A $73153? 0F QBJECTI‘JES FGR SPECEAL EDUCATiON IN THE UNETEB STATES AND ACRQSS TEN NATIQNS Ebé W'ES‘YERN AND EASTERN EUROPE Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. mamam STATE UNNERSITY ARSEUA BLOCK SEHLER 1959 _ Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF OBJECTIVES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND ACROSS TEN NATIONS IN WESTERN AND EASTERN EUROPE presented by Arselia Block Sehler has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Special Education degree in Date 0-169 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF OBJECTIVES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND ACROSS TEN NATIONS IN WESTERN AND EASTERN EUROPE By Arselia Block Sehler The purpose of this study was to identify and examine representative objectives for special education in the United States current in 1967, and to use that list as a measure by which objectives might also be examined across ten nations in Europe. Exploratory in design, the study was a search for habilitative goals with international validity for special education. Particular emphasis was placed upon the degree of attention accorded each of fifty objectives identified for the United States, both as the objectives were perceived relative to each other and as the United States was perceived in relation to each of the European special education programs visited. The European approaches were evaluated in turn by twenty-two American educators during the course of a six week special education study tour. Countries studied were: England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the U.S.S.R., Finland, Sweden, Holland, and the United States. Literature concerning international special education was found to be very limited, and primarily descriptive Arselia Block Sehler rather than comparative in approach. This study was unique in that a number of educators simultaneously evaluated objectives for ten nations, using an instrument prepared for that purpose before the study tour. They similarly evaluated approaches taken by their own nation immediately before and after exposure to foreign programs. Five questions were explored. These dealt primarily with how manifest the objectives were to the observers for evaluation, and the degree of attention they appeared to be accorded in each nation. The objectives were presented on a Report Form as fifty items for judgment on a five—point scale. The data secured was made available for evaluation through the use of the Michigan State University CDC 3600 digital computer. Scores for the United States were compared with scores across nations. Objectives were found to have been nmst manifest for observation in the United States, England, and the U. S. S. R., and least in France. They also appeared more manifest for the United States on the posttrip than on the pretrip analysis. Items found to be most manifest tended to be practical rather than academic in nature. Nineteen objectives emerged both as manifest and high on the attention scale. Many of these objectives appeared to relate rather directly to a life continuum responsibility for the handicapped client and for individualized approaches to his education. Of the fifty objectives, the United Arselia Block Sehler States was perceived as most commited to that of adjusting school requirements for exceptional children. Emergent objectives were also examined for degree of attention accorded across nations. Ranked thus, the United States was generally perceived in the lower middle ranks. Concerning items relating to a continuum of respon— sibility, Holland and Sweden held the superior rankings, with the U. S. S. R. third, Switzerland fourth, and the United States fifth. For attention to objectives relating to individualizing instruction, the nations apparently most concerned were, in order: the U. S. S. R., Holland, Switzerland, and Sweden, with the United States perceived as exceeding only Hungary, France, and Germany in this regard. A comparison of pretrip and posttrip evaluations of American approaches indicated little overall change. However, with regard to several of the emergent objectives the Observers perceived the United States as according somewhat less attention on the posttrip evaluation. Implications of the study were suggested for students of special education and for those responsible for providing inservice or graduate study eXperiences for them. The effectiveness of this approach to data collection was also favorably noted. Considerable additional data is presented in both narrative and tabular form in the Appendix, and is thus made available to those concerned with aspects of habilitation not discussed in the body of the report. Arselia Block Sehler Commitment to the emergent United States objectives appeared higher in general in half of the EurOpean nations studied than in America. A responsibility for Americans to secure more information concerning the approaches taken by other nations is strongly implied. Common ground appears to exist for international communication concerning two aspects: an extension of educational responsibility to include the life continuum of the handicapped, and the individualizing of the approaches to their problems. On these two tOpics European educators may rather freely communicate with each other, as well as with professionals interested in the exceptional individual on this continent. Finally, local districts and concerned citizens in the United States may evaluate regional approaches as they appear relative to the data in this study, particularly as it was perceived across their own nation. Rationale for changes may emerge, and the habilitation of exceptional individuals be brought closer to realization. A STUDY OF OBJECTIVES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND ACROSS TEN NATIONS IN WESTERN AND EASTERN EUROPE By Arselia Block Sehler A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Elementary and Special Education 1969 'TCopyright by ARSELIA BLOCK SEHLER I969 DEDICATION To all who have cared for me and believed in me. Especially John Sehler. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am most appreciative of the consistent support given me by my doctoral committee, particularly by my major advisor, Dr. Charles E. Henley. Dr. Henley's interest and encouragement throughout my entire doctoral program was invaluable. Each of the other members of the committee was uniquely valuable to me in the sharing of his own expertise: Dr. Charles V. Mange, Dr. John R. Hurley, and Dr. John E. Jordan. Dr. Jordan was par- ticularly helpful in providing assistance in regard to the cross-national data. I am also indebted to Dr. Corinne Kass, then of the United States Office of Education, for the insights which she shared with me during my early consideration of the topic for this study. Finally, I should like to thank Dr. Eric Graf of Ithaca College for enabling me to collect data on the tour which he directed for Study Abroad. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION The Development Of Special Education Evolvement of Approaches. . Delineation of Objectives Mutuality of Problems International Approach Purpose of This Study. Value of the Study . . Scope of the Study. . . International Implication Methodology Limitations. Bias . Structure. Exposure . . . . . Research Questions . . . . . Question One: Manifest Factor. Question Two: Attention Factor . . Question Three: Emergent Objectives. Question Four: Altered Perceptions Question Five: National Similarities and Differences . . . . . . . Definition of Terms II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Research. . . Comparative and International Education. Comparative Special Education . Travel Related to Attitude Change. Summary . . . . Page iii iv viii xi }_J \oxoxoooxunmtww Ni—‘H HFJF’ +4FJO HFJF’ IORJH H FW4 0\ R)N [UNI-'H comma N \D Chapter III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES. . . . Part I: Identification of Objectives . Selection of Objectives . . Sources of Objectives. . . . Criteria for Choice of Items Presentation of Objectives . . Part II: Construction and Use of the Report Form . . . . Part A: Fifty Objectives . . . Part B: Free Response Page. Part C: Mapping Sentences . . Part III: Administration of the Report Form. . . Part IV: Collection of Data . . Background . . . . . . . . . Response . Participants. . . . . Part V: Analysis of Research. . . . Procedures . . . . . Cross-National Data: Emergent Objectives. . . . . . . . Cross- National Data: Fifty Objectives . IV. RESULTS Part I: Nature of Participants Importance . . . . . . Description Summary . . . . . . . . Part II: Research Questions . . Question One: Manifest Factor. Question Two: Attention Factor Question Three: ,Emergent Objectives. Question Four: Altered Perceptions . Question Five: National Similarities and Differences . . . V. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY . Part I: Summary of Results . . Question One: Manifest Factor. Question Two: Attention Factor . . Question Three: Emergent Objectives. Question Four: Altered Perceptions . Question Five: National Similarities and Differences . . Part II: Implications of the Study. 0 Review. . . . Conclusions and Recommendations General Implications . . . . . . vi Page 100 100 100 103 108 109 115 118 118 119 122 Chapter REFERENCES. APPENDICES. vii Page 127 143 Table 10. ll. 12. LIST OF TABLES Educational Status of Tour Participants Professional Education Experience of Participants Participants' Professional Experience in Special Education Exceptionality Areas of Choice Indicated by Participants . . . . . . . . . Manifest Factor Across Nations: Fifty Special Education Objectives Ranked by Number of Scaled Responses Made by Observers. . . Attention Factor Across Nations: Fifty Special Education Objectives Ranked by Mean on a Five-Point Scale. . . . Attention Factor in the United States: Fifty Special Education Objectives Ranked by Mean on a Five—Point Scale Before Observers Viewed European Programs . . . . Nineteen Items Identified as Emergent Objec- tives on Basis Of Attention Factor and Manifest Factor Ranking of Fifty Items Across Nations Increase in Manifest Factor of Eight of the Fifty Objectives for Special Education as Indicated by Observers on U. S. Pretrip and and U. S. Posttrip Report Forms. . . . Items Perceived as Higher on Attention Factor on U. S. Posttrip Form Compared to U. S. Pretrip Form . . . . . . . . . Items Perceived as Lower on Attention Factor on U. S. Posttrip Form Compared to U. S. Pretrip Form . . . . . . . A Comparison of U. S. Pretrip and U. S. Post— trip Perceptions of Nineteen Emergent United States Objectives, Ranked as Recorded Across Nations. . . . . . . . viii Page 59 6O 61 63 67 72 78 81 BA 86 87 89 Table 13. 14. 15. 16. A1. A2. A3. A4. A5. A6. A7. Manifest Factor for Individual Nations: Rank by Number of Scaled Responses Concerning Fifty Selected United States Objectives Eleven Nations as Ranked in Regard to Five Emergent Objectives Concerning a Continuity of Responsibility in Special Education. Eleven Nations as Ranked in Regard to Emergent Objectives Concerning an Individualized Approach to Special Education . . . . Eleven Nations Ranked as to Emergent Objectives Related to Four Administrative Aspects of Special Education . . . . . . England: Fifty Special Education Objectives Ranked on the Attention Factor as Twenty- two American Educators Perceived them for England. . . . . . . . France: Fifty Special Education Objectives Ranked on the Attention Factor as Twenty- two American Educators Perceived them for France Switzerland: Fifty Special Education Objec- tives Ranked on the Attention Factor as Twenty-two American Educators Perceived them for Switzerland . . Germany: Fifty Special Education Objectives Ranked on the Attention Factor as Twenty- two American Educators Perceived them for Germany. . . . Czechoslovakia: Fifty Special Education Objectives Ranked on the Attention Factor as Twenty—two American Educators Perceived them for CzechoSlovakia . . . . . . . Hungary: Fifty Special Education Objectives Ranked on the Attention Factor as Twenty- two American Educators Perceived them for Hungary. . . . . . . . . . U.S.S.R.: Fifty Special Education Objectives Ranked on the Attention Factor as Twenty- two American Educators Perceived them for U.S.S.R. . . . . . . . . . ix Page 92 94 96 98 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 Table Page A8. Finland: Fifty Special Education Objectives Ranked on the Attention Factor as Twenty— two American Educators Perceived them for Finland. . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 A9. Sweden: Fifty Special Education Objectives Ranked on the Attention Factor as Twenty- two American Educators Perceived them for Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 A10. Holland: Fifty Special Education Objectives Ranked on the Attention Factor as Twenty- two American Educators Perceived them for Holland. . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 All. Pretest: Fifty Special Education Objectives Ranked on the Attention Factor as Twenty- two American Educators Perceived them Before the Tour . . . . . . . . . . 155 A12. Posttest: Fifty Special Education Objectives Ranked on the Attention Factor as Twenty— two American Educators Perceived them After the Tour . . . . . . . . . . 156 A13. Across Nations: Fifty Special Education Objectives Ranked on the Attention Factor as American Educators Perceived them Across Nations . . . . . . . . . . 