of relations in public schools. Teachers gained a legal voice in pay, benefits and working conditions. By the 1970s, the two major teachers unions AFT and NEA had gained local and national political power (Lieberman, 1997). As of 1999, more than 80 percent of American public school teachers were members of teacher unions (Murphy, 1990). Bargaining units of the NEA and AFT came to represent teachers’ labor and professional interests in thirty-four 3O states, and are the most powerful lobbying group for teachers in federal educational politics to date (Rousmaniere, 1999; Sparks, 2000). This gives teachers and their unions an unprecedented opportunity to shape educational reform and to play a significant role with improving student learning (Strom 8 Baxter, 2001). While administrators view bargaining as obstructing reform, union representatives see bargaining as facilitating reform (DeMitchell 8 Barton, 1996). COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN MICHIGAN SCHOOLS In 1947, the Michigan legislature passed Public Act (PA) 336, the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA), which allowed state employees to organize and bargain collectively. Prior to this act it was illegal for public employees to bargain (Munk, 1998). Michigan is a compulsory union state where teachers must join the union or pay a required service fee to the union (Moo, 1999). PERA remains the main statute governing disputes involving public sector labor organizations and government employers, including public school districts (Hunter, 1999). In additional to PERA, Section 48 of the Michigan Constitution authorizes legislature to pass laws that will assist in the resolution of disputes concerning public employees. The Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) is the administrative body that attempts to settle labor disputes in the public sector between unions and employers (Hunter, 1999). 31 As Corey outlined in his 1975 study, collective bargaining in Michigan education began on May 28, 1963, when the Detroit Federation of Teachers submitted petitions to the Detroit Board of Education calling for a representation election (as cited Riordan, 1963). This was the impetus for the passage of Michigan Public Act 379, which was signed into law by Governor George Romney on July 23, 1965. The Michigan Federation of Teachers and , Michigan Education Association supported this act. Since the passage of this ' act, Michigan has become one of the most active states in the area of unions ‘ and collective bargaining (Corey, 1975; Hunter, 1999). On May 2, 1994, Governor John Engler signed Public Act 112, which changed the collective bargaining statute for public employees in Michigan. This expanded the prohibition against strikes by employees in public education, lessened the power of regional and statewide organizations over the ratification decisions of local bargaining representatives, and also limited the scope of bargaining in the following areas: subcontracting for non- instructional services, the beginning of the school year and the length of the school day, use of volunteers in schools, and decisions over pilot programs (Strom 8 Baxter, 2001). THE BASICS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Collective bargaining changed the fundamental relationship between teachers and administrators. Until then, many administrators belonged to 32 unions. The process of collective bargaining promised teachers more say in the conduct of their work, job security, and more pay (Murphy, 1990). Collective bargaining for education employees has three (3) legal categories: mandatory, permissive and prohibited. Districts are only required to bargain those topics that are mandatory: such as working conditions, seniority and promotion, and grievance procedures. Collective bargaining agreements exceed the scope of mandatory subjects in many Michigan districts and have topics which are permissive but not mandatory (Munk, 1998; Moo, 1999; Lieberman, 1997). Rousmaniere (1999) observes that “teacher unions are legally chartered, democratically elected workers’ representative organizations that hold less legal authority than local school boards. Teacher unions cannot fire or hire teachers, nor can they set school policy, curriculum or budgets” (p.40). The Michigan Supreme Court explains the legal obligation, the “duty to bargain”, and this way: “T he primary obligation placed upon the parties in collective bargaining setting is to meet and confer in good faith. The exact meaning of the duty to bargain in good faith has not been rigidly defined in case law. Rather, the courts look to the overall conduct Of a party to determine if it has actively engaged in the bargaining process with an open mind and a sincere desire to reach an agreement. The law does not mandate that the parties ultimately reach agreement, nor does it dictate the substance of the terms of which the parties manifest such an attitude 33 and conduct that will be conducive to reaching an agreement”, (Detroit Police Officers Ass'n v. Detroit, 1974). Items that are mandatory subjects to negotiate are described by statutory language as “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment”. The Michigan Supreme court provides a list; such subjects as hourly rates of pay, overtime pay, shift differentials, holiday pay, pensions, profit sharing plans, rental company houses, grievance procedures, sick leave, work-rules, seniority and promotion, compulsory retirement age, health benefits and management rights are subjects to mandatory bargaining (Munk, 1998). Although many of the subjects do not pertain to teachers, such as holiday pay, shift differentials, rental company houses and overtime pay. Public school employees must adhere to these as guidelines for mandatory bargaining issues. Because public employees do not have the right to strike, the courts have extended the mandatory bargaining to include that any subject that has a direct effect on the employment relationship (Sharp, 1993; Munk, 1998; Murphy, 1990). Permissive subjects for bargaining include those, which are neither mandatory nor prohibited. In this category topics could include some of the following items: recmiting standards, formulation of new positions, special education concerns, and the elimination of programs. Contracts containing language on special education students being included in general education fall within the legal category of permissive negotiations. Some teachers would argue that it fits under the mandatory 34 category because it deals with their working conditions. In either case, once such language is in contracts it is very difficult to change or eliminate. Administrators and union officials should be aware which topics are mandatory, permissive and prohibited when bargaining the addition of new language in contracts. Prohibited topics pose obvious legal problems and the additional of permissive topics establishes precedents which could prove difficult to implement. “Most reform efforts affect teacher working conditions, and anything that affects the terms of working conditions of teachers must be bargained for in those school districts that have collective bargaining” (DeMitchell 8 Barton, 1996, p.366). “As the nation continues to grapple with the myriad of school reform measures being tested throughout the country, education employees will inevitably feel the impact. In some instances, the changes might bring about positive change for both students and staff” (Strom 8 Baxter, 2001, p.303). This means that the language formulated in collective bargaining agreements will be one of the most important expressions of policy and of the effort to generate reforms. In considering collective bargaining, through a social constructivist’s lens, Poole (2001) maintained that “teacher union leaders, like other adults, socially construct meaning about the world and weave them into a set of assumptions about how the world works” (p.174). A set of assumptions about bargaining that includes school reform efforts, such as the inclusion of special education students into general education, often generate conflict because the novelty of 35 the proposals creates uncertainty. The problem with putting language into a contract is that it is very difficult to bargain out. For example, Munk (1998) lists that more than 200 Michigan school contracts currently have permitted language dealing with site-based decision-making. She suggests that school boards not include any contract language that obligates any party to abide by the US. and Michigan Constitution and applicable state and federal law. Sandra Feldman, AFT President, believes that “one way to make the system school centered and therefore truly child centered” (2001, p.3) is to develop new positive relationships with local school boards and to change the way negotiations are completed. This new way of bargaining will encourage teacher involvement in school improvement and build partnerships between unions and school boards. This change in bargaining may assist teachers in constructing new assumptions about changes in education. NEA President, Bob Chase also called for a similar shift in bargaining with his members. He stated, “industrial-style adversarial tactics aren’t suited to the next stage of school reform, school quality must be our first priority” (Harrington-Lueker, 1997. p.34). This new process to bargaining contracts will facilitate changes in teacher contracts, that interferes with the inclusion of special education students. Teacher contracts are one source of the continued segregation of some special education students from regular education students, some contracts contain language requiring districts to deal with disabled students differently from other students. School districts need to deconstruct the 36 complex special education structure and construct methods of inclusion of special education students (Thomas 8 Loxley, 2001). 37 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES INTRODUCTION The hypothesis that guided this study posits that the amount of language contracts have which deals with inclusion of or the» restriction of special education in general education. is inversely proportional to the percentage of students with disabilities who will be included in general education classrooms. The questions listed below guided this research. 1. What language do K-12 public school district teacher contracts contain relating to the inclusion of special education students in general education? 2. Which of that language has the potential to be restrictive, that is, to negatively affect the inclusion of special education students in general educafion? 3. To what extent does the amount and kind of language in teacher collective bargaining agreements in Michigan K-12 districts correlate with the number of special education students in general education? 4. Is the size of a district relates to the amount of inclusion provided to special education students? SAMPLE SELECTION This study considers only K-12 public school teacher contracts within Michigan from the 1999-2000 school year. The Michigan Department of ‘ Education reported data on 555 K-12 school districts in Michigan for the 1999- 38 2000 school year. Public school academies are not included, as most do not have contracts and there is not sufficient data relating to inclusion of special education in general education. This studyincludes a stratified random sample of the 555 Michigan K-12 school districts. A total of 120 districts are in the sample. To select the districts for this study, all 555 school districts and their total student population, from the Michigan 1999 Pupil Headcount Database were entered into a database. The decision to select 120 districts, which represents 22 percent of the districts in the state, was based on this researcher’s desire to gain comprehensive information on specific contract language dealing with the inclusion of special education students and the percentage of time special education students are general education. To determine which 120 districts would be selected for this study, the districts in the state were first divided into groups by intermediate school district regions to determine if this method would provide a representation of the districts in the state. I then tried another method for dividing the 555 districts using the number of general and special education teachers. After those two methods of gaining a representation of districts were determined unsuccessful, this researcher divided the districts into groups by whether they had a special education director or not. This method did not prove to be a good division of districts to gain a representative group for this study. The division of districts by student population was determined to provide the best means for selecting the 120 districts for this study. Four population categories 39 were needed to gain a representation of the various district sizes across the state. These four groups of student population were, 1) districts with 1-999 students, 2) districts with 1,000 to 1,999 students, 3) districts with 2,000 to 4,999 and, 4) districts with over 5,000 students. The first group, student population of 1-999, represents approximately 23 percent of the 555 school districts. The second group, student population of 1,000-1,999, is approximately 24 percent. The third group, 2,000-4,999, is approximately 34 cement of the total and the last group, over 5,000 students is approximately 19 percent of the total. The stratified random sample of 120 school districts were then selected by a statistician, who completed the selection process without knowledge of the names of the districts, only knowing the student population and the approximate number of districts needed in each group. This study uses both qualitative and quantitative methods for data collection and analysis. Specific provisions address issues of reliability and validity for both methods. Creswell, 1994, discusses ”five reasons for combining methods in a single study; 1. triangulation in the classic sense of seeking convergence of results, 2. complimentary, in that overlapping facets of a phenomenon may emerge, 3. developmentally, wherein the first method is used to sequentially help inform the second method, 4. initiation, wherein contradictions and fresh perspectives emerge. and 40 5. expansion, wherein the mixed methods add scope and breadth to the study” (p.175). The qualitative portions of this study are the review of the district contracts, the development of the criteria rubric, the interpretation of the contract language, the development and determination of the restrictive scoring of contract language, and the final analysis. To insure reliability the researcher carefully developed instructions and guidelines for the readers of the contracts and used two readers. A criteria rubric and directions were developed to provide consistency in scoring. A correlation test was then used to determine validity in scoring. The same precautions were taken in developing the guidelines and directions for determining the restriction score on contract language. These methods allow for better assessment of the validity and generality of the explanations that are developed (Maxwell, 1996). Using several measures to determine validity and reliability is a means of triangulating the data. Triangulation does not automatically increase validity, so care must be taken to review the information for errors, although “the concept of triangulation was based on the assumption that any bias inherent in particular data sources, investigator, and methods would be neutralized when used in conjunction with other data sources, methods or investigators” (Creswell, 1994, p.174). The quantitative data of this study includes the inclusion data and restriction scores for each district. This information was entered carefully into the database and reviewed for error on a regular basis. 41 PILOT STU DY The 20 districts selected for the pilot study were equally distributed among each population group. The following table indicates the distribution of the pilot districts. Table 1- Distribution of Pilot Study Districts Total Group Percentage of total Number of student districts contracts Population reviewed 1-999 A 23% 5 1,000- B 24% 5 1,999 ' 2,000- C 34% 5 4,999 5,000 - above D 19% 5 Totals 100% 20 This researcher completed a pilot study of five districts from each population group. The purpose of the pilot study was to collect samples of typical language contained within each contract to develop a listing of language relating to special education. Two independent readers reviewed all twenty contracts in the pilot study; all contract language relating to special education was reviewed, categorized, and summarized. This listing of contract language provided the researcher with an overview of language relating to the inclusion of special education students in general education. From the listing of contract language, this researcher developed the Chart of Special Education Criteria (Appendix C) and the guidelines for review, A Rubric for Scoring Special Education Criteria (Appendix B) which were utilized 42 for the contracts. The language gathered from the pilot districts contributed to the descriptive analysis of contract language dealing with inclusion. The analysis of inclusion data was not done in the pilot study. The data on inclusion percentages was obtained from study completed by Developmental Disabilities Institute (DDI) of Wayne State University using 1999-2000 school year data and was completed for all 120 districts. This information was not necessary for the pilot study as the purpose of the pilot was to determine the sample of districts to be used in this study and to obtain contract language dealing with inclusion to develop the special education criteria and to refine the directions for reviewing all the contracts. When the pilot study was completed, this researcher reviewed copies of the entire 120 district contracts using the Chart of Special'Education Criteria developed from the pilot study. A table outlining the size of the districts based on student population is in Table 3 and Appendix A. The scoring guidelines for the pilot study and the complete study are in Appendix B. The author was the first reader and the second reader was a university student trained by the author. To generate validity, the degree to which researchers measure what they claim to measure, and reliability, the external and internal consistency of measures, specific guidelines were established for each scorer to use when reviewing every contract (Williams, 1992). Once the contracts in the pilot study were sCored, the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation test, also known as correlation, was used to determine the inter-rater-reliability rating between the two scorers. The correlation of the two scorers was determined to be 43 dependable, the contracts in the pilot study were scored using the Chart of Special Education Criteria and guidelines and the scores from both readers were correlated. The two scores have a .957866 correlation. This is a very high correlation and shows a dependable relationship (Appendix D). To interpret the magnitude of the correlation Guilford, in 1956, suggested the following as a rough guideline (Williams, 1992, p.137). “The correlation characterizes the relationship between variables, that is the degree to which two variables vary together (positive correlation) or vary inversely (negative correlation). The correlation coefficient has ranges of values from +1.0 (a perfect correlation) through —1.0 (perfect negative correlation)” (Williams, 1992, p.145). This statistical method measures the correlation, the existence of a relationship between variables. Correlation itself only indexes the degree of relationship. “The statistical significance only puts researchers in a position to interpret the magnitude of correlation” (Williams, 1992, p.146). Table 2 provides a reference for interpretation of the correlation results. Table — 2 A Guildford Interpretation of Correlation Guildford interpretation of magnitude of correlation: <. 20 slight almost negligible relationship .20-.40 low correlation definite but small relationship .40-.60 moderate correlation substantial relationship .70-.90 high correlation marked relationship >. 90 very high correlation very dependable relationship ENTIRE SAMPLE When the study was first developed only a total of 60 districts were considered. The number of districts was doubled to 120 to allow a determination of whether the size of the district, based on student population, contributed to the inclusion of special education students and also provides a greater understanding of contract language to answer all of the four research questions. The distribution of the entire sample listed in Table 3 represents the approximate percentage of the total number of districts in the state as of the 1999-2000 school year. Table 3 - Distribution of 120 Sample School Districts Total Group Percentage of total Number of student districts contracts Population ' needed 1-999 A 20% 24 1,000- B 24% 29 1,999 2,000- C 35% 42 4,999 5,000 - D 21% 25 above Totals 100% . 