A may RE PARflClPANT .EVALumoR ;; . or A RESOURCE TEACHER PROGRAM Dissertation far the 'Degmeiof Ph. D. MECHiGAN STATE 'UNWERSHY HELEN ELIZABETH ROMSEK 1975 * This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF PARTICIPANT EVALUATION OF A RESOURCE TEACHER PROGRAM presented by /’ Helen Elizabeth Romsek has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Pho Do degreein Elem. & 3180.. Ed. (Spec. Ed. Admin.) Major professor Date February 19, 1975 0-7639 «unisex; HUAB & 30"? :‘i 300K BlNDERY END. “ LmRARY BINDERS l mmcvnm mums“ x ABSTRACT A STUDY OF PARTICIPANT EVALUATION OF A RESOURCE TEACHER PROGRAM By Helen Elizabeth Romsek The purpose of the study was to evaluate the resource teacher (RT) program of eight Michigan school districts within one intermediate district. Specifically, it sought to secure data which would shed light on these concerns: how the RT allots his time among various alternative types of activity, how the time should "ideally" be spent, what are the felt competencies of the RT's, and what are the needs of the RT for additional training. These con- cerns were expressed in the form of five research questions. The subjects for the study were ten special education teachers employed as RT's in grades K-8 school districts, all five psychologists who provided regular service to the RT programs, all l7 principals of the buildings served by the RT's, and a random sample (N=40) of general education teachers who had worked officially with one of the RT's. All subjects selected participated in the study, except for the teacher group, for which 29 (72.5%) participated. Helen Elizabeth Romsek Data collection was in the form of questionnaires for each group of participants, six forms in all, each utilizing a common list of nine RT activities and two types of responses. Teachers and RT's estimated the allotment of time of the RT. All respondents were re- quired to rank the nine activities, indicating three "most" and three "least“ important. Five research questions were answered by descriptive statis- tics for the sub-groups. Use of a common response mode allowed compari- son of the various sets of responses. Findings 1. RT's spent an average of 23.2 hours of a 40-hour week teaching children and eight hours in preparation for teaching. Thus, 78 per cent of the time was devoted to working with children assigned to the program. An average of three hours weekly was devoted to consulting with teachers. Only 2.1 hours per week, about one-half hour per day, was devoted to meetings. 2. Teachers and RT's were in close agreement as to how time was actually spent and how it should ideally be spent. 3. RT's ranked their proficiency highest in tutoring, teacher consultation, and out of class work with children. They reported least proficiency in assessment, in-class activities, and inservice for teachers. Helen Elizabeth Romsek RT's reported the greatest need for further training in the area of assessment. Inservice for teachers, out of class non-tutoring, and work with parents were the next most important for further training. In general, areas of low proficiency appeared high in desire for further training, and areas of high proficiency low in desire for training. In-class work was an exception, ranking low in proficiency and low in desire for further train- ing. All respondents were in agreement on the activity of in-class work-instruction and demonstration. RT's re- ported it low in competence, low in need for training, and low in emphasis for an ideal program. Psychologists, teachers and principals ranked it low for an ideal program. In an ideal program RT's would spend more time on assess- ment and planning and less on tutoring and out-class work with children. Teacher consultation and inservice would be alloted more time. For an ideal program all respondents agreed that planning ranked high in importance, in-class work ranked low, and teacher consultation ranked medium. Helen Elizabeth Romsek The closest agreement on ideal program occurred between teacher and principal and between RT and psychologist. The least agreement among groups occurred between teacher and psychologist and principal and psychologist. A STUDY OF PARTICIPANT EVALUATION OF A RESOURCE TEACHER PROGRAM By Helen Elizabeth Romsek A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Elementary and Special Education 1975 @ Copyright by HELEN ELIZABETH ROMSEK l975 In Memory Of Anna Lisac Romsek who believed in learning ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to acknowledge the contributions of those whose assistance made possible the completion of this thesis. Dr. Charles Henley, chairman of the guidance committee, for his generosity with time, his wise counsel, and his steadfast support in the completion of this study and throughout the academic program. Dr. Frank B. Bruno, member of the guidance committee, in- valuable friend and mentor, for his contributions to the conceptuali- zation of the study and to all phases of the endeavor. Dr. Richard Featherstone and Dr. Gordon Aldridge, members of the guidance committee, for their confidence, encouragement, and support throughout the academic program. Dr. J. Edwin Keller, advisor for research design, without whom this study could not have been completed. The resource teachers, classroom teachers, principals and psychologists from the Ingham Intermediate School District who willingly participated in the study, and who are responsible for the continuing development and refinement of the resource teacher program. Kathy Borgert, secretary and friend, who gave many weekend and evening hours to the preparation of this document. ii A special thanks to Dr. Charles V. Mange and Dr. David L. Haarer, both of whom must know their belief in, and support of, the author are deeply appreciated. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES .................. vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ..................... l Orientation to the Study .............. Plan and Content of the Thesis ........... Historical Review ................. The Ingham Intermediate Resource Teacher Program Principles ............... l3 Competencies and Teacher Preparation for the Resource Teacher Role ............ l5 The Resource Teacher Program Description ...... l6 The Resource Teacher Program Procedures ..... . 18 Activities of the Resource Teacher ......... 24 Overview of the Study ............... 26 Limitations of the Study .............. 27 II. METHODOLOGY ...................... 29 Subjects ...................... 29 Measures ...................... 30 Research Questions ................. 32 Treatment of the Data ............... 33 III. FINDINGS ....................... 35 Question l .................... 35 Question 2 .................... 39 Question 3 .................... 42 Question 4 .................... 44 Question 5 .................... 46 Chapter Page IV. REFLECTIONS OF A PARTICIPANT OBSERVER ......... 49 Introduction .................... 49 Issue: Generalist vs. Specialist ......... 52 Issue: The Role Dance ............... 55 Issue: Focus on Needs Rather Than Deficits . . . . 58 Issue: Consultation-~Everybody's Role ....... 60 V. SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... 64 Summary ...................... 64 Conclusions .................... 67 Recommendations .................. 68 APPENDIX A. Resource Teacher Activities .............. 70 B. Resource Teacher - current activity emphases ..... 72 C. Teacher - current activity emphases .......... 73 D. Resource Teacher - activity rankings ......... 74 E. Resource Teacher - ideal activity emphases ...... 75 F. Teacher - ideal activity emphases ........... 76 G. Principal/Psychologist - ideal activity emphases . . . 77 H. Functions and Procedures For Special Education Planning and Placement Committee .......... 78 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... 83 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. Distribution of resource teachers according to hours per week spent in various activities ..................... 2. Distribution of teachers according to their rankings of the amount of time resource teachers spent at various activities ........ 3. Resource teacher categorization of activities according to felt competence and desire for further training ................ 4. Comparison of resource teacher current activity time allotments and ideal activity emphases 5. Comparison of teacher's current and ideal activity emphases for the resource teacher activities ................. 6. Distribution of principals according to ideal activity emphases for resource teacher activities ................. 7. Distribution of psychologists according to ideal activity emphases for resource teacher activities ................. 8. Comparison of modal responses to ideal activity emphases for resource teachers, teachers, principals, and psychologists ........... Figure 1. Procedural Flow Chart ................. 2. Schematic representation of data analysis ....... vi Page 36 38 41 43 45 46 47 20 34 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Orientation to the Study This study is an investigation of a resource teacher program which was developed for the Ingham Intermediate School District as an alternative to traditional special education programs serving children with learning and behavioral difficulties in school. The program has been in operation for two school years. It is a combined direct service-consultation program for children with significant problems, and for their teachers. It is a part of the nation-wide shift away from self-contained special education classrooms toward more normal learning settings for handicapped children. The general purposes of the study are two-fold. First, it was intended to secure data which would shed light on the question of the manner in which a Resource Teacher (RT) can best function. That is, how should he allot his time among various alternative types of activity in serving children and their teachers. A second goal was to determine the felt competencies of teachers serving in the RT role and the types of additional training which the RT may need. Data was obtained by questionnaire from resource teachers, classroom teachers, school principals and school psychologists who had been actively involved with the RT program for at least one school year. Evaluation of an evolving program is an important aspect of its development and should provide valuable information to be used in deciding future directions. The perceptions and opinions of personnel providing, receiving and supporting the service offer significant clues to means for making the program responsive to the needs of the students and school personnel, and can be helpful in the further refinement and definition of the newly-emerging RT role, as well as in the design of pre—service and in-service training programs for RT's. Plan and Content of the Thesis Chapter I presents an overview of the study, historical perspective, general background information including major current issues which have bearing on the problem, overall design as it relates to the issues, and a description of the Ingham Intermediate School District RT program. The methodology of the study is described in Chapter II and the findings are reported in Chapter III. As an indi- vidual intimately involved in the inception and development of the program under review, the writer contributes a chapter on related con- cerns, observations and perceptions gleaned from personal experience as principle proponent of the program. The final chapter summarizes the study, the discussion, and the recommendations. Historical Review Public education has been under perennial criticism from both professional educators and concerned citizens. Note this statement: Nearly four million dollars taken in one year from the pockets of taxpayers of one city for education - more than a million dollars paid to teachers of primary schools, and a similar expenditure throughout the state and in more than half the states; and what is the result? According to independent and competent evidence from all quarters, the mass of the pupils in these public schools are unable to read intelligently, to spell correctly, to write legibly . . . or to do anything that reasonably well-educated children should do with ease . . . (white, 1880). And this: The examinations were, in the first place, of the simplest and most practical character. There was no nonsense about them. They had but one object - to see if, in the common schools, the children were taught to read, write and cipher . . . The show- ing made by some towns was excellent, and of them we will speak presently. In the case of others, it is evident . . . that the scholars of fourteen years of age did not know how to read, to write or to cipher . . . (White, 1880). And this: . . but it is claimed that the system is sound in its funda- mental principles, that its results fully justify the general confidence in its transcendent utility . . . and that the only thing to be done with it is to go on improving it indefinitely . . One of the most effectual of (the) means is judicious, honest, intelligent, disinterested criticism - a criticism which aims to make things appear as in themselves they really are . . . (Philbrick, 1881). These quotations might have come from the latest issue of one of the popular news weeklies, from a professional journal, or from the magazine section of last Sunday's newspaper. But they did not. They were written almost 100 years ago by concerned American leaders who recognized, as we do today, that education should, and can, be held responsible for the job it purports to do. In the early common school. the purpose of public education for all children was to build strong "moral fiber,“ to increase the economic productivity of the citizenry, to enhance the democratic form of government by teaching voters to read and write so they might vote “intelligently.