157 Appendix A. B. LIST OF APPENDICES Tables Report Form. Educating the Exceptional Child: Issues of Concern Personal Data Sheets Code Book . . . . . . . . . Report of Research from Part B of the Report Form . . . . EurOpean Approaches to Special Education: A Summary of Impressions Reported by Students Participating in the Ithaca College Study Tour of 1967 xi Page 144 158 170 180 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Development of Special Education Evolvement of Approaches Special education is no recent phenomenon, either in Europe or on this continent. Special provisions, however limited, have existed in the United States for well over a century, and for an even longer span abroad. European approaches were often taken as a model for early educational provisions in this country. This has been true for the education of the atypical child as well as for his normal sibling. Despite this fact, communication and cooperation between special educators here and abroad has been minimal. We may think of the true beginnings of special edu- cation in a very broad sense, in that there came about an acknowledgment of differences so marked in individuals as to cause other peOple to act in a special way toward them. The outline of this history, in part the narra- tive of an evolving refinement of civilized peoples, is so general as to need no documentation. It followed these four steps: (1) the abnormal or weak were destroyed or left to die; (2) they were feared, scorned, ridiculed or imprisoned, existing miserably in filth and hopeless— ness; (3) they were pitied and recognized as prOper sub- jects for humanitarian efforts; (4) they were minimally educated within a segregated milieu. In the United States and other major countries there appears to be some evidence that a fifth important concept has evolved. This concept emerges as the belief that the handicapped are potentially enriching members of society rather than its dependants, and that they should be habilitated to reach that goal. The habilitation con- cept is conceived by some to include even those with multiple disabilities, or with major physical, mental, or emotional problems. The goal of habilitation implies, at long last, a full measure of citizenship, self-fulfillment, and integration for this minority group of our pOpulation. Delineation of Objectives Habilitation as thus described is an amorphous con— cept. In order to give it body it will be necessary for us to consider aspects such as programming for individuals with quite different characteristics and limitations, at different stages in their lives. Educational aspects, viewed from the concept of habilitation, are complex. Although objectives such as the availability of well- trained teachers are generally considered important to successful habilitation, many agencies and personnel other than educators are involved. Again, objectives may be expressed in such generalities as that of establishing provisions for the welfare of the handi- capped across their full life span. Or they may be expressed through more specific statements, such as in- suring the availability of appropriate driver training to handicapped youth. It appears obvious that any listing of objectives relating to the habilitative concept in special education may most accurately be described as an operational mea- sure. The concept of habilitation is Open-ended, and no listing of objectives could appropriately be considered as "fixed." However, the desired result of all of our efforts will continue to be best represented by those fully-functioning "exceptional" adults among us who have achieved a status of dignity in our society. Mutuality_of Problems International Approach Today more and more people are coming to believe that it is not enough to look about within our own country and to assume that all of the answers, or neces— sarily even the better answers, are to be found there. In the task of analyzing our objectives for special education and giving thought to the soundness of our philosophy, we may benefit from knowing what other nations believe should take priority. How do they move to resolve the problems of atypical peOple? What ob- jectives do they consider valid? Could we not, then, compare the theories and pro- grams of special education, country by country? Not readily, for this type of information is largely in- accessible across national boundaries. Such information, when it has been verbally expressed, has been prepared for local, or at the most, national use, and is seldom available in translation. Occasionally publications will appear with captions or chapter summaries in English. At any rate, we may well ask ourselves how much real under— standing we gain by reading a mass of numbers and program descriptions, however available they might be to us. For purposes of communication and cooperative planning we may find this type of data of very limited value. As for scholarly research, it is very scant indeed. Only recently have our tools been sharpened and our inter- ests quickened to the point of earnest endeavors in com- parative special education. Purpose of This Study This study was designed to identify habilitative objectives of special education currently meaningful in the United States, and, in a search for new insights, to examine their relevance in foreign settings. A new methodology for gathering international data was derived for the study. It is thus exploratory in design, both in method and in content. The data secured from this approach, new both in international study and to special education, will be available for the consideration of all who seek cooperative solutions to the problems of the handicapped. Value Of the Study Scope of the Study Focus on Objectives Since World War II the critics of general education in the United States have been making themselves heard. They have in many cases succeeded in becoming "change agents." As a result, a reevaluation of twentieth cen- tury practices in education has caused change to be effected at a quickened pace. But reevaluations, soundly based, include a fresh examination of objectives as well as of the results. As for special education, little formal attention has been devoted to objectives. Even the popular push of the last three decades for integration or reintegration of the handicapped into American public schools was often viewed as much a "means" as it was an end. At the same time, in the course of relieving regular teachers Of their more difficult students, the special educators have comforted themselves with the assumption that special classes provided optimum placement for the noticeably exceptional. Such contradictions suggest the need for an examination of the products of our educational pro- gramming. But in addition they should provoke us into a continuous and ongoing examination of the goals of special education. What objectives are truly apprOpriate at this time and in this place? It is from this per- spective that future "products" may be upgraded. This study was designed to identify those objectives Of special education which provide motivation for current Data generated through an international study The practices. of representative objectives is thus made available. data may be cited by local administrators to provide a rationale for certain special education Objectives, and fbr procedures prOposed to move the local program toward these objectives. These goals may heretofore have been given little or no consideration. On the other hand, it is possible that very strong emphasis is being placed Upon a certain objective locally, and yet it is, according to this data, relatively unimportant. In such case a local reevaluation may be appropriate. A marked differ— ence between local and national or international approaches might indicate either progress or the antithesis of pro— gress. In either case, a study of provocative data could lead to a reevaluation and subsequent improvement Of service on the local level. Breadth of Approach The objectives examined were phrased to include the categories of exceptionality currently recognized in the References to every age level were in- The United States. cluded. Different modes of service are suggested. study therefore Offers data pertinent to the leadership task of every individual whose concern includes the special child. Parents, teachers, and administrators are especially close to particular children or groups of children, and therefore may feel a personal involvement in relating their services to appropriate objectives. Legislators, representatives of public and private agen- cies, and representatives of related professional disci- plines are also concerned with objectives. For all who acknowledge a continuing responsibility to examine "the status quo" of the philosophy of special education, this data has implications. International Implications Timeliness International education is attracting increasing attention in the United States. The passing of the International Education Act of 1966 was a milestone. The National Education Association noted: International education is and has been an impor— tant part of American education. Improvement of international education is therefore a goal of the National Education Association. To this end federal legislation is needed. The Association urges its Legislative Commission to exert every effort to ensure the full funding and implementation of the International Education Act of 1966 and to en- courage full participation by institutions of teacher education.1 The approach taken in this study of special education objectives appears therefore to be timely. It is in step with the trend to examine educational data of other nations and regions in a Search for new insights. Value to Other Nations The use of this cross-national data need not, of course, be limited to special educators on this continent. Since the study does cross national boundaries, all who are involved with the education and welfare of exceptional individuals may find this comparative data thought-pro- voking. This is particularly true of educators of the ten countries studied. They are enabled with this data to (I) examine fifty objectives representative of certain United States views, and (2) observe how these objectives were perceived in relation to other nations, including their own. Methodology This research may also be of value because it is based Upon a method of securing data which is apparently without precedence in international studies. Aspects k lNEA Resolution 67-9, International Education: Passed at the Forty-Sixth Representative Assembly, 1967. unique to the approach employed are: (l) the development and utilization of a predetermined instrument which called upon ideas and judgments rather than facts about specific educational programs; (2) the use of this in- strument by a number of observers, simultaneously, and immediately after being exposed to each of the ten European approaches. Limitations Bias The data gathered in this study is an expression of the judgment of United States and Ontario educators. These educators spoke English, and their education and teaching experiences were based on experiences on this continent. They considered fifty objectives derived from literature of United States origin. Their judgments were further shaped from differing local backgrounds and pro— fessional experiences and varied academic courses. There— fore the data generated by their European observations can be given credence only as approaches perceived from the United States-Ontario point of View. This bias, both obvious and pronounced, delimits the study. Structure The objectives toward which attention was directed were a sampling of those in evidence in the United States 10 just prior to the study. This represents a limitation: first, in that the objectives Observed, although repre- sentative, were not necessarily inclusive; and second, the stated objectives limited the reporting to themselves, to the exclusion of other objectives which may have been pertinent in a particular nation or nations. It may be noted, however, that the fifty objectives selected for attention did provide a baseline for the analysis of national approaches. Also, another avenue was provided the observers through which they were free to record whatever aspects they considered significant. This permitted the addition of objectives where the need was felt by the observer.1 We may conclude only that the fifty objectives were used as a point of observation characteristic of edu- cational approaches in certain, but not necessarily in all, areas of the United States. EXposure A significant limitation exists in regard to the brief eXposure of the observers to those ten European programs. It was often difficult to secure information. 1In Appendix B will be fOund a duplication of the Report Form which was used by the observers throughout the trip. Reference is here made to page 6 of the form, entitled, "Educating the Exceptional Child: An Over— view." On this page, respondents answered the question, "What has particularly impressed or concerned you about the special education program in this country?" 