120 The language in each contract relating to the inclusion of special education students in general education was reviewed, coded, and categorized by the same two independent readers. The correlation for the scoring of the two readers was established as dependable, all 120 contracts were coded and categorized for contract language using the Chart for Scoring Special Education Criteria with the same scoring guidelines utilized during the pilot 45 study. When all 120 contracts were coded with this rubric, the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation test was used to compare the correlation of the contract scoring of the two readers (Appendix D). The scorers initially rated each contract, they met to review any discrepancies in the coding. When discrepancies occurred, both readers reviewed and discussed the information and decided how to code the specific contract language in question. Next each contract was coded on the rubric developed and all information was entered into a database. The information was then categorized by the number of times the contract referred to the coded language and by its potential of negatively affecting the inclusion of special education students in general educafion. Special concern was placed on validity and reliability in designing this study. To increase the validity, data was obtained from 120 contracts, instead of only 60. The correlation for the scores for the 120 contracts from both readers of the contracts, using the Chart of Special Education Criteria, was .9628, which is also indicates a very high and dependable relationship for the scoring process. After the scorers initially rated each contract, they met to review any discrepancies in the coding. In reviewing both readers' scores for all 120 district contracts, they found different scores for 69 items. This was an average of .575 difference in scoring (Appendix D). The minimal difference indicates that the readers were consistent with the scoring on the Chart of Special Education Criteria for the districts. In addition to collecting the language dealing with inclusion of special education students from all 120 46 contracts, the study evaluated the language. Some language appeared to be more restrictive in nature and was weighted to reflect the degree of restriction. RESTRICTION SCORE Five experienced special education administrators rated language relating to the special education criteria on a five-point rubric, 3 to -1. Contract language given a score of three indicates that this language could negatively impact the inclusion of special education students in general education. A score of two indicates that the language could negatively impact the inclusion of special education students. The score of one shows very minimum impact on inclusion, whereas a zero has no impact and a negative one shows possible positive impact on inclusion. This score reflected whether each item listed on the Chart for Weighting Special Education Criteria (Appendix K) had potential for restricting a special education student’s inclusion in general education. The scoring guidelines (Appendix J) were developed and the five scorers were trained as a group to use the guidelines and criteria. In developing the guidelines and scoring anric this researcher determined the need to allow a scorer to indicate if certain language may represent a positive or negative influence on the inclusion of special education students in general education. While, this research only focused on the restrictions contract language may present to the inclusion of special education students, scorers were to report if they felt the language might represent a positive effect on inclusion. Special education administrators were selected as scorers for this 47 study because of their professional knowledge and experience on inclusion of special education students. The results from the administrators’ coding were averaged and each item on this mbric was given a restriction score. This score reflected whether the language appeared to negatively affect the inclusion of special education students in general education classrooms. The correlation of scores for these five administrators was .674523. The Guildford Interpretation of Correlation, in Table 2, suggests that there is a moderate correlation with a substantial relationship. After all contracts were analyzed, the information was entered into the database and compared with the inclusion data from the three inclusion percentage categories provided by the DDI study. Anaverage was calculated for each disability area sampled for this study to determine an average amount of time of inclusion (Appendix G). Information from the results of each chart containing the special education criteria (Appendix C) was entered into a database for each district and is described in Chapter IV. The set of data compiled for the restriction score for each district is also a total for the district, although the information on the special education rubric is weighted. This data is compared to each district’s total inclusion percentage. The comparison shows whether the number of times an item relating to inclusion or restriction of inclusion is mentioned in a contract had a relationship to the district’s total amount of inclusion. The larger sample size gave validity to the study. These calculations are explained in more detail in Chapter IV. 48 INCLUSION SCORE There are two sets of data compiled for each school district in the contract review. The first set of data lists the number of times specific language was mentioned in a contract relating to the inclusion of special education students. This number is a total of all items for the district. That total is then compared to the actual inclusion percentage total per disability and the inclusion percentage for each district. Care was taken to develop specific guidelines for both readers to use when reviewing every contract. In the second phase of this study, the inclusion data for each district was entered into the database in three categories: 1) students included 80-100 percent, 2) students included 40-80 percent, and 3) students included 1-40 percent of their day in general education. Ten separate disability areas are listed including; severely mentally impaired, trainable mentally impaired, educable mentally impaired, emotionally impaired, hearing impaired, visually impaired, physically or otherwise health impaired, learning disability, severely multiply impaired, and autism. An average was calculated for each disability area sampled for this study to determine an average amount of time of inclusion (Appendix G). This average was calculated from the three categories, 80 to 100 percent was considered at 90 percent, 40 to 80 percent was determined at 60 percent and 1 to 40 percent was calculated at 20 percent. The decision was made to average the inclusion percentage and then the average inclusion percent for each district, by disability area, an actual inclusion percentage, an expected inclusion percentage and the 49 difference between the two was calculated for each disability area (Appendix H). The difference between the actual and expected inclusion percentages determined the inclusion score. The inclusion score is a representation of inclusion for each district taking into consideration number of special education students, the disability areas and the amount of time students were in an inclusive setting. COMPARISON OF RESTRICTION SCORE AND INCLUSION SCORE The analysis of contract and inclusion data supplied answers for the research questions and tests the hypothesis on which this study is based. The descriptive analysis of contract language in the ten areas listed on the Chart of Special Education Criteria illustrates the concerns districts have with inclusion of special education. It also outlines concerns teachers have in dealing with the inclusion of special education students in general education. The data on contract language show the total number of times district contract language refers to special education students being included in general education. The comparison of the inclusion percentage for the district and the restriction scores show whether there was a correlation to the inclusion percentage and the restriction score. In the second part of Chapter IV, the weighted restriction score for each district contract (Appendix F) analysis will be compared to the actual inclusion data to determine whether the type of contract language correlates to an increase or decrease of special education students in general education for each district. This comparison will 50 provide the answers to the research questions and confirms the hypothesis that the more language contracts have dealing with inclusion of special education in general education the lower the percentage of students with disabilities who are included in general education classrooms (Appendix I). The intent of this researcher is to provide current and useful knowledge to the profession about Michigan contract language and the inclusion of special education students in general education. 51 CHAPTER IV RESULTS The research hypothesis of this study proposes that the more language contracts have dealing with inclusion or restriction of special education in general education, the lower the percentage of students with disabilities who are included in general education classrooms. The research questions listed below guided the researcher in determining sources and methods of research. These questions required qualitative and quantitative means of gathering and analyzing the data. The results of the investigations are described or calculated below and in the appropriate appendixes. Research Question One What language do K-12 public school district teacher contracts contain relating to the inclusion of special education students in general education ? This is the most important issue in the entire study and is a fairIy complicated one to answer. Using the Special Education Criteria, developed during the pilot study, the researcher evaluated the 100 contracts and then added the results of the 20 contracts examined in the pilot study. A final score was developed for each district by criteria item to indicate how many times each contract contains language dealing with the inclusion of special education students. After reviewing each of the ten criteria listed on the Chart of Special Education Criteria, in Table 4 and Appendix E, the total number of times each specific criterion was mentioned in a contract was calculated. The 52 pilot study provided information for the criteria rubric development, helped with the design of the guidelines for scoring and further exemplified the need to conduct this study. Every contract was read and scored by two individuals, with the results for each district are listed in Appendix D. The two reader's scores‘were calculated to determine the correlation for the entire sample, which is listed later in this section. The Special Education Criteria, listed in Table 4, details the language relating to inclusion found in the pilot study district contracts. Table 4 - Special Education Criteria 1. Conditions placed on student related special education meetings a teacher attends. 2. Money paid for attending student related special education meetings. 3. Language on discipline issues relating to special education student. 4. Provisions that teachers are provided training, support, personnel or equipment prior to the inclusion of a special education student into general education. 5. Provisions to maintain support, training and equipment for a special education student to attend general education. 6. A special education student counts extra toward general education class membership. 7. Language on special education students causing concems/ problems in the general education class. 8. Language on equal distribution of special education students in general education classes. 9. Language relating to teachers dealing with medical concerns of special education students. 10. Other 53 Below, Table 5 reflects the number of contracts each criterion is listed at least one time. Some contracts have more than one reference; Appendix E provides a complete chart on each district and the number of times a criterion listed. Table 5 - The Number of Districts with Contract Language Pertinent to Each Section of the Rubric for Special Education Criteria Number Special Education Criteria Rubric of Districts 1. Conditions placed on student related special 36 _ education meetings a teacher attends. 2. Money paid for attending student related 7 special education meetings. 3. Language on discipline issues relating to 17 special education student. 4. Provisions that teachers are provided training, support, personnel or equipment prior 27 to the inclusion of a special education student flo general education. 5. Provisions to maintain support, training and equipment for a special education student to 56 attend general education. 6. A special education student counts extra 23 toward general education class membership. 7. Language on special education students causing concems/ problems in the general 32 education class. 8. Language on equal distribution of special education students in general education classes. 50 9. Language relating to teachers dealing with medical concerns of special education students. 53 10. Other 28 NONE 23 120 Total number of districts The following examples illustrate typical language used in contracts. 54 1. Criteria One - Conditions placed on student related special education meetings a teacher attends. The 36 districts with language about this criteria included, Adrian, Alma, Alpena, Atlanta, Beal City, Belding, Big Rapids, Birmingham, Breitung Township, Bridgeport-Spaudling, Brimley, Carrollton, Cheboygan, Chippewa Hills, Dowagiac Union, Dryden, Eaton Rapids, Gaylord, Hemlock, Howell, Hudson, Jonesville, Kalamazoo, Kentwood, Lakeville, Manchester, Mayville, Munising, Olivet, Owosso, Portland, Reed City, Rochester, Southgate, Utica and West Ottawa. This is 30 percent of the total districts sampled. The following are examples of language in contracts. a. Belding Area Schools, Article 5 - Professional Compensation — “With the exception of other professional obligations which have traditionally served to extend the Associations member's work day in the past (i.e. staff meetings, IEPC’s elementary PTO, committee meetings, etc). Association members shall be considered as on duty for a total of forty (40) minutes per day distributed in whole or in part before and/or after the student instructional day” (p.16). b. Alpena Public Schools, Article VIII 4 Conditions of Employment — “Teachers shall participate in IEPC meetings which may be held outside of the teachers' workday consistent with past practice” (p.14). 0. School District of the City of Birmingham, Article VI - Teaching Hours and Class Load - “Every effort will be made to limit attendance at special education/ ESL meetings to forty-five (45) minutes per week 55 during the classroom teaching load time for each general education teacher" (p.17). d. Manchester Community School District, Article V — Teaching Hours — “Should a teacher be required to attend an IEPC at times outside of the school day, except for social workers, the teacher shall be entitled to'be released from one conference period. Such conference period shall be one which does not conflict with a scheduled meeting or activity and shall be immediately before or after the IEPC” (p.7). e. Alma Public Schools, Article 7 — Teaching Hours and Class Load - “Teachers are expected to attend parent conferences and lEPC’s scheduled by their supervisor(s); these conferences should begin no later than 4:00 pm.” (p.10). f. Dryden Community Schools, Article VI - Teaching Conditions - “Substitutes will be provided for teachers attending lEPC’s in order that they may be held during the school day whenever possible. Any teacher involved in the “mainstreamed” program will participate in an IEPC relative to their student’s program. Such release shall not infringe upon regular prep time unless no other alternative is available” (p.8). 9. Mayville Community School District, Article VI - Teaching Conditions— "T he teacher's normal teaching hours shall be comprised of 7 V4 hours per day, including a 30 minute duty-free lunch, unless scheduled for parent meeting or IEPC meeting held later at the request of the parent, or for reasons provided under this Agreement. Any such 56 meetings shall be scheduled with the mutual consent of the teachers involved, to the extent possible" (p.7). h. Hemlock Public Schools, Article XVI — Teaching Conditions — “Every effort will be made to schedule IEPC’s during the regular school day” (p.32). i. Carrollton Public Schools, Article XIII - Miscellaneous Provisions - I “Classroom teachers shall be notified at least five (5) days in advance to any IEPC meeting, provided the Administration is aware of said meeting seven (7) days in advance" (p.22) j. Portland Public Schools, Article VIII - Teaching Conditions — “In addition, teachers may request meetings with the special education teacher, principal or other support personnel as deemed necessary and may request an additional IEPC to be scheduled during the normal teaching day whenever possible” (p.13). 2. Criteria Two- Money paid for attending student related special education meetings. Seven districts have contracts that discuss this, Beal City, Dryden, Munising, Niles, Owosso, Portland, and Rochester. This represents only about 1 percent of all sampled districts. a. Dryden Community Schools, Article VI — Teaching Conditions - "Teachers shall be compensated at $15.00 per hour for participation in lEPC's held during their prep time or outside the regular school day” (p.8). 57 b. Rochester Community Schools, Article 29 -— Co-Curricular Salaries and Benefits - “Teachers working during the summer recess for IEPC, scheduling and special placement will be paid $21.00 per hour with a minimtrm of three (3) hours per day that the teacher reports” (p.60). c. Munising Public Schools, Article VIII — Inclusive Education or Its Equivalency - “Participation by a bargaining unit member on the committee or in presenting and discussing any problem with the committee shall be at no cost to the members with Employer providing release time or compensation at the rate of $12.00 per hour for work beyond the regular workday. The aforementioned release time and compensation rate will apply to any teacher whose attendance is necessary at an IEPC meeting” (p.28). d. Adrian Public Schools, Article V - Teachers’ Hours, Assignment and Employment Conditions - “An IEPC meeting, required by State law, may be scheduled, on a voluntary basis, before/after school with an accompanying reimbursement stipend of $10.00 per IEPC meeting for each faculty member attending in its entirety” (p.9). e. Owosso Public Schools, Article 8 — Teaching Conditions — “Every effort will be made to schedule IEPC meetings within the school day. If a substitute is provided, it shall be mandatory that each teacher invited will attend the IEPC meeting. Should it be impossible to schedule the IEPC meeting during the school day, it will be scheduled as soon after the end of the school day as possible. All invited teachers will attend 58 the IEPC meetings. After attending four (4) after school IEPC meetings, teachers will be paid the IEPC hour1y rate for their time at subsequent after school IEPC meetings” (p.23). 3. Criteria Three - Language on discipline issues relating to special education student. Seventeen districts have contracts containing language about this issue; Albion, Beal City, Breitung Township, Bridgeport- Spaulding, Cadillac, Carrollton, Chassell Township, Dowagiac Union, East China, Fruitport, Greenville, Hemlock, Jefferson, Owosso, Saline Area, Tahquamenon, and West Ottawa. About 14 percent of the sampled districts contain language on discipline issues with students. a. Dowagiac Union School District, Article 5 - Teacher’s Rights — “If classes contain emotionally disturbed students, or if certain students require the special attention of social workers, special counselors, law enforcements officials, physicians or other professional persons, the building principal and the teacher may recommend remedial and/or disciplinary action to be considered by the Board” (p.7). b. Tahquamenon Area School District, Article VIII - Teaching Conditions -“Any member who has a reasonable basis to believe that a mainstreamed student assigned to that member has a current IEPC report that is not meeting the student’s unique needs as required by law or whose behavior is physically or verbally abusive towards others and disruptive to the learning environment, should promptly notify the administration” (p.14). 59 c. Hemlock Public Schools, Article IX — Disciplinary Support and Protection of Teachers - “The Board further recognizes that the teacher may not fairly be expected to assume the ongoing responsibility for emotionally disturbed students, nor to be charged with the psychotherapy. Whenever it appears that a particular pupil will require the attention of special counselors, social workers, law enforcement personnel, physician or other professional persons, the Board will take prompt attention to assist the teacher with respect to such pupils” (p. 1 7). d. Fruitport Community Schools, Article 12 - Protection of Teachers - “It shall be the responsibility of the teacher to disclose promptly in writing to the principal, or other administrator designated by the Board, any conduct of a student during any period when the teacher is in control of the student which may cause the teacher reasonably to believe that the student is emotionally disturbed; and it shall likewise be the responsibility of the teacher to disclose promptly in writing to the principal, or other such administrator, the desire to revoke any such report, whenever it reasonably appears to the teacher, who has filed such a report, that the report was filed by mistake or error, or that the teacher otherwise reasonably believes that the student was not emotionally disturbed, or that it is not likely that the student will again become emotionally disturbed” (p.25). 60 e. Albion Public Schools, Article V — Protection of Teachers - “The Board of Administration recognize their responsibility to give all reasonable support and assistance to teachers with respect to the maintenance of control and discipline in the classroom. The Board recognizes that the teachers may not fairly be expected to assume the role of custodian for emotionally impaired students” (p.27). 4. Criteria Four- Provisions that teachers are provided training, support, personnel or equipment grigr to the inclusion of a special education student into general education. Twenty-seven districts discuss this issue; Anchor Bay, Bellevue, Benzie County, Big Bay De Noc, Birmingham, Brighton, Brimley, Cadillac, Cheboygan, Colon, Constantine, Harper Creek, Howell, Kalamazoo, Kent City, Laingsburg, Lakeville, Lansing, Munising, Niles, Northwest, Olivet, Rochester, Suttons Bay, Tahquamenon, West Ottawa and Westwood Heights. This is 23 percent of the districts in this study. a. Bellevue Community Schools, Article VII - Teaching Conditions — “Whenever possible, prior to actual placement of a self-contained special education student into a teacher's class, that teacher shall have the opportunity to observe that student and confer with the student's teacher and/or consultant” (p.110). b. Colon Community Schools, Article 6 - Inclusive Education — “When requested by the regular classroom teacher in whose class a disabled student is placed, special training or consultant assistance relevant to the student’s needs will be arranged for by the administration prior to 61 the student placement in the classroom or at the earliest possible date, provided that the expense for such services is reasonable. The building principal or his designee shall also receive the training” (p.20). c. Cheboygan Area Schools, Article 3 — Teacher's Protection — “The administration shall provide, upon the teacher’s request, prior to such placement whenever possible, in-service training on instruction and behavioral management of such mainstreamed students” (p.17). d. Olivet Community School District, Article XVI- Student Discipline and Teacher Protection - “Where mandated school health services are necessary to maintain a student in the classroom, appropriate training will be provided to each teacher prior to the placement of that special education pupil in the teacher’s room. The employer shall pay all costs in connection with the training” (p.18). e. Lakeville Community Schools, Article 16 - Special Student Needs - “Prior to the integration of a special education student into the regular classroom, the regular classroom teacher shall receive inservice training which shall include, but not be limited to: 1. A brief overview of the program, and the law provided by the Special Education Director or his/her designee, 2. An opportunity to observe the integrated child in the special education room, 3. An opportunity to cooperatively plan the actual integration of the student between the two teachers” (p.37). f. Gaylord Community Schools, Article XXIII - Least Restrictive Environment - “On a case-by-case basis, the District will determine 62 what training and other support should be provided to a teacher who will be providing instructional or other services to a handicapped student. Should the teacher(s) disagree, the decision can be appealed to an advisory committee consisting of the special education director, the building principal, the building social worker or counselor, and two (2) additional teachers to be named by the Superintendent with the approval of the Association” (p.46). 