“ Assessment was based on the child's knowledge of the three R's - the subjects considered to be the business of the school (Gross, 1964). The social reform movement, beginning early in the 20th century, brought a change in the focus of education. Today there is little concern for “morality“ as it was known in 19th century America. “Morals" are now considered a matter of personal preference, and we try to develop self-determination and individuality. While we are con- cerned about economic productivity, many economists now advocate main- taining a certain level of unemployment in order to control the national economy. So while we want all citizens to be self-sufficient, we are less concerned with high productivity than about somehow keeping people off relief so that they may maintain self-respect while still maintaining the economy through planned unemployment. As for developing an intelligent electorate which will elect the “best" man to office, the distance between voter and candidate-- especially on a national level--is so great and so distorted by Madison Avenue campaign techniques, it is doubtful the voter can get the informa- tion he needs to make an intelligent decision. And the level of literacy has risen to the degree that this is less a problem. So while the general goals of education are the same, the focus is different. We are teaching essentially the same core of in- formation and skills. In addition we try to develop individuality and creative expression; we want everyone--even the most severely handicapped--to have a chance at "the good life" (Allen, 1969); we want to foster good mental health; we want to eliminate exploitation of the young, the old, the weak; we tend to be very concerned about what society should do for the individual and perhaps somewhat less about how the individual can contribute to society--President Kennedy's plea notwithstanding. Today, unlike the l9th century, not only are leaders in education concerned, but the well-educated, intelligent, thinking citizenry (themselves products of the system they are assessing) are becoming involved in the problem. We are seeing now the beginnings of citizen participation in education. Until the past few years the public has been willing to accept the judgement and assurance of the profession that the system is “good." But increased concern for the individual, for the deprived, for the handicapped minority, and for minority groups in general, has led to closer examination of schools and their effectiveness with all students (White, 1969). Increasing teacher militancy resulting in higher cost for education has reached many heretofore apathetic citizens through the pocketbook--citizens who otherwise would have little concern. The efficiency of highly developed technology has led people to demand economical and effective ways to teach more, teach it better, and teach it faster. And there have always been professional educators who are genuinely concerned and interested in improving the system. So we have at least three powerful motivators at work-~social conscience, the "almighty dollar", and desire for professional excellence for its own sake. Social conscience among critics of education takes the form of calls for flexibility in scheduling and grouping, in curricular offerings, and in provision for individual variation in student rates and styles of learning. Strong voices (Silberman, 1970; Kozol, l968; Reimer, 1971) are heard extolling the right of the individual to be “different,“ demanding tolerance and equal educational opportunity for children whose learning and behavior patterns deviate from the school norm, and suggesting radical change in American schools. Some of the most clearly heard criticism comes from parents of handicapped children who, with the help of child advocates from the fields of education and law, have taken their concerns to the courts with damage suits against schools claiming that they fail to educate children and that some of the practices in special education have detrimental effects on children. The result of one such action, culmina- ting in the Judge Skelley Wright decision (Hobson v. Hansen, l967) to abolish the tracking system in the Washington, D.C. public schools, represents the first attempt of the courts to interfere in what had heretofore been perceived as the exclusive right of educators--the assignment of students in the educational system. Specific issues brought out by this and subsequent court cases are: the appropriateness of the commonly used standardized I.Q. tests and the question of the accuracy of test results; lack of parental participation in decision- making; quality of programming in special classes (Special Education and Litigation, 1973). In a l969 appeal of the Hobson case (Smuck v. Hobson, l969) the lower court was upheld. A measure of the impact of the Hobson case may be seen in the number of subsequent cases in a similar vein which have either been settled out of court without contest or have become moot cases due to dramatic changes in school practice. Burrello, DeYoung, and Lang (1973) list four California cases, one case in Massachusetts and one in Arizona. They report that not one of these cases has come to trial. While many schools and teachers make some attempt to accomodate to the educational needs of “different" students, it has been common practice to view them as handicapped and refer them to special education programs. Because of the categorical nature of traditional special education programs, it is necessary to make a search (diagnosis) for the characteristics which allow a label to be applied and the child to be placed in a special class. Since there are a limited number of categories (programs), observable behavior, test information, history, etc. must be interpreted in light of one of these categories. Thus a student who has a normal I.Q. score, is a low achiever and disruptive in class is likely to be placed in a class for the emotionally impaired. If the low achieving, disruptive student has a low I.Q. score, he is likely to be placed in a class for the mentally impaired. Neither placement necessarily speaks to the child's educational needs. Until recently, self-contained class placement was--except for some minimal itinerant services--the only program available to children needing special education services. The efficacy of special class placement has been seriously questioned, particularly for children from low-status, non-white middle class, and minority culture backgrounds (Bruninks & Rynders, 1971; Kirk, 1964; Johnson, 1962; Dunn, 1968). Kirk (1964) found retarded children make as much or more progress in regular classes than in special education. Johnson (1962) compared the accomplishments of mentally retarded children in special and regular classes and found that those in special classes accomplished their objectives at the same or lower level as compared to similar students in regular classes. A number of studies in the last decade have suggested that placement of handicapped children in segregated classes results in little or no significant educational advantage for the children. Hamill and Wiederholt (1972), in a comprehensive review of the research, re- ported that investigators consistently fail to demonstrate the superiority of special class placement, especially where educable retarded pupils are involved. They also reported: "Similar negative conclusions toward the special class concept have also been reported for other areas of exceptionality, in- cluding gifted (Balow and Curtin, 1966); the visually impaired (Cutsforth, 1962; Pintner, 1942); the auditorially deficient (Meyerson, 1963); the cerebral palsied (Ingram, 1965); and the emotionally disturbed (Connor and Muldoon, 1967; Rubin, Simpson and Betwee, 1966) . . ." (Hamill and Wiederholt, 1972) While the advantages are questionable, some parents and educa- t()rs are claiming that self-contained classes, and the stigma attached to 'tite labeling process required, may actually have adverse effects on children. The field of special education is currently concerned with exploring new models which might eliminate the disadvantages of the segregated class, particularly for the mildly handicapped, while pro- viding appropriate education for all handicapped children. Reynolds (1970) has been in the forefront of this movement through the Leader- ship Training Institute/Special Education. We are now looking at con- tinuums providing a number of options, including non-categorical programs, which can be made available on the basis of need. The Report of the Joint Commission on the Mental Health of Children, in describing the rights of children includes, "The right to receive care and treatment through facilities which are appropriate to their needs and which keep them as close as possible within the normal school setting“ (Crisis, 1969). Such a statement surely calls for options and provision for mobility among programs. In response to the report of the Joint Commission, a Joint Special Education Study Group was formed to identify issues regarding the relationship of special education to general education in matters of school mental health and education. Their minority report is supplementary to the Joint Commission Report. Article IV of this document includes this statement: Special education personnel should be responsible for assuring that all children benefit from regular education programs. They should develop means whereby the regular class can accomodate to extreme ranges of individual differences in children. Enough is known about the questionable effects of segregated special classes, to make their presence in public schools a rarity. Such a position should spur the search for meaningful alternatives, and fortunately there do exist already a variety of patterns and plans to be applied and tested . . . (Report, 1970) 10 There is a national trend toward legislation at the state level which mandates equal education opportunity for handicapped children. At this time 48 states, including Michigan, already have such laws. While there is considerable variation in the laws them- selves, the principle of the right of each individual to an appropriate education regardless of type or degree of handicap or cultural or social condition or geographic location has been well established. The Michigan Mandatory Special Education Law, passed in 1971, requires that each person from ages 0-26 be provided an appropriate educational program regardless of the type or degree of disability, geographic location, social station, or cultural background (Guidelines, 1974). Thus special education must provide total program for all handicapped persons on two dimensions--age and degree of handicap. While Michigan has long been a leader among the states in the develop- ment of special education programs and services, the Mandatory Law, with its emphasis on total planning, has brought into focus some hereto— fore neglected areas of concern. One of these areas is programming for the mildly handicapped and the enigmatic child with significant learning and/or behavior problems. This child does not benefit from the general school program and yet does not qualify for special educa- tion programs which are available only to children who conform to a specific disability description. It has become clear that we need programs with the capability of providing for those handicapped children who do not "fit" the traditional handicapping labels but who nevertheless cannot survive in a school program without special education 11 service. Reynolds (1970) deplores classification based on “dysfunctions, deficits, impairments and disabilities" and calls for a classification system which allows for the allocation of children among instructional systems based on the child's needs and the likelihood that the system can provide the kind of instruction needed. From the outset, special education programs developed along categorical lines--first for the physically handicapped, then the mentally handicapped and emotionally disturbed, and most recently the l‘learning disabled." Probably because of the early and continued in- volvement of the medical profession, special education took on the basic characteristics of the medical approach to problems. That is, a system involving the general areas of identification, diagnosis, prescription, and treatment have been established, and remain the basis of special education programming. Implied, and sometimes stated, is a notion that when a child is unable to benefit from his school placement, there is something wrong with the child, and treatment requires an intensive, specialized program which can be applied only by specialists in a special setting. Children with similar problems are grouped to- gether, and a categorical label applied. A number of problems with the categorical system have been identified: 1) the stigma attached to placement in segregated classes, 2) greater visibility of, and emphasis on, problem areas, 3) the diffi- culty in developing effective program content in the special classes, which may be related to error in grouping, and 4) the problems encountered in removing the labels and reintegrating children to general education 12 classes. The system tends to accent negatives by describing the pathology which must exist before a child may be served. The diagnosis, at best difficult, tends to become a search for evidence indicating the child can meet eligibility requirements for a program. For children who do not qualify for a categorical program because of unusual test profiles and behavior patterns, new categories and programs are invented. Labels such as perceptual development, adjusted study, learning center, higher horizons, learning disability, all grew out of the desire to avoid a stigmatizing label while providing special help to children. The ecological approach to individual difference has rele- vance for special education in the search for new ways of improving the educational experience for handicapped children. Since ecology, simply defined, is the study of the interaction between organism and environ- ment, some implications are immediately apparent. Ecological theory requires the organism be studied in its natural environment-~in the case of handicapped children, the regular class. The unit for study is the ecosystem, which is the dynamic interaction of environment on individual and individual on environment (Rhodes, 1972). Under this system, the question of individual pathology loses significance in the process of intervention, and separation from the normal environment could be seen as obstructing the helping process. Alternatives to special class placement have been developed throughout the country. Many of these models target the regular class- room teacher for help, providing one-on-one inservice training. Some of these are: the stratistician (Buffmire, 1973), the Diagnostic- Prescriptive Teacher (Prouty, 1973), the Precision Teacher Model 13 (Haring, 1973), the Fail-Save Program developed through a Title III project in Olathe, Kansas (Van Elten, 1973), and the Houston Plan (Meisgeier, 1973), an attempt to make an entire school system more responsive to the needs of children. Models which provide primarily direct service to children include the Madison Plan (Hewett, 1971), which provides a continuum of service from full time special class through partial integration to full participation in a regular class, and a variety of part time instructional programs. The Ingham Intermediate Resource Teacher Program is a com- bined teacher/consultant, direct service program which utilizes all available resources in a given school for the benefit of the children. The resource program acts as a focal point around which school deci- sions can be made, increasing the likelihood of constructive change from within. The Ingham Intermediate Resource Teacher Program Principles The program under investigation was developed in an attempt to provide a program which could serve the individual needs of handi— capped students who can remain in general education classes in neighbor- hood schools with the help of special instruction and teacher consulta- tion. A second goal was to design a program which could serve children who do not neatly "fit“ categorical groupings. A third goal was to design a program which is an integral part of the school(s) it serves and has potential as a focal point around which the school(s) can mobilize itself for change. 