11 Since lectures and onsite study together provided the pri— mary basis upon which the educators marked the Report Form, they frequently found themselves without evidence upon which to base judgment. Thus, being unable to score such items on a qualitative basis, they marked many of them with a zero. Where a qualitative judgment could be made, the data upon which it was based was confined to a great extent to observations, lectures, and questions and answers, rather than upon a definitive background of reading and research. The findings must be considered with this limitation in mind. Research Questions This study was designed to explore special education objectives, to discover what it is that special educators across nations wish to accomplish. Objectives suggested as appropriate to the United States were taken as a model. The following questions were posed: Question One: Manifest Factor To what extent were the selected United States ob— Jectives for special education manifest to the observers on the study tour (1) across nations, and (2) for the United States? Question Two: Attention Factor To what extent were the selected United States Ob- jectives perceived by these observers to be the object 12 of the attention of special educators (1) across nations and (2) for the United States? Question Three: Emergent Objectives Which of the selected United States objectives appeared to these observers to be both manifest and emphasized by attention (1) across nations and (2) in the United States? Question Four: Altered Perceptions How did the observers perceive the selected United States objectives just before and again just after their exposure to European approaches to special education? Question Five: National Similarities and Differences Which nations did the United States appear to these observers to most resemble, or to least resemble, in I‘egard to objectives? Definition of Terms Certain terms appear in the evaluation instrument or are frequently referred to in this report. They are here defined: Special education: Educational modifications and provisions designed to serve that child who deviates from the normal child as to his physical, mental or emotional 13 characteristics, and who gives evidence of requiring special services in order to develop to his own maximum capacity. International education: A study which "connotes the various kinds of relationships, intellectual, cul- tural and educational, among individuals and groups of two or more nations. It refers also to the various methods of international cooperation, understanding and 1 exchange." Comparative education: A study which connotes "the analysis of educational systems and problems in two or more natural environments."2 The term is used in this paper as providing a means to compare systems, rather than to describe a single system. It is "not for the pur— pose of determining which system, idea or method is super- ior, but rather in order to understand the factors under- lying similarities and difference in education in various countries."3 Habilitation: A "building up," used in the sense Of special education as an enabling program designed to specially assist the physically, mentally, or emotionally 1Quoted from a footnote by Stewart E. Fraser in his Chapter V, "International and Comparative Education," priew of Educational Research, Vol. 37, No. 1 (February, 1967), p. 57. Fraser took his definition from "a forth— coming book by Stewart E. Fraser and William W. Brickman, A_History of International and Comparative Education, Nineteenth CenturygDocuments, to be published by Scott, Foresman and Coi"~ 2Ibid. 3Ibid. l4 atypical individual to achieve a successful adulthood as a free and fully-functioning member of his own society. The term is here conceived to represent the prime major objective of special programming in the United States. The political philosophy represented by this concept is egalitarian, implying the right of equality of edu- cational opportunity. Objectives of special education: Desirable prac— tices or outcomes of practices considered beneficial to the education and habilitation of exceptional children. The fifty objectives to which reference is made in this report are those which were identified as representative of United States approaches and which were included in the Report Form. lgggg: A "coming forth," used here as an idea put forth and circulated in regard to special education, p333 Eggl in itself, but phrased for purposes of this instru— ment as expressing a representative and valid United States objective. Problem: Term used in the Report Form to indicate an acknowledged objective for exceptional children in the nation observed, one not wholly realized. Manifest Objectives: Those items relating to sPecial education which were apparent enough to the Participants enroute to have elicited an appreciable number of scaled responses from them, as they marked 15 the Report Forms.1 Information relating to these ob- jectives had been secured through the observers having heard speakers in the various nations, by their having seen actual evidence of the realization of objectives during site visits, or by means of both avenues of information . Manifest Factor: The definitive characteristic of "Manifest Objectives." Attention Factor: The definitive characteristic of objectives relative to the amount of attention or emphasis accorded them in lectures or visible on site tours, recorded on the basis of a five-point scale. Emergent Objectives. Those nineteen of the fifty selected United States objectives which showed themselves to be high both on the Manifest Factor and on the Atten- tion Factor, as perceived across nations in this study. 1The participants clearly defined all items refer- ring to objectives which were not discernible at a given time and place by checking in the zero column on the Report Form, rather than by utilizing the five-point scale of intensity. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE It may be stated at the outset that no study directly comparable to this research was found, either in the liter- ature relating to comparative and international education or to special education. However, there were important, if indirectly related, contributions, a few of which were helpful to the writer in conceptualizing the approach taken to the present research. The more applicable of these references are sug- gested in the following discussion. They are included under: (1) comparative and international education, (2) comparative special education, and (3) travel related to attitude change. Research meparative and International Education Approaches to Research The writer wished to set up a study which would indicate international similarities and differences in SpeCial education, both as to the determination of 16 17 objectives and as to what appeared to be important move- ments toward the accomplishment of those objectives. It was therefore necessary to devise an approach unique to an exploration of the habilitative goal of special edu— cation. Examination of the literature in comparative education clarified the major obstacles to this task and led to a delimiting of approach to the study. One major pitfall to a comparative study centers about the difficulty of generalization from one society to another. To overcome this involves the necessity for great dedication to minutiae, and, more important, for achieving a grasp of the broad background of the total education structure, as well as of the approaches to special education in each country studied. Each picture must be drawn within the political and social milieu of that nation. There are also practical considerations which face the researcher, such as the length of time per- mitted for the study, probable language barriers, and the financial resources necessary to conduct such research. Among others, Kandell and Bereday2 stressed the signifi- cance of true knowledgeability. 1I. L. Kandel, The New Era in Education, A Com- parative Study_(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1955). 2George Z. P. Bereday, Comparative Method in Education (Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 19 18 Bereday suggests four steps which may "point the way to the future for comparative education."l Step I involves only a description of pedagogical data for Country A, Country B, etc. Step II involves inteppre- tation, an evaluation of pedagogical data in light of the historical, political, economic, and social aspects of each country, the data still being viewed separately. Step III introduces juxtaposition for the purpose of establishing similarities and differences, at which time a hypothesis for comparative analysis could be made and criteria of comparability established. Finally, in Step IV, a simultaneous comparison could be made between Countries A and B, the hypothesis tested, and a conclusion drawn for any two hypothetical countries. The approach appeared to this writer to be exemplary, while at the same time beyond the limitations of the present explora- tory study. It is offered in the present review of literature for the serious consideration of those who wish to research international special education in the future and to consummate that research beyond its present depth and scope. Bereday is strongly suspicious of any short-term study which would profess to compare several nations on more than one theme or problem. "No student of comparative education can attempt the total comparative 1Ibid., p. 28. l9 approach . . . without a life-long, full time prepara- tion for the task."1 King,2 in considering perspectives for an inter- national review of education, indicates that if our comparison is to be made between cultures, we must use a time scale (for cultures are in different stages) and we must consider the resources, both human and material, which are available. Therefore we will ultimately be considering values and ideas. Values and ideas are apparently at once the most important and the least verifiable facets of information available for empirical study. In King's introduction to World Perspectives in Education, the writer does offer some encouragement to that researcher whose dedication is necessarily less than total, as Bereday suggested that it should be. In acknowledging the human element persistent to such types of research he opens the door to exploratory approaches, "Blinkered and biased though we may be," and asserts that "whatever expedient we propose will be full of impli- cations for ourselves." But who are we to look at other people's problems and diagnose the crux of their decisions? As we have constantly seen . . . every observation 1Ibid., p. 23. 2Edmund J. King, World Perspectives in Education (London: Methuen and-Co. Ltd.; 1962), p."28. 20 we venture upon is an engagement of our own selves and our background. Blinkered and biased though we may be, however, we may actually be of help to them as friends can help each other everywhere. Yet insight, and certainly communication, can only develop where our study is undertaken sympatheti- cally in consonance with the whole life-force of another society‘s system. . . . What we are look- ing at is a variation on ourselves, seen through eyes which have an interest; and whatever expedient we propose will be full of implications for our— selves. Therefore, though in the interest of academic exactness and universal validity we shall try to bring scientific coldness into our inquiries, we shall vitiate the whole proceeding if we imagine that we can ever actually isolate phenomena and lay them side by side in absolute detachment. Nothing animate can be treated in quite that way, least of all among human kind. Consequently, when we think we have found our comparable items and have started to work on them, we must not only beware of our own personal entanglements as far as possible but also acknowledge that we can never deal with any problem in a "once and for all" snap judgment.1 In the last analysis we shall discover that some problems can hardly ever be wormed out of their setting, but must be reviewed ip situ al- most by implication. That is to say, we must be content to make progress by glimpses and surmises and by adducing apparently comparable instances, because we cannot really secure either disengaged "pure" vision in ourselves or convenient labora— tory conditions for the study of a deeply entrenched problem. So far from considering this repetitive incompleteness to be the lazy man's woolly way of dealing with such a situation, we ought to recog— nize that this is the cumulative or peripheral method of the biologist studying any complex ecological problem. Of all ecological complexes, education is the most intricate.2 Finally, one note on "commonalities" is rung by Kandel when he says, although not without a firm warning concerning interpretation: __ 1Ibid., p. 28. Ibid., p. 29. 21 Now, while it is axiomatic that the character of every educational system is determined by the ethos or culture pattern of the nation that it is de- signed to serve, an examination of the accounts of the educational reforms planned or already under way in the three democracies—-England, France, and the United States-—will show that many of the problems whiph have been dealt with are common to them all.l This does not mean that the solu— tions can be the same or that a universal theory of education can be formulated to cover all cases. Inclusion of Special Education As for information about special education in the literature of comparative education, international studies have included the special fields only incidentally. Typi- cal is the comprehensive bibliography for one graduate course in comparative education3 which listed 198 books, only one of which dealt primarily with an exceptionality, and that with the gifted child! UNESCO“ and the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare5 have provided some of the more lUnderlining that of this writer. 2Kandel, loc. cit., p. 371- 3Educat1on 804E, Michigan State University, 1966, Dr. Carl Gross, instructor. “UNESCO, "France," World Survgy of Education (Paris: 1958), reprint; UNESCO, "Comparative Cross~National Research," International Social Science Bulletin, Vol. 7, 1955), p. 4. 5United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Welfare Administration, Children's Bureau, Research Relating to Children, Bulletin No. 19 (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966); see also 22 comprehensive sources of materials for comparative studies, some of which do include statistics on the handicapped. Statistics appear to be more readily accessible than com- mentary or interpretation. Comparative Special Education There appears to be very limited representation of comparative data is special education. Those sources of reference material to which the researcher may turn as a matter of form1 proved singularly unproductive in this phase of the search. Of slight benefit also were ques- tion searches put through the special education Instruc- tional Materials Center2 at Michigan State University on President's Panel on Mental Retardation, Bibliogppphy of World Literature on Mental Retardation, a report prepared by the Public Health Service (Washington, D. C.: U. 8. Government Printing Office, 1963); United States Health, Education and Welfare Department, Repprt of the Task Force on Behavioral and Social Research (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1964); United States Health, Education and Welfare Department, Secretary's Committee on Mental Retardation, An Introduction to Mental Retardation ngblems, Plans and Programs (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, June, 1965)- lEducation Index (New York: H. W. Wilson 00., 1929 to date); UNESCO, Education Abstracts (Paris: Educational Clearing House, UNESCO, 1949 to dateT; Encyclopedia of Educational Research (3rd ed.; New York: The Macmillan Co., 1960). 