5. Criteria Five - Provisions to maintain support, training and equipment - for a special education student to attend general education. After initial review it would appear this criteria is most important because 56 districts refer to this issue. This criteria was represented in 47 percent of the sampled districts. They include Akron-Fairgrove, Alba, Alpena, Anchor Bay, Atlanta, Beal City, Belding, Benzie County, Big Bay De Noc, Big Rapids, Birmingham, Bridgeport- Spaulding, Brighton, Brimley, Bullock Creek, Cadillac, Cheboygan, Chippewa Valley, Clinton, Colon, Dryden, Eaton Rapids, Fairview Area, Femdale, Gaylord, Grand Blanc, Grand Ledge, Greenville, Harper Creek, Howell, Jonesville, Kent City, Laingsburg, Lakeville, Lansing, Manchester, Midland, Morley Stanwood, Munising, Northwest, Onsted, Ovid-Elsie, Portland, Rochester, Rogers City, Saline Area, Shelby, Southgate, Suttons Bay, Tahquamenon, Tekonsha, Three Rivers, Utica, Waverly, West Bloomfield, and Westwood Heights. a. Akron-Fairgrove School District, Article V — Hours and Conditions - 63 “To aid the teacher’s authority and effectiveness, the Board and the Administration recognize their responsibility to give all reasonable support. When students require the attention of special counselors, social workers and other professional persons, as determined by an IEPC, the Board and the administration will take reasonable steps to secure the required assistance for said students” (p.9). b. Fairview Area Schools, Article VII - Teaching Conditions - “The Board shall provide adequate training and personnel to assist the teacher in meeting the needs of the special education students” (p.6). 0. Munising Public Schools, Article XVII — Inclusive Education or Its Equivalency — “The parties recognize the extent to which a handicapped student can participate in regular education programs and services and whether such participation can be achieved satisfactorily will depend in large part upon the training and other support provided the regular education personnel responsible for instructing the handicapped student. Accordingly, in order to assure that the handicapped student will be allowed to participate in regular education programs and services to the maximum extent appropriate, the Employer shall: 1. Within sixty (60) days of the start of the school year, and periodically thereafter, provide in-service training to regular education personnel regarding the instruction and behavioral management of handicapped students in the regular education classroom setting. A variety of such programs will be provided, the 64 subjects to include the differing approaches, problems and techniques to be utilized with varying handicapping conditions, to be mutually agreed upon by the Employer and the Association. Such in-service training shall be expedited for any regular education personnel who shall be asked to provide or supervise instructional services to any handicapped students identified as severely multiply impaired, severely mentally impaired, autistically impaired, trainable mentally impaired, emotionally impaired or severely language impaired” (p.29). (1. Alba Public Schools, Article VII - Teaching Conditions — ”T he administration shall make reasonable efforts to provide training to the teacher regarding the instruction and behavioral management of such special education students in the regular education classroom setting” (p.12). e. Benzie County Central Schools, Article 3 — Class Size and Teaching Conditions — “The Board agrees to provide additional paraprofessional time to any teacher has more than four (4) mainstreamed students assigned to any one class unless that teacher volunteers to take the additional mainstreamed students without the assistance of a paraprofessional” (p.19). f. Atlanta Community School District, Article XXIX — Least Restrictive Environment/ Medically Fragile - “On a case-by-case basis, the Board will determine what training and other support should be provided to a 65 teacher who will be providing instructional or other services to a handicapped student“ (p.41 ). g. West Bloomfield School District, Article V — Teaching Hours/ Class Load - “General education classroom teachers who have inclusion students placed in their classrooms shall be provided with appropriate support for these students as defined by the IEPC” (p.11). h. Kent City Community Schools, Article Xlll — Miscellaneous Provisions - “Any bargaining unit member who has a medically fragile student assigned to him/her will be trained by licensed medical- personnel in conjunction with the child’s parent to handle the student’s special health care needs. The bargaining unit member has the right to refuse to perform the health care procedures reqUested” (p.17). i. Clinton Community Schools, Article IX — Teaching Conditions - "The Clinton Community Schools shall continue to use the IEPC process in accordance with Special Education rules and regulations and provide the needed training provided by the Lenawee lnterrnediate School District" (p.14). j. Laingsburg Community Schools, Article XXIV - Least Restrictive Environment (Inclusive Education) — “In-service training regarding the instruction and/or behavior of special needs students in the regular education classroom setting will be provided as agreed to by the teacher and the building administrator" (p.52). 66 k. Laingsburg Community Schools, Article XXIV — Least Restrictive Environment (Inclusive Education) - “The current class size teaching load of a teacher shall be taken into consideration prior to the placement of a special needs student into his/her classroom” (p.52). I. Ovid-Elsie Area Schools, Article VII - Working Conditions - “When the IEPC deems it necessary, assistance will be given to the teacher in order to assure that the teacher is prepared to instruct the student according to the individual education plan” (p.13). m. Onsted Community School District, Article VI - Teaching Hours and Class Load — “Teachers who are assigned students identified on an IEPC will receive training'in an effort to increase awareness for special education student needs” (p.6). n. Waverly Community Schools, Article VI - Teaching Load and Working Conditions - “The School District will provide materials, pupil personnel and supportive services for the teacher and handicapped student, in keeping with each individual student’s IEP” (p.9). 6. Criteria Six - A special education student counts extra toward general education class membership. Twenty-three school districts provide for this, Beal City, Birmingham, Breitung Township, Bullock Creek, Camden- Frontier, Chippewa Hills, Chippewa Valley, Dryden, Flushing; Greenville, Gull Lake, Harper Creek, Jenison, Kalamazoo, Kentwood, Lansing, Ovid-Elsie, Owosso, Reed City, Rochester, Shelby, St. Johns, and Utica. The 23 districts 67 represent 19 percent of the sample group. Examples of contract language are listed below: a. School District of the City of Birmingham, Article VII — Teaching Conditions and Class Size — “Each elementary student assigned to a Learning Resource Center shall be counted as two (2) students” and “Each elementary student assigned to a self-contained special education classroom and mainstreamed into a general education classroom will be counted as two times the percent of time spent in the receiving teacher's general education classroom” and “Each secondary student assigned to a Learning Resource Center or a self-contained special education classroom shall be counted as one and one half students in all general education classes, except physical education and except when a student is assigned to a basic skills class” (p.20). b. Femdale School District, Article 9 - Teaching Conditions - “Special education students who are mainstreamed into regular classrooms shall be counted as follows in determining the class size for this article: a) elementary learning disabled shall be counted as one, b) elementary special education self contained shall be counted as'two, and c) secondary special education students shall be counted as two except for L0, speech and language impaired and students assigned to school social worker. They shall be counted as one (1 )” (p.14). c. Rochester Community Schools, Article 36 — Special Education — “The actual “weight" of a certified student will be determined by the 68 building team and reported by the principal to the student enrollment office. Building teams means those professionals on staff (support staff, general education teachers and administrator) who work directly with the student being discussed” (p.67). d. Dryden Community Schools, Article IX - Academic Rights and Responsibility - “The weighting provision may be modified in specific cases if the affected teacher(s), administration, and the Association agree. Any such wavier will be valid for up to one school year. Weighting will be utilized when equalizing classroom loads. The following weighting schedule will be utilized: Student Categog Wejghtinjfiactor Learning Disabled 1.5 Physically Impaired 1.5 Emotionally Impaired 2.5 EMI 2.5 (p.12) e. Camden-Frontier Schools, Article VII — Teaching Conditions - “For the purposes of computing the class size, any student who is mainstreamed under PL 941-142 as EMI. El or POHI, shall be counted as two” (p.12). f. Bullock Creek School District, Article V — Teaching Load and Assignments - “One mainstreamed student shall be counted as two regular students for the purpose of determining class size. When two mainstreamed students are present in a classroom, they shall be 69 counted as three regular students. If three are scheduled into a regular classroom they will be counted as five students. If four are scheduled they shall count as six. For any reason additional students mainstreamed in the same classroom, the preceding ratios shall be repeated” and The number of mainstreamed students in any class by the fourth Friday count shall not exceed the state case load limits for an L.D. teacher“ (p.11). 9. Ovid-Elsie Area Schools, Article VI — Class Sizes — “Special education students will be counted at a 1.25 equivalent regular classroom rate” (p.12). h. Chippewa Valley School District, Article VIII - Association and Teacher Rights and Responsibilities - “T he severely handicapped child shall be considered 2.0 students except for emotionally impaired students which shall have a weighted factor of 1.5, when referring to class size. The severely handicapped child shall be defined as those listed: Trainable Mentally Impaired, Visually Impaired, Hearing Impaired, Severely Multiple Impaired and Emotionally Impaired. For purposes of implementation of this provision at the elementary level, the weighted factor shall apply only if a child is mainstreamed into a teacher’s classroom for two or more hours. It is understood that the weighted factor does not apply for vocational education classes” (p.37). i. Chippewa Hills School District, Article 6 — Special Students - “Mainstreamed students shall be counted on an FTE (full time equated) 7O basis for purposes of determining overload compensation and/or aide time as designated in Article 7-1 a. and 1.0. FTE shall be computed using the following formula: FTE = number of minutes student is in classroom/170 minutes: full-time student = 1. For example: If a special education student is in a classroom 3 hours and 20 minutes the calculation would be 200/170 = 1.23 FTE” (p.11). j. Gull Lake Community Schools, Article 4 — Working Conditions — “The Board recognizes mainstreamed students require special attention from the classroom teacher. In view of this fact, the Board shall count the first and second mainstreamed students as one pupil and each succeeding mainstreamed student as two pupils, when applying class size guidelines. However, this provision shall not be implemented or applied as to prevent enrollment of any special education student in a general education classroom or section to which that student would othenlvise be normally assigned” (p.8). k. Kentwood Public Schools, Article 12 — Instruction — “In determining class size, students with disabilities will be counted as part of the elementary teachers’ class load when their enrollment in that classroom reaches .5 FTE or above” (p.92). l. Baldwin Community Schools, Article 6 — Class Size — “Mainstreamed special education students shall be counted as 1.5 students toward class size maximum” (p.11). 71 7. Criteria Seven - Language on special education students causing concems/ problems in the general education class. The 32 districts that use language about this criteria include, Albion, Baldwin, Big Bay De Noc, Birmingham, Breitung Township, Bridgeport-Spaudling, Brighton, Cadillac, Cheboygan, Chippewa Valley, Clinton, East China, Eaton Rapids, Gaylord, Greenville, Howell, Jonesville, Laingsburg, Manchester, Mt. Morris, Onsted, Owosso, Reed City, Rochester, Rogers City, Tahquamenon, Tekonsha, Utica, Waverly, West Bloomfield, West Ottawa and Westwood Heights. These represent 27 percent of the districts sampled. a. East China School District, Article VI - Special Student Program — “Both parties recognize that children diagnosed as having special physical, mental an/or emotional problems may require specialized classroom experience and that their presences in regular classrooms may interfere with the normal instructional program and place extraordinary and unfair demands upon the teacher" (p.8). b. Roger City Area Schools, Article 7 - Teaching Conditions - “The parties recognize that whether any handicapped student’s participation in regular education programming can be achieved satisfactorily will depend upon the multiplicity of factors. Another sentence refers to “the reasonableness of the demands placed upon regular education classroom personnel (and the non-handicapped students in those regular education classrooms)” (p.15). 72 c. Cheboygan Area Schools, Article 3 - Teachers Protection — General Education Classroom - “The mainstreamed student’s placement shall be determined to the extent permissible by law and through an IEPC in such a way as to minimize any negative impact on the classroom” (p. 17). (1. Big Bay De Noc School District, Article 6 — Special Student Programs — “The parties recognize that children having special physical, mental, and emotional problems may require specialized classroom experience and that their presence in the regular classroom may interfere with the normal instructional program and place extraordinary and unfair demands upon the teachers” (p.9). 9. Bridgeport-Spaudling, Article 12 — Protection of Teachers — “Special Needs Children - The Board recognizes its responsibility to give all reasonable support and assistance to teachers with respect to the maintenance of control and discipline in the classroom” (p.26). f. Tekonsha Community Schools, Article VI — Special Student Programs — “The parties recognize that children having special physical, mental, and emotional problems may require specialized classroom experience and that their presence in regular class rooms may interfere with the normal instructional program and place an extraordinary and unfair demands upon the teacher. Teachers may request transfer of children who have such problems and shall present 73 arguments for such request to the Professional Study Committee, who can make a recommendation to the Board” (p.11). 8. Criteria Eight - Language on equal distribution of special education students in general education classes. The 50 districts which discuss this in contracts include, Adrian, Alpena, Anchor Bay, Benzie County, Big Rapids, Birmingham, Breitung Township, Bridgeport-Spaudling, Bullock Creek, Cheboygan, Chippewa Hills, Clinton, Colon, Constantine, Detroit City, Dryden, Eaton Rapids, Galesburg-Augusta, Gaylord, Grand Haven, Greenville, Howell, Jefferson, Jenison, Jonesville, Kalamazoo, Kentwood, Laingsburg, Lakeville, Lansing, Manchester, Munising, Northwest, Onsted, Orchard View, Reed City, Rochester, Saline, Southgate, Spring Lake, Suttons Bay, Swartz Creek, Tekonsha, Three Rivers, Unionville-Sebewaing, Utica, Waverly, West Bloomfield, West Ottawa, and Westwood Heights. These fifty districts represent 42 percent of the total study group. a. Lakeville Community Schools, Article 9 - Teaching Conditions — “Special education students will be equitably distributed across classes, except for the classes designed specifically for special needs students” (p.1 5). b. Alpena Public Schools, Article VIII — Conditions of Employment - “In assigning a mainstreamed student as defined in Section 2 to a general education classroom when more than one classroom placement is available within the building to facilitate the implementation of the student’s IEP, the Board agrees to consider the severity of the student’s 74 condition, the number of other mainstreamed students assigned to the class and the overall class sizes within the applicable classrooms” (p.18). c. Big Rapids Public Schools, Article VII - Class Size - “The Board agrees to count special education students as part of the regular classroom count. Students who are mainstreamed for 25 percent of a ’ day or less shall be counted by agreement between the Building Administrator and the teacher involved based on the individual situation” (p.11). d. Bullock Creek School District, Article V - Teaching Load and Assignments - “The distribution of mainstreamed students in K-6 classes shall be equitable as possible at each grade level within a building by the fourth Friday count” (p.13). e. Suttons Bay Public Schools, Article 6 - Teaching Conditions — “Recognizing periodic changes in student status and enrollment subsequent to the start of the school year, the administration, to the extent possible, will strive to equalize the placement of handicapped students. This equalization will not apply if the teacher volunteers to take additional handicapped students. In such situation, the administration, when possible, will reduce class size by an equivalent number on a one-to-one basis” (p.10). 75 f. Tekonsha Community Schools, Article VI — Special Student Programs - Special attention will be given to reducing class size where special students are placed in a regular classroom” (p.11). 9. The. School District of the City of Kalamazoo, Article 7 — Working Conditions — “Classrooms containing mainstreamed special education students she" not exceed twenty-eight students, whereas, others may have 29 students. An identified Special education student, excluding speech, which is mainstreamed into an elementary regular education Class for any portion of the day will becounted as a full-time student . enrolled in that class” (p.13). h. Colon Community Schools, Article 6 - Inclusive Education - “The district Shall strive to balance the number of disabled students assigned within a grade level or course section. This effort to balance will be a cooperative effort between the building principal and the affected teachers” (p.20). i. Bridgeport-Spaudling, Article 12 — Protection of Teachers - “The number of mainstreamed students per class shall be reviewed by the administration periodically to determined if the‘ numbers are fairly distributed among the various classrooms. An attempt shall be made to avoid excessive numbers in any particular class” (p.26). j. Detroit City Schools, Article VI - Class Size Limitation - “Mainstreamed Students - The receiving teacher(s) shall be informed by the sending teacher(s), in writing, in advance, of the special needs of 76 mainstreamed students. Maximum 30 and 35 class Size limitations othenlvise applicable shall be unchanged” (p.16). k. Onsted Community School District, Article VI - Teaching Hours and Class Load - “It is the board’s intention that these special education inclusion students will be spread out among sections unless mutually agreed upon” (p.6). I. Jefferson School District, Article 7 - Teaching Conditions - “Students from Speech, and Resource Room in grades Preschool - 5 will be equitably distributed between and among regular classrooms” (p.7). m. Unionville-Sebewaing Area Schools, Article VII - Teaching Loads, Conditions and Assignments — “Every effort shall be made to place mainstreamed students in classes with the lowest Class Sizes in the building where the student’s special education class is located” (p.9). n. Waverly Community Schools, Article VI - Teaching Loads and Working Conditions - “In those classes which involve the integration of EMI, LD, El, POHI, VI and HI, special education students into the regular education classroom, an effort will be made to provide a favorable pupil/teacher ratio. Modification in class size, scheduling and curriculum design may be made to accommodate the Shifting demands that mainstreaming may create” and “T 0 promote the equitable distribution of responsibility for mainstreamed pupils among teachers, when more than one classroom placement may be available to accommodate the pupil’s schedule, a pupil who has been certified 77 through the IEP as EMI, LD, El, POHI, VI or HI will be placed in the appropriate classroom, as defined by the IEP Committee, which is best able to consider the severity of the individual handicap and/or needs of the student, the overall size of the classroom and the number of such students placed in a given classroom” (p.9). I o. Orchard View School District, Article IX - Class Size — “At no time may the number of students in an inclusive classroom exceed the following guidelines: (Except if the Association and the Administration mutually agree that good and sufficient reasons exists that prove it is necessary and is in the best interest of all concerned parties, or if the strict enforcement of the guidelines would directly result in the denial of services to a Special education student). Grade Level Guideline Early Kindergarten 17 pupils per class Kindergarten — Grade 5 30 pupils per class Grades 6 - 12 33 pupils per class The number of special education students may not exceed ten (10) students and may not exceed fifty (50) percent of the inclusive classroom” (p.17). p. Harper Creek Community Schools, Article 4 - Terms and. Conditions of Employment - “In calculating class sizes under this Section, students enrolled in special education programs (El and EMI) who are mainstreamed into the regular education program Shall be counted as one ( 1) student for the actual time of their presence in the regular 78 education classroom. Similarly, students assigned to a resource room (e.g. LD) shall be excluded from the regular Classroom count during the period of that assignment. It is further agreed that assignment of a mainstreamed special education student to a particular classroom or section is subject to the prior administrative review and approval” (p.5). q. Chippewa Hills School District, Article 6 - Special Students — “The administration Shall make reasonable efforts to avoid inequitable disparities in assigning mainstreamed students to regular classrooms. Each student shall be assigned to a regular classroom for attendance purposes” (p.11). 9. Criteria Nine - Language relating to teachers dealing with medical concerns of special education students. This criteria is the second most frequently mentioned. Fifty-three schools had contract language which did so. They include, Alba, Alpena, Anchor Bay, Atlanta, Bay City, Belding, Benzie County, Big Bay De Noc, Birmingham, Breitung Township, Brighton, Cadillac, Chassell Township, Cheboygan, Chippewa Hills, .Clinton, Colon, Concord, Constantine, Dowagiac Union, Eaton Rapids, Fairview Area, Femdale, Flushing, Gaylord, Grand Blanc, Grand Ledge, Greenville, Harper Creek, Howell, Hudson, Jefferson, Jonesville, Kalamazoo, Kent City, Kentwood, Laingsburg, Lansing, Manchester, Mayville, Northwest, Olivet, Ovid-Elsie, Portland, Reed City, Spring Lake, St. Johns, Suttons Bay, Three Rivers, Utica, Waverly, West Ottawa and Westwood Heights. These districts represent 44 percent of the total sample group. 