14 Basic to the Resource Teacher Program are these premises: 1. When a skilled special education teacher is a member of the school staff, it is possible to successfully educate the majority of the children with learning and behavior problems within the normal school setting. While categorization has some value for administrative expediency, it is neither feasible nor helpful to cate- gorize all handicapped children into discrete groups for purposes of providing each with an appropriate educational experience. A perennial problem for special education has been the enigmatic child, who conforms to no categorical description and, for purposes of special education services, consti- tutes a group of one. Categorical programs tend to ex- clude this child from special education. A program which describes itself in terms of services rendered rather than a disability group served, has a capability for serving children without the stigmatiza- tion and static programming which sometimes accompanies disability labeling. To be effective, consultive service to teachers must be perceived by the recipients as acceptable, appropriate, and useful. Schools can be improved only by the people who work in them. 15 7. Provision must be made for individual and group instruc- tion for both regular and special education teachers, based on need, and carried out by personnel from the universities, the school and the community. Competencies and Teacher Preparation for the RT Role The programs of most teacher training institutions are currently responding to the trend toward alternative strategies to self-contained classroom programs for handicapped students and toward competency-based curricula. The Bureau of Education of the Handicapped and Bureau for Educational Personnel Development of the U.S. Office of Education has, for the past five years, been actively supporting the development of programs to train the regular education teacher to be skillful in working with handicapped students and the special education teacher to work with handicapped students on a non-categorical basis (Proceedings, 1972; Anderson, 1971). Certainly the activities of the RT, as defined for purposes of this study, indicate the need for a number of competencies not usually required of the teacher in a self-contained classroom. Some of these expressed and implied are: skill in educational assessment--an activity traditionally left to the psychologist; demonstra- tion teaching in the classroom of another teacher; planning and carrying out a variety of behavior management techniques; inservice for groups of teachers; consultation skills with all this implies regarding attitudes, inter-personal relationships and mediation techniques. 16 The Resource Teacher Program Description The following body of information on the program and activities of the resource teacher underlies the methodology for the study and is presented here briefly for clarity. It represents the model developed for the twelve local districts in the Ingham Intermediate School District. Each local district operates an RT program based on this model. As we have seen earlier, the Ingham Intermediate School District program re- lies on a special educator functioning as a generalist, serving children across disability lines, thus providing a continuum of service to schools which supplement categorical programs, and includes large numbers of variant individuals who do not conform to categorical descriptions. The RT program functions under a set of guidelines and procedures in- tended to provide an operational framework which allows for adaptation of specific procedures in response to the individual needs of the local districts which adopt the program. The guidelines and procedures are congruent with the Michigan Department of Education Rules for Special Education; viz. Rules 33, 49, and 90 of the Michigan Special Education Code (Guidelines, 1974). The RT program is intended to serve children who have signi- ficant difficulty in behavioral and academic areas, and who can function in the general education program with supportive help for the teacher and/or the assistance of a special teacher who can provide individual or small group prescriptive teaching and behavioral intervention. On a continuum of services for handicapped children, this program would be a first line of rescue. It is a way of implementing a philosophy which 17 dictates that every handicapped child shall be provided an educational program as close as possible to a normal school program and maintained in his home school whenever possible. This program is intended to serve children who may not best be served by segregated programs, but who nevertheless have significant educational or behavioral handicaps. It is anticipated that this program will help keep at a minimum the numbers of children assigned to segregated programs and will facilitate earlier and more successful reintegration of children from full time special classes. Teacher judgement is the basis for referral in most cases, but referral is accepted from any “in good faith“ source. This rather informal referral process appears to be common among mainstreaming programs. This RT program acknowledges the general education teacher as the person most likely to recognize a child's needs for assistance as well as his own desire for help in understanding the child and de- vising better instructional techniques. Cooperative action between teacher and RT begins with the referral. In many cases, the presenting problem is one which can be managed with assistance for the teacher, thus circumventing complex and time-consuming diagnostic, planning, and placement procedures which are unnecessary. The model makes the RT readily available to the classroom teacher. The following list of behaviors is used as a guide for teachers in making appropriate referrals. The precipitating cause for referral may be represented in this list but is not limited to it: education 18 Social behaviors such as isolation, peer group problems, poor adult relationships, etc., which interfere with the child's educational progress and which show promise of being overcome with the use of individualized management and instructional schemes. Personal behaviors such as disinterest, withdrawal, distractibility and/or hyperactivity sufficient to pre- vent the child from learning efficiently. Specific learning disabilities in the basic learning processes believed to be related to neurological dys- function. Gross and/or fine motor difficulties which interfere significantly with academic and social progress. Learning difficulties in basic areas of arithmetic, reading, writing and general cognition, which have promise of being overcome with individual prescriptive teaching. In short, the RT program is designed to provide a special generalist to supplement the regular school program for students with significant problems in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor areas, on an individual basis and across disability lines. The Resource Teacher Program Procedures The program has three main phases: (1) referral, (2) assess- ment, and (3) planning and implementation. It should be noted that 19 parents, home school administrator, and classroom teacher are involved in all decisions regarding the child. While procedures take a slightly different form in the various school buildings, the concept of full participation of parents and home school personnel may not be violated (See Figure 1, page 20). Referral in the form of informal requests for assistance from the RT may be made at any time and teacher consultation at a pre—referral stage may provide the necessary support and avoid further, more formal procedure. Referral for a specific child is made in writing to the resource teacher on a form provided for that purpose. The re- quest may originate from any “in good faith“ source such as parent, psychologist, principal, teacher, etc. The specifics of the form should suit the needs of individual programs but should always include: (1) provision for approval of the building principal, (2) provision for reporting disposition of the case in the event preliminary investigation results in referral to some different program, (3) verification of parent approval, and (4) statement from the teacher. Building teams, which include the RT, review all referrals for appropriateness, and assign to the RT those which appear to need the service. Disposition of the remaining referred cases is made to other services. Contact with the teacher is made usually within a week. Informal assessment and con- sultation begin at this stage and continue throughout whatever procedures are required to resolve the problems. If resolution occurs prior to formal assessment, the case would be considered consultive and need not be carried through to the placement process where formal labeling occurs. 20 Referral Source *Teacher consultation 1 with RT Referral to school team with parent approval School team assigns case for preliminary investigation Informal evaluation by RT *Teacher consultation 1 with RT ‘ Assessment team for formal evaluation for special education EPPC (includes parents)] *Teacher ’ consultation I with RT ' Child placed in RT program Re-evaluationl Termination l (EPPC) LAdjust program] Termination (EPPC) -.———- + etc. *Teacher consultation remains an option at several steps in the process. Figure 1. Procedural Flow Chart 21 Assessment of a child is carried out by a team which consists of the school psychologist and the resource teacher. The team may re- quest assistance from additional persons, depending upon the situation. The school psychologist acts as chairman of the assessment team and accepts responsibility for insuring that evaluation procedures used are appropriate and adequate. If the assistance of agents outside the school system is required, the psychologist will make the request and arrangements. As a rule of thumb, assessment ought to be accomplished within a two-week period, and if a prolonged period of time is required, the parents and school personnel are notified of the delay. As soon as the assessment team agrees that sufficient information is available, they will notify the chairman of the Educational Planning and Place- ment Committee (EPPC) who will initiate eligibility and placement pro- cedures. Eligibility, planning and placement are the responsibility of the educational planning and placement committee (for composition of this committee, rules and procedures, see Appendix H). The chair— man of the Educational Planning and Placement Committee, who is the local school administrator or his designee, is responsible for seeing that meetings of the planning committee are scheduled in such a way that the child's classroom teacher can be present. In general, the EPPC should meet no more than three weeks after assessment is initiated. The EPPC certifies the child for placement in the RT program. At the time of placement in the RT program, the child is designated a handicapped child and a record is entered for him in the computerized 22 record system maintained at the intermediate school district office. This is a semi-permanent record which is maintained, periodically updated, and discontinued according to the rules set down in the Ingham Intermediate Mandatory Special Education Plan and Department of Education rules. Present Michigan law requires a specific dis- ability label at this stage, and the label must be recorded in the central registry. At the program level, however, emphasis is placed on the service needs of the child without regard for the disability label. The second most important responsibility of the EPPC is to plan a program for the child providing for participation of the parent or guardian in planning. Goals and objectives are stated in behavioral terms, provision is made for review and follow-up, and assignment made to various personnel who will carry out the prescribed program. The RT develops specific performance objectives for each program goal, carries out the objectives, and completes periodic re- evaluation procedures. The EPPC may meet at any time to assess progress, alter the child's educational plan, or to terminate the special program for a child. In addition to, or in lieu of these kinds of meetings, evalua- tion of progress should be scheduled for each child approximately twelve weeks from the initiation of the program and no more than six months from that date. Additional guidelines are outlined in the Michigan Department of Education Special Education Guidelines (Guidelines, 1974). Others have become established as good practice through program evaluation for the past four years--1970-1974. 23 The resource teacher should be assigned no less than ten and no more than twenty-five children with whom she is working intensively, at any one time. The RT may work with very small groups (never more than eight per group) and will be spending some time on other duties. Parental approval must be obtained in writing before the assessment team singles out the child for more intensive work. Preliminary observation within classrooms to assist teachers in making appropriate referrals is appropriate without parental approval. There should be no constraints, other than time availability, on assistance to teachers in planning and implementing instructional and behavior management systems. In order that the resource teacher may work effectively with the children needing intensive help, the assignment should include no more than three school buildings (pre- ferably one building) with a time schedule which would allow each child to be seen a minimum of two times per week (preferably three to four times per week). Intensity of service should not be sacrificed to numbers. Ideally the RT program should have the capability of serving a child up to one-half the school day. At least one-half day per week should be scheduled for consultation, planning, preparation of programs and materials, inservice education for the resource teacher, etc. 24 - Each building served by the resource teacher must provide permanent space for the RT in the building. This area needs to be large enough to accomodate groups of children of up to eight members. It should also have storage space for materials. Furnishings should include the usual class- room paraphenalia. Tables are often substituted for student desks, since usually the teacher will be working at the child's side. At least one table large enough to accomodate a small group should be included. The RT will require special materials and equipment not usually found in general education classrooms. Activities of the Resource Teacher The work of the resource teacher is described in twelve cate- gories of activity. The content of these groupings was gleaned from a previous study of the work of resource teachers. During the 1970-71 school year, an exploratory program of graduate training for special education teachers in the area of the emotionally disturbed was carried out at Michigan State University by the writer and Dr. Frank Bruno. Experienced graduate students with approval in special education were placed for a practicum experience in two local school districts. They worked in the schools for 20 hours a week for a full school year. They were given a non-specific role description and were called resource teachers. Regular education teachers were told they could consult the RT about any child who had significant learning and/or adjustment problems. The RT was to assess the nature of the problem, prescribe 25 intervention techniques and assist in carrying out the intervention. The RT was to respond to the expressed needs of the school and tailor his intervention to those needs using his own individual strengths and areas of expertise, and learning new techniques and methods as the need arose. After the training year, a semi-structured in-depth inter- view was held with each teacher. Analysis of their descriptions of activities and use of time resulted in a list of activities which might be said to represent the types of service needed, and other- wise unmet, in these schools. It was to meet the needs perceived by the general education teachers that the RT program was developed. The categories of activities (needs) provide the body of information which underlies all facets of the study, and each research instrument utilizes these same categories. These 12 activities are listed below. 1. Assessment: evaluating the child's problem and providing verbal or written description of findings. (This may include observation, teacher-administered tests, perusing records, trial teaching, discussion, etc.). 2. Planning: along with the classroom teacher, deciding on specific goals for a child assigned to the RT program, planning strategies and procedures and division of res- ponsibility. 3. Tutoring: teaching children assigned to the RT program, individually and in small groups, where the focus is on teaching subject matter or learning skills. This may take place in or out of the classroom. 