2The USOE/MSU Regional Instructional Materials Center at Michigan State University, East Lansing, was established in 1965 and became one of a network of what is now fourteen regional centers. These centers were established after the President's Panel on Mental Retardation made their reports of their studies of European programs for the mentally retarded. This center has developed a computer-operated question-answer service to aid the special education student in his search of the literature. .no 23 two separate occasions. The ERICl publications also offered little helpful information. Data Reported by Outside Observers Significant is the fact that an on-site survey of European practices in educating the retarded was under- taken by a sophisticated "team" appointed by President Kennedy in 1960, and that the report was made generally available. Familiarity with this important committee's work2 challenged the writer to devise an approach to group study that would be practicable under somewhat different circumstances. It appears to be true that special educators from the United States have begun to take an international view 3 of programs, particularly in the last decade. They have lERIC-CEC is the Educational Research Information Center--Council for Exceptional Children. This center has a computer-based information retrieval system. It is part of the network sponsored by the United States Office of Education, Washington, D. C. 2President's Panel on Mental Retardation, Report of Mission to Denmark and Sweden; Report of Mission to the Nptherlands; Report of Mission to the U.S.S.R. (Washing- ton, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962). 3Lloyd M. Dunn and Samuel A. Kirk, "Impressions of Soviet Psycho—Educational Service and Research in Mental Retardation," Exceptional Children, Vol. 27, no. 3 (Nov- ember, 1960), 1994211; Darrell A. Hindman, "Highlighting Programs for the Mentally Retarded in Denmark and Holland," Exceptional Children, Vol. 28, no. 1 (September, 1961), 19-22; Satoru Izutzu and Marvin E. Powell, "Special Edu- cation of Handicapped Children in Japan," Exceptional Children, Vol. 27, no. 5 (January, 1961), 252-259; Clara Langerhaus, "Special Education in Central America and Mexico," Exceptional Children, Vol. 25 no. 5 24 studied various foreign approaches and contributed facts and particular program descriptions, along with their individual interpretations of this data. They have frankly spoken from their background of special education in the United States. The "Education of Exceptional Chil- dren" editions of 1963 and 1966, in the Review of Educa— 1 cational Research, included a scattering of such references, the publications being primarily descriptive in nature. The majority of these reports elaborated upon a single nation's approach to service, or perhaps the approach of a few nations. In those instances where comparisons were drawn, the approach was likely to be informal and philosophical in tone, rather than characterized by the precision of an empirical study. Therefore the studies, although inter- national in scope, were not in a strict sense "comparative." Particular mention should be made Of the Taylor and Taylor publication,2 a comprehensive survey of services for (January, 1959), 202-204, 220; Fred J. Schnoell, "Problems Of Retardation in Australia," International Review of Education, Vol. 3 (1957), 192-197; John W. Tenny, "Special Education in the Soviet Union," Exceptional Children, Vol. 26, no. 6 (February, 1960), 296—304; Thomas J. Watson, "Some Arrangements for Training Teachers for Special Edu- cation in England," Exceptional Children, Vol. 27,no. 6 (February, 1961), 307-308} 1Review of Educational Research (Washington, D. 0.: American Educational Research Association, National Educ- ation Association, 1941 to date), February 1953 and 1966. 2Wallace W. Taylor and Isabelle W. Taylor, Special Edpcation of Physically Handicapped Children in Western Europe (New York: International Society for the Welfare of Cripples, 1960). 25 physically handicapped children in twenty—one countries in Western Europe. These authors have presented a descrip- tion of European special education services and their develOpment, as well as of the related aspects of adminis— tration, organization, staffing, and financing of these services. The pioneers in this area may have persuaded their own professional community to take its first steps towards achieving a broader national perspective and toward effecting some reevaluation within their own fields of endeavor. Data Reported by Nationals A second significant source of information on inter- national approaches to special education stems from inter— national organizations and their conferences.l On such occasions the presentations through which varied national lHerbert Goldstein, "Report on International Con- ference of Teachers of Backward Children," Exceptional Children, Vol. 27, no. 3 (November, 1960), l39-1H6; Eugene J. Taylor (ed.), Rehabilitation and World Peace: Report of Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of the International Society for the Welfare of Cripples, August 28-September 2, 1960 (New York: The Society, 1960), 423 pp.; World Health Organization, The Mentally Sub- Nprmal Child, Report of a Joint Expert Committee Convened by WHO withwthe Participation of the United Nations, ILO, and UNESCO (Washington, D. C.: Council for Exceptional Children, National Education Association, April, 1954), 3-46; Council for Exceptional Children, Selected Convention Papers, "Special Education: Strategies for Educational Progress," Report of the 44th Annual CEC Convention, Toronto, Canada, April 17—24, 1966 (Washington, D. 0.: National Education Association, 1966), pp. 226—238. 26 approaches are described frequently may be given by indi— viduals describing their own programs. Although this approach has obvious strengths, the fact remains that re- porting remains descriptive and primarily subjective, despite what we may presume to be the high professional and ethical standards of those individuals making the presentations. It becomes increasingly apparent at this point that the material produced by, and available to, United States special educators is not only fragmented in scope but is generally found to be far removed from the standards for comparative studies suggested by Bereday, King, and other experts in comparative education. The Step I prOposed by Bereday, to which previous reference was made2 (description of pedagogical data for Country A, Country B, etc.) most nearly approximates the approach taken by the majority of these authors. The deeper interpretive level of Step II is in most instances poorly defined or lacking. As for juxtaposition (Step III), enabling one to draw a simul— taneous and authentic comparison, little or nothing yet published would be defensible. And we lack readiness for that most important Step IV, the testing of hypotheses through drawing comparisons. lBereday, op. cit., p. 28. 27 One Empirical Approach to Comparative Data in Special Education One new and more clearly objective approach to an important phase of special education, a many-faceted study relating to attitudes toward the physically handicapped, has recently been completed at Michigan State University. This was a group research study, both international and intranational, under the direction of John E. Jordan. Thousands of individuals in twelve countries were surveyed, and a dozen or more doctoral dissertations have already evolved through this study of the United States, Costa Rica, Colombia, Peru, England, Holland, France, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Japan, and Belgium.1 A later on-going project ("ABS-MR"), which analyzed attitudes related to mental retardation, "used instrumentation which was fully evolved via facet theory principles."2 Increasing sophistication of instrumentation characterizes this group research. 1The final report of this research project which contains the original statistical data is available as follows: John E. Jordan, Attitudes Toward Education gpd Physically Disabled Persons in Eleven Nations, Research Report No. 1, Latin American Studies Center £5223 Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 2John E. Jordan, "Cross-cultural Attitudes Toward Education and Physically Handicapped Persons in Eleven Nations," Lecture presented at the 7th International Congress on Mental Health, London, England, August 12-17, 196 , East Lansing, Michigan, p. 21. (Mimeographed.) 28 In addition to the task of the analysis of attitudes undertaken in these studies, the problem of cross-cultural measurement was in itself a major hurdle. Hypotheses "were designed to test for differences within-and-across nations for persons or groups with different interpersonal "1 Data was secured which could be value orientations. analyzed between groups (four), across all nations, or "to differentiate between two specific nations across all variables."2 The research problems of relevancy, equi- valency, and comparability are compounded in cross- cultural/national/linguistic studies and were delineated in the analysis of the data procured through this research. It is significant to note that the approach taken in the Jordan group research has been designed to permit the drawing of comparisons between national groups and among variables. It would appear that this approach comes far closer to approximating Bereday's ideal for Step III and IV, juxtaposition and hypothesis testing, than has any- thing to which previous reference has been made. Travel Related to Attitude Change The results of the present study, in addition to suggesting relationships in regard to issues in special education, will include data relative to change or lack 1 2 Ibid., p. 8. Ibid., p. 20. 29 of change in the analysis of the home area of the partici- pants after viewing foreign programs. Comparable studies were not found. However, evidence of changes in "world- mindedness" of traveler educators, suggest a degree of flexibility, a broadened perspective due to experiences abroad. Virgiliol and Williams2 confirm this impression. Defining world-mindedness as a person's strong feeling that the welfare of his country is tied up with the wel- fare of the rest of the world, Virgilio found in measuring attitudes of elementary teachers that those who have visited foreign countries "tend to be more world-minded."3 Summary Three approaches have been taken in this review of the literature. 1. Authorities in comparative education were re- viewed. No significant information in regard to special education on an international base was found. This phase of the search was 1Andrew D. Virgilio, "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Attitudes of Elementary Teachers Toward Selected Questions Related to International Affairs" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1960). 2Walter G. Williams, Jr., "An Exploratory Study of Influencing Selected Teachers to Become Interested and Involved in the Area of International Understanding" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965). 3"Research Clues," NEA Journal, Feature (January, 1967), 68 30 helpful, however, both from the point of View of methodology and of rationale. The area of special education itself was re- viewed. It appears that descriptions of approaches taken by countries outside of the United States are few. This information appeared: (l) as reported by United States educators upon their return from study abroad, and (2) as reported by outside nationals at international conferences and in a limited body of foreign literature available to United States educators. Little evidence exists to indicate that the sophisti- cated goals of comparative research have been seriously attempted. Unique is the approach of one body of group research (Jordan pp_pl.) to which the techniques of computer analysis have been applied, and for which new computer programs have been created, allowing for cross—cultural comparisons of data by variable and by nation. Finally, two studies on "world-mindedness" were reported, both of which suggest that travel may indeed alter the perspective of the traveler. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES In order to secure data for this study, it was essen— tial first to identify those sources of objectives broadly appropriate to Special education in the United States. It was then necessary to order and refine a list Of such objectives which would be in keeping with the original rationale and criteria. Part I of this chapter describes this early phase of the study and concludes with a list of the fifty objectives actually chosen. Part II describes the entire Report Form (Parts A, B, and C) from the point Of view of its content and construction. Part III deals with the Report Form from the point of view of the admin- istration of the instrument by the researcher. Part IV includes the following: (1) background information con- cerning the study tour experience; (2) the response secured through the use of the Report Forms; and (3) an explanation of the content and use of the personal data sheets. Part V describes those methods employed which enabled the writer to analyze the responses secured on Part A of the Report Forms from all observers, for fifty objectives, and across nations. 