79 Examples of contract language relating to medical concerns include: a. Brighton Area Schools, Article 12 — Teaching Conditions - “With the exception of those duties normally associated with the registered nursing profession, employees will not be required to assist special needs students with bodily functions, administering medication, or with medical needs such as but not limited to catheterization or suctioning” (p.40). b. Grand Ledge Public Schools, Article 6 - Least Restrictive Environment - “No bargaining unit member, except a school nurse, shall be required to provide health services for any student except in an emergency situation” (p.60). c. Three Rivers Community Schools, Letter of Agreement - Transition Guidelines: Handicapped Students “When requested by the regular classroom teacher in whose class (es) an eligible student is placed, no teacher shall be required to administer prescription drugs or to undertake certain procedures such as suctioning, catheterization or the like” (p.50). d. Howell Public Schools, Article VIII - Teaching Conditions — “No bargaining unit member Shall be required to provide custodial care or school health services (defined as an act or function constituting the “Practice of Medicine” within the meaning of the Public Health Code (MCL 333.17001), except in an emergency situation. If a teacher will be providing instructional or other services to a student listed in 80 subsection E-1, the teacher or another adult who will be present when the instruction or other services are being provided will be advised to the steps to be taken in the event an emergency arises related to the student’s medical condition” (p.21 ). e. Ovid-Elsie Area Schools, Article VII - Working Conditions - “When a teacher is assigned a student from a special education program for severely impaired students (e.g., POHI, SXI, SMI, TMI), the teacher shall not be expected to perform routine, scheduled maintenance of a medical appliance or apparatus used by the student to sustain his/her bodily functions nor render routine, scheduled care or maintenance of exceptional bodily functions related to the student’s impaired condition. The teacher shall be informed and instructed as to emergency measures which may be necessary on occasion due to the student’s impaired condition” (p.13). f. Jefferson School District, Article 7 — Teaching Conditions — “Children with special needs such as suctioning, catheterization, diapering, or other personal hygiene or medical needs shall be addressed through the IEP and shall not be the responsibility of the classroom teacher except in life threatening or extenuating Circumstances” (p.9). 9. Bay City Public Schools, Article 16 - Protection of Teachers - “The Board recognizes that it is not feasible for regular teachers to accept the responsibility for instructing pupils who need special attention or treatment; the principal will refer the case to the Director of Special 81 Education for action as outlined in the Administrative Procedures” (p.20). h. Colon Community Schools, Article 6 - Inclusive Education — “The teacher is an instructional professional and will not be designated as the primary care provider. However, a teacher will perform necessary medical care in emergencies in which the teacher has been provided training by the district” (p.21). i. St. Johns Public Schools, Article VIII - Teaching Hours, Class Loads and Duties - “When a general education teacher is assigned a student from a special program for severely impaired students (POHI, SXI, SMI, TMI), the teacher shall not be expected to perform routine, scheduled maintenance of a medical appliance or apparatus used by the student to sustain his/her bodily functions nor render routine, scheduled care or maintenance of exceptional bodily functions related to the student’s impaired condition. The teacher shall be informed and instructed as to the emergency measures, which may be necessary on occasion due to the student’s impaired condition. Otherwise, it shall be the responsibility of the teacher to implement the Student’s individualized educational plan for attending to the educational needs of the student which in the teacher’s class” (p.18). j. Grand Blanc Community Schools, Article VII - Teaching Conditions - Medically Fragile — “When a teacher is assigned a medically fragile student, the teacher shall not be required, except in an emergency, to 82 perform routine scheduled maintenance of a medical appliance or apparatus used by the student to sustain his/her bodily functions, nor, except in an emergency, to render scheduled care or maintenance to help with any bodily functions which would not ordinarily be administered to a non-medically fragile student. In a situation where it is required that a student be lifted or transported, the teacher may request assistance, such assistance shall not be unreasonably denied” (p.16). k. Spring Lake Public Schools, Article XIII - Conditions of Service - “Medical Procedures - Teachers will not be required to perform clean intermittent catheterization, suctioning (nasal, oral or deep), tracheotomy care (clean, suction, etc.), tube feeding, dispensing or administering medication, oxygen regulation or care, handling bodily fluids, injections, toileting or Similar procedures” (p.28). 10. Criteria Ten - Other - This section gave the readers an opportunity to record information from contracts relating to special education inclusion that may not be listed in the nine other criteria. There were 28 contracts which contained such language. These represent 23 percent of the total study. They include, Belding Area, Brimley, Chippewa Hills, Concord, Constantine, Delton-Kellogg, Dowagiac, East China, Eaton Rapids, Fitzgerald, Flushing, Harper Creek, Howell, Jonesville, Lansing, Midland, Morley Stanwood, Mt. Morris, Orchard View, Reed City, Rochester, Shelby, Southgate, Swartz Creek, Three Rivers, Utica, West Ottawa and Westwood Heights. Specific 83 examples of contract language included under this criteria item are listed below. Not all examples will be listed, as there are 28 contracts with 34 examples of such. a. East China School District, Article XXVI - Student Discipline and Teacher Protections — “The Board further recognizes that the teacher may not fairly be expected to assume the role of warden or custodian for emotionally disturbed students nor to be charged with the responsibility of psychotherapy” (p.28). b. Midland Public Schools, Article XXI - Class Size - “Mainstreamed students who create an overload for one hour at the elementary level and who are present/counted on the designated count day (fall and spring) may qualify the teacher for a $360 stipend in lieu of paraprofessional assistance” (p.42). c. Swartz Creek Community Schools, Article VII - Teaching Duties - “The teacher shall refer students with special problems to appropriate special personnel through established channels” (p.15). d. Swartz Creek Community Schools, Article XI - Miscellaneous — “L.R.E. activities will be addressed during monthly problem solving meetings between the Board and SCEA representatives. No implementation of activities related to L.R.E. will occur without prior negotiations if such activities change the working conditions of bargaining unit members” (p.32). 84 e. Concord School District, Article 5 - Working Conditions — “Teachers Shall have the right to refuse the assistance of an instructional aide, unless an aide is mandated by the student’s IEP or by some other statute or regulation” (p.8). f. Concord School District, Article 5 -— Working Conditions — “In the event that the Concord School District is to provide services to medically fragile/special education students in a Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), the parties agree to bargain on any issue not addressed in statutory requirements” (p.11). 9. Southgate Community School District, Article VII - Handicapped and Special Need Students -' “Individual student programs and materials initiated at any level to meet the needs of handicapped or Special needs students shall be passed on to the following levels in order to provide continuity of program. This will continue as long as personnel involved recommend continuance” (p.14). h. Southgate Community School District, Article VII - Handicapped Special Need Students — “Unless every effort has been made otherwise handicapped students identified by the end of the previous school year Shall not be scheduled for placement in the classroom of newly employed, inexperienced teachers unless the teacher agrees or the teacher has had training in meeting the needs of such students” (p.13). i. Southgate Community School District, Article VII - Handicapped and Special Need Students -”Both parties agree that teachers and 85 administrators will actively seek assistance for handicapped or special needs students. The seeking of such professional assistance Shall not reflect upon the teaching ability of said teacher” (p.15). j. Fitzgerald Public Schools, Article 7 —Teaching Conditions — “After the individual education plan has been completed, the receiving General Education teacher shall receive a copy of the mainstream information form before a Special Education student enters the classroom” (p.10). k. Belding Area Schools, Article 7 - Working Conditions — “ If any member has a reasonable basis to believe that a special education student’s current IEPC is not meeting the student’s unique needs as required by law, the teacher will advise the principal in writing” (p.23). l. Utica Community School District, Article III — Working Conditions — “General education teachers will have access to information regarding the nature of a special education student's handicap within the guidelines of the Special Education Rules” and “Classroom teachers will be notified of known impairments of students assigned to their classroom schedule, when legally permissible” (p.9). m. Utica Community School District, Article III — Working Conditions — “If it is known that an IEPC meeting will include legal counsel or expert resource person on behalf of the student, the teacher will be notified and Shall have the right to request a postponement” (p.9). n. Howell Public School District, Article VIII - Teaching Conditions - “If a teacher disagrees with the. District-detennined training and support, 86 the teacher may appeal to a committee composed of two (2) teachers selected by the Association and two (2) administrators selected by the superintendent. The committee shall invite a fifth (5“) person to participate with the committee. The fifth person invited would be the superintendent or the Livingston Educational Service Agency (LESA) or that persons’ designee. The committee, by majority vote, shall V determine the appropriate training and/or support services” (p.21). 0. Howell Public School District, Article VIII — Teaching Conditions - ”Although it is agreed that the handicapped students’ participation and right to participation in regular education programs and services cannot be affected by the Agreement, the District does agree to consider how the handicapped student’s placement will affectteachers when determining the handicapped students’ placement” (p.22). p. Brimley Area Schools, Article XXII - Least Restrictive Environment — “At the beginning of each school year, the regular education teachers will be notifies of those students who are mainstreamed into their Classroom(s). Meeting, as requested, will convene for discussion of an individual student’s placement, needs, and abilities and to provide for the teacher to have input” (p.37). q. Delton-Kellogg Schools, Article 2 - Teachers’ Rights — “Whenever prospective planning activities relating to the implementation of the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) concept throughout the ISD occur, the Board shall ensure that the Association shall be a full participant in 87 any planning process involving the District as well as in the formulation and presentation of the Board’s position as a part of any such planning activities involving the ISD. Such participation shall neither expressly nor by implication be deemed to be a waiver of the Association’s right to bargain any working conditions in accordance with its responsibilities pursuant to the Public Employment Relations Act, as amended” (p.10). r. Chippewa Hills School District, Article 6 - Special Students — “Where possible, newly employed or inexperienced teachers will not be assigned students in need of remediation” (p.11).. , s. Rochester Community Schools, Article 36 - Special Education — “The child will be placed in the general education classroom upon the teachers’ full knowledge and understanding of the Child’s handicap” and “The District will provide an opportunity for teachers to volunteer to have certified special education students placed in their classroom. If there is not a sufficient number of volunteers to meet the need for general education placement of certified special education students, the District may place the student in an available clasS” (p.67). t. Rochester Community Schools, Article 36 -‘ Special Education — “The District commits itself to a problem solving approach in dealing with certified special education students in general education Classrooms. Special education staff, general education teachers, and appropriate administrators will meet to resolve the issues of planning, 88 materials and other topics of concern, including weighted counting if any” (p.68). u. Money-Stanwood Community Schools, Article XXVII - Miscellaneous - “Inclusive Education Planning Time: A planning time schedule for Inclusive Education (co-teaching) will be made by the building principals with the assistance of the teachers involved in the planning. The building principal will make every effort to schedule these planning times on a regular basis each month. If this time is canceled for any reason the building principal will reschedule as soon as possible” (p.22). v. Shelby School District, Article VIII — Teaching Conditions - “The Board shall ensure that the Association shall be a full participant in any planning the district is involved in regarding least restrictive environment” and “The board shall not reduce, eliminate, transfer, or otherwise recognize any special education program or service so as to diminish the number of actively employed bargaining unit members without first providing written notice to the Association regarding the resolution of any adverse effects upon the employment status or working conditions of all members of the bargaining unit” (p.9). w. Three Rivers Community Schools, Letter of Agreement - Transition Guidelines: Handicapped Students — “All members of an IEP committee Shall have the right to reconvene the Committee for the purposes of reviewing and recommending revisions of the current Individualized 89 Education Program if deemed appropriate, in accordance with procedures set forth in Michigan Special Education Rules” (p.50). x. Dowagiac Union School District, Article 9 - Employment Requirements -— Special Education - “Teachers will be held harmless for information given provided that the information is, to the'best of their knowledge accurate” (p.17). y. Orchard View School District, Article IX — Class Size - “An elementary inclusive classroom (K-5) shall be defined as a classroom in which both a regular education teacher and a special education teacher are assigned full time to that classroom” and “A secondary (6-12) inclusive Class period Shall be defined as a Single class period to which both a regular education teacher and a special education teacher are assigned for the full time” (p.17). 2. Orchard View School District, Article Xl — Teaching Conditions — “Team teaching in an Inclusive Education Classroom (Special Education/Regular Education combination) shall be voluntary. Teachers opting into this program may upon Sixty (60) calendar days notice prior to the end of the school year request and be granted a return to a non-inclusive classroom teaching assignment which is the same as the one held prior or as near to the same as practical to do so” (p.25). aa. Harper Creek Public Schools, Article 4 — Terms and Conditions of Employment — “It is further agreed that assignment of a mainstreamed 90 I m I I special education student to a particular classroom or section iS subject to prior administrative review and approval” (p.5). 11. Criteria - None. The following 23 districts had contracts with no language relating to special education inclusion. They represent 19 percent of the total group and include, AuGres-Sims, Bad Axe, Buchanan, Deckerville, East Detroit, Glen Lake, Hartford, Huron, lmlay City, Lawton, Littlefield, Mackinac Island, Marion, Mason County, Montabella, New Buffalo, Northport, Nottawa, Pickford, Ubly, Watersmeet, Westwood Community and Wyandotte. A BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL CONTRACT CITATIONS Another way to review the data on contract language is to determine how many total citations each district has using the special education criteria in Appendix K. The table below indicates total number of districts and the total of criterion listed. The criterion is counted each time it is cited in the contract for each district. Table 6 — The Total Number of Times District’s Have Language about Special Education Criteria in their Contract Number01234567891011Total of Criteria Cited Number 23 13 19 11 16 16 6 5 5 2 3 1 120 of Districts The 23 districts with no mention of special education inclusion in their contracts are already listed above. The 13 districts with only one criteria mentioned in their contracts are, Akron-Fairgrove, Alma, Baldwin, Bay City, 91 Bellevue, Camden-Frontier, Delton-Kellogg, Detroit City, Fruitport, Galesburg- Augusta, Grand Haven, Gull Lake, and Unionville-Sebewaing. The 19 districts which mention two criteria are, Adrian, Albion, Carrollton, Chassell Township, Concord, Fairview Area, Femdale, Fitzgerald, Grand Blanc, Grand Ledge, Hemlock, Hudson, Jenison, Mayville, Morley-Stanwood, Mt. Morris, Rogers City, Spring Lake, and St. Johns. The 11 districts whose contracts have three of the criteria include, Chippewa Valley, East China, Flushing, Kent City, Midland, Niles, Olivet, Ovid-Elsie, Saline, Shelby, and Swartz Creek. There were 16 schools with four or more items in their I contracts which are listed in the chart includes, Alba, Alpena, Anchor Bay, Belding, Big Bay De Noc, Big Rapids, Brimley, Clinton, Colon, Jefferson, Lakeville, Northwest, Onsted, Portland, Southgate and Three Rivers. The 16 school districts whose contracts mention five items include, Atlanta, Beal City, Brighton, Bridgeport-Spaudling, Cadillac, Chippewa Hills, Constantine, Dowagiac Union, Dryden, Laingsburg, Orchard View, Owosso, Suttons Bay, Tekonsha, Waverly and West Bloomfield. Six districts mention Six items from the chart. These include, Benzie Co. Central, Bullock Creek, Greenville, Harper Creek, Tahquamenon, and Westwood Heights. Five districts had seven references to special education inclusion in their contract include, Breitung Township, Gaylord, Kalamazoo, Munising, and West Ottawa. There are five districts with eight criteria are, Birmingham, Cheboygan, Eaton Rapids, Kentwood and Manchester. Only two districts had nine citations, Jonesville and Utica. Three distriCts had ten items noted in their contracts, 92 Rochester, Reed City and Howell. Lansing School District was the district with the most Citations of eleven. Appendices E and F provide a breakdown of the Citations listed for each district. Table 7 provides the total number of times each item is cited in all 120 contracts (Appendix C) and the number of contracts that have each criterion Cited. For example, criteria 1 is “language dealing with the conditions placed I on student related special education meetings a teacher must attend”, is cited a total of 43 times in contracts but is listed in only 36 contracts. Some of these - 36 contracts have language relating to conditions placed on teachers attending special education meetings in more than one section of their contract. Twenty-three contracts have no mention of any of the 10 items listed on the Special Education Criteria Checklist. Table 7 — Totals for Special Education Criterion Criterion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 None Totals TotalNo. 43 9 17 31 7O 27 36 68 63 34 23 421 cited Total No.for 36 7 17 27 56 23 32 50 53 28 23 352 all districts ' “With each criteria only counted once in a district Research Question Two Which of that language has the potential to be restrictive, that is, to negatively affect the inclusion of special education students in general education ? 93 RESTRICTION SCORE AS described in the methodology chapter of this study, five experienced special education administrators rated the contract language relating to the special education criteria on a five-point nIbric, 3 to -1. This score reflected whether each item listed on the Chart for Weighting Special Education Criteria (Appendix K) had potential for restricting a special education student’s inclusion in general education. For purposes of interpretation, the restriction score is a relative indication of a district’s dedication of resources to support special education through inclusion in the general education classroom. The results from the administrators’ coding were averaged and each item I on this rubric was given a restriction score. This score reflected whether the language appeared to negatively affect the inclusion of special education students in general education classrooms. The scorers were also given an opportunity to indicate whether specific criteria may have a positive affect on inclusion. To assist in determining the restriction score each district was given a prorated score if there was more than one mention of a specific special education criteria listed in their contract. Table 8 provides an example for how the prorating was completed for Bullock Creek Schools. Bullock Creek Schools has three Citations in their contract relating to criteria 5, which provided them with a score of 1.3. For criteria 8, Bullock Creek Schools has two sections with relating to this criterion, which provides them with a score of 1.2. This calculation was completed for each district, and is illustrated in Appendix F. The weighted score for each district is the average score each 94 criteria was given from the five administration scores and the “weight” the criteria Should be given for the potential of negatively affecting the inclusion of special education students. The determination of the restriction score is illustrated in Table 8, for Bullock Creek Schools. This table provides an example of how the restriction score was calculated for each district. Table 8 - Restriction Score of Example Special 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Education Criteria# Tally’sof O 0 0 O //l / 0 // 0 0 contract Citations Prorated 0 0 0 0 1.3 1 0 1.2 0 0 Totals Weighted 1.8 -.2 2 1.6 1.8 2.8 2.8 .04 2 -.2 Scores Bullock Creek 0 0 0 0 2.34 2.8 0 .48 0 0 5.64 Totals This difference, or restriction score, was used in subsequent analyses. Once the difference percentage was calculated and the average determined, each district score was sorted into two groups; any district with a score 4.457 percent or below was place in Group One, as the low restriction group, and any district with a score above 4.457 percent was Group Two and known as the high restriction group (Appendix N). The determination of high and low restriction was a median score for the restriction scores for all 120 districts. Bullock Creek would be considered in Group Two for the restriction score, as it is over 4.457 percent. 