4. Out-of—class work with the children in ways not classified as tutoring, with the goal of changing attitudes and be- havior, or feelings, so that some of the child's emotional or behavioral problems are reduced. 5. In-class work with the child along with his peers, either with the total class or with a sub-group, either to free the teacher to work with a part of the class, or because this is the best approach to the child concerned. 26 6. Teaching in a classroom to demonstrate instructional techniques, behavior management schemes, or other class- room strategies which may be helpful. 7. Helping the teacher by individual discussion of problems of children and/or classroom techniques. 8. Providing inservice programs for groups of teachers. 9. Working with parents of children assigned to the RT program. 10. Methods and materials: preparing and locating materials and planning methods for use with a child. 11. Self-instruction for the RT to improve skills on the job: consultation, inservice, conferences, visiting other programs, etc. 12. Meetings: school staff, educational planning committees, pre-planning. This study will report the felt competence of a group of RT's based on at least one year of experience in the role. The information may have relevance for teacher training. Overview of the Study This study is designed to answer a number of research questions through the investigation of the RT program in these aspects: the pro- gram itself—-services rendered and ideal services; the perceptions of the RT's as to level of competence in specified activities; perceptions of participating general education teachers regarding present and ideal program emphases; judgement of participating school principals and school psychologists regarding ideal program emphases. The subjects--RT's, general education teachers, principals, and psychologists who have actively participated in the program for at least one school year--were asked to respond to a questionnaire based on 27 a list of twelve "activities" of the resource teachers. The list was developed on the basis of a previous study in which RT responses to open-ended questions relating to their activities were coded and con- densed into the twelve inclusive categories used in this study (See Appendix A). The research questions are: Question 1. How did the RT's distribute their time over various resource teacher activities? Question 2. How do the RT's rank the activities according to their relative proficienoy_in the activities and in desire for further training? Question 3. What are the RT role satisfactions as determined by a comparison of their "current" and "ideal" activity rankings? Question 4. What are the teacher satisfactions with RT service as determined by a comparison of their "current" and "ideal" activitygrankings? Question 5. How do RT's, teachers, principals,_and school psycholo- gists agree and differ in their perception of ideal activity emphases for the RT? Limitations of the Study The nature of the data employed for this investigation will limit generalization, application or replication. The study is an attempt to evaluate a conceptual model for a teacher consultant program through the eyes of the personnel most intimately involved. The model 28 was adapted by each of the schools involved in the study, and a number of variables peculiar to the individual school district affect the specifics of the adaptation. However, the program in each of the participating schools adheres to the basic model, and the results of this study may have implication for them and for new programs utilizing the same model. One of the aims of this thesis is to raise questions and express concerns about issues in special education which affect the teacher-consultant (RT) programs. This is accomplished through dis- cussion of specific issues in Chapter IV. CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY The purpose of this chapter is to provide a description of the subjects of the study, the measures used in the collection of data, the research questions, and the comparisons made in the data analysis. Subjects The subjects were four groups of professionals in general and special education who had been active participants in the RT program for one or more years. All members of these groups were employed within the Ingham Intermediate School District, which includes 12 constituent local school districts. All the local districts, eight in number, which had resource teacher programs were included. The subject groups were resource teachers, teachers (general education), school principals, and school psychologists. All RT's were included who held Michigan approval as a special education teacher, were serving no more than three buildings as an RT, were assigned within grade levels kindergarten through eight, and had at least one year of experience as an RT. Ten RT's were identified and all participated in the study. 29 30 A sample of 40 general education teachers, four from the service area of each RT, was drawn at random from a population which included all teachers who had received the services of an RT on an official basis, in any of the eight school districts, grades kinder- garten through eight. Official basis means there was active partici- pation in the RT program as a result of a formal referral for service. Twenty-nine teachers participated in the study. The entire population of school principals whose buildings had been served by an RT program for at least one year, 17 in all, were identified. All these principals participated in the study. All school psychologists assigned to buildings served by participating RT's who had worked with the program for at least one school year were identified. This included five psychologists, all of whom participated in the study. Measures All subjects were asked to respond to questionnaires (see appendices B through G) based on the 12 Resource Teacher Activities (Appendix A). Items 1 through 9 of the activities were utilized for teachers, principals, and psychologists. Items 10, 11, and 12 were utilized for the RT questionnaires only. Two types of responses were required. In one the RT's and teachers were asked to estimate allottment of time of the RT among the various activities. All other items required the respondent to pick the three "most" and three "least" important of the RT activities 1 through 9. This amounts to asking the respondent to assign each 31 activity to one of three ranks--high, middle, or low. While this generates fairly crude ordinal data, it is assumed that it represents the limits of the ability of the respondent to discriminate. Further- more, in pre-testing it was determined that the respondents were not comfortable with finer discriminations. Utilization of the same basic form for all respondents per- mitted meaningful comparisons of the responses of the various subject subgroups. The list of respondents and the nature of the responses for each form are as follows: Appendix Respondent Response B RT Current activity How does the RT presently emphases utilize time? C Teacher Current activity How does the teacher think emphases the RT presently utilizes time? 0 RT Competency RT rating of his own ranking competence and desire Training desired for further training E RT Ideal activity How does the RT feel emphases he should be utilizing time? F Teacher Ideal activity How does the teacher feel emphases the RT should be utilizing time? G Principal/ Ideal activity How do principals and Psychologist emphases psychologists think the RT should be utilizing time? 32 Research Questions The research questions and the types of measures and compari- sons to be made are: Question 1. How did the RT's distribute their time over the teacher activities? These data were provided by the RT and teacher "current activity emphases" responses. These responses describe the patterns of service rendered as seen by RT's and by the teachers. They describe the program as it was perceived by the two major sets of participants. Question 2. How do the RT's rank the activities according to their relative proficiency in the activities and their desire for further trainigg? These data are provided by the RT "activity competencies" responses. The RT's estimates of their own competencies and desire for further training can provide clues to training needs of RT's and may have implications for teacher training at the university level. Question 3. What are the RT role satisfactions as determined by a comparison of their "current“ and "ideal“ activity rankings? Changes in the two sets of rankings were compared. These data tend to clarify and strengthen the descriptions of the ideal activity emphases by showing what it is that RT's did or did not like about the way they functioned during the year. 33 Question 4. What are the teacher satisfactions with RT service as determined by a comparison of their “current“ and “ideal" activity rankings? These comparisons are parallel to those for Question 3, and serve the same purpose. Discrepancies between the two sets of rankings serve to highlight the teacher's unmet needs, and thus contribute to the definition of ideal RT roles. Question 5. How do RT's, teachers, principals, and school psycho- 1ogists agree and differ in their_perception of ideal activity emphases for the RT? If there is consensus among all four groups as to the rela- tive importance of each RT activity, the ideal roles of the RT will be clearly established. Marked discrepancies will point to conflicting needs or perceptions in the various groups, and perhaps suggest ways that the conflicting views could be resolved. The RT's feelings about their own compe- tencies may, for example, influence them to downgrade activities that others regard as highly important. Again, the open-ended responses to "Comments" were used to interpret the ranking results. The relationship of these research questions to the measures is schemati- cally presented in Figure 2, page 34. Treatment of the Data The methods of evaluating the data to answer the research questions will be discussed in Chapter III as the findings are presented. 34 mmm>_e:< open mo :owpmpcmmmcamm uwpmamcum .N wcsmwd mwmmgaEw >p_>wuum Fame? 1 pmvmopocoxWQ mmmmcaem m sac>ccoa _amut - _aaE6:wLa . .mmxoa mgoe co exp soc» came ms» to comwcmmeou m mwcvzcmc :owummsc socmmmmg ms» mwxon mLoE so 03» mcwcwow m:w_ a an mw Longs: as» cog: .p:m>m—wc ace xon mcp cw mumu ecu cows: op compmwsc cocmmmoc wasp to meanszc mcp wuw0wu:_ mcmnazc vw_ocwu askea .>¢w>wuo< cmcommh come we pcwqm mew» mcvumu?uce mmmcogmwc m_Hm mcp op mcmmmc xon uwumuwece ms» mFQmeo Low "name to pom m mmpmumucw xon :ummt mommgaem #11 pr>wpum Fume? I Locomwwal. mummchm _ zpw>wpum Fame? . Hm mmwocmpmaeoo mommcqem xpw>wuow . pm AHV pr>wpum pamLL:UR 9 L /l\ \l/ 11— mammgaem KW\ igxpw>wuum pcmeezu . cmcomwh AHV EEG CHAPTER III FINDINGS In this chapter each of the research questions is considered in turn. Figure 2, presented earlier in Chapter 11 (page 34) offers a schematic representation of the measures used and their relationship to the five research questions. Question 1. How did the RT's distribute their time over various Resource Teacher activities? Each RT was asked to estimate the amount of time spent per week on the 12 activities, assuming always that the estimates would total 40 hours. Estimates were in time units no smaller than half-hours. In Table l the 10 RT's are distributed according to the hours per week spent on each activity. The table is read as follows: for the activity of "tutoring," the top row, one teacher reported spending an amount of time that placed him in the 1-3 class interval, one in the 7-9 class interval, etc. The right hand column labelled, “Mean Hours“ contains the means for each row calculated from the original measures, and not from the mid-points of the class intervals. The activities have been clustered into four major categories: teaching children, preparation for teaching, teacher improvement, and other. 35 36 .mmczmmme chwmwco mcp Eocm umpmpaupmo 30; zoom cot came we?“ mpcmmmeammk 4gmmcH Aco_umu:um pmcmcmmv :owpmu_=mcou Locummh JKFOH “cowamuaum chmcmmv cowpmcpmcosmu mmmpoucH pcmsm>oLaEH cmcumm» mpmwcmpwz new mvogpmz mo compmcmamcm 4cpu< Aopucv Axmmz caocuov co nmmmnv mmwuw>_pom maowcm> cw ucmqm xmmz Ema meson o» mcwcgouom mcwgummu muczommc yo cowpznwcpmpo ._ wFDGP 37 Based on a 40-hour week, more than half the time, 23.2 hours, was devoted to teaching children. An additional eight hours was con- sumed in preparation for teaching (assessment, planning, preparation of materials). Thus, an average of 31.2 hours, or approximately 78% of the time, was devoted to working directly for and with students assigned to the program. An average of 3.0 hours were devoted to improvement in skills for general education teachers. An almost equal amount of time, 2.6 hours, was spent on self-improvement and consultation for the RT. A minimal amount of time, only 2.1 hours per week on the average, was devoted to meetings of various kinds with the least amount of time, 1.1 hours, spent with parents. How accurate are these RT's descriptions of their own activity? No direct observations were available to validate their time estimates. However, some relevant information is provided by one of the measures obtained from the teachers: their rankings of the various categories of RT activity according to their estimates of the amount of time spent at each. The numbers of teachers assigning various ranks to the RT activities are presented in Table 2. Although the data in Tables 1 and 2 are in different form, it is apparent that the teachers' rankings generally confirm the RT estimates of time spent. Most teachers reported that tutoring was the most time-consuming activity of the RT, with assessment, planning and teacher consultation following in that order. The responses indicate that most teachers had no knowledge that the RT was engaged in the 38 .vmcmmem xcmc ockk .chnm mEFp “mos memos F Fo xcmFR mcoz m m F m v F manage; mcoz NF F F F N v F Fmgmsummpv muF>mecF m.e e F F F m N F F.>FucFv .szmcou FocummF mcoz mN F F F FcoFumemcosmuv mmmFoucF 952 2 F N F F N F F F223 $26.: one: oF F F F N N o m chFLouzpucocv mmmFuuuao F m F N F F m mF mcFFouzF N F v F N F F mchcmFm m.N N N a N N v ucmsmmwmm< xcmm choz Raucoz m N F m m e m N F qu>Fpu< excmm umszmm< FmNucv mmeF>Fpom mzoFFm> um ucmam m_Fm mEFp Fo pcaoEm Fo mmcwxcmc Fanp op mcFuFouum mgmcommp Fo coFusaFFmeo .N anmF 39 remaining five activities. Of the 28 teachers responding, only three reported in-class demonstration by an RT, nine reported in-class work with children, and 10 were aware of inservice activities for teachers. It is noteworthy that there is considerable variability in the rankings by teachers, suggesting either that teachers perceive RT's differently or that, in fact, RT variability is greater than suggested by their own time estimates. For example, in Table 2, in the row “Out-Class (non-tutoring)" five teachers perceive this as the RT's major activity, while 10 report none of this activity, with the distri- bution including all but two of the ranks. In summary, the major finding for these two sets of data is that most of the RT's spend most of their time working directly with children, or preparing for such activity, and relatively little time working directly with teachers. Question 2. How did the RT's rank the activities according to their relative proficiency in the activities and their desire for further training? Each RT was asked to rank activities 1 through 9 according to felt competence by indicating the three activities in which the RT felt least competent and the three in which he felt most competent. The remaining three activities were assumed to represent areas of medium competence. The RT's were asked to rank the nine items in a similar way according to desire for further training. In Table 3, the RT's are distributed according to felt competence for each activity and according to the training desired for each activity. The mean number of hours spent on each activity is 40 included to provide an additional comparison. For example, for the activity of "assessment," five RT's reported less competence, three reported medium competence, and two reported high competence. For the same activity seven RT's felt a need for further training, giving this activity a rank of l in training desired--the activity most often chosen for further training. RT's spend an average of only 2.7 hours weekly in this activity. The RT's felt most competent in tutoring, out-of-class non- tutoring work with children, teacher consultation and planning. They felt least competent in in-class demonstration for teachers, inservice, and assessment. For activities requiring in-class work with teacher or child, the felt competence was generally low, the desire for training low and mean hours spent per week was also low. As will be seen later, these in-class activities were ranked generally low by all four groups of respondents in the study. In summary, the most time-consuming activities are generally those in which the RT feels most competent. An exception to this is the area of assessment which ranks fourth highest in time spent, low in competence and first in desire for further training. Conversely, the activities which consume the least amount of time, tend to be those in which the RT feels least competent and desires more training. The areas of teacher inservice and work with parents are two of these. It should be noted that in selecting areas for desired training, the sub- jects were required to select only three areas. Three of the RT's responding added the comment that this was a difficult choice and that they would like further training in all areas. 