31 32 Part I: Identification of Objectives Selection of Objectives Habilitation is a complex and diffuse goal. It may be realized for a handicapped individual through the attain— ment of a number of more specific objectives, which may vary even within disability areas. The task here was to define certain of those objectives for examination across nations. These objectives were to be derived from a study of policies and programs expressed and observable on the United States scene just prior to July, 1967. The United States provided a base line or general point of reference for the entire study. It was carried through as a constant by the use of the English language and through the North American background of the observers. Finally, the data was interpreted primarily as it related to the United States and to the Americans who studied abroad. In this study, objectives have been defined as "desir- able practices or outcomes of practices considered beneficial to the education and habilitation of exceptional children." Sources of Objectives What is special education all about? What are we in the United States really trying to do for the handicapped? Which objectives are receiving the most attention? The search for these answers began when the writer began to identify a set of representative United States objectives which would conform to the requisites just described. 33 Preliminaries Preliminary planning involved, not only the initial search of the literature, but a number of conferences in regard to the feasibility of the study and the possibility of arriving at any listing characteristic of United States objectives for special education. Faculty members from Michigan State University from the Departments oqulementary and Special Education, Secondary Education, and Counseling and Rehabilitation were consulted. In addition, a visit was made to the national headquarters of the Council for Exceptional Children at the National Education Association headquarters in Washington, D.C.,and in May, 1967, the tOpic was discussed with personnel from that office. The question, "What sources best represent current national thinking about objectives for special education?" was explored. From these discussions emerged a decision to study with particular care the material included in House1 and Senate2 hearings on the education and training of the handicapped, data pertinent to the passing of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Dr. Samuel Kirk and a number of other well known special educators presented lU.S., Congress, House, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on the Handicapped, of the Committee on Education and Labor, Education and Trainin of the Handica ed, Parts 1, 2, 3, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 1966. 2U.S., Congress, Senate, Subcommittee of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Elementary and Secondary Edu- %%g%on Act of 1965, Parts 1 through 6, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 34 their views at those hearings. Many of their comments related closely to objectives. Other References A study of the report of the State of Michigan, Senate Subcommittee on Special Education (the Levin report)l served to verify many of the essential concerns and objec- tives for special education which were expressed in the national hearings. An analysis of the Index2 for the 1966-1967 volume of Exceptional Children (the national publication for the Council for Exceptional Children) further verified the pertinence of certain objectives. Publications of the National Education Association were also scanned during the visit made to those head- quarters. Identifying the purposes of United States educa- tion has historically been a task of the Educational Policies Commission, and their later publications3 were reviewed. lMichigan, Subcommittee on Special Education, of the Senate Education Committee, Report on Special Educa- tion in Michigan, Lansing, April, 1966. 2Exceptional Children, Index, Vol. 33, no. 7 (1966— 1967), 673-67“. 3The Educational Policies Commission, The Central Egrpose of American Education (Washington, D. 0.: National Education Association, 1961); and The Educational Policies Commission, Contempprary Issues in Elementapy Education (Washington, D. 0.: National Education Association, 1960). 35 These were the primary sources which were consulted for the purpose of satisfying the basic requisites for objectives: the criteria of timeliness and of cross- national and cross-categorical inclusiveness. These and other pertinent criteria will next be explained. Criteria for Choice of Items Sources for objectives had thus been identified. Three basic criteria were applied as the list of objectives was initially compiled. These were: 1. There was verifiable evidence of their timeliness in the United States within a year preceding July 1, 1967. 2. The objectives were characteristic of more than one region of the United States. 3. The objectives were inclusive of the generally recognized types of handicapping conditions (categories) in the field. A careful examination was made of the data which had accrued by the process described. It was evident that more definitive criteria would have to be established in order to reduce the material to useable form. The following additional criteria evolved: 1. Although the objectives of general education could not actually be divorced from those of special education, only items relating rather specifically to the latter were to be included. This decision was necessarily made, because of two factors, (1) the length of the Report Form, and (2) the limited educational Opportunities which these students were to have opened to them in the ten nations visited. 36 Although special education as defined in this study cuts across all disability areas, the categorical areas were to be mentioned spe- cifically in at least one context. Care was taken to insure some examination of objectives for the multiply handicapped, culturally deprived, gifted, mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, emotionally disturbed, and neurologically impaired children. Although the elementary years generally embrace the bulk of the special educator's attention, both the earlier and later periods were to be specifically included for observation. The later period was considered particularly sig- nificant to the larger concept of habilitation. Although public school education provided the general frame of reference, the contributions of other disciplines and other sources of services were also to be included. Different special education approaches within public school programs were also to be considered. Prior to the actual construction of the scale the items had been reduced to fifty. A third category of criteria related to the presentation of the objectives in appropriate terminology and format: 1. The items were to be stated briefly but specifically. The decision was made to state the majority of the objectives on a specific rather than a general basis. This was to encourage the participant to search for a factual basis from which he might make his judgments concerning an objective. Items were to be phrased clearly, but in a manner consistent with the educational back- ground of the type of group anticipated for this study tour. Items were to be phrased as desirable character- istics, as objectives, which, if realized, should be of benefit to exceptional children. 37 u. Items were to be expressed uniformly, and in such a manner that each idea could be logically associated with each gradation on the scale (1, Not at all; 2, To a slight extent; 3, To a moderate extent; A, To a large extent; 5, To a maximum extent). Presentation of Objectives A review of the procedure leading to the compilation of the list of objectives follows. Refinement Criteria were applied to the mass of notes which represented evaluations of the basic sources of materials. Duplications were noted, and items mentioned in more than one context were transferred from a list of nearly two hundred items to the list of fifty which was finally adopted. Certain items which appeared to represent newly—emerging objectives were also included. Terminology Since a single objective might have been expressed in several different ways in different contexts, the state- ment of each objective was a task unique to itself. The form chosen was that of a gerund phrase, with each objec- tive being stated so that it might be scored on the basis of-a five-point scale. Order Finally, in preparing the list of items to be incorporated into a Report Form, thought was given to the 38 order of presentation. Each item was placed in relation to the item preceding and following it. The earlier items on the scale will be found to be of a general nature. Later items are clustered insofar as it appeared practicable by topic. For example, items u2—50 relate primarily to the education and utilization of school personnel. Listing The list of objectives finally selected for use in the Report Form follows. Included after each item and enclosed in parentheses is the brief content description which is used to designate that item in the report of the findings in Chapter IV and V. 1. Establishing a total life program for the handicapped. (Total Life Program) 2. Lessening the schism between general and special education. (Schism, General and Special Education). 3. Reducing the confusion in terminology (emotionally disturbed and socially maladjusted; brain damaged, etc.). (Confusion in Terminology). u. Breaking down the "hardened" categories of medical classifications. (Breaking down Categories). 5. Reducing architectural barriers to educational, occupational and civic opportunities. (Architectural Barriers). 6. Adjusting programs to accommodate an increasing incidence of severely and multiply—handicapped. (Severely and Multiply-handicapped). 7. Influencing legislation designed to improve Special education. (Influencing Legislation). 10. ll. 12. 13. l“. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 39 Cutting across color and race lines in providing for the exceptional child. (Color and Race Lines). Providing for males and females with comparable adequacy in special education programming. (Males and Females). Providing for flexible programming for those children whose handicaps or abilities lessen or increase perceptibly during their school years. (Flexible Programming). Coping with the problem of population density as it affects programming. (Population Density). Achieving greater acceptance of the handicapped by the nonhandicapped. (Acceptance of Handi— capped). Insuring adequate financial support for the education of the handicapped. (Financial Support). Compensating for retardation believed environ— mentally induced. (Environmental Retardation). Providing centers to function as advisory sources for curriculum development. (Curriculum Development Centers). Making available a central source of research dissemination, such as ERIC. (Research Dissemination). Offering continuing educational and recreational opportunities for the mature handicapped. (Opportunities for Mature Handicapped). Achieving early identification of atypical children. (Early Identification). Providing appropriate services for exceptional children of ages 1—5. (Services, Ages One to Five). Arriving at a broad evaluation of individual abilities and disabilities for each child. (Broad Evaluation). 21. 22. 23. 2H. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. DO Insuring the handicapped of evaluation, medical care, and educational Opportunity regardless of the financial or social status of the family. (Opportunity Regardless of Status). Sharing provisions for special needs with pupils attending private institutions. (Provisions in Private Institutions). Adapting institutions to a fluid and more complex population of handicapped individuals. (Adapting to Changing Needs). Providing vocational guidance, and offering practical assistance to the handicapped in find- ing their place in suitable vocations (e.g., work-study programs). (Vocational Assistance). Assuming the responsibility for transporting the handicapped to suitable programs, when necessary. (Transporting the Handicapped). Establishing special classes for the emotionally disturbed. (Classes for Emotionally Disturbed). Providing trained school social workers and offering psychiatric assistance to disturbed children. (Offering Psychiatric Assistance). Providing the gifted with adequate Opportunity to develOp their potentials. (Provisions for Gifted). Making it possible for the physically handicapped to go on to higher education when they are mentally able. (Higher Education, Physically Handicapped). Providing physical education opportunities, and recreational facilities, suitable for handicapped children. (Physical Education and Recreation). Enabling the severely handicapped to make some contribution to the world of work, although within a sheltered environment. (Opportunity for Sheltered Work Experience). Furnishing special training opportunities and automobile operational devices, thus enabling a number of the physically and mentally handicapped to drive a car. (Enabling Handicapped to Drive). 33. 3“. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. M1. “2. 