95 SELECT SPECIAL EDUCATION CRITERION Certain contract language appears to be more consequential for the district’s restriction score than other language. 1 Criteria 1, 2, and 5 are mentioned in many contracts and appear to be of importance in contract negotiations. Three criterion where selected as they had a higher correlation, either positive or negative, than the other seven criterion, as illustrated in Table 9. These criterions are: 1. Criteria One - Conditions placed on student related Special education meetings a teacher attends. 2. Criteria Two - Money paid for attending student related special education meetings. 3. Criteria Five - Provisions to maintain support, training and equipment for a Special education student to attend general education. At initial review it would appear this criterion is of the most importance as it has the largest number of districts 56 have this language. This criterion was represented in 47 percent of all sampled districts. Table 9 - The Correlation of Select Special Education Criterion Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Correlation .13 -.12 -.01 .03 .20 -.06 .06 .10 .08 .11 After determining which criterion appears to be more restrictive to the inclusion of Special education students, as listed above, this researcher carefully reviewed the remaining criterion for the correlation to inclusion. 96 Research Question Three To what extent does the amount and kind of language in teacher collective bargaining agreements in Michigan Public Education K-12 districts correlate with the number of special education students in general education? To answer this question of whether some contract language may have the potential for negatively affecting the inclusion of special education students, additional data was calculated for each district and two different forms of data are needed. First, it is necessary to review the perCentage of inclusion each district has for their special education students and determine an inclusion score for each district. Second, it iS necessary to review the contract language found in each district contract and the data used to develop the restriction score. INCLUSION SCORE In this part of this study an average was calculated for each disability area sampled for this study to determine an average amount of time of inclusion (Appendix G). After the average was calculated for each district, by disability area, an actual inclusion percentage, an expected inclusion percentage and the difference between the two were calculated for each disability area (Appendix H). The following table is a comparison of two school districts, Wyandotte Schools and East Detroit Schools using their actual percentage of inclusion, the expected percentage of inclusion and the difference between the two percentages. 97 Table 10 — Inclusion Percentages of Two Districts Wyandotte Schools Total SMI TMI EMI El HI VI POHI LD SXI AI ACTUAL % of Time Inclusion 30.1% 0.0% 4.1% 34.6% 49.2% 64.2% 60.0% 55.8% 63.2% 0.4% 16.2% I#Sp.Ed. Students 660 35 140 127 25 8 2 21 183 102 17 EXPECTED % of Time 37.9% 20.3% 22.5% 43.6% 49.9% 53.6% 61.9% 60.0% 58.2% 20.7% 44.0% Inclusion Difference -7 8‘7 (This Difference between the Actual and Expected score is the ' ° INCLUSION SCORE) East Detroit Schools Total SMI TMI EMI El HI VI POHI LD SXI AI J ACTUAL %.°f 45.1% 0.0% 12.6% 17.0% 51.9% 0.0% 27.5% 47.4% 50.3% 0.0% 30.0% TIme lnclusron I# Sp. Ed. ’ Students 646 0 16 81 108 0 4 21 413 1 2 EXPECTED % of Time 52.6% 20.3% 22.5% 43.6% 49.9% 53.6% 61.9% 60.0% 58.2% 20.7% 44.0% Inclusion Diflerence -7.6% gggRtérgference between the Actual and Expected scorers the INCLUSION The inclusion score is the difference between the actual time of inclusion percentage and the expected time of inclusion percentage. The determination of special education students” inclusion time for each district was more complicated than originally perceived. The data in the upper left comer, the total and the actual percentage of time inclusion, for the two districts listed in Table 10, is not sufficient for a useful analysis. The dependent variable, the key measure, is the inclusion score. This was calculated by subtracting the actual percentage from the expected percentage. This difference or inclusion score was a much better indication of the quality of inclusion for a district, than 98 just the actual percentage as evidenced by the comparison of Wyandotte and East Detroit. Wyandotte had a total of 30.1 percent of time inclusion for all their special education students and East Detroit had 45.1 percent. With comparable special education numbers, 660 students verses 646 students, East Detroit appeared much better. However, closer examination of the number and type of special education students in each district raised some questions. For example, while each district had severely mentally impaired (SMI) students included 0 percent of the time, Wyandotte had 35 severely mentally impaired (SMI) students; East Detroit had no SMI students. Similar differences were found In trainable mentally impaired (TMI), 140 versus 16 students, and severely multiply impaired (SXI), with 102 students versus 1 student. Conversely, Wyandotte only had 183 Ieaming disabled (LD) students and East Detroit had 413 L0 students. Clearly, with many more SXI, SMI and TMI students and many less LD students Wyandotte would not be expected to have their students included as much of the time in regular classes. To compensate for the problem of districts having students with different forms of disabilities the expected percent of time for inclusion was created for each district, based on the numbers and percentages of various disabilities in a district. In Table 10, on the previous page, the expected percentage is reported in the 3rd row and 15‘ column of each example. The difference of the two scores, the actual percentage is the expected percentage of inclusion, is listed in the last row of the 1“t column. The difference is the inclusion score 99 used for this study. Wyandotte at - 7.8 percent and East Detroit at - 7.6 percent have very similar inclusion scores. Creating this expected score was straightforward. The expected score is based on the average amount of time of inclusion of each disability within the entire sample of 120 schools. This researcher decided to compare the districts inclusion percentages only to the districts in the sample, as opposed to the state or national inclusion rates. The expected percentage of time of inclusion for SMI was 20.3 percent for all schools because for the whole sample, SMI students averaged 20.3 percent of their time included in regular classrooms. The remaining columns all report the percentage of the time each disability area averaged in regular classrooms, this formed the expected percentage of the time of inclusion. A weighted average was determined for each district by multiplying the number of students in each disability category by the percentage of inclusion time, which provided the expected percentage, and adding the products, then dividing by the total number of students in the district, which became the expected score, Appendix H. COMPARING THE INCLUSION SCORE TO THE RESTRICTION SCORE The study tests the hypothesis that restrictive contract language (restriction score) reduces the percentage of special education students who are included in general education Classes. Thus, the researcher predicted that there would be a Significant negative relationship between a district’s inclusion score and its restriction score. A Pearson correlation tested this relationship. The 100 results, indicated in Table 11, Show that there is no relationship in the overall variables (R=.120). Table 11 - Pearson Correlation of Inclusion and Restriction Scores Inclusion Score Restriction Score .120 Sig. .194 This finding was surprisingly contrary to the hypothesis and prompted further examination of this relationship. NO RESTRICTION SCORE VS RESTRICTION SCORE The reasons language on special education issues may be included in contracts and factors affecting inclusion vary from district to district. Contract language is often negotiated after there has been a problem or because the union anticipates a problem. Most of the language dealing with special education inclusion in the 120 contracts has been drafted to deal with specific issues. It often does not appear to be original. An example of prototype language is the recurrences of similar language dealing with medical concerns. This language could indicate that several districts had difficulty with this issue of inclusion or that the state or national representative provided template language for the districts. The reasons for inclusion can vary from parent interest and demand to district interests and ideals. 101 Since there were 23 districts with a 0 on the restriction score and 97 districts with a positive value on the restriction score, ranging from 1-14, there was some concern that the correlation did not adequately evaluate the relationship. A One-Way ANOVA was completed to determine if there was a Significant difference in the inclusion score between the 23 districts that had a 0 for the restriction score (that is, .no restrictive language) and the 97 districts that had restrictive language (rated from 1-14). The results indicated there was no significant effect related to the number of times the restriction language is listed in contracts. Table 12 provides the results of this One-Way AN OVA: Table 12 — Results for No Restriction Score to All Other Restriction Scores Districts with Districts with all other Total No Restriction Restriction Scores (1- Score 14 range) Total 23 Districts 97 Districts 120 Mean 9.33 10.32 10.13 Mean of Both Groups T score P Value -.991 -.43 .33 These results, like the correlation, indicate that there is no overall relationship between a districts’ restriction score and its inclusion rate. However, the findings prompted the researcher to think about other factors that might impact the relationship between restrictive contract language and 102 the percentage of special education students included in general education classes. This leads to the final research question. Research Question Four Does the size of a district relate to the amount of inclusion provided to special education students? It seems probable that schools with greater resources might be better able to accommodate Special education students in general education classes. These resources might be more likely to exist in larger. school districts. To investigate the relationship of student population to the restriction score and to the inclusion rate, two One-Way ANOVAS were conducted using the original student population groups used in the sample selection. These results are listed in Table 13. Table 13 — Comparison of Inclusion Rate and Restriction Score by Student Population Student Population Restriction Score Inclusion Rate 1 — 999 3.01 . .17*** 1,000 - 1,999 3.60 .12 2,000 - 4,999 5.12 .07 5,000 - over 5.76 * .08 * p < .05 *** p < .001 As indicated in the table, the restriction score varies significantly across population groups, with the highest mean score (5.76) for districts with more 103 than 5,000 students. Not much less is the mean for districts with between 2,000 and 4,999 students. Remarkably less are restriction scores for districts with 1,000 to 1,999 students and less than 1000 students with scores of 3.6 and 3.01 in turn. Clearly, the boundary at 2,000 students appears consequential in terms of a district’s restriction score. Districts with fewer than 2,000 students have a significantly lower restriction score than districts with 2,000 or more students. (This finding was verified by Post hoc LSD analysis.) A similar boundary at 2,000 students is evident in the analysis of variance for the inclusion score across student population groups. Inclusion rates are significantly higher for smaller schools (.17 and .12 vs .07 and .08). (The finding, again, was verified by Post hoc LSD analysis.) These results indicate that district population might be an important mediating variable in the relationship between a district’s restriction score and its inclusion score. To further explore the possible relationship between inclusion, restrictive contract language and the district student population, the analysis included a Two-Way ANOVA. To facilitate this investigation, a determination was made that low restriction is 4.457 or less. This represents the mean of the restriction scores for all 120 districts. A high restriction score iS above 4.457. A low student population in this sample is 1,999 or less; high student population is above 2,000, as a result of the eariier analysis. Based on the restriction score and student population, schools were recoded into four groups: Group A is the low restriction - low population districts; Group B is the low restriction - high population districts; Group C is the high restriction — low 104 population; and Group D the high restriction - high population districts as Shown in Table 14. A listing of the schools in each group is included in Appendix N. Table 14 — Two-Way ANOVA Group Examples Low Student High Two-Way Population Student Rows ANOVA Group (1 ) Population Group (2) Low Restriction A B Group (1) High Restriction C D Group (2) Columns The Two-Way ANOVA explored the relationship between rate of inclusion, the restriction language from contracts and student population; results are illustrated on Table 15. Table 15 —The Results of the Two-Way ANOVA rTwo-Way Low Student High Student ANOVA Population Population Rows Group (1) Group (2) Low Restriction 13.17 4.65 9.34 Group (1) High Restriction 16.03 8.73 11.20 * Group (2) T Columns 14.25 7.06 10.26 * p. < .05 ***p. < .001 Each cell represents the average inclusion rate for schools in the four categories described above. Average inclusion rates in small schools, less than 2,000 students, are much greater than in large schools, 2,000 students 105 and above (14.25). Surprisingly, schools with high restriction scores have higher average rates of inclusion than schools with low restriction scores (11.20). Schools in the high restriction - low student population group had the highest average rate of inclusion, 16.03 percent. The results shown in the table suggest several important findings: 1. Student population is significantly related to school inclusion rates and to restrictive contract language. 2. High levels of contract language related to inclusion do not negatively impact inclusion rates, even when controlling for student population. 3. Small school populations favor higher inclusion rates, even when controlling for restrictive contract language. These findings are exactly the opposite of this researcher’s original hypothesis, that the more language contracts have dealing with inclusion of special education students in general education and the more restrictive that language is, the lower the percentage of students with disabilities who are included in general education classrooms. This suggests that contract language related to inclusion, even when it appears restrictive, could actually be facilitative of inclusion, particularly in small schools with less than 2,000 students. The reason inclusion rates are higher in smaller districts could include the presence of advocacy groups being available, parents being better informed, or that smaller districts have fewer programs and services and must provide more inclusion opportunities, such a co-taught classes, or that these districts 106 are more receptive to student with Special needs. Any or all of these reasons could account for the increased amount of inclusion in smaller districts. Whatever the reason(s), it is refreshing to know that smaller districts do provide for more inclusion opportunities for Special education students. 107 CHAPTER V SUMMARY SYNOPSIS The research hypothesis that guides this study states that the more language contracts have dealing with inclusion or restriction of special education in general education, the lower the percentage of students with disabilities who are included in general education Classrooms. The review of literature concentrates on three areas: 1. Collective bargaining in Public Schools, 2. Collective bargaining in Michigan Schools, and 3. The Basics of Collective Bargaining. The review of literature on inclusion of special education students provides: 1. An Overview of Inclusion, 2. A Historical Review of Inclusion, 3. A Discussion of IDEA 97 Principles, and 4. General Education Concerns of Inclusion. There is no intent to produce a comprehensive or exhaustive review of the literature. The review provides a foundation for discussion of collective bargaining and inclusion. The literature review offers no current research on contract langUage and its impact on inclusion of special education students in general education. The last two studies completed in this area are over 20 years old. This study 108 discusses the types of contract language, which have been written in contracts dealing with inclusion. The study is framed with the social constructivist theory. Viewing a disability as socially constmcted forces an analysis of the social structures that encourages students with disabilities to the margins of institutions and create handicaps out of characteristics. Through teacher contracts, for example, teachers construct teaching conditions in the educational environment. This r‘esearcher‘s concern was whether teachers were socially constructing special education students’ reality in schools by placing conditions on their inclusion in general education through contract language. The questions listed below guide the research. These questions require both qualitative and quantitative data and analysis. 1. What language do K-12 public school district teacher contracts contain relating to the inclusion of special education students in general education? 2. Which of that language has the potential to be restrictive, that is, to negatively affect the inclusion of special education students in general education? 3. To what extent does the amount and kind of language in teacher collective bargaining agreements in Michigan K-12 districts correlate with the number of special education students in general education? 4. Does the size of a district relate to the amount of inclusion provided to special education students? 109 After analyzing the data the researcher concludes that the hypothesis is substantially incorrect. More teacher contract language on inclusion in a district does not necessarily mean less inclusion of special education students. CONCLUSIONS In the. current study teacher collective bargaining agreements were reviewed, coded, and categorized for any and all language dealing with special education students as a separate entity. This part of the study was descriptive in nature. Districts were divided by size of student population. This was the best way to select the 20 pilot study districts and 100 additional districts for the entire study. Four population categories were needed to gain a representation of the various district sizes across the state. These four groups were, 1) districts with 1-999 students, 2) districts with 1,000 to 1,999 students, 3) districts with 2,000 to 4,999 and, 4) districts with over 5,000 students. The first group, with student population of 1-999, represents approximately 23 percent of the 555 school districts. The second group, with student population of 1,000-1,999, is approximately 24 percent. The third group, 2,000-4,999, is approximately 34 percent of the total; and the last group, over 5,000 students is approximately 19 percent of the total. Prior to undertaking the review of 120 district contracts a pilot study was completed. The pilot study, involving the review of 20 contracts, helped to determine the type of language that relates to the inclusion of special 110 education students. The Chart of Special Education Criteria developed from the pilot study. The scoring guidelines for the pilot study and the complete study are in Appendix B. The language in each contract relating to the inclusion of special education students in general education was reviewed, coded, and categorized by the same two independent readers. This researcher was the first reader and the second reader was a university student trained by this researcher. When all 120 contracts were coded with this rubric of criteria, the Pearson ' Product-Moment Correlation test was used to compare the correlation of the contract scoring of the two readers (Appendix D). After the scorers initially rated each contract and then met to review any discrepancies in the coding. When discrepancies occurred, both readers reviewed and discussed the information. and decided how to code the specific contract language in question. Next, each contract was coded on the rubric that had been developed and all results were entered into a database. As indicated earlier, some of the language in contracts could be considered template language provided by the union to the district. Template language exists because the issue has caused problems in various districts throughout the state. Other language developed is specific to the district and the struggles it has faced in dealing with inclusion, or that it anticipates facing in the fiJture. It is noteworthy that 23 districts contained no contract language specific to the inclusion of special education students in general education. A One-Way ANOVA was completed to determine the significance level between 111 the 23 districts with no restriction score and the 97 districts with a restriction score ranging from 1-14. The results illustrate that there is no Significance between districts with or without restrictive language. The remaining 97 contracts contain one or more items listed on the special education criteria. Criterion five is identified in the largest number of districts. This item related to language on providing and maintaining support, training, and equipment for Special education students. It is listed in 56 district contracts. Criterion nine, listed in 53 contracts, is language on teachers handling medical concerns of special education students; much of this language appears to be template language from the union, as it is all similar. Criterion eight, listed in 50 contracts, deals with equal distribution of special education students in general education classes. Districts appeared to develop their own language for this issue. The breakdown of the remaining criterion are as follows, Criterion one, language about placing conditions on student related special education meetings, is listed in 36 contracts. Criterion two, language dealing with money being paid for special education meetings, is listed in only seven districts. Criterion three, relates to discipline issues, is cited in 17 contracts. Criterion four, provisions on training, support and equipment provided prior to the inclusion of special education students, is cited in 27 contracts. Criterion six, dealing with special education students counting more on a general education class list, was in 23 contracts. Criterion seven, language on the special 112 education students causing problems/concems in the general education classroom, is present in 32 contracts. Criterion ten relates to other language dealing with inclusion, that is not included in the previous nine criterions. Examples of this language are as follows, “teachers not being required to assume the role of a warden or custodian of an emotionally impaired student” (East China School District, p.28). “Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) activities will be addressed during monthly problem solving meetings between the Board and SCEA representatives. No implementation of activities related to L.R.E. will occur without prior negotiations if such activities change the working conditions of bargaining unit members” (Swartz Creek Community Schools, p.32). Another example of this language is, “Teachers shall have the right to refuse the assistance of an instructional aide, unless an aide is mandated by the student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or by some other statute or regulation” (Concord School District, p.8). In Southgate Community School District, “both parties agree that teachers and administrators will actively seek assistance for handicapped or special needs students. The seeking of such professional assistance shall not reflect upon the teaching ability of said teacher" (p.5). In Utica Community School District “general education teachers will have access to information regarding the nature of a special education student's handicap within the guidelines of the Special Education Rules, and Classroom teachers will be notified of known impairments of students assigned to their classroom schedule, when legally permissible” 113 (p.9). These quotations are just a few examples of the language in contracts dealing with inclusion under criterion ten. This section of the study provides a lengthy description of contract language on inclusion issues as described in Chapter IV. It also provides the statistical foundation for analysis of restriction scores. In the second section, the statistical analysis of the study, it was necessary to calculate a restrictive language score and an inclusion score for each district. To calculate a restriction score, five experienced special education administrators rated language relating to the special education criteria on a five-point scale, 3 to —1. Contract language given a score of three indicates that this language would have the potential of negatively affecting the inclusion of special education students in general education. A score of two indicates that the language could negatively impact the inclusion of Special education students. The score of one shows minimum impact on inclusion. A score of zero has no impact. A negative one Shows possible positive impact on inclusion. This score reflected whether each item listed on the Chart for Weighting Special Education Criteria (Appendix K) had potential for restricting a special education student’s inclusion in general education. For purposes of interpretation, the restriction score is a relative indication of a district’s dedication of resources to support Special education through inclusion in the general education classroom. 