41 F.F m.m e 364 m. m e mpcwgma m. N m 304 m F o chmcummuv muF>mecF N.N m o ngz o a o F.>Fu:Fv .pFamcou FocummF m. F m 304 F m m AcoFumgpmcoswuv mmmFuucF N.F m F ea: F o m FUFFEUF m226.5 m.e m.m a :mF: e m m chFFOquncocv mmmFuupzo F.FF F N ngI o F m mch0paF N.N m.m m cm: a o o mchcmFm F.N F F 3o; N m m pcmEmmmmm< xmmz xcmm z mmcoammm an: um: so; FFF>Fpu< can pcmam quoz mcao: cam: umFFm a mchFmFF mucmuumsoo meF Foch3F FoF FoFucv xmmz Lou pcmgm mczo; cams new mchchp mFmeu new mucmumasou meF o“ mchFouom mmeF>Fuom Fo :oFFGNFFommpwo Fm .m anmF 42 Question 3. What are the RT role satisfactions as determined by comparison of their current and ideal activity rankings? The ideal activity emphases data was derived from a question- naire (see Appendix E) in which the RT was asked to indicate the three most important activities, reported in the column titled "High,“ and the three least important activities, reported in the column titled "Low.“ The remaining three activities were placed in the "Medium" column. Table 4 is a comparison of the RT ideal activity emphases with the current time allotment. The two most time-consuming activities, tutoring and out-class non-tutoring, are ranked low for the ideal model. It should be noted that these represent most of the actual work with children. The RT's ranked assessment and planning the highest of all activities for their ideal program. This may represent a need for more thorough understanding of the handicapped child preparatory to teaching. Other activities given the lowest priority for an ideal pro- gram were in-class demonstration, an area which consistently ranks low throughout the study. Teacher consultation is reported of medium im- portance along with in-class work with the child. In summary, the ideal program from the point of view of the RT would place greatest emphasis on planning, assessment, teacher con- sultation and inservice. The least emphasis would be placed on direct work with children--in-class demonstration, tutoring, and out-class non-tutoring. 43 F. F :3 m N m BEE m. ngIonA e N a moF>mecF N.N cm: e o F.>FucFv .FFamcou FmgummF m. 304 N m Fconmcpmcosmuv mmmFuucF NF B: N e N F223 $26-5 m.¢ 2o; F e m chFFopsuncocv mmmFuupzo F.FF 304 N F o mcFFop3F N.N csz o e mchcmFa F.N :mF:\uwz m m FemEmmmmm< pcmam mmcoammm Fmeoz ng: um: so; FuF>Fpu< meso: ucchsu mommngN FuF>Fpu< mecF mmmocqsm zuF>Fuum meuF new mucmspoFFm mEFp FuF>Fuum pcmcczo Fm Fo comFFmasoo .e anmF 44 Question 4. What are the teacher satisfactions with the RT service as determined by comparison of their current and ideal activity rankings? The comparison of general education teachers' current and ideal activity emphases is shown in Table 5. Ideal activity emphases are derived from the ranking system used throughout the study in which activities were placed in groups of three--high, medium and low. The majority of teachers indicated an ideal situation would place strongest emphasis, and presumably the most time, on the first four activities on the list--assessment, planning, tutoring, and out- class non-tutoring work. For one of these, out-class non-tutoring, 10 teachers, representing the mode, were unaware that the activity was going on at all (See Table 2, page 38). Yet nine of the 10 RT's re- ported spending an average of 4.9 hours per week in the activity--the second most time-consuming. The modal response of teachers on the current activity ranking (representing eight individuals) indicate no knowledge of the RT working with parents (See Table 2, page 38). Teachers viewed this activity as of medium importance, ranking it higher than their own in-service and in-class work on the part of the RT. In summary, teachers viewed the preparation for teaching (assessment and planning) and teaching children outside the class as the most important work of the RT in an ideal program. Working in the classroom with a child was given lowest priority along with teacher in- struction, either as demonstration or in-service. 45 .pcmam mEFF “mos mcmms F Fo xcmms mcoz um: m mF m mpcmcma mcoz 3CF e FF «F woF>mecF m.¢ um: F mF m F.>FU:FV .uFamcoo cmgommF mcoz 304 F F FN FconmFchosmuv mmmFuucF acoz 304 N oF FF FeFFguF mmaFu-=F mcoz ng: mF w m chFFopzpucocv mmmFonuzo o.F :mF: mF N F mcFFouzF o.m smF: FN F F mchcmFa N.N smF: mF NF N pamEmmmmm< Rxcmm Fave: mmcoammm Fave: cmF: no: go; FuF>Fuo< FuF>Fpu< ucmcgso mummcnsm FuF>Fuu< menF mmeF>Fpom Fm as» com mammsasm FuF>Fyum meuF use ucmcxao m.Fm;ummu Fo comFFmasou .m mFamF 46 Question 5. How do RT's, teachers, principals and psychologists agree and differ in their perceptions of ideal activity emphases for the RT? Table 6 shows the distribution of principals according to ideal activity emphases for RT activities. For areas of assessment and planning, rankings were identical, showing a strong preference for emphasis on these activities. Next in importance in an ideal program would be teacher consultation and work with parents. The remaining activities are ranked low, with in-class demonstration the least important of all. Table 6. Distribution of principals according to ideal activity emphases for RT activities (n=l7) Ideal Activity Emphases Activity Low Med High Modal Response Assessment 0 4 13 High Planning 0 4 13 High Tutoring 8 4 5 Low Out-class (non-tutoring) 8 6 3 Low In-class (child) 7 6 4 Low In-class (demonstration) l4 3 0 Low Teacher Consult. (indiv.) O 9 8 Med Inservice 9 5 3 Low Parents 5 10 2 Med 47 School psychologists, Table 7, agreed unanimously that plan- ning is the most important activity, with tutoring only slightly less important. The least important in the view of the psychologists sur- veyed are work with parents, inservice, out-of—class non-tutoring, and in-class demonstration. Table 7. Distribution of psychologists according to ideal activity emphases for RT activities (n=5) Ideal Activity Emphases Activity Low Med High Modal Response Assessment 1 4 0 Med Planning 0 O 5 High Tutoring O l 4 High Out-class (non-tutoring) 3 l 1 Low In-class (child) 1 3 1 Med In-class (demonstration) 3 O 2 Low Teacher consult. (indiv.) l 3 1 Med Inservice 3 l 1 Low Parents 3 2 0 Low Table 8 shows a comparison of the modal responses on ideal activity emphases for all professionals surveyed in the study. There are three areas of agreement among all four groups; planning is rated high in importance, in-class demonstration is rated low, and teacher consultation is rated medium. The activity of assessment is high in importance for RT, teacher and principal, and medium for psychologists. 48 On teacher inservice, the modal response was low, except that the RT's gave a bimodal response, low/high. Table 8. Comparison of modal responses to ideal activity emphases for RT's, teachers, principals, and psychologists Modal Responses Activity RT Teacher Principal Psychologist Assessment High High High Medium Planning High High High High Tutoring Low High Low High Out-class (non-tutoring) Low High Low Low In-class (child) Medium Low Low Medium In-class (demonstration) Low Low Low Low Teacher consult. (indiv.) Medium Medium Medium Medium Inservice (teacher) Low/High Low Low Low Parents Low Medium Medium Low Table 8 may be summarized in this manner: The closest agreement on ideal activity emphases for the RT occurs between the teacher and principal, with agreement in seven of the nine areas. The RT and psychologist agree in six of the nine areas. The least agreement occurs between the teacher and psychologist who differ in six of the nine areas. psychologist on the importance of four of the nine activities. The principal disagrees with the CHAPTER IV REFLECTIONS OF A PARTICIPANT OBSERVER Introduction There are a number of factors which influence the present trend in special education toward "mainstreaming,“ a concept which varies in mode of implementation, but which seems to be the latest answer to the education of the increasing numbers of children being identified as handicapped in school. Mainstreaming is a reaction, in some cases perhaps an over—reaction, to the frustrations of educating large numbers of handicapped children in separate school programs. The traditional special education system assumes there are a discrete number of definable categories of handicaps, and that all children with serious school problems fall in one or more of these categories. In the past decade there has been an alarming increase in the numbers of children who are being identified as problems as a result of their inability to adjust to a school program. The field of special education has responded by attempting to upgrade programs and operations, add new and similar programs, and even add new categories to accomodate to special needs of children. A new category is nothing more than an attempt to find an antiseptic label so that children who fail in school can be served within the categorical system without stigma, and has 49 5O limited use, since children continue to defy categorization for pur- poses of intervention in their educational programs. The trend toward mainstreaming, when judiciously applied, offers a valuable addition to special education programming. When adapted in a form such as the resource teacher program, it provides valuable options to the special class in the form of substantial service on a continuum from full time special class to full time general education with consultive service to the teacher. In Deno's “cascade" system (Deno, 1970) the R.T. program offers services to children who need up to half-time with a special teacher--a majority of the children referred for service. As the sophistication of the field has increased, so has the conviction that school problems are rarely due solely to a problem within the child which ought to be resolved. Rather we are beginning to realize the causative factors can be complex and varied, and that the "treatment" ought to deal with the causative factors only if these can be clearly determined, if they presently bear upon the child's school adjustment, and if resolution can be expected to contribute to improved functioning. Children as they normally exist in schools do not neatly fit specific descriptors. Thus the need for programs which work with a child and his school, utilizing the strengths in both. This ecological approach holds promise for intervention directed toward an ecosystem rather than toward suspected pathology within the child, the home, or the school. The etiology is assumed to be the dynamic inter— action of child with school and school with child. 51 In the search for ways of serving larger numbers of children with school problems, it is important that effective categorical pro- grams not be sacrificed, as the field of special education takes on the problems of the newly defined non-specific category of children. Since some of our most successful programs have been those specialized programs which take a unified approach toward well-defined goals and work with limited numbers of selected students, these programs should be carefully preserved. They should be expanded to accommodate larger numbers only to the degree this can be done without violating the very principles which are responsible for their success-~a high degree of specialization in staff, selectivity of clientele, and integration of treatment mode. These programs are probably the most important contribution of the categorical approach. They exist primarily in small private settings, or in public settings where they can retain for themselves the decision-making functions. When this type of pro- gram has been adopted in the public school, where control is vested in an administration whose concerns are necessarily diverse, they have fallen victim to pressures and have often become holding operations at best. At worst, they can help compound a child's problems and pre- clude more appropriate programming. Nevertheless, some of these pro- grams continue to serve students well and cannot be replaced. Rather, they must be supplemented with programs of a design which speaks to the needs of students who do not need and cannot use what the specialized segregated programs offer. In the furor around segregation and labeling there are signs that the "pendulum effect" may deprive the schools of the variety of options available when a continuum of service provides 52 quality programs to supplement existing excellent facilities. The resource teacher is one such program. This thesis is an investigation of a resource teacher model, devised in response to expressed service needs of schools and to a variety of identifiable factors influencing school achievement and adjustment of students. A number of broad and controversial issues, important to special education, underlie the development of this pro- gram. They are: generalist vs. specialist; the “role dance;" focus on needs vs. deficits, and consultation--everybody's role. Effective program development requires one to examine the issues and to determine the options and their relative merit. ISSUE: GENERALIST VS. SPECIALIST It has been obvious for some time that proliferation of specialized categorical programs and services is not an answer for the majority of students needing special education services (Dunn, 1968; Johnson, 1962; Kirk, 1964). Non-categorical programs have appeared and are flourishing across the country, staffed by the same teachers previously assigned on a categorical basis. The Ingham Inter- mediate School District resource teacher program supplements special classes and provides a continuum of service on two dimensions. It crosses disability lines serving children with a variety of learning and behavioral problems, and provides the level of service required-- from short term teacher consultation and inservice to assessment, plan- ning and long term instruction for some children. 