43. an. Ml Experimenting with promising new ideas suggested by research, and conducting "action research." (Experimentation and Action Research). Regulating class size in accordance to type and Special needs of the handicapped. (Regulating Class Size). Freely utilizing the tools of automation for teaching the handicapped (e.g., teaching machines for the deaf, etc.). (Utilizing Automation in Teaching). Adjusting the subject matter, and quantity, of schoolwork required, to the physical and/or mental abilities of handicapped children. (Adjusting School Requirements). Applying individualized "prescriptive teaching" techniques, as with the neurologically impaired. (Prescriptive Teaching). Reporting realistically and meaningfully to the parents of exceptional children, and involving their support in the education process. (Involv- ing Parents in Education). Incorporating special therapies (physical, speech, occupational) within the school program of the exceptional child. (Special Therapies in School). Facilitating the interdisciplinary sharing of responsibility for decision-making in regard to individual "cases." (Interdisciplinary Team Decisions). Engaging and utilizing the support of community agencies. (Utilizing Community Agencies). Imposing "certification" standards, including some internship experiences, for administrators of special education programs. (Certification Standards for Administrators). Requiring teachers to have medical background and training in their field of exceptionality. (Teacher Training in Exceptionalities). Requiring special education teachers to have a foundation of basic courses in child development and learning theory. (Teacher Training, Basic Courses). .n- U2 US. Requiring apprenticeship or practice teaching experiences for teachers of the handicapped, including experience with normal children. (Practice Teaching, Regular and Special). H6. Promoting the status of teachers of the handi— capped to be equal to the status accorded teachers of regular children. (Status of Teachers of Handicapped). U7. Adequately compensating special education teachers for the skills and training considered important to their preparation. (Adequate Pay for Special Educators). “8. Insuring the recruitment of an adequate number of qualified personnel. (Recruitment of Qualified Personnel). 49. Using non-professional personnel to a satisfactory extent in order to implement the professional objectives of the program. (Utilizing Non- professional Personnel). 50. Providing for the continuing "in-service" education of those professionals working with the exceptional child. (Providing for In-service Education). Part II: Construction and Use of the Report Form Part A: Fifty Objectives With the fifty United States objectives for special education having been identified, stated, and organized for examination across nations, the task became that of the construction of the Report Form. Initially Part A, con- sisting of pages l—6 of the Report Form, was to have been the entire instrument. It remained the major section and provides the greater part of the data used in this study. The fifty objectives were listed down the left half of five legal sized pages, in a column referred to hereafter .c.. 9L0 “3 as Column I. Immediately above that column, and repeated at the top of each page, was the scoring key for the five- point scale. The entire list was preceded by an introduc- tion headed "Educating the Exceptional Child: Issues of Concern." The introduction gave a general description of the setting in which the Form was to be used, some informa- tion about the study itself, and brief instructions. These were supplemented by more complete instructions given orally by the researcher upon the first presentation of the Form. Columns II and III: Response Columns Space was allowed for observers to check their responses on a 1-5 basis for all items upon which they felt they had some basis for judgment. Each objective, according to the observer's perception, might be checked as receiving no attention at all in that nation (1), to apparently receiving attention to a maximum degree (5). It was acknowledged at the outset that there would probably be instances when the observer would have little or no personal background of information from which to respond to an item on the Report Form. In such case he was urged to take the option of marking the zero column rather than to employ the five-point scale. Printed instructions read, "If you have no basis whatsoever for CID UH judgment, simply mark the zero column of the scale. Other— wise, scale by degree . . . " Columns II and III: Dual Perception Check The introduction to the Report Form suggested that observers were to "see and hear about" special education in each nation. Column II provided the avenue for reporting the "hearing about." Column III provided the avenue for reporting what they noted on site visits. Roughly fifty per cent of the professional time spent in each nation was spent in hearing about that nation's approach to special education from local educators. The other half was spent in site visits. The oral instructions given by the researcher at the outset of the study proved to be very valuable in that it gave opportunity for elaboration upon the use of the two columns. A number of the participants asked questions and the ensuing discussion did much to clarify the meaning of the headings of Columns II and III. The heading for Column II read, "The issue is viewed as a problem." This was interpreted as, "I hear them saying that the issue is viewed as a worthwhile problem to work on—-that it is a legitimate objective for special education, in that it indicates one desirable outcome." The heading for Column III read, "Attempts are being made to resolve the problem." This was interpreted as, "Obviously attempts are being made “5 to resolve the problem—~because programs and facilities to accomplish this objective really exist--I've seen some of them." This dual perception check required the observer to think twice concerning each objective for each nation. Theory and practice were both taken into consideration. The combination provided as complete a response concerning each objective as it appeared possible to elicit. The two columns were considered of equal weight in all statistical procedures for each item. Part B. Free Response Page As the construction of the Report Form progressed, it appeared that it might be helpful to provide a means by which the observers could more freely report their percep- tions. Part A, it will be recalled, was highly structured, with the objectives also being of United States origin. Conceivably the observers might have perceived other objectives. Or they might have wished to express some of their feelings about what they saw. They may have drawn some conclusions of their own. With this thought in mind, page 6 was added. It was entitled, "Educating the Exceptional Child: An Overview." This question followed: "What has particu- larly impressed or concerned you about the special education program in this country?" 46 Some of the data thus procurred was analyzed en route and was periodically discussed in seminars along the way. Request for this had come from the participants and it provided motivation for them to continue marking the Report Forms for each nation. It was a type of reward for their cooperative effort. Even more important to them, perhaps, was the bulletin which was prepared from the page 6 data and mailed to all participants in October, 1967. This bulletin, entitled "European Approaches to Special Education: A Summary of Impressions Reported by Students Participating in the Ithaca College Study Tour" is repro- duced in its entirety in Appendix D. Although the data was here reported dispassionately, the "human element" is clearly present in this part of the study. Part C: Mapping_Sentences The Report Form contained a third section, pages 7-9. Here three "mapping sentences,"1 for three major types of disability, were charted by the observers. Thus they sum- marized their perceptions of "theory and practice" relating in turn to physically, mentally, and emotionally handi- capped individuals of each nation. 1Completion of a "mapping sentence" imposes several instances of decision-making on the part of the subject. The final sentence which he offers as a representation of his own thinking is his unique combination of ideas. It was derived from the choice of a number of alternatives offered in several instances for consideration. Choosing from alternatives, he moved to the expression of that single complete thought. ‘ 47 The possibilities for use of this data were two-fold: it could be used in a general way to add to the interpreta— tion of the data secured in Part A, or it could be statistically analyzed and handled as a separate piece of research. The decision was made to exclude it from the present report. Procedures for analysis of this type of data are very new. John E. Jordan and his students, in the group research to which previous reference has been made, have conducted research through the medium of mapping sen- tences by making a facet analysis of item content. Dr. Louis Guttman, Scientific Director of the Israel Institute of Applied Social Research, and Dr. Jordan,together evolved these mapping sentences and applied their analysis for the first time in 1968. Part III: Administration of the Report Form The nine-page Report Form was filled out by each participant a total of twelve times: (1) initially, after the first assembly of the group in London, when the pretrip analysis of United States objectives was made; (2) ten times throughout the trip, with the forms being collected before the professional program began in each new country; (3) finally, in Amsterdam, at the conclusion of the tour, when the participants made their posttrip analysis of the United States objectives. Copies of the Report Form were duplicated by off—set process before departure and hand-carried throughout the H8 trip. Despite the obvious disadvantages of this plan, it insured success. Otherwise, problems relating to the time element and the difficulty of finding facilities and supplies for duplicating the forms would have added greatly to the responsibility of the researcher throughout the tour. Reliance upon postal service would also have been unwise. A simplified type of Report Form could have been employed, but it would have been less satisfactory in other respects. The amount of time taken to fill out each copy of the Report Form varied according to the individual and the professional experiences in each country. Trial use of the Form in the United States before departure suggested that twenty to twenty-five minutes might be necessary the first time or two. After the participants became more familiar with the questions they completed the Form more rapidly. Occasionally they took much longer, particularly when they became involved in writing their impressions at some length to the free-response question. The researcher introduced the Report Form and generally outlined the plan at the first meeting of the group. A number of questions were posed at the outset concerning the fifty objectives and the use of Columns II and III. Some of the participants spoke to the researcher about particular questions later. This was a very easy and natural thing to do in that the researcher was herself a participant and W1 1 ‘- 49 constantly with the group. In this manner uniformity of interpretation of the Form was, in so far as possible, insured. Part IV: Collection of Data Background On July 2, 1967, a group of twenty-five special edu- cators convened for the first time as participants of an European study tour given under the direction of Dr. Eric Graf, of Ithaca College, New York. Dr. Graf, Chairman of the Departments of Psychology and Sociology at Ithaca College, was also the director of the class seminars and the professional liaison person with foreign professional personnel on this, the second summer study tour so organized.1 The educators were the members of the graduate class enrolled for the summer term through Ithaca College in Education 566, a course entitled "European Approaches to Special Education: Psychology of the Mentally Retarded and Multiple Handicapped Child." A choice of six or eight hours of graduate credit was available to those partici— pants who elected to take the tour for credit. At the time of that first meeting held in Ramsay Hall, London, the requirements for Education 566 were __ 1This tour was organized through Study Abroad, Inc., of P.O. Box 1505, Escondido, California and 250 West 57th Street, New York 19, New York. l1 A» 50 outlined by Dr. Graf. The completion of the Report Forms, although encouraged by Dr. Graf, were not a part of the original requirements for credit. At that meeting he gave this writer the opportunity to describe and present the research plan for the consideration of the group. It could have been accepted or rejected by the group as a whole at that time or individually by members. A tentative agreement was reached to the effect that the tour partici- pants would fill out the personal data sheets and evaluate the programs in the United States or Ontario with which they were familiar. They also agreed to complete a Report Form for England and return all of these to the writer before their professional experience in France was begun. The procedure thus inaugurated was continued throughout the tour. The group observed programs in ten metropolitan areas in eastern and western Europe. These were, in the order visited: London, Paris, Bonn, Geneva, Prague, Budapest, Moscow, Helsinki, Stockholm, and Amsterdam. Initially, in each nation, a special educator from a university or special school in the area would address the group and allow for questions and answers. When the lecture was not in English, translators were provided. Since both Dr. and Mrs. Graf had background in other languages they often lent additional assistance to the group, if, for example, they perceived the connotation of 'r 51 certain terminology to be misleading. Thus the language barrier, usually a formidable one in international study, was kept to a minimum. Following the lectures, there were discussion periods, demonstrations, displays of curricular materials to peruse, and site visitations, according to the plans made by