114 There were many steps to determine the inclusion score for each disability category in each district. The inclusion data for each district was entered into the database in three ranges: 1) students included 80-100 percent, 2) students included 40-80 percent, and 3) students included 1-40 percent of their day in general education. Ten separate disability categories are listed including severely mentally impaired, trainable mentally impaired, educable mentally impaired, emotionally impaired, hearing impaired, visually impaired, physically or otherwise health impaired, Ieaming disability, severely multiply impaired, and autism. An average was calculated for each disability category sampled for this study to determine an average amount of time of inclusion (Appendix G). This average was calculated from the three ranges: 80 to 100 percent was considered at 90 percent; 40 to 80 percent was determined at 60 percent; and 1 to 40 percent was calculated at 20 percent. The decision was made to average the inclusion percentage. Then the average inclusion percentage for each district by disability category, an actual inclusion percentage, an expected inclusion percentage and the difference between the two were calculated for each disability category (Appendix H). The difference between the actual and expected inclusion percentages determined the inclusion score. The inclusion score is a representation of inclusion for each district taking into consideration number of special education students, the disability categories and the amount of time students were in an inclusive setting. A Two-Way ANOVA was used to investigate the relationship between rate of inclusion, the restriction language from contracts and student population; 115 results are illustrated in Table 15. Each cell represents the average inclusion rate for schools for the four ranges described above. Inclusion rates in small schools, less than 2,000 students, are much greater than in large schools, 2,000 students and above. Surprisingly, schools with high restriction scores have higher rates of inclusion than schools with low restriction scores. Schools in the high restriction - low student population group had the highest average rate of inclusion, 15.51 percent. The results shown in the table suggest several important findings: 1. Restrictive language in contracts and student population are significantly related to school inclusion rates. 2. High levels of contract language related to inclusion do not negatively impact inclusion rates, even when controlling for student population. 3. Small school populations favor higher inclusion rates, even when controlling for restrictive contract language. These findings counter this researchers original hypothesis, that the more language contracts have dealing with inclusion of special education students in general education and the more restrictive that language is, the lower the percentage of students with disabilities who are included in general education Classrooms. This suggests that contract language related to inclusion, even when it appears restrictive, could actually be facilitative of inclusion, particularly in small schools with less than 2,000 students. These smaller districts had a higher inclusion rate than the districts with the largest student population. 116 At the beginning of this study, this researcher thought that teacher contracts may have actually constmcted another means for special education students to be socially excluded. The analysis of the data would indicate this is not the case. It appears that the collective bargaining process might actually assist in the process of inclusion. Issues of inclusion are difficult ones teachers, administrators, and parents requiring discussion. It appears that one of the places this discussion should occur is at the negotiating table. With the changes in special education rules, regulations, and philosophy, the current . concerns of all parties involved require a sanctioned forum. It is also necessary to anticipate areas where Changes Should occur in teacher working conditions to facilitate the inclusion of special education students in general education. The lack of training, understanding and knowledge of special education students has often been the root of general education teacher and administrator resistance to inclusion. This study also provides potentially valuable perspective for general education administrators, teachers, parents and students on inclusion of special education students in districts with small and large enrollments. It is important constituents to understand the language in teacher contracts, as this language can provide a window into the concerns teachers have with special education issues. This study is a compendium of contract language and types of language dealing with special education. This study has challenged this researcher’s judgments about contract negotiations and inclusion of Special education. Before initiating the study, this 117 researchers steadfastly believed that issues dealing with inclusion did not belong in teacher contracts and that, if language was in contracts, could negatively affect inclusion and that such language would negatively impact the beliefs of teaChers and administrators on the topic of inclusion. This researcher believed that topics dealing with inclusion have landed on the negotiating table due to resistance and fear of inclusion. After over 25 years as a Special education educator and administrator operating on the belief that contract language has the potential to negatively affect the inclusion of special education students, it was initially difficult to assimilate the new perspective provided by this study. It is this researcher’s hope that the study will offer special and general education administrators, teachers and negotiators a different way of thinking about negotiations over inclusion of Special education students. Collective bargaining agreements, through teacher negotiations, establish school policy. This study indicates that teacher contracts have the potential of establishing a positive influence on the inclusion of special education students in general education classrooms. IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH This study has implications for contract negotiators, teachers, administrators, parents of special education students and students themselves. Contrary to the initial hypothesis teachers may actually work out some of their concerns or issues with the inclusion of special education 118 students at the contract table. AS the results indicate more contract language reflects Slightly more inclusion of special education students. There is no positive correlation between inclusion and the presence of restrictive contract language or student population. All this study has Shown is a correlation to inclusion, contract language and student population. These results may assist educators in working out the resistance to and fears about inclusion. Rather than shying away from issues of inclusion, contract negotiators should encourage discussion and consider including contract language dealing with suchissues. The following are ideas for future research. 1. The sample size for the study could include a larger number of districts in Michigan. This would provide an even better representation for the descriptive portion of the study and more substantiation of the statistical results. 2. The study might be expanded to districts outside the State of Michigan or a Similar study could be conducted in a different state. It may also be beneficial to replicate this study in both union and non-union states. This would provide educators with greater depth of information on inclusion and the relationship of contract negotiations regarding Special education to inclusion. 3. An additional study could be completed which incorporates interviews of district personnel on the history behind the contract language about inclusion in their district. 4. A follow-up study might be done based on interviews of district personnel from the sampled districts, which were in the high and low restriction groups, 119 to determine the historical development of contract language dealing with special education inclusion. 5. Another possible follow-up study could include interviews of special and general education personnel from the sampled districts to explore their beliefs and implementation of inclusion. 6. A study to determine the extent to which if the socio-economic status (SES) of districts or the special education expenditures within a district correlate to the inclusion of special education students. 7. Finally, a study could be completed using a sample of districts broken down by number of special or general education teachers instead of by student population. 120 APPENDIXES 121 Sample Districts and Populations I Sample Districts £33,833. S”°8?$5§3§2“°" 1Adrian City Schools 5043 667 2. Akron-Fairgrove 514 35 3. Alba Public Schools 188 18 4. Albion Public Schools 2254 134 5. Alma Public Schools 2964 273 6. Alpena Public 5983 416 7. Anchor Bay Schools 6119 546 8. Atlanta Comm. 597 69 9. Au Gres-Sims 609 57 10. Bad Axe Schools 1619 99 1 1. Baldwin Schools 944 125 12. Bay City Schools 11452 801 13. Beal City Schools 688 51 14. Belding Area 2787 231 15. Bellevue Schools 1 1 17 103 16. Benzie Co. Central 2069 157 17. Big Bay De Noc 412 33 18. Blg Rapids Schools 2507 211 19. Birmingham Schools 8280 527 20. Breitung Township 2442 193 21. Bridgeport -Spaudling 3005 335 22. Brighton Schools 7635 649 23. Brimley Schools 655 35 24. Buchanan Schools 1941 206 122 APPENDIX A APPENDIX A Sample Districts $313238 “6313.533?” 25. Bullock Creek 2352 232 26. Cadillac Schools 4004 268 27. Camden-Frontier 71 9 42 28. Carrollton Schools 1525 227 29. Chassell Township 333 5 30. Cheboygan Schools 2596 193 31. Chippewa Hills 2896 271 32. Chippewa Valley 12952 743 33. Clinton Schools 1384 107 34. Colon Comm. 995 64 35. Concord Schools 1 1 17 86 36. Constantlno Schools 1829 1 33 37. Deckerville Schools 1000 41 38. Dalton-Kellogg 2382 1 80 39. Detroit City 5000013 173174 14774 40. Dowagiac Union 3269 212 41. Dryden Schools 942 49 42. East China Schools 6167 305 43. East Detroit Schools 7533 545 44. Eaton Rsplds 3720 398 45. Fairview Area 553 60 46. Femdale Schools 4421 234 47. Fitzgerald Schools 3481 261 48. Flushing Schools 4749 367 49. Fruitport Schools 3723 361 123 APPENDIX A Sample Districts £11333. S”8if‘$5§t§fi“°" 50. GalesburgéAugusta 1 347 1 04 51. Gaylord Schools 3769 259 52. Glen Lake Schools 1041 70 53. Grand Blanc 5454 453 54. Grand Haven 5570 430 55. Grand Ledge 5354 554 56. Greenville Schools 4453 425 57. Gull Lake Schools 3303 174 58. Harper Creek 3004 230 59. Hartford Schools 1 574 102 60. Hemlock Schools D 1 743 166 61. Howell Public 8072 709 62. Hudson Area 1283 122 63. Huron Schools 2262 219 64. lmlay City Schools 2332 116 65. Jefferson Schools 3089 256 66. Jenison Public 5379 533 67. Jonesville Schools 1335 63 66. Kalamazoo Schools 12502 967 69. Kent City Schools 1671 150 70. Kentwood Schools 9300 776 71. Laingsburg Schools 1337 68 72. Lakeville Schools 2419 206 73. Lansing Schools 20567 2302 74. Lawton Schools 1209 96 124 Sample Districts £3.33" Spegfifigiigifim 75. Littlefield Schools 521 43 76. Mackinac Island 101 4 77. Manchester Schools 1401 107 78. Marion Public 922 76 79. Mason Co. Eastern 727 57 80. Mayville Schools 1335 1 14 81. Midland Schools 10691 896 62. Montabella Schools 1294 109 83. Morley Stanwood 1753 150 84. Mt. Morris Schools 3122 333 85. Munising Schools 1 162 90 86. New Buffalo Schools 741 93 87. Nllos Comm. 4515 439 88. Northport Schools 392 44 89. Northwest Schools 3945 369 90. Nottawa Schools 190 19 91. Olivet Comm. 1433 1 19 92. Onsted Schools 2057 150 93. Orchard View 2970 237 94. Ovid-Elsie Schools 1 934 1 66 95. Owosso Schools 4837 402 96. Pickford Schools 427 17 97. Portland Schools 2199 1 51 98. Rood City Schools 2347 204 99. Rochester Schools 14532 731 125 APPENDIX A Sample Districts £31123; ”8828115233?“ 100. Rogers City Area 840 60 101. Saline Area 5344 358 102. Shelby Schools 2075 214 103. Southgate Schools 4964 532 104. Spring Lake 2334 1 75 105. St. Johns Schools 3735 291 106. Suttons Bay 1234 105 107. Swartz Creek 4713 41 1 108. Tahquamenon 1343 152 109. Tekonsha Schools 459 43 110. Three Rivers 3278 288 111. Ubly Comm. 1012 58 1 12. Unlonville Sebewaing 910 77 113. Utica Comm. 29745 1304 1 14. Watersmeet 245 1 5 1 15. Waverly Schools 3573 322 116. West Bloomfield 5714 349 117. West Ottawa 7908 626 118. Westwood Comm. 2535 354 119 Westwood Heights 1312 130 120. Wyandotte Schools 5023 650 Pilot Study Districts are in Bold 126 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B A Rubric for Scoring Special Education Criteria Directions: 1. Review 120 different school district teacher contracts. 2. In reviewing each teacher contract utilize the Special Education Criteria Rubric to identify the contract language dealing with the inclusion of special education students in general education. 3. Utilize a separate Special Education Criteria Rubric for each district. There will be120 different scoring rubric when finished. Write the name of the district on each scoring form. 4. If a contract contains language relating to any of the items listed on the scoring rubric, mark the rubric with a one. 5. If the contract repeats language on a particular item, only mark Example: A district contract contains language on the first item on the criteria rubric: (1. Conditions placed on student related special education meetings a teacher attends). Place a one for each time a contract contains this language in different articles or sections of the contract. 6. the rubric again if it is in a different article or section of the contract. Mark the rubric each time a contract contains language dealing with an item, if it is listed in different articles or sections of the contract. If a contract has language dealing with the inclusion of special education students in general education, although the attached criteria scoring rubric does not list this language, add the information to item ten (10). Add the page number and the exact language to the scoring sheet. Write comments in the comment section if you have questions about scoring that criteria item. The scoring mbric for each district will be calculated once all questions or discrepancies are reviewed. 127 APPENDIX C A Chart for Scoring Special Education Criteria Mark it the Special Education Criteria Rubric $32133; Comments District Name: this language 1. Conditions placed on student related special education meetings a teacher afiends. 2. Money paid for attending student related special education meetings. 3. Language on discipline issues relating to special education student. 4. Provisions that teachers are provided training, support, personnel or equipment prior to inclusion of a special education student into general education. 5. Provisions to maintain support, training and equipment for a special education student to attend general education. 6. A Special education student counts extra toward general education class membership. 7. Language on special education students causing concemS/ problems in the general education class. 8. Language on equal distribution of special education students in general education classes. 9. Language relating to teachers dealing with medical concerns of special education students. 10. OTHER.... Total 128 APPENDIX D Scoring Results and Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Results Sample Districts Researcher Reseagcher Difference segremiged 1.Adrian City Schools 2 2 0 2 2. Akron-Fairgroves 1 1 0 1 3. Alba Public Schools 4 4 o 4 4. Albion Public Schools 1 3 2 2 5. Alma Public Schools 1 1 O 1 6. Alpena Public 4 4 o 4 7. Anchor Bay Schools 4 3 1 4 8. Atlanta Comm. 5 5 0 5 9. Au Gres-Sims 0 0 0 0 10. Bad Axe Schools 0 0 0 0 11. Baldwin Schools 1 1 0 1 12. Bay City Schools 1 1 0 1 13. Beal City Schools 5 3 3 5 14. Belding Area 4 4 o 4 15. Bellevue Schools 1 0 1 1 16. Benzie Co. Central 5 3 2 5 17. Big Bay De Mac 4 4 o 4 18. Big Rapids Schools 4 4 ' o 4 19. Birmingham Schools 3 5 2 3 20. Breltung Townshlp 7 5 1 7 21. Bridgeport -Spaudllng 5 7 2 5 22. Brlghton Schools 5 5 o 5 23. Brimley Schools 5 4 1 5 129 APPENDIX D Sample Districts Rese1archer Reseagcher Difference scgglfled 24. Buchanan Schools 0 0 0 0 25. Bullock Creek 5 4 2 5 26. Cadillac Schools 5 3 2 5 27. Camden-Frontier 1 1 0 1 28. Carrollton Schools 2 2 0 2 29. Chassell Township 2 2 0 2 30. Cheboygan Schools 3 8 0 8 31. Chippewa Hills 5 6 1 5 32. Chippewa Valley 3 3 0 3 33. Clinton Schools 4 4 o 4 34. Colon Comm. 4 5 1 4 35. Concord Schools 2 3 0 2 36. Constantine 5 4 1 5 37. Deckerville Schools 0 0 0 0 38. Dalton-Kellogg 1 1 0 1 39. Detroit City Schools 1 1 0 1 40. Dowagiac Union 5 5 0 5 41. Dryden Schools 5 3 2 5 42. East China Schools 3 3 0 3 43. East Detroit Schools 0 0 0 0 44. Eaton Rapids 8 10 2 8 45. Fairview Area 2 2 0 2 46. Femdale Schools 2 2 0 2 47. Fitzgerald Schools 2 2 0 2 48. Flushing Schools 3 3 0 3 130 APPENDIX D Sample Districts Rese1archer Reseagcher Difference 80:26:11“ 49. Fruitport Schools 1 1 0 1 50. Galesburg-Augusta 1 1 0 1 51. Gaylord Schools 6 5 1 6 52. Glen Lake Schools 0 0 . 0 0 53. Grand Blanc 2 1 1 2 54. Grand Haven 1 1 0 1 55. Grand Ledge 2 2 0 2 56. Greenville Schools 6 6 0 ' 6 57. Gull Lake Schools 1 O 1 1 58. Harper Creek 5 5 1 6 59. Hartford Schools 0 0 0 0 60. Hemlock Schools 2 0 2 , 2 61 . Howell Public 1 1 10 1 10 62. Hudson Area 2 3 1 3 63. Huron Schools 0 0 0 0 64. lmlay City Schools 0 0 0 0 65. Jefferson Schools 4 3 1 4 66. Jenison Public 2 2 0 2 67. Jonesville Schools 9 9 0 9 68. Kalamazoo 7 6 1 7 69. Kent City Schools 3 4 1 3 70. Kentwood Schools 3 3 0 8 71. Laingsburg Schools 5 3 3 5 72. Lakeville Schools 4 7 3 4 73. Lansing Schools 12 15 3 1 1 131 APPENDIX D Sample Districts Rese1archer I Reseagcher Difference 30:3?st 74. Lawton Schools 0 o o g o 75. LIttIefleld Schools 0 0 0 O 76. Mackinac Island 0 0 0 0 77. Manchester Schools 3 7 1 8 78. Marion Public 0 0 0 0 79. Mason Co. Eastern 0 0 0 0 80. Mayville Schools 2 0 2 2 81. Midland Schools 3 3 0 3 82. Montabella Schools 0 0 0 0 83. Morley Stanwood 2 0 2 2 84. Mt. Morris Schools 2 0 2 2 85. Munising Schools 7 7 0 7 86. New Buffalo Schools 0 0 0 0 87. Niles Comm. 3 3 0 3 88. Northport Schools 0 0 0 0 89. Northwest Schools 4 3 1 4 90. Nottawa Schools 0 0 O 0 91. Olivet Comm. 3 3 0 3 92. Onsted Schools 4 6 2 5 93. Orchard View 5 5 1 5 94. Ovid-Elsie Schools 3 3 0 3 95. Owosso Schools 5 4 1 5 96. Pickford Schools 0 0 0 0 97. Portland Schools 4 5 1 4 98. Reed City Schools 10 9 1 10 132 APPENDIX D Sample Districts Rese1archer ] Reseagcher Difference scgfeuilasled 99. Rochester Schools 1 O 9 1 1 0 100. Rogers City Area 2 1 1 2 101. Saline Area ~ 3 4 1 3 102. Shelby Schools 3 3 o 3 103. Southgate Schools 4 5 1 4 104. Spring Lake 2 2 0 2 105. St. Johns Schools 2 2 0 2 106. Suttons Bay 5 5 0 5 107. Swartz Creek 3 4 1 3 108. Tahquamenon 5 6 0 6 109. Tekonsha Schools 5 5 0 5 110. Three Rivers 4 3 1 . 4 111. Ubly Comm. 0 0 0 0 112. Unionville Sebewaing 1 1 0 1 113. Utica Comm. 9 10 1 9 1 14. Watersmeet 0 0 0 0 1 15. Waverly Schools 5 5 0 5 116. West Bloomfield 5 4 1 5 117. West Ottawa 7 8 1 7 118. Westwood Comm. 0 0 0 0 119. Westwood Heights 5 6 0 6 120. Wyandotte Schools 0 0 0 0 Sample Pearson 69 Product Correlation Average Restl'is .9628 .575 421 Pilot Study Districts in Bold Pearson Product -Moment Correlation Results = .957866 133 APPENDIX E Final Totals Generated by Scoring Special Education Criteria Sample Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 None 1.Adrian City Schools 1 1 2. Akron-Fairgrove 1 3. Alba Public Schools 2 2 4. Albion Public Schools 1 1 5. Alma Public Schools 1 6. Alpena Public Schools 1 1 1 1 7. Anchor Bay Schools 1 1 1 1 8. Atlanta Schools 1 1 3 9. Au Gres-Sims 0 10. Bad Axe Schools 0 11. Baldwin Schools 1 12. Bay City Schools 1 13. Beal City Schools 1 1 1 1 1 14. Belding Schools 1 1 1 1 15. Bellevue Schools 1 16. Benzie Co. Central 1 1 2 2 17. Big Bay De Noc 1 1 1 1 18. flgRapids Schools 1 2 1 19. Birmiggham Schools 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 20. Breitung Township 1 1 1 2 1 1 21 . Bridgeport -Spaudling 1 1 1 1 1 22. Brighton Schools 1 1 1 2 23. Brimley Schools 1 1 2 1 24. Buchanan Schools 0 134 APPENDIX E Sample Districts 10 None 25. Bullock Creek 26. Cadillac Schools 27. Camden-Frontier 28. Carrollton Schools 29. Chassell Township 30. Cheboygan Schools 31. Chippewa Hills 32. Chippewa Valley 33. Clinton Schools 34. Colon Comm. 35. Concord Schools 36. Constantine 37. Deckerville Schools 38. Dalton-Kellogg 39. Detroit City Schools 40. Dowagiac Union 41. Dryden Schools 42. East China Schools 43. East Detroit Schools 44. Eaton Rapids 45. Fairview Area 46. Femdale Schools 47. Fitzgerald Schools 48. Flushing Schools 49. Fruitport Schools 135 APPENDIX E l 3 Sample Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N°"° 50. Galesburg-Augusta 1 51. Gaylord Schools 1 1 2 1 1 52. Glen Lake Schools 0 53. Grand Blanc Schools 1 . 