53 The responsibilities of the R.T. (Appendix A) include, in addition to the usual instructional duties of a teacher, a number of activities traditionally thought to be the exclusive domain of other specialists--psychologist, social worker, counselor. An understandable concern of many professionals is that the R.T. may become bombarded with requests for service and to the extent that it becomes difficult to provide quality service. Michigan law provides safeguards in the form of requirements for educational planning and placement procedures, and in limitations on numbers of children to be served. In addition, the RT is a member of the school staff who carries a share of the work load of the school. In spite of the numbers of specialists serving schools, the RT provides a necessary service not available from the specialists. The psychologists recommendations, for example, have little utility when they remain in the files for lack of personnel to translate them into action. If the RT is to provide the variety of services required to maintain handicapped children in the mainstream of school, he must develop a wide range of skills. That is not to say he should be less specialized but rather that he should include more skills. After several decades of training teachers along categorical lines, many universities are working on core models which provide a broader range of course content and practica. The Bureau of Education of the Handi- capped and Bureau for Educational Personnel Development have funded a number of projects at universities across the country, such as Florida State University (Swartz, 1969), University of Minnesota (Deno, 1971), 54 George Washington University (Prouty, 1970), University of Vermont (Fox, 1970), and University of Iowa (Frank, 1972). Most of the models are competency-based, as that of Adelman (1971) and Connolly and Meyen (1970). Adamson and Everett (1970) and Deno (1971) have a strong community base as well. The results of the study presented in this thesis points out that each RT identified a number of areas in which additional training is needed. One such area is assessment, a task ranked by themselves, teachers and principals as high in priority, for the use of time. Con- tinuing staff development can enhance skills as needs arise. In the meantime, competency-based teacher training ought to be perfected, with university and community school collaboration in teacher prepara- tion on a continuous basis. The RT program is designed not only to bridge the gap between special education and general education service systems, but to in- crease cooperation and understanding among all personnel. Cooperation relies on communication, and a high degree of specialization can set up barriers to effective communication-~barriers built of language differences, philosophical distance, and an absence of mutual respect. That is not to say specialization in itself is a barrier, but it can be useful only when synthesized at the service level. A chronic example is the complaint of the classroom teacher that the information provided by the assessment team is not useful. Only when the teacher perceives the work of the specialist as helpful, can the child benefit. The RT has a role as mediator in such a situation, having a foot in both camps, so to speak. Understanding of human dynamics, ability to 55 form adult relationships, and effective communication skills are im- portant dimensions of the RT role. Many children who need help are reacting to stereotyped expectations, rigid schedules, and demanding regulations. The atti- tudes of school personnel toward accomodation to individual children comes into focus as an area for needed change. Such internal change for the benefit of children with special needs can come about through the work of a professional special educator such as the RT who is a member of the school staff in a position to influence change. Glasser (1969) points this out and also stresses that a specialist working with a few children on the assumption that the problem must be Eigflig the child will never “dent“ the problems of schools, which are at least partially responsible for the problem. Utopia will be a condition in which the classroom teacher and the special education consultant regard each other as specialists whose focus and skills are different and complimentary to each other. This requires a high level of personal and professional security, based on competence, in all concerned. ISSUE: THE ROLE DANCE Morse (1971) has long deplored what he so aptly termed the “role dance“ among helping personnel from the disciplines of psychology, social work, special education consultation, guidance and counseling, remedial reading, nursing, and other special services. Each specialty area presents a list of functions for that discipline. The descriptors are specific enough to spell out certain areas of expertise and general 56 enough to suggest that almost any special need could be filled. There is a tendency for the helping person to perceive a problem in terms of the particular role that specialty describes as its own. Because of the complexity of a child's presenting problem, the itinerate nature of the job of most helping persons, and the confusing overlap in role descriptions, teachers tend to refer children to whoever happens to be available or is most approachable. Thus, if a child is per- ceived by his teacher as One who is inexplicably "not working up to potential,“ the child may be viewed as a reading problem if the read- ing specialist happens to see him first. If the most available resource is a social worker, the focus may well be on social and personal factors as a cause for academic failure. In any case, the child becomes identified with a disability label and separation from his school program and his peers begins. Because of the autonomy of most itinerate specialists, there has been little accountability, and children can be deprived of service needs which go unrecognized. The RT, as a member of a school team which includes a number of specialists, provides a building level program around which a school can be mobilized to examine the needs of teachers and children and assign responsibilities to appropriate personnel. Problems can be viewed as non-categorical at least until there is some basis for labeling. In order to sharpen the usual “role description“ the RT describes his work in terms of skills and activities. This minimizes confusion caused by over-generalized and overlapping role descriptions which make it difficult for school personnel to understand and appreciate -J 57 what highly skilled special education personnel can do for them. Be- cause of the varied backgrounds of the individuals approved to work in a given discipline, it is virtually impossible to provide a role description which will reflect the many talents of its members. There is, however, a core of skills which can be ascribed to each discipline, resulting from the aspects of training which are common to all its members. We can expect the school psychologist to be skilled in sophisticated assessment techniques, a skill unique to that specialist. The social worker, through specific training, has unique skills in casework and group work, the RT is a teacher, the nurse identifies and interprets medical problems, etc. This core of expected competency ought to be described in behavioral terms for each discipline. Beyond this, special competencies and interests of individuals ought to be fully utilized for the benefit of children and their schools, and for the pleasure in work which can be derived by staff when they are fully utilizing their skills. The RT program allows for various professionals to look at, for example, assessment, each bringing a somewhat different perspective. Assessment infers evaluation and testing and has traditionally been the exclusive domain of the psychologist. But the teacher constantly assesses students, and usually has some valuable insights and informa- tion not otherwise available to the psychologist. A social worker assesses psycho-social adjustment, and may also contribute information related to intellectual level and academic concerns. The RT program provides an assessment team of at least two--psychologist and RT, 58 ensuring direct input from more than one source. Provision for assignment on the basis of skills rather than on the basis of role description is also provided for in the RT program. As specific goals are established, staff to carry out the responsibilities is selected from the available "pool of talent." Thus, professionals can work side by side without confusion or duplication of efforts. Schools can no longer afford to waste talent or effort through duplication, to stifle the creativity and skills of highly trained professionals, or to allow professionals to function without accountability to child, parent and school. ISSUE: FOCUS ON NEEDS RATHER THAN DEFICITS Tangential to the issues around specialization of personnel and the "role dance" is the question of the most effective approach to a child with special educational needs. We have argued that per- ceiving professionals in narrow roles and children in narrow cate- gories fails to take into account the individual nature of both these groups, or the potential inherent in the process of opening all pro- grammatic options to all children. In a continuum of service there are specialists with a wide variety of skills and programs with many possible learning arrangements. They are called by many different labels and have by virtue of this fact often been closed to the children who do not match the label yet need what the program can give. It is possible to break away from the categorical mold for purposes of programming, thus freeing the assessment team from its 59 search for the required deficits on normative tests. Instead, one could determine, along with the teacher, the nature of the change re- quired of the child and the school which will create a productive learning experience at school. This kind of problem statement is based on the child's deviation from his teacher's expectation and the school behavior of his own group at a given point in his school ljfg, It would allow for immediate examination of teacher expecta- tion around the needs of a child. It would involve the teacher immediately and continually, since the goal is not to remedy some- thing wrong within the child, but to bring him and his school environ- ment into harmony. Although much has been written concerning the efficacy of the ecological approach, relatively little has been done to put it into practice in schools. This approach, of course, implies a readiness and ability of both child and school to examine the relation- ship and make reasonable adjustments. Given a child-centered, receptive school team, the needs of the child can be clearly specified and met by one or more of the available programs and services--assigned on the basis of the fact that it can deliver the specific service, and not whether the child meets arbitrary entrance requirements. We should have programs which seek to include as many children as possible and to exclude only those who need a service best obtained elsewhere. It is possible to provide a continuum of service with a discrete number of programs, and meet the needs of all handicapped children. The RT program can be viewed as a service around which a school can be mobilized to help children to improve their school per- formance and help itself to recognize and make needed changes. III... Ill. .lll I‘ll.‘l. It‘l I I‘F..‘ \' 60 ISSUE: CONSULTATION--EVERYBODY'S ROLE Because of a multitude of unmet needs and crisis situations, the demand for consultation service in schools has grown rapidly in the past decade. Special education personnel were quick to realize they would be able to meet only a small part of the demand for service unless they could find ways of mobilizing teachers to take an active part in solving their own problems. Teachers were willing to accept a smaller share of the specialist's time in the hope of learning new ways of dealing with problem situations. Read the job description of any special education professional and you will find consultation listed as one of the duties. It would be difficult for one of these specialists to walk down a school corri- dor where he is known, without being stopped for advice, counsel, sympathy or simply a listening ear. All of these activities, as well as more formalized consultation, are loosely called by that name and practiced widely. Consultation has fallen victim to proliferation of the cate- gories and specialties to the extent that there are not only many specialists who sometimes act as consultants, but we now have a full range of teacher/consultants in every category whose chief duty is the consultative function. These jobs are filled by the most experienced and successful special education teachers on the assumption that if one has the expertise, one can surely pass it on to others and also advise others. This function is really not a consultative one, rather it is a kind of on-the-job instruction. In order to consult successfully, 61 the teacher/consultant must continue to practice his own skills with children. Unless this is done, one rapidly loses skill and usefulness. For this reason, the RT continues to teach handicapped children and otherwise sharpen his skills in his areas of responsibility. A definition attributed to Rhodes (from an unpublished document) (Bindman, 1966) probably best describes the practice of consultation in education: " . psychological change technique applied to a problem situation through inter-personal communication between an individual or group with specialized knowledge, skills or awareness in the problem area and an individual or group with authority and responsibility in the problem area . . ." This definition of a change technique requires a certain level of inter-personal communication and sensitivity as well as mutual re- spect between the consultant and consultee. Expertise in the problem area may be helpful, but does not necessarily lead to a successful resolution of the problem. Newman (1967) describes a method of consultation based on trust built of relationship and familiarity, over time. She emphasizes the importance of support during quiet as well as crisis periods, and that on-the-spot consultation offers greater possibilities than weekly seminars by outside consultants. This model lends itself to use by the RT who is present in the building, has special skills, and the opportunity to build relationships. 62 Skill in consultation--in its best sense--is rarely taught or even fostered in teacher training programs. In the study in question, most of the RT's reported felt competence in the consultative function as “high" and ranked it lowest in need for further training. Apparently they are experiencing con- siderable success in this function as they perceive it. Morse, Bruno and Morgan, in a study undertaken at the University of Michigan, made an attempt to assess the effectiveness of teacher training for teachers of the emotionally impaired. Among other groups, program administrators were involved in a pilot study along with special teachers they super- vised. All twenty of the administrators interviewed thought the teachers were "generally naive in terms of the politics of a system" (Morse, Bruno, Morgan, 1972). Knowledge of the system in which he works, and the ability to get things done within it, are no doubt a part of the function known as consultation. As specialists working side by side with teachers and taking on a significant part of the work load of the school--teaching children-- the RT is in a position to develop the kind of inter-personal relation- ships which are needed to apply change technique. At the same time he can continue to sharpen his instructional techniques by working with children on a daily basis. In a similar manner, the school system itself can be studied and appropriate relationships and channels of communications established, which make for ease of accommodation to the needs of children and teachers. 