the host educators in anticipation of the arrival of this group. The type and relative success of the entire experi- ence varied from nation to nation. Factors were: the importance attached to different phases of special educa- tion, the effectiveness of the lecturers, the time available for site visits, and the availability and quality of special education facilities in the area. Response Cooperation in filling out the Report Forms was main- tained throughout the tour. One member of the original group left the tour in France. The data provided by two other members was not sufficiently complete to be included in the analysis of the fifty objectives (Part A). Data provided by twenty-two participants is thus included. A few of their Report Forms were not completed due to ill- ness or other personal factors, which was responsible for the loss of six per cent of maximum possible reSponses. v“ 52 Participants The study was begun on the assumption that the group of United States educators who would be attracted by such a tour would be made up of professionals with adequate to superior educational background, and that they would be both knowledgeable of special education and motivated toward professional growth. It was presumed that if such a group were in fact to emerge, then their judgments, their perceptions of the things they saw, heard, and read about during the course of the study experience would be of value to other educators. Personal data sheets1 were filled out by this group in London. Items for the data sheets were designed to present a rather detailed picture of the individuals making up the study tour. They provided information as to age; sex; formal education with description of earned degrees; years of total professional experience in education; years of experience in special education as teacher, administra- tor, or clinician; geographic area represented, and size Of population from which regional special education report- ing was drawn; types of pupil preferred by participants (by category); and stated motivation for having taken the trip. A cursory analysis was made of these data sheets as they were returned to the researcher in England. Had they 1A copy of these Personal Data record forms will be found in Appendix B. 53 failed to meet basic expectations, the study would not have been continued. Part V: Analysis of Research Procedures Processing Statistical procedures used for the analysis of Part A of the Report Form (pages 1-5) are here discussed. Find— ings are reported from Part A only in the body of this paper. Responses from the Report Form, Part A, were first recorded on special scoring sheets and then transferred to punched cards. The data were scored according to detailed instructions (see Code Book, Appendix C). The Michigan State University Control Data Corporation 3600 digital com- puter (CDC 3600) was used for all data analysis. Descriptive Statistics Two frequency Column Count Programs,l designated as FCC I and FCC II, were used. These programs provided printouts of frequency, per cent and adjusted per cent of all data from the Report Form (A) and also from the per- sonal data sheets. This information proved helpful in enabling the writer to gain a clinical "feel" for the data. 1J. Clark, "Manual of Computer Programs" (East Lansing, Michigan: Research Services, Department of Communications, Michigan State University, 1964). (Mimeographed.) .nfi 54 Another set of printouts provided, by objective item number (1—50), the number of responses, the mean, standard deviation, and rank of that item by mean for each nation (twelve reports) and a summary sheet. This data is reported in tabular form as Appendix A. Cross-National Data: Emergent Objectives With the printouts available as described, the writer proceeded with the analysis. Search for the better items of all observed items was undertaken. Better items were considered to be those items which qualified on each of two factors, the Manifest Factor and the Attention Factor. These items were then called "Emergent Objectives." Manifest Factor Columns II and III caf Part A of the Report Form had elicited a dual perception check, both the "hear about" and "see" aspects of the experience. Where there was no basis for judgment for one or both columns, the observers had checked the zero rather than a number on the l-5 scale. Items which were most "Manifest" across nations in the two columns, by actual count of the scaled responses, were considered the better items on the Manifest Factor. Conversely, these were the items with the smallest number of zeros recorded across nations. g. ‘D ‘Q Auk v 55 Attention Factor When the observers did have a basis for judgment, either from hearing about an objective in a nation or from seeing evidence of its accomplishment, they marked that objective on a scale of 1-5, the larger number indicating the greater amount of attention being accorded that objec- tive in that nation. Items of highest mean by rank across nations were considered the better items on the Attention Factor. Clustering Nineteen of the fifty objectives qualified thus as Emergent Objectives. These were listed and scanned for ideational commonality. Five of them shared a common relationship within the "continuum of responsibility" for the handicapped, ten of them suggested "individualizing educational services" and four others dealt with "admin- istrative aspects." After classification, interpretations of these groups of objectives were then drawn by cross— analysis of the printout sheets previously described. Cross—National Data: Fifty Objectives Although the primary focus of this study was upon objectives for special education, the focus was also upon the United States and perceived relationships with the ten other nations as to objectives. Some of those relation- ships were suggested through a study of the body of data 56 including all objectives. Others were better determined by examination of individual Emergent Objectives. The United States Pretrip and Posttrip Forms were also examined as to the fifty objectives, which were ranked and compared by mean. CHAPTER IV RESULTS The identification of objectives for Special education was begun with a search of the literature and further de- veloped.and expressed through the definition of fifty repre- sentative items for the Report Form Part A. The pertinence of the fifty representative United States objectives was gauged by (l) the extent to which they were manifest to the group of observers, and (2) the degree of attention which they were perceived to be attracting across nations. This report of research findings will focus upon these United States objectives, particularly from the point of view of the position of the United States in relation to other nations concerning them. Part I of this chapter describes the nature of this group of participants. Information secured through the personal data sheets1 was analyzed. Part II presents tables and discussion concerning the five research questions explored in this study. These questions dealt in turn with (l) the Manifest Factor across nations and in the United States; (2) the Attention Factor across nations and in the g 1See Appendix B. 57 ..u .54 Axb -34 58 United States; (3) the identification and classification of Emergent Objectives; (A) alteration of perceptions con- cerning United States objectives, comparing Pretrip and Posttrip Report Forms; and (5) similarities and differences perceived across nations as to United States objectives. Part I: Nature of Participants Importance The initial findings of the study dealt with the nature of the group of observers upon whose perceptions this research is based. It was crucial that this group be con- sidered adequately qualified for the task requested of them. These qualifications included educational background, teaching and other professional experience, experience with exceptional children and an interest in particular types of exceptionality, and professional motivation for travel. Description An analysis of the data secured through the personal data sheets revealed the following: Sex There were nineteen women and three men, who were accompanied by their wives. Age Members of the group ranged in age from 22 to 62 years. Their mean age was H9.5 years; the median was A7.S years. 59 Education All of the participants had some coursework beyond the Bachelor's degree. Seventeen of the participants held the equivalent of a Master's degree or beyond, if we include the three members who had one additional year of non—degree graduate work. Three people had four earned degrees or their equivalent, excluding a Doctorate, and two others held Doctorates. Table 1 summarizes the educational status of the participants. TABLE l.--Educational status of tour participants. Number of % of Group Description of Degrees Held Participants Represented One degree (B.A., B.S.) plus additional coursework 5 22.73" One degree plus one addi- tional year non-degree 3 13.64 Two degrees (includes M.A., M.S., A.S., A.A.) excluding Doctorate 9 no.9l Four degrees or equivalent, excluding Doctorate 3 13.6" Three degrees, including Doctorate l ”.55 Five degrees, including Doctorate l ".55 TOTAL 22 100.02** ______¥_i ** Numbers were rounded to second place in this study. Discrepancy due to rounding. 60 Professional Education Experience Most of the professional experience of this group was in actual classroom teaching. However, some of it was clinical or administrative. Only one participant had no formal professional experience outside of her practice teaching. All but three had five years or more. When we examine the professional experience in education, both general and special, we find the group mean to be 12.25 years. Table 2 provides further data. TABLE 2.-—Professional education experience of tour partici- pants. Number of Years of Number of % of Group Professional Experience Participants Represented 0 l 4.55 15 — 19 A 18.18 Range in Years 0—2“ TOTAL 22 100-01 Egperience in Special Education For the most part, the participants had had experience first in general education and later in special education. The group mean of professional experience in working with 61 the exceptional child was 8.13 years, of which a mean of 6.43 years was spent in actual teaching of the excep- tional. Two people had informal but no formal experience in special education. Two-thirds of the group had spent five or more years in special education. Table 3 indicates the special education experience of the group. r”..- TABLE 3.--Participants' professional experience in special : education. Number of Years of Number of % of Group E j Professional Experience Participants Represented is 0 2 9.10 5 - 9 7 31.82 15 - 19 3 13.64 20 - 2n 1 “.55 Range in Years: 0—24 TOTAL 22 100.01 Esggraphic Data Nine members, or 40.91% of the group, were from the eastern section of the United States. Six, or 27.27% were from the western portion of the United States, three 62 (13.64%) were from the Midwest, and one (4.55%) was from the South. Three (13.64%) were from Ontario.1 When asked to define the home region from which they were reporting, the participants tended to identify those portions of the metropolitan areas with which they felt they had the most familiarity. As a consequence, nine (40.91%) identified regions with a population under 100,000, five (22.73%) identified populations of 100,000 - 500,000, four (18.18%) identified populations of 500,000 - 1,000,000, and four more (18.18%) identified populations of over 1,000,000. Participants were more likely to be familiar with urban than with rural areas. Areas of Choice Participants were asked to indicate that type of pupil in which they had the greatest personal interest. A preponderance of interest was indicated in the retarded, giving the greatest total in first and second choices (45.00% or 63.18%, including trainable). This was to be GXpected in light of the nature of the brochure from Ithaca College, and other advertising before the trip in which retardation was particularly mentioned. Then, too, this is generally conceded to be the largest major category of children who benefit from special education. More 1Data from the entire group is included in this study. ReSional differences were obviously present among an between all five areas here roughly categorized. In " 63 surprising was the relatively high percentage of those indicating the area of emotionally disturbed as first, second, or third choice: 59.09%, with none indicating it to be their least preferred area. Table 4 summarizes the data in regard to exceptionality areas of choice. TABLE 4.