1 54. Grand Haven 55. Grand Ledge 56. Greenville Schools 57. Gull Lake Schools 58. Harper Creek 59. Hartford Schools 60. Hemlock Schools 61. Howell Schools 62. Hudson Schools 63. Huron Schools 64. Imlay City Schools Jefferson Schools 66. Jenison Schools 67. Jonesville Schools Kalamazoo Schools 69. Kent City Schools 70. Kentwood Schools 71. Lairgsburg Schools 72. Lakeville Schools 73. 74. Lansing Schools Lawton Schools 136 APPENDIX E Sample Districts 10 None 75. LIttIeerld Schools 76. Mackinac Island . Manchester Schools 78. Marion Schools 79. Mason Co. Eastern 80. Mayville Schools 81. Midland Schools 82. Montabella Schools 83. Morley Stanwood . Mt. Morris Schools 85. Munising Schools 86. New Buffalo Schools 87. Niles Schools 88. Northport Schools 89. Northwest Schools . Nottawa Schools 91. Olivet Schools 92. Onsted Schools 93. Orchard View . Ovid-Elsie Schools 95. Owosso Schools . Pickford Schools 97. Portland Schools . Reed City Schools . Rochester Schools 137 APPENDIX E Sample Districts 1 2 3 4 10 None 100. Roggrs City Area 101. Saline Schools 102. Shelby Schools 103. Southgate Schools 104. Spring Lake 105. St. Johns Schools 106. Suttons Bay 107. Swartz Creek 108. Tahquamenon 109. Tekonsha Schools 110. Three Rivers 111. Ubly Schools 112. Unionville-Sebewaing 113. Utica Schools 114. Watersmeet 115. Waverly Schools 116. West Bloomfield 117. West Ottawa 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 118. Westwood Comm. 0 119. Westwood Heights 1 1 1 1 1 1 120. Wyandotte Schools 0 TOTALS 43 9 17 31 7o 27 36 68‘ 63 34 23 TOTAL Number for all 36 27 56 23 32 50 53 28 23 DISTRICTS Pilot Study Districts in Bold 138 Contract Language Totals in a Prorated Format APPENDIX F Sample Districts 10 None 1.Adrian City Schools 2. Akron-Fairgrove 3. Alba Public Schools 1.2 1.2 4. Albion Public Schools 5. Alma Public Schools 6. Alpena Public Schools 7. Anchor Bay Schools 8. Atlanta Schools 1.3 9. Au Gres-Sims 10. Bad Axe Schools 11. Baldwin Schools 12. Bay City Schools 13. Beal City Schools 1.2 14. Belding Schools 15. Bellevue Schools 16. Benzie Co. Central 1.2 1.2 17. Big Bay De Noc 18. Big Rapids Schools 1.2 19. Birmingham Schools 1.2 20. Breitufl Township 1.2 21. Bridgeport -Spaudling 22. Brighton Schools 1.2 23. Brimley Schools 1.2 139 APPENDIX F Sample Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 "m 24. Buchanan Schools 0 25. Bullock Creek 1.3 1 1.2 26. Cadillac Schools 1 1 1 1 1 27. Camden-Frontier 1 .28. Carrollton Schools 1 1 29. Chassell Township 1 1 30. Cheboygan Schools 1.2 1 1 1.2 1 1 31. Chippewa Hills 1 1 1 1 1 32. Chippewa Valley 1 1 1 33. Clinton Schools 1 1 1 1 34. Colon Schools 1 1 1 1 35. Concord Schools 1 1 36. Constantino 1 1.2 1 1 37. Deckerville Schools 0 38. Dalton-Kellogg 1 39. Detroit City Schools 1 40. Dowagiac Union 1.2 1 1 1 41. Dryden Schools 1 1 1 1 1 140 APPENDIX F Sample Districts 10 None 42. East China Schools 43. East Detroit Schools .Eaton Rapids 1.2 1.2 45. Fairview Schools 46. Femdale Schools 47. Fitzgerald Schools 1.2 48. Flushing Schools . Frultport Schools 50. Galesburg-Augusta 51. Gaylord Schools 1.2 52. Glen Lake Schools 53. Grand Blanc Schools . Grand Haven 55. Grand Ledge . Greenville Schools 57. Gull Lake Schools . Harper Creek 1.2 59. Hartford Schools 60. Hemlock Schools 61. Howell Schools 1.3 1.2 1.2 141 APPENDIX F Sample Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N006 62. Hudson Schools 1 1 63. Huron Schools 64. Imlay City Schools 65. Jefferson Schools 1.2 66. Jenison Schools 67. Jonesville Schools 1.2 1.2 1.2 Kalamazoo Schools 1.2 1.2 69. Kent City Schools 70. Kentwood Schools 1.3 1.2 1.2 71. Laingsburg Schools 72. Lakeville Schools 73. Lansing Schools 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 74. Lawton Schools 75. LIttleerld Schools 76. Mackinac Island 77. Manchester Schools 1.3 1.2 78. Marion Schools 79. Mason Co. Eastern Mayville Schools 81. Midland Schools 1.2 142 APPENDIX F Sample Districts 10 None 82. Montabella Schools 83. Morley Stanwood 84. Mt. Morris Schools 85. Munising Schools 1.3 86. New Buffalo Schools 87. Niles Schools 1.2 88. Northport Schools 89. Northwest Schools 90. Nottawa Schools 91. Olivet Schools 92. Onsted Schools 1.2 93. Orchard View 1.3 1.2 94. Ovid-Elsie Schools 95. Owosso 96. Pickford Schools 97. Portland Schools Reed City Schools 1.3 1.3 99. Rochester Schools 1.2 1.2 100. Rogers City Area 101 . Saline Schools 143 APPENDIX F Sample Districts 10 None 102. Shelby Schools 103. Southgate Schools 104. Spring Lake 105. St. Johns Schools 106. Suttons Bay 1.2 107. Swartz Creek 1.2 108. Tahquamenon 1.2 1.2 109. Tekonsha Schools 1.3 110. Three Rivers 111. Ubly Schools 1 12. Unionville-Sebewaing 113. Utica Schools 1.2 1.2 1 14. Watersmeet 1 15. Waverly Schools 1.2 1 16. West Bloomfield 1.3 1 1 7. West Ottawa 118. Westwood Comm. 119. Westwood Heights 120. Wyandotte Schools Pilot Study Districts are in Bold 144 APPENDIX G u .xm 5.5 .5 .w mi .2“ 2!... .3m co_m:_o:_ Lo moms—Loose can 6:26.38. 5:835 .9026 20:65 145 APPENDIX G 146 APPENDIX G 147 APPENDIX H Districts’ Actual and Expected Percentages of Inclusion and the Differences Special Actual Expected Sample Distn'cts 1:33.333. 533m". 935233.13 33321321292. °m°'°"°° 1.Adrian City SCbOOlS 5043 667 66.4% 53.9% 12.5% 2- Akron-Fairgrove 514 35 77.7% 54.8% 22.9% 3. Alba Public 56110018 188 18 76.6% 53.2% 23.4% 4. Albion Public SCbOOIS 2254 184 46.6% 48.3% -1.7% 5. Alma Public 80110018 2964 273 57.7% 52.9% 4.8% 6- Alpena PUb'iC 5983 416 69.5% 55.1% 14.5% 7- Anchor 3“ ““00" 6119 546 45.4% 54.3% -8.9% 8. Atlanta Comm. 597 69 72.1% 54.4% 17.7% 9. Au Gres-Sims 609 57 69.4% 55.4% 14.0% 10. Bad Axe 30110018 1619 99 65.1% 52.7% 12.4% 11. Baldwin SGhOOlS 94-4 125 61.0% 53.1% 7.9% 12- Bay City 36110015 11452 801 58.8% 54.6% 4.1% 13- 368' City SChOOIS 688 51 84.1% 54.2% 29.9% 14. Belding Area 2787 231 57.2% 52.4% 4.8% 15. Bellevue SChOOIS 1 1 17 103 67.6% 54.0% 13.7% 16. Benzie 00- Central 2069 157 73.9% I 53.4% 20.5% 17- Bi9 Bay DD N00 412 33 81.9% . 55.0% 26.9% 18- 359 Rapids SGbOOIS 2507 211 75.6% 54.7% 20.9% 19. Birmingham 30110013 8280 527 64.3% 52.4% 11.9% 20- MW TMDNP 2442 193 66.5% 55.2% 11.3% 21- 30099130“ -SDatldllDQ 3005 335 50.4% 54.1% 3.8% 22- Brighton 3000018 7685 649 66.7% 53.7% 13.0% 23- Brimley 50110015 655 35 71.9% 56.3% 15.7% 148 APPENDIX H Special Actual Expected Sample DiStriCts Posg’udehgcin Eggfli‘afitionn 23:11:93 3333312913 Difference 24 Buchanan Schools 1941 206 62.6% 54.5% 8.0% 25. Bullock Creek 2352 232 54.5% 53.2% 1.3% 26. Cadillac Schools 4004 268 55.8% 53.4% 2.4% 27. Camden-Frontier 719 42 74.2% 56.0% 18.2% 28. Carrollton Schools 1525 227 49.7% 51.6% -1.8% 29. Choose" Townshlp 333 5 78.1% 54.1% 24.0% 30. Cheboygan Schools 2596 193 54.2% 51.9% 2.3% 31. Chippewa Hills 2896 271 61.6% 54.3% 7.2% 32. Chippewa Valley 12962 743 54.4% 54.0% 0.4% 33. Clinton Schools 1384 107 73.3% 55.2% 18.1% 34. Colon Comm. 995 64 70.9% 52.5% 18.3% 35. Concord Schools 1117 86 67.3% 54.6% 12.6% 36. Constantine Schools 1829 133 77.1% 53.8% 23.3% 37. Deckerville Schools 1000 41 68.1% 52.5% 15.5% 38. Dalton-Kellogg 2382 180 56.3% 53.2% 3.1% 39. Detroit City Schools 173174 14774 33.7% 49.7% 46.0% 40. Dowagiac Union 23269 212 53.0% 52.4% 0.6% 41. Dryden Schools 942 49 64.1% 55.6% 8.5% 42. East China Schools 6167 305 69.1% 53.9% 15.2% 43. East Detroit Schools 7588 646 45.1% 52.6% -7.6% 44. Eaton Raplds 3720 398 67.4% 53.5% 14.0% 45. Fairview Area 553 60 75.7% 55.4% 20.3% 46. Femdale Schools 4421 234 49.8% 54.1% 4.3% 47. Fitzgerald Schools 3481 261 36.7% 52.5% 45.8% 48. Flushing Schools 4749 367 69.0% 54.8% 14.2% 149 APPENDIX H Special Actual Expected Sample Districts 1:336:12. 533313.78". 23.2239. 6:62:61. °”’°’°"°° 49. Fruitport Schools 3723 361 54.8% 51.0% 3.8% 50. Galesbum-Augllsta 1347 104 57.6% 53.1% 4.5% 51. Gaylord Schools 3769 259 71.0% 54.5% 16.6% 52. Glen Lake Schools 1041 70 66.5% 54.5% 12.0% 53. Grand Blanc 6454 453 59.9% 54.9% 5.0% 54. Grand Haven 6670 480 66.9% 51.7% 15.2% 55. Grand Ledge 5864 564 67.9% 54.3% 13.6% 56. Greenville Schools 4468 426 49.3% 51.8% . -2.6% 57. Gull Lake Schools 3303 174 68.9% 52.7% 16.3% 58. Harper Creek 3004 230 66.7% 53.6% 13.1% 59. Hartford Schools 1574 102 66.5% 53.7% 12.8% 60. Hemlock Schools 1743 166 56.1% x 51.7% 4.4% 61. Howell Public 8072 709 61.0% 53.2% 7.8% 62. Hudson Area 1283 122 71.1% 55.5% 15.5% 63. Huron Schools 2262 219 51.9% 53.5% -1.7% 64. lmlay City Schools 2332 116 62.5% 54.3% 8.2% 05. Jefferson Schools 3089 256 71.5% 55.8% 15.6% 66. Jenison Public 5379 533 70.4% 52.9% 17.5% 67. Jonesville Schools 1335 63 78.1% 55.8% 22.2% 68. Kalamazoo School 12602 967 54.5% 51.8% 2.7% 69. Kent City Schools 1671 150 65.0% 54.7% 10.3% 70. Kentwood Schools 9300 776 54.2% 52.6% 1.6% 71. Laingsburg Schools 1337 68 69.5% 55.9% 13.6% 72. Lakevllla Schools 2419 206 75.7% 55.8% 20.0% 73. Lansing Schools 20567 2302 38.1% 51.4% 43.3% 150 APPENDIX H Special Actual Expected Sample Districts Psalmn 15:33:32: $313329 £32299 Difference 74. Lawton Schools 1209 96 62.2% 55.7% 6.5% 75. Littlefield SChOOls 521 43 71.9% 51.4% 20.5% 76. Mackinac Island 101 4 67.4% 57.2% 10.2% 77. Manchester Schools 1401 107 85.0% 55.7% 29.3% 78. Marion Public 922 76 67.7% 50.8% 16.8% 79. Mason 00. Eastern 727 57 64.9% 54.5% 10.4% 80- "Owl's SChOOlS 1335 1 14 71.9% 54.1% 17.7% 81. Midland Schools 10691 896 51.8% 53.5% -1.7% 82. Montabella School 1294 109 58.5% 52.6% 5.9% 83- Morley Stanwood 1 753 1 50 63.3% 54.3% 9.1% 84- Mt- Morris SChOOlS 3122 333 41.6% 54.0% -12.4% 85. Munising Schools 1162 90 71.8% f 53.2% 18.7% 86. New Buffalo Schools 741 93 53.1% 54.1 % -1.0% 87. Niles Comm. 4516 489 43.7% 50.9% -7.2% 88- Northport SOhOOlS 392 44 79.8% 55.0% 24.8% 89. Northwest SChOOlS 3945 369 62.3% 53.8% 8.5% 90. Nottawa Schools 190 19 74.3% 51.8% 22.5% 91 . Olivet Comm. 1483 1 19 65.2% 54.3% 10.9% 92. Onsted Schools 2057 150 81.4% 55.2% 26.2% 93. Orchard View 2970 237 57.1% 53.7% 3.4% 94. Ovid-Elsie Schools 1 984 1 66 62.3% 53.8% 8.5% 95. Owosso Schools 4837 402 55.1% 53.2% 1.8% 96. Pickford SChOOls 427 17 70.0% 56.6% 13.4% 97. Portland Schools 2199 151 59.5% 54.6% 4.9% 98- R006 City 3¢h°°ls 2347 204 72.9% 54.3% 18.5% 151 APPENDIX H Special Actual Expected Sample Districts 1:335:33. E33338?“ 93.32322. 53:23?th °'”°'°"°° 99. Rochester SChOOlS 14532 781 79.9% 52.9% 27.0% 100- Rogers City Area 840 60 69.9% 52.3% 17.6% 101. Saline Area 5344 358 85.1% 53.4% 31.7% 102- Shelby SChOOlS 2075 214 64.9% 54.0% 10.9% 103. Southgate Schools 4964 532 66.1% 52.7% 13.4% 104. Spring Lake 2334 175 60.3% 54.4% 5.9% 105. St. Johns SChOOlS 3736 291 64.3% 54.0% 10.3% 106. Suttons Bay 1234 105 67.7% 54.2% 13.5% 107. Swartz Creek 4718 41 1 61.8% 54.8% 7.0% 108. Tahquamenon 1343 1 52 60.1% 52.6% 7.5% 109. Tekonsha SChOOlS 469 43 64.4% 53.6% 10.7% 110. Three Rivers 3278 288 64.2% 53.1% 11.1% 111- Ubly Comm. 1012 58 59.5% 53.8% 5.8% 1 12. Unionville Sebewaing 910 77 70.2% 56.4% 13.8% 1 13. Utica Comm. 29745 1804 67.1% 54.4% 12.7% 114. Watersmeet 246 15 71.3% 53.1% 18.3% 115- Wavefly SChOOlS 3673 322 58.4% 54.5% 3.9% 1 16. West Bloomfield 6714 349 72.3% 53.3% 19.1% 117. West Ottawa 7908 626 71 .8% 53.3% 18.5% 118. Westwood Comm. 2536 354 63% 68.2% -5.2% 119. Westwood Heights 1312 130 50.6% 51.3% -0.7% 5023 660 30.1% 37.9% -7.8% 120. Wyandotte Schools Pilot Study Districts in Bold 152 APPENDIX I Districts’ Total Contract Language from Special Education Criteria Rubric And Percentages of Total Inclusion S ial Total Total Sample Districts 9:33:51; Eggs?” E€§§° on 5:33:33 1.Adrian City Schools 5043 667 2 66.4% 2. Akron-Fairgrove 514 35 ' 1 77.7% 3. Alba Public Schools 188 18 4 76.6% 4. Albion Public Schools 2254 184 1 46.6% 5. Alma Public Schools 2964 273 1 57.7% 6. Alpena Public 5983 416 4 69.5% 7. Anchor Bay Schools 6119 546 4 45.4% 8. Atlanta Comm. 597 69 5 72.1% 9. Au Gres-Sims 609 57 0 69.4% 10. Bad Axe Schools 1619 99 0 65.1% 11. Baldwin Schools 944 125 1 61 .0% 12- Bay City SCl‘lOOIS 11452 801 1 58.8% 13. Beal City Schools 688 51 6 84.1% 14. Belding Area 2787 231 4 57.2% 15. Bellevue Schools 1 1 17 103 1 67.6% 16. Benzie Co. Central 2069 157 6 73.9% 17.8igBayDeNoc 412 33 4 81.9% 13- Big Rapids Schools 2507 211 4 75.6% 19. Birmingham Schools 8280 527 7 64.3% 20- Breitung Township 2442 193 7 66.5% 21- Bridgeport -Soeudllng 3005 335 5 50.4% 22. Brighton Schools 7685 649 5 66.7% 23. Brimley Schools 655 35 5 71.9% 153 APPENDIX I Special Egg“ Total Sample Districts $333.1 533m. Elissa” °" 5? {33133.33 nclusmn 24. Buchanan Schools 1941 206 O 62.6% 25. Bullock Creek 2352 232 6 54.5% 26. Cadillac Schools 4004 268 5 55.8% 27. Camden-Frontier 719 42 1 74.2% 28. Carrollton Schools 1525 227 2 49.7% 29. Chassell Township 333 5 2 78.1% 30. Cheboygan Schools 2596 193 8 54.2% 31- Chippewa Hills 2896 271 5 61 .6% 32- Chippewa Valley 12962 743 3 54.4% 33. Clinton Schools 1 384 1 07 4 73.3% 34. Colon Comm. 995 64 4 70.9% 35. Concord Schools 1 1 17 86 2 67.3% 36. Constantino 1829 1 33 5 77.1 % 37. Deckerville Schools 1000 41 0 68.1 % 38. Dalton-Kellogg 2382 1 80 1 56.3% 39- Detroit City SChOOIS 173174 14774 1 33.7% 40- Dowagiac UlllOl'l 3269 212 5 ‘ 53.0% 41. Dryden Schools 942 49 5 64.1% 42. East China Schools 5167 305 3 ' 69.1% 43. East Detroit Schools 7588 646 O 45.1% 44. Eaton Rapids 3720 398 8 67.4% 45. Fairview Area 553 60 2 75.7% 46. Femdale Schools 4421 234 2 49.8% 47. Fitzgerald Schools 3481 261 2 36.7% 154 APPENDIX I Student 233::th 22:13“ Pegghatlage Sample DlStrlCts Population Population $7332? on of Inclusion 48- FlUShth Schools 4749 367 3 69.0% 49. Fruitport SChOOlS 3723 361 1 54.8% 50. Galesburg-Augusta 1347 104 1 57.6% 51- Gaylord SChOOlS 3769 259 6 71.0% 52. Glen Lake Schools 1041 70 O 66.5% 53. Grand Blanc 6454 453 2 59.9% 54. Grand Haven 6670 480 1 66.9% 55. Grand Ledge 5864 564 2 67.9% 56. Greenville Schools 4468 426 6 49.3% 57. Gull Lake Schools 3303 174 1 68.9% 58. Harper Creek 3004 230 6 66.7% 59. Hartford Schools 1574 102 0 ' 66.5% 60. Hemlock Schools 1 743 166 2 56.1% 61. Howell Public 3072 709 1 1 61 .0% 62. Hudson Area 1283 122 2 71.1% 63. Huron Schools 2262 219 O 51 .9% 64. lmlay City Schools 2332 116 0 62.5% 65. Jefleraon Schools 3039 256 4 71.5% 66. Jenison Public 5379 533 2 70.4% 67. Jonesville Schools 1335 63 9 78.1% 68. Kalamazoo 12602 967 7 54.5% 69. Kent City Schools 1671 150 3 65.0% 70. Kentwood Schools 9300 776 8 54.2% 71- Laingsburg SChOOlS 1337 68 5 69.5% 72. Lakeville Schools 2419 206 4 75.7% 155 APPENDIX | . Total Specsal Contract Total . . Student Education Percentage Sample DIStl'lCtS Population Population ”"9“” °" of Inclusion Inclusion 73- “IMHO Schools 20567 2302 11 38.1% 74. Lawton SChOOlS 1209 96 0 62.2% 75. thtloflold Schools 521 43 0 71.9% 76. Mackinac Island 1 01 4 0 67.4% 77. Manchester Schools 1401 107 8 85.0% 78. Marion Public 922 76 O 67.7% 79. Mason Co. Eastern 727 57 0 64.9% 80. Mayville Schools 1335 1 14 2 71.9% 81. Midland Schools 10691 896 3 51.8% 82. Montabella Schools 1294 109 0 58.5% 83- Morley Stanwood 1 753 1 50 2 63.3% 84. Mt. Morris Schools 3122 333 2 ' 41.6% 85. Munising Schools 1 162 90 7 71 .8% 86. New Buffalo Schools 741 93 0 53.1% 87. Niles Comm. 4516 489 3 43.7% 88. Northport Schools 392 44 0 79.8% 89. Northwest Schools 3945 369 4 62.3% 90. Nottawa Schools 1 90 19 0 74.3% 91 . Olivet Comm. 1483 1 19 3 65.2% 92. Onsted Schools 2057 150 4 81 .4% 93. Orchard View 2970 237 5 57.1% 94. Ovid-Elsie Schools 1984 166 3 62.3% 95. Owosso SChOOlS 4837 402 5 55.1% 96. Pickford Schools 427 17 O 70.0% 97. Portland Schools 2199 1 51 4 59.5% 156 APPENDIX l . . Student Special 33mm Total Sample Districts Popumon 533331;?" 1:33:23: on 55:33:23 98. Reed City Schools 2347 204 10 72.9% 99. Rochester SChOOlS 1 4532 781 1 O 79.9% 100- Rogers City Area 840 60 2 69.9% 101. Saline Area 5344 358 3 85.1% 102. Shelby Schools 2075 214 3 64.9% 103- Southgate SCHOOIS 4964 532 4 66.1% ' 104- 59'an Lake 2334 175 2 60.3% 105. St. Johns Schools 3736 291 2 64.3% 106- Suttons Bay 1234 105 5 67.7% 107. Swartz Creek 4718 411 3 61.8% 108. Tahquamenon 1 343 1 52 6 60.1% 109. Tekonsha Schools 469 43 5 64.4% 110. Three Rivers 3278 288 4 64.2% 111. Ubly Comm. 1012 58 0 59.5% 1 12. Unionville Sebewaing 910 77 1 70.2% 113. Utica Comm. 29745 1804 9 67.1% 1 14. Watersmeet 246 1 5 ‘0 71.3% 1 15. Waverly Schools 3673 ‘ 322 5 58.4% 1 16. West Bloomfield 6714 349 5 72.3% 117. West Ottawa 7908 626 7 71 .8% 118. Westwood Comm. 2536 354 0 90% 119. WSSlWOOd Heights 1312 130 6 50.6% 120- Wyandotte 30h00l3 5023 660 0 30.1% Pilot Study Districts in Bold 157 APPENDIX J Scoring Guidelines for Weighting Special Education Criteria Directions: As a special education administrator please use your professional judgment and experience to determine whether the following issues, if added to teacher contracts, would have any impact on the inclusion of special education students in general education. Review each item on the attached page titled “Restrictiveness of contract language dealing with special education”. Question: How do you score language included in a teacher contract for a district dealing with equalizing the distribution of special education students in general education? Would it “limit”, “reduce” or “negatively impact” the inclusion of special education students in general education in that district? How would you score criteria that may have positive impact on inclusion? Answer: If a contract contains “very restrictive” language which would likely limit, reduce or negatively impact the inclusion of special education students in general education give that item a score of 3, if the language is “restrictive” could limit, reduce or negatively impact the inclusion of special education students you would indicate this with a score of 2,and so on. . ..using the scoring descriptors provided below. If criteria is determined to have positive impact use a —1 score. Scoring descriptors for weighting the importance of certain contract language. SCORE SCORING DESCRIPTORS A score of three (3) would indicate a great impact on the (3) inclusion of a special education student in general education. Very With this score districts would likely limit, reduce or Restrictive negatively impact the inclusion of special education students in general education. A score of two (2) would show that the contract language (2) could limit, reduce or negatively impact the inclusion of Restrictive special education students in general education. The score of one (1) provides very minimum impact on the (1) inclusion of a special education student in general education. Some restriction This language may cause districts to consider the implications of including a special education student. (O) This scorer zero (0) provides at; impact on the inclusion of a No restriction special education student irLgeneral education. (-1) A score of negative one (-1) will reflect a possible positive Possible Positive impact on inclusion. 158 APPENDIX K A Chart for Weighting of Special Education Criteria Special Education Criteria Rubric 3 2 1 0 -1 District Name: 1. Conditions placed on student related special education meetings a teacher attends. 2. Money paid for attending student related special education meetings. 3. Language on discipline issues relating to special education student. 4. Provisions that teachers are provided training, support, personnel or equipment prior to inclusion of a special education student into general education. 5. Provisions to maintain support, training and equipment for a special education student to attend general education. 6. A special education student counts extra toward general education class membership. 7. Language on special education students causing concems/ problems in the general education class. 8. Language on equal distribution of special education students in general education classes. 9. Language relating to teachers dealing with medical concerns of special education students. 10. OTHER... 159 The Results of Weighted of Special Education Criteria APPENDIX L Special Education Rubric Scorer Scorer Scorer Scorer Scorer A B C D E Total Average 1. Conditions placed on student related special education meetings a teacher attends. 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.8 2. Money paid for attending student related special education meetings. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3. Language on discipline issues relating to special education student. 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 4. Provisions that teachers are provided training, support, personnel or equipment prior to inclusion of a special education student into general education. 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.6 5. Provisions to maintain support, training and equipment for a special education student to attend general education. 2.0 2.0 ‘ 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.8 6. A special education student counts extra toward general education class membership. 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.8 7. Language on special education students causing concems/ problems in the general education class. 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.8 8. Language on equal distribution of special education students in general education classes. 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.4 9. Language relating to teachers dealing with medical concerns of special education students. 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 10. OTHER... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 160 Weighted Restriction Scores Based on Special Education APPENDIX M Criteria Sample Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 W.R. Weight 1.8 -.2 2.0 1.6 1.8 2.8 2.8 .4 2.0 -.2 1.Adrian City Schools 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 2.2 2. Akron-Faigrove 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 o 1.8 3. Alba Public Schools 0 0 0 0 2.1 o 0 0 2.4 o 4.5 4. Albion Public Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.8 O 0 o 2.8 5. Alma Public Schools 1.8 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 o 1.8 6. Alpena Public Schools 1.8 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 0.4 2 . o 6 7. Anchor Bay Schools 0 0 0 1.6 1.8 0 0 0.4 2 o 5.8 8. Atlanta Schools 1.8 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 2.6 o 6.2 9. Au Gres-Sims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 10. Bad Axe Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11. Baldwin Schools 0 0 0 0 0 2.8 0 0 0 o 2.8 12. Bay City Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -o.2 .02 13. Beal City Schools 1.8 0.2 2 0 2.1 2.8 0 0 0 o 8.5 14. Beldiflhools 1.8 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 2 -o.2 5.4 15. Bellevue Schools 0 0 0 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 o 1.6 16. Benzie Co. Central 0 O 0 1.6 1.8 0 O 0.4 2.4 0 6.3 17. Big Bay De Noc o o o 1.6 1.8 o 2.8 o 2 o 8.2 18. Big Rapids Schools 1.8 0 0 0 2.2 0 0 0.4 0 o 4.4 19. Birmingham Schools 2.2 0 0 1.6 1.8 2.8 2.8 0.4 2 1 o 13.6 20. Breitung Township 0 0 2 0 0 2.8 3.4 0.4 2 o 10.6 21. Bridgeport -Spaudling 1.8 0 2 0 1.8 0 2.8 0.4 O 0 8.8 22. Brighton Schools 1.8 0 O 1.6 1.8 0 2.8 0 2.4 o 10.4 23. Brimley Schools 1.8 0 0 1.6 2.2 0 0 0 0 -0.2 5.4 161 APPENDIX M Sample Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 W-R- Weight“ 1.8 -.2 2.0 1.6 1.8 2.8 2.8 .4 2.0 «2 24 Buchanan Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 25 Bullock Creek 0 0 0 0 2.4 2.8 0 0.5 0 o 5.6 26 Cadillac Schools 0 0 2 1.6 1.8 0 2.8 0 2 o 10.2 27 Camden-Frontier 0 0 0 0 0 2.8 0 0 0 o 2.8 28 Carrollton Schools 1.8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 3.8 29 Chassell Township 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 o 4 30 Chebm Schools 2.1 o o 1.6 1.8 o 3.3 0.4 2 ' o 11.3 31. Chippewa Hills 1.8 o o o o 2.8 o 0.4 2 41.2 6.8 32. Chippewa Valley 0 0 0 0 1.8 2.8 2.8 0 0 o 7.4 33. Clinton Schools 0 o 0 0 1.8 0 2.8 0.4 2 o 7 34. Colon Comm. 0 0 0 1.6 1.8 0 0 0.4 2 o 5.8 35. Concord Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 .02 1.8 36. Constantine 0 0 0 1.6 O 0 O 0.4 2 -0.2 3.8 37. Deckerville Schools 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 o 0 38. Delton-Kellogg o o o o o o o o 0 oz -o.2 39. Detroit City Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 o 0.4 40. Dowagiac Union 2.1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 -o.2 5.9 41. Dryden Schools 1.8 0.2 0 0 1.8 2.8 0 0.4 0 o 6.6 42. East China Schools 0 0 2 0 0 0 2.8 0 0 -o.2 4.6 43. East Detroit Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 44. Eaton Rapids 1.8 0 0 0 2.1 0 2.8 0.4 2.4 .02 9. 45. Fairview Area 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 2 o 3.8 46. Femdale Schools 0 0 0 0 0 2.8 0 0 2 o 4.8 47. Fitzgerald Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~02 -0.2 162 APPENDIX M Sample Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 W-R- Weight 1.8 -.2 2.0 1.6 1.8 2.8 2.8 .4 2.0 --2 48. Flushing Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.8 0 2 -o.2 4.6 49. Fruitport Schools 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 50. Galesburg-Augusta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 o 0.4 51. Gaylord Schools 1.8 0 0 0 1.8 0 3.3 0 2 oz 8.7 52. Glen Lake Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 53. Grand Blanc Schools 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 2 o 3.8 54. Grand Haven 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 o - 0.4 55. Grand Ledge 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 2 o 3.8 56. Greenville Schools 0 0 2 0 1.8 2.8 2.8 0.4 2 o 11.8 57. Gull Lake Schools 0 0 0 0 0 2.8 0 0 0 o 2.8 58. Harper Creek 0 0 0 1.9 1.8 2.8 0 0 2 -o.2 8.3 59. Hartford Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 60. Hemlock Schools 1.8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 3.8 61 . Howell Schools 1.8 0 0 1.6 2.3 0 3.3 0.4 2 -o.2 11.2 62. Hudson Schools 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 o 3.8 63. Huron Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 64. lmlay City Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 65. Jefferson Schools 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0.4 2 o 4.4 66. Jenison Schools 0 0 0 0 0 2.8 0 0.4 0 o 3.2 67. Jonesville Schools 2.1 0 0 0 2.1 0 2.8 0.4 2 -o.2 9.28 66. Kalamazoo Schools 1.8 0 0 1.6 0 2.8 0 0.4 2.4 o 9.0 69. Kent City Schools 0 o o 1.6 1.8 o o o 2 o 5.4 70. Kentwood Schools 1.8 0 0 0 3.6 0 0.4 2.4 o 8.3 163 APPENDIX M Sample Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1O W.R. Weight 1.8 -.2 2.0 1.6 1.8 2.8 2.8 .4 2.0 --2 71 Laingsburggchools o o o 1.6 1.8 o 2.8 0.4 2 o 8.6 72 Lakeville Schools 1.8 0 0 1.6 1.8 0 0 0.4 0 o 5.6 73. Lansing Schools 0 0 0 1.6 2.3 2.8 0 0.4 2.4 .02 9.3 74 Lawton Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75. thtlefleld Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 76. Mackinac Island 0 8 o o o o o o o o o 77. Manchester Schools 2.3 0 0 0 1.8 0 2.8 0.4 2 o 9.4 78. Marion Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 79. Mason Co. Eastern 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 80. Mayville Schools 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 o 2.2 81. Midland Schools 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 -o.2 1.5 82. Montabella Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 83. Morley Stanwood 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 -o.2 1.6 84. Mt. Morris Schools 0 0 O 0 0 0 2.8 0 0 -0.2 2.6 85. Munising Schools 1.8 0.2 0 2.0 1.8 0 0 0.4 0 0 5.8 86. New Buffalo Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 87. Niles Schools 0 0 0 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 o 1.6 88. Northport Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 89. Northwest Schools 0 0 0 1.6 1.8 0 0 0.4 2 o 5.8 90. Nottawa Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 91 . Olivet Schools 1.8 0 0 1.6 0 0 0 0 2 o 5.4 92. Onsted Schools 0 0 0 0 2.1 0 2.8 0.4 0 o 5.3 93. Orchard View 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 ~02 0.2 164 APPENDIX M Sample Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1O W.R. Weight 1.8 —.2 2.0 1.6 1.8 2.8 2.8 .4 2.0 -.2 94. Ovid-Elsie Schools 0 0 0 0 1.8 2.8 0 0 2 0 6.6 95. Owosso Schools 1.8 0.2 2 0 0 2.8 2.8 O 0 0 9.2 98. Pickford Schools 0 o o o o o o o o o o 97. Portland Schools 1.8 0.2 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 2 o 5.4 98. Reed City Schools 2.3 0 0 0 0 2.8 2.8 0.4 2.6 -o.2 10.7 99. Rochester Schools 1.8 0.2 0 1.6 1.8 3.3 2.8 0.4 0 -o.2 11.4 100. Rogers City Area 0 o o o 1.8 o 2.8 o o o 4.6 101. Saline Schools 0 0 2 0 1.8 0 0 0.4 O o 4.2 102. Shelby Schools 0 0 0 0 1.8 2.8 0 0 0 o 4.6 103. Southgate Schools 1.8 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 0.4 0 .02 3.8 104. SpMake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 2 o 2.4 105. St. Johns Schools 0 0 0 0 0 2.8 0 0 2 o 4.8 106. Suttons Bay 0 0 0 1.6 2.1 0 0 0.4 2 o 6.1 107. Swartz Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 -0.2 0.2 108. Tahquamenon 0 0 2 1.9 2.1 0 2.8 0 0 o 8.8 109. Tekonsha Schools 0 O O 0 1.8 0 2.8 0 2.6 0 7.2 110. Three Rivers 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 0.4 2 -o.2 4 111. Ubly Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 1 12. Unionville-Sebewaing 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0.4 0 0 0.4 113. Utica Schools 1.8 0 0 0 2.1 2.8 2.8 0.4 2 -0.2 11.8 1 14. Watersmeet o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 1 15. Waverly Schools 0 0 0 O 1.8 0 2.8 0.4 2 0 7.0 116. West Bloomfield 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 2.8 0.5 0 o 5.1 165 APPENDIX M Sample Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1O W.R. Weight 1.8 -.2 2.0 1.6 1.8 2.8 2.8 .4 2.0 '2 117. West Ottawa 1.8 0 2 1.6 0 0 2.8 0.4 2 -o.2 10.4 118. Westwood Comm. 0 o o o o o o o 0 ° 0 119. Westwood Heights 0 o o 1.6 1.8 o 2.8 0.4 2 -o.2 8.4 120. Wyandotte Schools 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O o O W.R. = Weighted Restriction Score 166 APPENDIX N Districts’ Data for Two-Way ANOVA Scores by Restriction and Population Groups Population score 1 ownsh istrict 167 APPENDIX N ekonsha 168 APPENDIX N erndale iblic 169 APPENDIX 0 ANALYSIS OF THREE SPECIFIC CRITERIA (1,2, and 5) 1 11 1 Inc. 10 A Restr. o 0 2.8 -1.72 0 0 14 0 1 4 2.8 .85 1.6 13.7 11 8.03 1 24 .9. cncord Deckerville Schools Lawton Littlerleld Schools Mackinac Island Marion J Montabella New Buffalo Schools 00000 Nottawa Lake Schools Comm. Schools ‘d-‘J—b—b—h dd-fi-‘u—ld—h 0 0 0 0 0 0 Watersmeet NM Detroit Schools China East Detroit Schools Femdale Schools N Schools Schools Grand Haven Schools Lake Jefferson Schools NOONOOOONOO Mt. Morris Schools Niles View St. Johns Schools Swartz COCO .saaaaaaaaaaaaa—saa.‘ 0 Schools 00 N 170 APPENDIX 0 12 Inc. New A Score 1 .7 0 8.56 29.9 3.76 6.28 1 1 Schools Schools airview Hemiofl Schoors ‘ A... Ad‘d-‘u‘ Jonesville Kent d-h-fi Schools Lakeville Schools Manchester di‘ddddd O ..s Schools Area Schools Suttons Schools 0 0 2 0 Tekonsha Schools oonoo oooocoo'ono N Schools Alma Public Schools Schools 6 5.4 4.36 13.6 Area Rapids Schools Schools to 'oeoooo'onoooooo N nwnbomonnwoo 10.4 1 11.3 6.8 7.4 5.96 9.36 14 8.76 3.8 4.97 3.8 1 11.8 -2.56 13.1 11.3 7.77 2.71 1 Schools Cadillac Schools Area Hills OOOOOOOO Union Eaton Schools Schools Grand oooooo 6000000 '0 Schools Creek Howell Public Schools Kalamazoo Schools Kentwood Schools 0 OOOONOOOONOOONONOOOOOOO N O 171 APPENDIX 0 11 0.1 inc. Restr. 10 A . 0.48 2.4 -0.2 -13.3 2.34 Midland Schools 0 -0.2 1.56 -1.7 1 Northwest . . 2 O 5.8 8.45 1 Schools 0 9.2 1.82 1.6 . 0 Rochester . . 0 -0.211.4 27 3.4 0 0 4.2 31.7 1.8 . -0.2 3.8 1 3.6 Rivers . -0.2 4 11.1 1.8 1 a -O.2 11.8 1 0 0 0 7.08 3.92 1.8 0 5.12 19.1 1.8 1. . ‘_ 2 ~02. 113.4. 18.5. 1.5 Area West Ottawa Schools 1.8 0 2 New Restr. = New Restriction Score Pop. Group 8 Student Population Group Restr. 3 Restriction Group 172 Two-Way ANOVA Summary For Sampled Districts APPENDIX P Source SS df MS F P Bg 1729.72 3 _ _ _ Restriction 98.52 1 98.528 1.19 0.2776 Score Groups Student Population 1452.03 1 1452.03 17.53 0.00005 Groups (Columns) Row x Column 179.16 1 179.16 2.16 0.1443 wg 9526.52 1 15 82.83 _ _ Total 1 1256.24 1 18 _ __ __ bg = between groups; wg = within groups (error) Two-Way ANOVA Summary For Criteria 1, 2, and 5 Source SS df MS F P 89 1689 3 _ _ _ Restriction 2.87 1 2.90 3.74 .0555 Score Groups Student Population 1 2.79 1 12.80 1 6.68 .0001 Groups (Columns) Row x Column 1.23 1 1.20 1.6 .2083 wg 92.80 121 82.83 _ _ Total 109.69 124 '_ _ _ bg = between groups; wg = within groups (error) 173 REFERENCES 174 #1.... _ Ltd’s- '2 References Agran, M., Alper, S. (Fall 2000) Curriculum and instruction in general education: implications for service delivery and teacher preparation. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25(3), 167-174. American Teacher. (Dec.2001/Jan. 2002). Commitment to human rights more vital than ever. American Teacher, 86(4), 3. Anderson, M.L. & Collins. RH. (Eds). (1992). Race, class. and gender: an anthology. Belmont. CA: Wadsworth. Baines, L. (Fall 2001). In search of the education establishment: pondering . the character of our content. Educational Horizons, 80(1), 12-14. Bacharach, S. & Mitchell, S. (1981 ). Interest group politics in school districts: The case of local teachers' unions. Organizational behavior in schools and school districts. New York. Praeger Publishing. Bascia, N. (April 1993). Can teacher unions represent teacher’s best interests? Educational Researcher, 22(3), 37. Bascia, N. (Summer 1998). The next step in teacher union and reform. Contemporary Education. 69(4), 210-213. Bickel, R.D. (Fall 1998). A brief history of the commitment to inclusion as a facet of equal educational opportunity. New Direction for Student Services, 83, 3-13. Buell, M.J., Hallam, R.A., & Gamel-McConnick, M. (June 1999). A survey of general and special education teachers’ perceptions and inservice needs concerning inclusion. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 46(2), 143-56‘. Bullock, M. (Fall 2002). A systems approach to the provision of services to individuals with disabilities. Educational Horizons, 81 (1 ). 21- 26. Chesley, G.M., & Calaluce, P.D. (December 1997). The deception of inclusion. Mental Retardation, 35, 488-490. Chow, P., Blais, L., & Hemingway, J. (Spring 1999). An outsider looking in: total inclusion and the concept of equifinality. Education. 119(3), 459-464. 175 Collins, RH. (1991). Black feminist thought: knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge. Corey, CC. (1975). The perceived effects of collective negotiation on aspects of special education in Michigan. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975) Cusick, RA. (1992). The educational system. its nature and logic. New York: McGraw-Hill. DeMitcheIl. T.A., & Barton, R.M. (September 1996). Collective bargaining and its impact on local educational reform efforts. Educational Policy, 10(3), 366-378. Detroit Police Officers v. Detroit, 391 Mich 44; 214 NW2d 803 (1974). Developmental Disabilities Institute Report. (2000), Who’s who in special education, Wayne State University Duhaney, L.M. (Nov./Dec. 1999). A content analysis of state education agencies' policies/position statements on inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 20(6), 367-378. Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL 94-142), Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) of 1990. 1997 (PL 101-476) Elmore, R.F. (1990). Restructuring Schools. The next generation of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass lnc., Publishers. Elmore, R.F. (1995). Structural reform and educational practice. Educational Researcher, 24(9), 23-26. Elmore, R.F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1-26. Feldman, S. (May/Jun. 2001). Everyone winds. American Teacher, 85(8), 5. Feldman, S. (Sept. 1999). Working together. American Teacher, 84(1), 5. Feldman, S. (Oct. 2000) Unions are good for America. American Teacher, 85(2). 5. Fuchs. D.. & Fuchs, L.S. (Feb. 1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60(4), 294-310. 176 Fullan, M.G.. & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Gallagher, P.A. (Fall 1997). Teachers and inclusion: perspectives on changing roles. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 17, 363-386. Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructivist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266-275. ‘ Glazer, S. M. (Mar. 1997). The dilemmas of inclusion. Teaching PreK-8, 27, 88-89. Guetzloe, E. (Spring 1999). Inclusion: the broken promise. Preventing School Failure, 43(3), 92-98. Hagan-Burke, 8., Jefferson, G. L. (Spring 2002). Using data to promote academic benefit for included students with mild disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 46(3), 112-118. Hamil, L. B., Jantzen, A. K.. Bargerhuff, M. E. (Fall 1999). Analysis of effective educator competencies in inclusive education. Action in Teacher Education, 21(3), 21-37. Harr, CK. (1996). Teachers’ unions: roadblocks to reform. The American Enterprise,7(5), 35- 37. Harrington-Lueker, D. (1997). More perfect unions: can the teacher unions get beyond bread-and-butter issues and take on school reform? The American School Board Journal, 184(4), 34-37. Hendricks-Lee. M.S., & Mooney, T. (Summer 1998). A teacher union’s role in systemic educational reform. Contemporary Education, 69(4), 218- 222. Hewitt, M. (Spring 1999). Inclusion from a general educator’s perspective. Preventing School Failure. 43(3), 133-134. Hunter, R.F. (1999). Michigan labor law: what every citizen should know. Mackinac Center for Public Policy: Midland. Jascourt, H.D. (Apr. 2001). A review of the past decade of labor relations in education—seeds of change in the future-an introduction. Journal of Law & Education, 30(2). 223-226. 177 Johns, Beverly, Guetzloe, Eleanor and Yell, Mitchell. Update on disciplinary provisions. (1998) Kavale, K.A., & Fomess, S. R. (Sept/Oct. 2000). History, rhetoric, and reality: analysis of the inclusion debate. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 279-296. Keefe, C.H.. & Davis, R. (Jan. 1998). Inclusion means.... NASSP Bulletin, 82. 54-64. Kerchner, C.T., Koppich, J., & Weeres, J. (Feb. 1998). “New and improved” teacher unionism: but will it wash? Educational Leadership, 55, 21- 24. ‘ Liberrnan. L.M. (1985). Special education and regular education:a merger made in heaven? Exceptional Children, 51, 513-516. Lieberman. M. (1997). The teacher unions: how the NEA and AFT sabotage reform and hold students, parents, teachers, and taxpayers hostage to bureaucracy. New York: The Free Press. Lieberman, M. (1998). The ruminations of a right-wing extremist. Phi Delta Kappan. 80(3), 229-232. Lipsky, D.K., 8r Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform. transforming America’s classrooms. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Lipsky, D.K., & Gartner, A. (Oct. 1998). Taking inclusion into the future. Educational Leadership, 56(2), 78-81. Macke, S.M. (Summer 1998). Teacher unionism: back to the future. Contemporary Education, 69(4), 180-181 . Mandatory Special Education Act in Michigan (PA 198 of 1971), Revised Administrative Rules for Special Education (1999). Mastropieri, M.A., & Scruggs, T.E. (Spring 1997). What’s special about special education? a cautious view toward full inclusion. The Educational Forum, 61 , 206-211. McGregor. G. (Feb. 1997). Inclusion. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 1-121 . 178 McLeskey, J., & Henry, D. (May/June 1999). Inclusion: what progress is being made across states? Teaching Exceptional Children, 31 (5), 56-62. McLeskey, J., Waldron, N.L., & So, T.H. (Spring 2001). Perspectives of teachers toward inclusive school programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(2), 108-1 15. McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N.L. (2002). Inclusion and school change: teacher perceptions regarding curricular and instructional adaptations. Teacher Education and Special Education. 25(1). 41-54. McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N.L. (Winter 2002). Professional development and inclusive schools: reflections on effective practice. The Teacher Educator, 37(3), 159-172. - Miller, Lynda and Newbill, Chris. (1998). Section 504 in the classroom. Texas, Pro-Ed. Michigan Special Education Exit Database (1999). Monahan, R.G., Marino. SB, 8. Miller, R. (Winter 1996). Teacher attitudes toward inclusion: implications for teacher education in schools 2000. Education, 1 17, 316-320. Mock, D.R., & Kauffman, J.M. (Winter 2002). Preparing teachers for full inclusion: is it possible? The Teacher Educator, 37(3), 202-215. Moo, G.G. (1999). Power grab: the national educationaAssociation’s betrayal of our children. Washington: Regnery Publishing. Munk, LG. (1998). Collective bargaining: bringing education to the table; analysis of 583 Michigan school labor contracts and recommended improvements to help teachers, schools, and students. Mackinac Center for Public Policy: Midland. Murphy, M. (1990). Blackboard Unions. The AFT and the NEA,1900-1980. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Olson. M.R’., Chalmers, L., 8. Hoover, J.H. (Jan/Feb. 1997). Attitudes and attributes of general education teachers identified as effective inclusionists. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 28-35. 179 Peck, L. (June 1991). An uneven look at teacher unions. The American School Board Journal, 178(6), 32. Peltier, G.L. (Summer 1997). The effect of inclusion on non-disabled childrenza review of the research. Contemporary Education, 68, 234- 238. Petch-Hogan, B., & Haggard, D. (Spring 1999). The inclusion debate continues. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 35(3). 128-131. Phi Delta Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development and Research, (1993) Poole, W.L. (April 2001). The teacher union’s role in 1990s educational reform: an organizational evolution perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly. 3(2). 173-196. Prom, M. (May/June 1999). Measuring perceptions about inclusion. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(5), 38-42. Reeve, P.T., & Hallahan, D.P. (March 1994). Practical questions about collaboration between general and special educators. Focus on Exceptional Children, 26(7), 1-12. Revised Administrative Rules for Special Education, 34 C.F.R. Part 300 & 34 C.F.R. Part 99 (2002). Rieck, W.A., & Wadsworth, D.E. (Oct. 2000). Inclusion: administrative headache or opportunity? NASSP Bulletin. 84(618), 56-62. Rousmaniere, K. (Sept/Oct. 1999). Teacher unions in popular culture: individualism and the absence of collectivity. Working USA, 3(3), 38- 46. Ruben, A.M. (Apr. 2001). The top ten judicial decisions affecting labor relations in public education during the decade of the 1990’s: the verdict of quiescent years. Journal of Law & Education, 30(2), 247- 274. Salend, S.J., & Duhaney. L.M.G. (Mar./Apr.1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and without disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20(2), 114-126. Sarason, S.B. (September 1995). Some reactions to what we have learned. Phi Delta Kappan. 77, 84-85. 180 Schlafly, P. (Summer 1997). Why education is America’s number-one worry. Contemporary Education. 68. 213-216. Sharp, W.L. (1993). Collective Bargaining in the Public Schools. Madison: Brown & Benchmark. Shoho, A.R.. & Van Reusen, A.K. (Nov. 2000). Meeting the challenges of teacher resistance to high school inclusion programs. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 13(2), 1 0-14? Snyder, R. F. (Fall 1999). Inclusion: a qualitative study of inservice general education teachers’ attitudes and concerns. Education, 120(1), 173- 180. Sparks, D. (Spring 2000). Issues at the table. Journal of Staff Development, . 21(2), 53-56 ‘ Standard and Poor's School Evaluation Services, school district expenditure data (1999) State of Michigan December 1. 1999 Count for Special Education Stewart, D.L. (1979). The effect of collective negotiating on mainstreaming Michigan special education students into regular education (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1979) Strom. D.J., & Baxter, S.S. (Apr. 2001). From the statehouse to the schoolhouse: how legislatures and courts shaped labor relations for public education employees during the last decade. Journal of Law 8r Education, 30(2), 275-303. Thomas, G. & Loxley, A. (2001). Deconstructing special education and constructing inclusion. Great Britain. Biddles Limited. Treder, D.W., Morse. W.C., & Fenion, J.M. (Summer 2000). The relationship between teacher effectiveness and teacher attitudes toward issues related to inclusion. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23(2), 202-210. Trent, S.C., Artiles, A.J., & Fitchett-Bazemore, K. (Winter 2002). Addressing theory, ethics, power, and privilege in inclusion research and practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(1), 11-22. 181 Tyack, David and Cuban, Larry (1995) Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. Vaidya, S.R., & Zaslavsky, H.N. (Fall 2000). Teacher education reform effort for inclusion classrooms: knowledge versus pedagogy. Education, 121(1), 145-152. Weiss, C. (1995). The four ‘l’s’ of school reform: how interests. ideology, information, and institution affect teachers and principals. Harvard Educational Review, 65(4), 571-592. Willie, C.V., 8. Miller, I., eds. (1988). Social goals and educational reform: American schools in the twentieth century. Contributions to the Study of Education, 27. Williams, F. (1992). Reasoning with statistics: how to read quantitative research. Oriando Florida. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers. Wolfe, J.A. (Oct 2002). A search for the best IDEA: balancing the conflicting provisions of the individuals with disabilities education act. Vanderbilt Law Review, 55(5), 1627. Wood, M. (Winter 1998). Whose job is it anyway? educational roles in inclusion. Exceptional Children, 64, 181 -1 95. Yell, M.L. (Oct. 1998). The legal basis of inclusion. Educational Leadership. 56(2), 70-73. Yell, M.L., & Drasgow, E. (Spring 1999). A legal analysis of inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 43(3), 118-123. Zera, D.A., & Seitsinger, R.M. (Fall 2000). The oppression of inclusion. Educational Horizons, 79(1), 16-18. Zera, D.A. (Fall 2002). What is a system and a system perspective? Educational Horizons. 81 (1 ), 18-20. 182 l1111111111111111111l