63 This kind of balanced program should be consciously maintained if the RT program is to fulfill its stated functions: To help handicapped children improve their school functioning To help teachers and parents help the children in their care To help schools improve themselves. v ‘ R'A '13:; 'n_'r .. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The trend toward mainstreaming in special education has fostered a number of program models designed to maintain most handi- capped pupils in regular education classes through the provision of supportive services to the child, his teacher, and his school. One such model, the resource teacher (RT) program was developed for the twelve constituent districts of the Ingham Intermediate District. The program had been in operation for two school years at the time of the study. Evaluation of the program by the principle partici- pants was selected as the method most likely to yield information which could be useful for further development of the program in IR question. In addition, the findings may have implication for similar programs in Michigan and perhaps in other states. The subjects of the study were ten RT's, 17 school principals, five school psychologists, and 29 classroom teachers. Data collection we- was in the form of questionnaires for each group of participants, six questionnaires in all, each requiring response to a basic list of nine RT activities. RT's reported use of time only on three additional activities. 64 65 In summary, the findings are: Question 1. How did the RT's distribute their time over various Resource Teacher activities? Based on a 40-hour week, the RT spent an average of 23.2 hours--more than half the time-~teaching children. An additional eight hours was consumed in preparation for teaching. Thus, an average of 31.2 hours, or 78 per cent of the time, was devoted to the teaching function with children assigned to the program. An average of 3.0 hours was spent counsulting with, and helping teachers. Only 2.1 hours a week were devoted to meetings. Question 2. How did the RT's rank the activities according to their relative proficiency in the activities and their desire for further training? Findings on RT proficiency and need for further training: The area of assessment ranked highest in training desired. Five of the 10 RT's reported low proficiency and seven asked for further training. Teacher consultation ranked lowest in training desired and highest in proficiency. On in-class work (demonstration or tutoring) RT's reported low proficiency and low desire for further training. In tutoring, the most time-consuming activity, proficiency was high and desire for further training low. 66 Question 3. What are the RT role satisfactions as determined by comparison of their current and ideal activity rankings? - Instruction of children, consuming 58 per cent of the time was ranked low by the RT for the ideal program. - Assessment and planning, currently consuming 20 per cent of time were ranked highest for the ideal program. - In-class activities consumed very little time and were also given low priority for the ideal program. Question 4. What are the teacher satisfactions with the RT service as determined by comparison of their current and ideal acti- vity rankings? - General education teachers would place strongest emphasis on planning, tutoring, assessment and out-class non-tutoring in that order. All four of these activities were also reported as those currently consuming most of the RT's time. - General education teachers perceived in-class work with students as low priority. Question 5. How do RT's, teachers, principals, and psychologists agree and differ in their perceptions of ideal activity emphases for the RT? - There were three areas of agreement among all groups; planning was ranked high, in-class work was ranked low, and teacher con- sultation was ranked medium. - On assessment, RT, teacher and principal all assign a rank of "high," while psychologists ranked it "medium.“ 67 - Greatest agreement is between teacher and principal and RT and psychologist. - Least agreement is between teacher and psychologist and principal and psychologist. Conclusions Based on the results of the study, a number of conclusions may be drawn. We may conclude that teachers perceive the present activities of the RT as appropriate to their needs. The areas they consider most important for an ideal program are those in which they report the RT already spending most of his time. All groups except the psychologist would like more emphasis on assessment. One might infer that those working directly with the child feel they have too little information or that additional informa- tion is needed, perhaps of a different kind. The school personnel might also require further interpretation of assessment data. P“ There appears to be little need or desire on the part of any of the subjects for involvement of the RT in the classroom itself. This may be related to the traditional notion that handicapped children can be taught best by special education teachers, and that they should m1 be removed from the class in order to benefit from instruction. Further, the autonomy of the teacher in his classroom, a cherished educational principle, may be threatened by the introduction of another skilled teacher. Whatever the reason, the “marriage" of regular and special 68 education has not, in the programs studied, been extended into the classroom. The principals joined the RT's in ranking tutoring as low in priority. The principal would place most emphasis on assessment and planning, but also on work with parents and teacher consultation. This arrangement would place responsibility for instruction of handi- capped children almost solely in the classroom itself. These data also point up an apparent need for work with parents--a function which perhaps is not sufficiently covered in the schools. Recommendations While the major purpose of the study was to gather informa- tion which could be used to refine the programs studied, a second pur- pose was to begin to look for ways in which this type of program should be evaluated for purposes of program development. The allotment of time, or program emphasis, remains an im- portant aspect of a program in which there is a great deal of latitude allowed. This study answered questions about the preference of the professionals in these schools as to the kinds of services they felt were most helpful. The relative effectiveness of a tutorial versus a purely consultative program, for example, ought to be studied from the standpoint of student progress. As far as the writer can determine, this subject has not been explored through research. A second subject for further research has emerged as a result of this study. The uniqueness of a school system, and the building 69 autonomy within it, suggests in-depth research of individual school systems. Variables such as the availability of helping persons, type and number of supervisory personnel, and size of school, are among those which have a profound effect on the functioning of the RT. Perhaps through in-depth study, it would be possible to begin to understand this unique professional role. APPENDICES APPENDIX A RESOURCE TEACHER ACTIVITIES 10. APPENDIX A RESOURCE TEACHER ACTIVITIES Assessment: evaluating the child's problem and providing verbal or written description of findings. (This may include observa- tion, teacher-administered tests, perusing records, trial teach- ing, discussions, etc.). Planning: along with the classroom teacher, deciding on specific goals for a child assigned to the RT program, planning strategies and procedures, and division of responsibility. Tutoring: teaching children assigned to the R.T. program, indi- vidually and in small groups, where the focus is on teaching subject matter or learning skills. This may take place in or out of the classroom. Out-of-class work with the children in ways not classified as tutoring, with the goal of changing attitudes and behavior, or feelings, so that some of the child's emotional or behavioral problems are reduced. In-class work with the child along with his peers, either with the total class or with a sub-group, either to free the teacher to work with a part of the class, or because this is the best approach to the child concerned. T‘ u: n Teaching in a classroom to demonstrate instructional techniques, behavior management schemes, or other classroom strategies which may be helpful. Helping the teacher by individual discussion of problems of children and/or classroom techniques. “r .. Providing inservice programs for groups of teachers. Working with parents of children assigned to the R.T. program. Methods and materials: preparing and locating materials and planning methods for use with a child. 70 11. 12. 71 Self-instruction for the R.T. to improve skills on the job; consultation, inservice, conferences, visiting other programs, etc. Meetings: planning. school staff, educational planning committees, pre- APPENDIX B RESOURCE TEACHER - current activity emphases APPENDIX B RESOURCE TEACHER - current activity emphases Based on the experience of the current school year, how was your time distributed among the activities which have become a regular part of your work? (See attached sheet entitled "Resource Teacher Activities" for explanation of categories.) DIRECTIONS: Assuming a 40-hour week, indicate the number of hours (using whole hours only) you spend in each of the activities listed below. Attempt to represent a week that would be typical of how you have functioned in the most recent months, after your methods and routines have become well established. Activity Name Hours per week 1. Assessment Planning: with teacher Tutoring Out-of—class, non-tutoring In-class, child oriented 0301-wa In-class, demonstration 7. Individual teacher discussions 8. Inservice for teachers 9. With parents 10. Methods and materials ll. Self-instruction 12. Meetings Comments: Please explain any uncertainties you had in assigning hours. Use the back of this sheet if necessary. 72 APPENDIX C TEACHER - current activity emphases APPENDIX C TEACHER - current activity emphases You have had some experience working with a resource teacher in your school. Based on your experience with the program, what activities seemed to take most of the Resource Teacher's time. (See "Resource Teacher Activities“ for explanation of categories.) DIRECTIONS: First, in the column headed "Ranking" write “N" for “none" opposite the activities in which to your knowledge the Resource Teacher did not engage in working with you or with children which you referred to her. Second, rank those activities in which the Resource Teacher did engage, by placing a "l" in the “Ranking“ column after that activity which, in your opinion occupied the largest share of her time, a "2" after the next most time-consuming activity, and continue ranking until all of the activities have a rank or the letter “N" after them. Please comment as requested in the space provided. Activities Ranking 1. Assessment 2. Planning: with teacher 3. Tutoring 4. Out-of-class, non-tutoring 5. In-class, child oriented 6. In-class, demonstration 7. Individual teacher discussions 8. Inservice for teachers 9. With parents Comments: Please explain any uncertainties you felt in making the above rankings. Use the back of this sheet if necessary. 73 APPENDIX D RESOURCE TEACHER - activity rankings APPENDIX D RESOURCE TEACHER - activity rankings Because of your particular training and experience, you no doubt feel more competent (skilled and knowledgeable) in certain areas than in others. (See attached sheet entitled "Resource Teacher Activities“ for explanation of categories.) DIRECTIONS: In the "Ranking“ column, place an M opposite the §_ activities for which you currently feel most prepared by train- ing or by personal characteristics, to carry out. Place an L-in the “Ranking“ column opposite the §_activities for which you currently feel least prepared to handle. Place an R_opposite the remaining §_activities. (Note: this rating is not concerned with the value of the activities, but only with your relative skillfulness in the activity.) In the “Training column, place a T opposite the 3 activities for which you currently would most liEe to receive additional train- ing. Please comment as requested in the space provided. Activities Ranking Training 1. Assessment 2. Planning: with teacher 3. Tutoring 4. Out-of-class, non-tutoring 5. In-class, child oriented 6. In-class, demonstration 7. Individual teacher discussions 8. Inservice for teachers 9. With parents Comments: Please explain your choices above that you feel need elabora- tion. Use the back of this sheet if necessary. 74 APPENDIX E RESOURCE TEACHER - ideal activity emphases APPENDIX E RESOURCE TEACHER - ideal activity emphases To most effectively render service to children and teachers in your school(s), how do you feel time could most effectively be spent? Assum- ing you had all the skills and resources needed, as well as a cooperative and supportive administration, which types of activities would you like to see strengthened, and which de-emphasized? Assume that general edu- cation teachers remain the same, except as their attitudes and expectations may be influenced by administrative policy and pressures. (See attached sheet entitled "Resource Teacher Activities" for explanation of cate- gories. DIRECTIONS: First, in the column headed “Rankings“; write an M_opposite the §_activities which you regard as most important, and should be the major focus of the RT; write an L_opposite the §.activities which you regard as least important of the activities of the RT; write an R_opposite the three remaining activities. Activities Ranking 1. Assessment 2. Planning: with teacher 3. Tutoring 4. Out-of-class, non-tutoring 5. In-class, child oriented 6. In-class, demonstration 7. Individual teacher discussions 8. Inservice for teachers 9. With parents Comments: Please explain any uncertainties you had in ranking these activities. Use the back of this sheet if necessary. 75 APPENDIX F TEACHER - ideal activity emphases APPENDIX F TEACHER - ideal activity emphases To most effectively render service to the children and teachers in your school, how do you feel the resource teacher's time should be spent? Assuming the RT has all the skills and resources needed, as well as a cooperative and supportive administration, which types of activities would you like to see strengthened and which de-emphasized? Assume that general education teachers remain the same, except as their atti- tudes and expectations may be influenced by administrative policies and pressures. (See attached sheet entitled “Resource Teacher Activities" for explanation of categories.) DIRECTIONS: In the "Ranking“ column, place a letter M opposite the 3 activities you regard as the most important and which should be the major focus of an RT' 5 activities. In the "Ranking“ column, place a letter L_opposite the §_activi- ties you regard as the least important in rendering service to teachers and children. In the "Ranking" column, place an R_opposite the §_remaining activities. Please comment as requested in the space below. Activities Ranking 1. Assessment 2. Planning: with teacher 3. Tutoring 4. Out-of—class, non-tutoring 5. In-class, child oriented 6. In-class, demonstration 7. Individual teacher discussions 8. Inservice for teachers 9. With parents Comments: Please tell in your own words how you think the RT should function ideally--which activities should be emphasized. 76 APPENDIX G PRINCIPAL/PSYCHOLOGIST - ideal activity emphases APPENDIX G PRINCIPAL/PSYCHOLOGIST - ideal activityyemphases You have had some experience working with a resource teacher in your school(s). Based on your experience with the program and on your knowledge of the needs of your school(s), how should the resource teacher's time be spent most effectively? Assuming the RT has all the skills and resources needed, as well as a cooperative and supportive school system, which of the types of activi- ties would you like to see strengthened and which de-emphasized? Assume that general education teachers remain essentially the same, except as their attitudes and expectations may be influenced by administrative policy. (See attached sheet entitled "Resource Teacher Activities" for explanation of categories.) DIRECTIONS: In the "Ranking" column, place a letter M opposite the 3 activities you regard as most important and should be the major focus of an RT' 5 activities. In the "Ranking" column, place a letter L opposite the 3 activities you regard as least important in rendering service to your school(s). In the "Ranking“ column, place an R_opposite the 3_remaining activities. Please comment as requested in the space provided below. Activities Ranking 1. Assessment 2. Planning: with teacher 3. Tutoring 4. Out-of—class, non-tutoring 5. In-class, child oriented 6. In-class, demonstration 7. Individual teacher discussions 8. Inservice for teachers 9. With parents Comments: Please tell in your own words how you think an RT should function ideally--which activities should be emphasized? Use the back of this sheet if necessary. 77 APPENDIX H FUNCTIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION PLANNING AND PLACEMENT COMMITTEE APPENDIX H Ingham Intermediate School District FUNCTIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION PLANNING AND PLACEMENT COMMITTEE The following material is intended to assist administrators and educational planning committees in facilitating the planning process and in meeting the requirements of the special education rules and regulations. I. The Educational Planning Committee A. Suggested composition * 1. Principal of the building involved, or other designated administrative representative * 2. Parent(s) of the student * 3. Classroom teacher of the student considered, if student is enrolled in school * 4. Special education personnel likely to be responsible for working with the student * 5. School psychologist and/or other diagnostic personnel who has relevant information about the student 6. Other professional personnel who may be able to make a significant contribution B. Duties of the Planning Committee 1. To review the available information regarding the student's social, academic, and behavioral status and plan an educa- tional program which will be appropriate to his needs, based on required assessment procedures for the specific program being considered. *Minimum requirement (Note: Parent may be absent if legal notification pro- cedure has been followed. Also, requirement for participation of regular education teacher is not spelled out, but is highly recommended.) 78 79 2. To decide whether the student's needs would best be served in an available special education program. 3. If the student is to be served by a special education program, to define specific short term and long range goals which are feasible and appropriate for that particular student, and to assign responsibilities to specific individuals. 4. To designate an approximate time, usually not less than eight weeks nor more than twelve weeks from the inception of the program, for re-evaluation of student's status and progress. 5. If the student cannot be appropriately served by a local special education program, to make recommendation for a placement or service which will be appropriate and to carry through on referral process. 6. Each member of this committee should contribute his individual knowledge and expertise to assist in defining goals, making specific suggestions, clarifying questions which may arise, etc. Responsibilities of individual members 1. Administrator a. In consultation with the assessment team, schedule initial and follow-up educational planning and place- ment b. Act as chairman for the meetings c. Act as recorder or designate an individual to record the minutes, have them typed and duplicated, and see that they are distributed to the members d. Make necessary arrangements so that teachers may be present during discussion about the students in their classrooms e. See that notices of the meeting are sent out to appro- priate persons f. Speak for the school administration in decision-making, .assignment of responsibilities, etc. 2. Classroom teacher a. Provide anecdotal information regarding classroom be- havior and report on the level of academic functioning of the student 80 b. Report special skills and interests of the student c. Report management techniques and educational programming which has been used with the student and comment on the relative effectiveness of these interventions d. Give other background information which might be useful Special education service personnel (teacher, teacher consultant) a. Report on any contact with the student, results of evaluation, etc. b. Be prepared to discuss ways in which the special pro- gram may be able to help the student School Psychologist a. Report and interpret results of assessment b. Participate in defining student's needs and goals c. Recommend placement, suggest alternative programs, etc. Parent(s) a. Contribute information as to the student's needs, family plans and goals for the student, etc. b. Discuss the student's functioning outside the school, interests, strengths, etc. Other personnel present a. Report relevant information which may contribute to the decisions as to appropriate intervention for the student b. Be prepared to discuss with the committee the ways in which one might be of assistance to this particular student c. Provide interpretation for any testing or other evalua- tion which has been done for the student d. Report on and provide evaluation for interviews with related persons, special reports, etc. e. Recommend program placement, alternatives, etc. II. 7. 81 All members of the committee a. Come to meetings prepared so that reports may be succinct b. Promptly follow through on all assignments made and accepted from the committee as a whole Recommended Procedure for Committee Business A. Approximately 30 minutes should be set aside for discussion around each student and committee members should keep the time limit in mind when making reports A suggested order for reporting might be the following: 1. Teacher: Statement of problem as manifested in classroom Specific problem considered most crucial Types of intervention whether academic or behavioral which have been tried with this student Questions to be discussed by the committee Special Education Teacher or Service Personnel: Results of observation of the student and any information about assessment procedures which have been used Statement as to specific kinds of problems which the special teacher might be able to remediate Opinion, with rationale, as to whether the student might benefit from the service Psychologist: Summary of assessment which has been done either recently or in the past Interpretation of results of assessment as they relate to educational programming Parent: Voice parental concerns as to needs of the student Request clarification of any information provided Present any specific suggestions or recommendations Others: Others present should have an opportunity to give relative information Information discussion should be encouraged but limited to the specific situation under consideration 9/73 82 The last few minutes of the meeting should be devoted to stating specific short range goals and the methods and procedures to be used in reaching them. Assignment of individual responsibility should be made at this time. Long range goals may be stated or implied. Tentative plans for a follow-up evaluation session should be made, to occur usually no sooner than eight weeks follow- ing the meeting. The recorder should be responsible for accurately recording the important issues with particular attention to the ways the problem is manifested in the classroom. The goals and procedures should be carefully and accurately reported. The report should be signed by the parent and the school administrator and a copy sent promptly to each member of the planning committee. (A report form is available for the use of the committee) BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adelman, Howard, A competency-based model training program, in Innova- tive non-categorical and interrelated prgjects in the education of the handicapped, Project #18-1800, PL 91-230, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 1972. Allen, James E. Jr. (U.S. Commissioner of Education) Target for the 70's: the right to read. American Education, December, 1969. Anderson, Wilton, Who Gets a 'Special Education'? In Reynolds, Maynard C. and Davis, Malcolm D. (Eds.) Exceptional children in regular classrooms, Leadership Training Institute (EPDA), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1971. Bindman, A.J., The consultation process, (mimeo) Second joint colloquium on community mental health in Ohio, March, 1966. Bruninks, B.H. and Rynders, J.E., Alternatives to special classes for the educable mentally retarded, Focus On Exceptional Children, 1971, 3, 1-12. Buffmire, Judy Ann, The stratistician model, in Deno, Evelyn (Ed.), Instructional Alternatives for Exceptional Children, Arlington, Virginia, 1973, 3-10. Burrello, L.C., DeYoung, H., Long, David, Special education and liti- gation: Implications for educational and professional practice, Ann Arbor, Institute for the Study of Mental Retardation and Related Disabilities, University of Michigan, 1973. Connolly, Austin J. and Meyen, Edward L., Training program for the preparation of curriculum specialists for exceptional children, in Innovative non-categorical and interrelated_projects in the education of the handicapped, Project #18-1800, PL 91-230, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 1972. Crisis in Child Mental Health: Challenge for the 1970's, Report of the Joint Commission on the Mental Health of Children, New York, Harper and Rowe, 1969, 4. Deno, Evelyn, Instructional alternatives for exceptional children, Arlington, Virginia, Council for Exceptional Children, 1973. 83 84 Deno, Evelyn, Special education as developmental capital, Exceptional Children, 1970, 37, 229-237. Deno, Stanley L., Development of a university field station: contingency management resource center, in Innovative non-categprical and interrelated projects in the education of the handicapped, Pro- ject #18-1800, PL 91-230, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 1972. Dunn, Lloyd M., Special education for the mildly retarded--Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 1968, 35, 5-22. Feagans, Lynne, Ecological theory as a model, in Rhodes, Wm. C. and Tracy, Michael L. (Eds.), A Study of Child Variance, Ann Arbor, The University Press, 1972, 332. Fox, Wayne L., Consulting teacher program, Innovative non-categprical and interrelated prpjects in the education of the handicapped, Project #18-1800, PL 91-230, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 1972. Frank, Alan R., A non-categorical model for training special education teachers, in Innovative non-categorical and interrelated projects in the education of the handicapped, Project #18-1800, PL 91-230, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 1972. Glasser, William, Schools without failure, New York, Harper and Rowe, 1969, 4’8. Gross, Carl H. and Chandler, Charles C., The history of American education through readings, Boston, D.C. Heath and Co., 1964, 424-425. Guidelines for special education prpgrams and services, Lansing, Michigan, Michigan Department of Education, 1974. Hamill, Donald and Wiederholt, J. Lee, The resource room: Rationale and implementation, Philadelphia, Buttonwood Farms, 1972, 10-11. Haring, Norris G., Precision teaching in regular junior-high-school classrooms, in Deno, Evelyn (Ed.) Instructional alternatives for exceptional children, Arlington, Virginia, Council for Exceptional Children, 1973, 83-93. Hewett, Frank M., Handicapped children in the regular classroom. In Reynolds, Maynard C. and Davis, Malcolm 0. (Ed.) Exceptional children in regular classrooms, Minneapolis, Leadership Train- ing Institute, University of Minnesota, 1971, 100-106. 85 Johnson, 6.0., Special education for the mentally handicapped - A paradox, Exceptional Children, 1962, 29, 62-69. Kirk, S.A., Research in education, in Stevens, H.A. and Heber, R. (Eds.) Mental retardation: A review of the research, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1964. Kozol, Jonathon, Death at an early age, New York, Houghton Mifflin, 1968. The magnitude of the educational establishment, (editorial), Saturday Review, October 18, 1969, 83. Meisgeier, Charles, The Houston plan: A proactive integrated systems plan for education, in Deno, Evelyn (Ed.), Instructional alterna- tives for exceptional children, Arlington, Virginia, Council for Exceptional Children, 1973, 133-155. Morse, William C., Bruno, Frank B., Morgan, Sharon R., Training teachers for the emotionalLy disturbed, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Michigan, 1972, 79-120. Morse, William C., Special pupils in regular classes: Problems of accommodation. In Reynolds, M.C. and Davis, M.D. (Eds.) Exceptional children in regular classrooms, Minneapolis, Leadership Training Institute (EPDA) University of Minnesota, 1971. 68. Newman, Ruth G., Psyghological consultation in the schools: A catalyst for learning, New York/London, Basic Books, Inc., 1967, 1-4. Philbrick, John D., The success of the free-school system, North American Review, March, 1881, 132, 249-262. Proceedings of the Special Study Institute, Innovative non-categorical and interrelated projects in the education of the handicapped, Project #18-1800, PL 91-230, January 1972, 2. Prouty, Robert W. and McGarry, Florence M. The diagnostic/prescriptive teacher. In Deno, Evelyn (Ed.) Instructional alternatives for exceptional children, Arlington, Virginia, Council for Exceptional Children, 1973, 47-58. Prouty, Robert W., Diagnostic-prescriptive teacher project, Innovative non-categorical and interrelated projects in the education of the handicapped, Project #18-1800, PL 91-230, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 1972. Reimer, Everett, School is dead: An essay on alternatives in education, New York, Doubleday, 1971. 86 Report: Joint special education study.group.regarding,the report of the joint commission on the mental health of children andyyouth, New Cersey, TREC, Inc., July 1970, 5. Reynolds, Maynard, Categories and variables in special education, in Reynolds, M. and Davis, M. (Eds.) Exceptional children in regular classrooms, Minneapolis, Leadership Training Institute (EPDA) University of Mennesota, 1970, 54-56. Silberman, C.E., Crisis in the classroom, New York, Random House, 1970. Swartz, Louis, A clinical teacher model for interrelated areas of special education, in Innovative non-categprical and interrelatedyprojects in the education of the handicapped, Project #18-1800, PL 91-230, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 1972. Van Etten, Glen and Adamson, Gary, The fail-save program: A special education service continuum. In Deno, Evelyn (Ed.) Instructional alternatives for exceptional children, Arlington, Virginia, Council for Exceptional Children, 1973, 157-165. White, Mary Alice, Memo to a future superintendent, Phi Delta Kappan, June, 1969, 10, 595. White, Richard Grant, The public school failure, North American Review, December 1880, 131, 537-550. Typed and Printed in the U.S.A. Professional Thesis Preparation Cliff and Paula Haughey . 144 Maplewood Drive " East Lansing. Michigan 48823 Telephone (517) 337-1527