--Exceptionality areas of choice indicated by participants. Percentage of Participating Group By Order of Choice Exceptionality Area First Second Third Last Gifted O 9.09 O 27.27 Normal 22.73 4.55 4.55 13.64 Educable Retarded 22.27 22.73 13.64 0 Trainable Retarded 18.18 0 18.18 13.64 Orthopedic and Special Health 4.55 4.55 9.09 4.55 Visually Handicapped 0 0 13.64 13.64 Speech and Hearing Handicapped 9.09 4.55 4.55 9.09 Emotionally Disturbed 9.09 36.36 13.54 0 Multiply Handicapped 9.09 18.18 13.64 0 Motivation for Travel for Participants were asked to rate their purposes taking the tour. Only four people of the twenty—two 64 indicated purposes other than those directly related to special education. Half or 50% indicated as first choice, "to learn more about special education" and another 31.82% gave "to get new ideas for use in working with or planning for exceptional children." In indicating their second choice, 72.72% still maintained that their interest was in special education, with the responses evenly distributed on the above-mentioned items. For a third choice the majority of the group (54.54%) gravitated evenly between "to travel, enjoying foreign countries" (27.27%) and "to .1 earn academic credit" (27.27%). Summary The twenty-two participants in this study were indi- viduals who had all had some personal experience with exceptional children. Two-thirds of the group had spent five or more years in special education. All but two people had worked directly with the exceptional in some professional capacity. Participants brought to their task of evaluating foreign programs experience both in regular and in special education. The group mean of 12.25 years in education included 8.13 years of professional responsibility in Special education, 6.43 years of which involved direct teaching of the exceptional child. As for educational background, seventeen of the twenty-two held the Master's degree or at least one year 65 of coursework beyond the Bachelor's. All had some course— work beyond the Bachelor's and two held Doctorates. All but one had taken courses directly applicable to special education, and the majority had taken a great deal of coursework to qualify for the responsibilities they were currently assuming in the field. A majority of the group was primarily concerned with retardation as a disability, particularly within the educable range. However, the group appeared to be almost equally concerned with the emotionally disturbed child. These educators were most familiar with programs in urban areas on this continent. The eastern portion of the United States was represented by the largest number (9) although areas of the west (6), midwest (3), south (1) and Ontario (3) were also represented. This study tour involved a considerable expenditure of money.1 Motivation for taking the tour was explored. The majority of the participants stated at the outset a commitment to learn more about special education and to get new ideas for use in working with or planning for exceptional children. Their perseverance in carrying out this study attests to the sincerity of that professional commitment. 1The basic tour cost was $1,875. It is doubtful if any students spent less than $2,100 when tuition, all meals, and incidentals were included. Only one member was funded out of other than personal resources. At least one other member had borrowed an appreciable sum in order to make the tour. , 51“ g a ’5 ha :1 TU 66 Part II: Research Questions Five major questions were explored in this study. Question One: Manifest Factor To what extent were the selected United States objec- tives for special education manifest to the observers on the study tour (1) across nations, and (2) for the United 'mj States? Manifest Across Nations Twenty-two participants were asked to rate each of i I fifty objectives twice (Columns II and III) for a total of twelve times. This task was completed through the Report Forms, which were returned 94% of the time with responses to the fifty objectives indicated either by zero or number. Occasionally students were unable to participate in the study of a particular nation because of illness or other personal reasons. Analysis was made of those Report Forms which were returned.1 On Table 5 will be found the fifty items ranked by number of scaled numerical responses elicited across nations. The items varied as to this Manifest Factor, for the availability of data upon which observers could pass judgment had varied according to what they had l0n Table 13, page 92, will be found the Manifest Factor shown as relative to individual nations. Table 5 presents this Factor as the objectives appeared in relation to each other across nations. 67 Umoamoaocwm mHHQOmenm acoapmoovm sozwfim mm :m mam mLOpmospm Hmfioodm mom mom mpmsvmp< w: mm mam memmz weaweaeo on weapamea mm mm :o: momsdoo oflmmm .wchHmsB monomoe :: am no: cowpmonoom pew COHpmodom Hmoammcm om om OH: spamema soapaaaaoa Ha ma ma: coaoMoSGM CH mucmsmm wcw>ao>cH mm ma was Hmfiomqm pcw smaswmm «wcanomoe weapomcm m: NH mm: mocmpwamm< oaspmanommm mm ma 3m: ponsdpmfia maawcoaposm pow mmwmmao mm ma am: paoaaem Hmaeeaeaa ma ea mm: m>am on mac mmmd «mooa>smm ma ma em: woodwoflpcwm madfipads out hamno>om 0 ma em: acetameazemm Hooeom weaemanea mm as mm: wanesaewoem manageam OH 0H m:: mcoamaoom Emmy zsmcflaoaomfipsmch o: m w:: mocmfisodxm xpoz omsopaozm flog mpfiCSpsoodo Hm m ma: coaprHm>m omomm om w ma: sapwoem moan Hates H 0 mm: Hooeom ea mmaaaemee Haaomam mm m mm: coupaoaaapemeH maeam ma 3 mm: mocmpmawmd szofipmoo> am m can aaam mmaao weaeaaawmm am m we: mzpmpm mo mmmaosmwmm mpHCSppooao Hm H mmmzoommm gonadz EmpH mo popesz m>auomnno mo coapmahomoo EopH mo xcmm .mhm>smmno an come womcoamms Umamow mo popes: an Umxcwm wo>fipoomno COHpmosom asfiowam mpmfim “mCOfipmc mmOhow cowomm pmmMHcmzll.m mqmflma on ooddmofiocmm mafianmsm popmfic son mQOHmfi>osm mQOHuSpHpmzH mpm>fism CH mCOHmH>oLm mocfiq comm use soaoo mamassmm Handpoopanos< wcfinomme CH coapw80p3¢ wQHNHHapD soHmeHEmmmHo noncommm mwoaozHEsoB sfi QOfimdmcoo mofimowmpmo axoo wcfixmosm mumpcmo pcmsooam>oo ESHSoHssso COHumosom moa>somlsH sow wcfipfi>osm wcazomme o>HpoHsommsm mmflocmw¢ szQSEEoo wCHNHHfipD ooQOOHpsmm mo mocmpomoo< coflumamfiwmq wcfiocmuscH cofipmoSUm Hmfiooom ocm Hmsmcmw .Emficom HoCQOmsom pmfimaamsa mo ucmEpfisnoom mofipfiHMGOHodmoxm CH madcamse nonomoe whoopspmHsHEp¢ you mosmpcwpm coameHmaonmo amccomsmm HMGOHmmomopalcoz wCHNHHHpD mmHmEom paw moan: omaomofiocmm mason: pom mmHuHGSpsoooo ooQQmOfipswm on» no whosomma mo msumum nonwomom cofipo< paw cospmpcmsanmaxm coapmosmpmm Hmpzmssopfi>cm cognacfiozmm on» waspsommcmsa mm mm mm mm ma ma om pm a: NH m: m: m: S 3 mm :H mm 69 heard about the item (Column II) and what they had noted on site visits (reported in Column III). Items most manifest across nations (ranks 1-15) related rather closely to direct educational services of a school or institution. Not before rank 14 did we find a primarily '3:— administrative item included (#13, financial support). 1, In the middle ranks (16—34) more general types of [m items began to appear. Here is where items concerning 5 i teacher status and preparation were found. ) Less manifest by rank (35-45) on Table 4 were some of the more academic concepts, such as the item concerning the schism between general and special education, terminology, categories, automation, prescriptive teaching, and research dissemination. In the last ranks (48—50) were items concerning pro- visions in private institutions, provisions for the gifted, and driver education. These three objectives were simply not observable to any appreciable extent, particularly the last two. Little thought apparently was given across nations as to architectural barriers for the physically handicapped (46). We note that color and race lines appeared to be a negligible factor (47). Where no par. ticular problem or need was felt the objective appeared irrelevant. 70 Manifest in the United States Reporting for the United States has been derived pri- marily from the Pretrip form. The reasoning for this lies in the fact that the observers were fresh from their own special education locale at the outset of the trip, just as they were fresh from their experiences in each of the P. European nations as they reported their perceptions of those I nations in turn. The fifty objectives were 91% manifest1 to the observers initially reporting about their own geographic areas. The j Posttrip response was higher, being 94%. These figures represent the analysis of an actual count of scaled response to the fifty objectives, secured from those sets of Report Forms returned by the observers. Considered individually, forty of the fifty objectives elicited between 38 and 44 responses, the maximum possible.2 The smallest number of responses was 31. This objective, least manifest in the United States (Item #22, Provisions in Private Institutions) had also been ranked 47, or very low across objectives for all nations on the Manifest Factor. The analysis of the Pretrip form indicated that on the whole the fifty objectives which had been selected as 1 This figure will be found on Table 13 in the discus- sion of a later question concerning national similarities and differences. (See page 92.) 2See Appendix A, Table A-ll. 71 characteristic of the United States were objectives con— cerning which the observers felt sufficiently well quali- fied to make a scaled judgment, at least insofar as their own geographic areas were concerned. Question Two: Attention Factor To what extent were the selected United States objec- tives perceived to be the object of the attention of special educators (1) across nations, and (2) for the United States? Attention Across Nations J Objectives which were manifest to the observers were rated by them on a five-point scale for Column II and again for Column III. Reference is here made to the point upon that scale which represented the mean judgment of the twenty—two observers, or the Attention Factor, secured twice for each objective of the fifty for each nation. Table 6, which gives a list of the fifty objectives by item number with a brief description of the item, shows them ranked from high mean to low mean as perceived across nations. Midpoint on the rating scale was 3.00, "to a moderate extent." Objectives perceived of greater impor— tance begin with rank 1, which carried a mean of 3.45 across nations (item #39, Special Therapies in School). Low mean was 2.46 (item #32, Enabling Handicapped to Drive). Thirty-one of the fifty items were perceived as attract- ing at least moderate attention (3.00-3.45) averaged across nations. 72 OH.m muHmch QoHpmHsoom HH 2m mH.m sohmmmmm 20Hp0< pew COHumpcmEHsonm mm mm :H.m wooamoHpsmm zHQHquz cam mHmpm>om 0 mm mH.m eofipamtomm new eoapaoaem Hmeamaem om Hm mH.m HmQCOmme ooHMHHmSG mo pcmEpHdsomm m: om eH.m weaesaemoem oHameHm OH mH mH.m msoumozpm HmHomom so“ mmm mpMSUmUH a: mH mH.m apocaeemaeaeea see meaaeempm QOHpaoHLHpemo m: ea wH.m mocmHstxm xs03 UmsmpHmnm pom mpHCSQLooao Hm mH om.m HmHomom new Lmszom .mCHgommB mOHpomsm m: mH Hm.m esoaasm Haaocach MH 3H Hm.m conspmHmm< HmQOHpmoo> :m mH mm.m COHpmsHm>m omosm om mH mm.m mosmpmHmmH OHmeHnozmm wszono pm HH mm.m UmdeOHpsmm mo msmnomme no mopmum 0: OH mm.m mstomme m>deHsommsm um m om.m mmmhsoo onmm .mcHQHMLB Locomoe a: w mm.m oNHm mmmHo mcHumHzmmm :m w mm.m mpcoEoLszom Hoonom wchmSnp< mm m zm.m Emsmosm mMHH Hmpoe H m :m.m COHpmosom CH mpcmsmm mcH>Ho>cH mm : mm.m mapmum mo mmmHUsmwmm mpchpsooao Hm m 2:. mQOHmHooQ Emma msmcHHQHomHohmch o: m m:.m Hoonom CH mmHomsoQB HMHomdm mm H no 85 EmpH cmmz m>Hpomnoo mo coHpmHsome EMsz mo xsmm mm>Hooonpo coHpmosom HwHoQO mpMHm .mHmom choonw>Hm m so came an pmxcmh "mQOHpmc mmohom souomm COHpcmppall.m MHmde 73 O O. .. NNNNNNNNNNNNNN r—lt—IONCh—tr cob-com: MONKO mmoxootxlxtxxommmmzzr mm.m mm.m mm.m mm.m mm.m oo.m :o.m mo.m mo.m wo.m wo.m mo.m m>HLQ on ooQQMoHocmm wcHHomcm msoHssmm HmpSpoopHnos¢ thHosHEnt 2H COHmomcoo UmpMHm com mconH>osm mmHsowoumo c300 wcmeosm mocHH comm can MOHoo mCOHQSBHpmcH mpm>Hsm CH mconH>omm Hmccomnmm HMCOHmmomosmlcoz wcHNHHHpD COHpmodpm HmHoon Una Hmsmcmm .EmHnom moHpHHmQOdemoxm 2H wCHchsB sonomme mmHosom¢ mpHcsesoo wzHNHHHoD ooQLSpmHQ mHHmQOHpoEm mom mommmHo mmHmEmm can monz mpmmz wCHmcmzo on mcHuQmU< pedomOHUcmm who mchAOchmnB o>Hm on mac mow< .mm0H>smm omonOHucmm endow: sou mmeHQSpsoooo mpopdmo pcmEQoHo>mm 83H30Hshso QOHpmcHemmmHQ noncommm wcHnommB CH COHmeOps< msHNHHHpD COHomosmpom HmpcoezosH>cm COHpMHmeoH wcHocmszcH omdomoHpcmm mo mocmpdmoo< coauaoacapemeH sasam woodmOszmm zHHmonznm «COHpsozUm smgmHm COHPMoSUm o0H>hmmch pom wCHUH>0hm «an» .s.|~ 74 Nineteen were judged of slight importance (2.99-2.46).. These scores varied considerably more by item for individual nations.l Items of lowest mean (ranks 45—50) were: #8, Color and Race Lines; #4, Breaking Down Categories; #28, Provi- sions for Gifted; #3, Confusion in Terminology; #5, Archi- tectural Barriers; and #32, Enabling Handicapped to Drive. It may be recalled that several of these same items had also appeared least manifest as objectives. Here, even when the observers did feel that they had information for judging these items, the objectives appeared to be receiving little attention across nations. Items of highest mean across nations (ranks 1-10) included two concerning teachers (rank 8, #44, Teacher Training, Basic Courses; rank 10, #46, Status of Teachers of Handicapped). Higher than these two in rank are items rather directly concerned with what goes on in special edu- cation, including the idea of a total life program (rank 5, #1), involving parents in education (rank 4, #38), and giving opportunity to children regardless of family status (rank 3. #21). Within the school itself are suggested the importance of interdisciplinary team decisions (rank 2, #40), special therapies in school (rank 1, #39), regulating 1The tables given in Appendix A show the ranking of the fifty items for each nation. \ ‘1 u .. ahk . .u/ ‘5. 75 class size (rank 7, #34); adjusting school requirements (rank 6, #36) and prescriptive teaching (rank 9, #37). Attention in the United States Observers filled out the first copy of the Report Form for their own nation just before visiting other nations. Data therefrom is designated in this study as "Pretrip, United States." The respective means of those items, each representing an objective for special education, are shown in Table 7, where they are ranked from high to low mean as perceived for the United States before embarking on the European trip. That objective which was perceived to be of greatest importance (rank 1) had a mean of 3.77 (#36, Adjusting School Requirements), a mean which was appreciably higher than that of the item in rank 2, with a mean of 3.55 (#34, Regulating Class Size). It was higher than rank 1 across nations (#39, Special Therapies in School, mean 3.45). That objective perceived of slightest importance (rank 50) in the United States had a mean of 2.18 (#43, Teacher Training in Exceptionalities), which was consider- ably lower than rank 50 across nations had been (#32, Enabling Handicapped to Drive, mean 2.46). Other items of very low mean were: rank 48, #15, Curriculum DevelOp- ment Centers; rank 47, #4, Breaking Down Categories; rank 46, #22, Provisions in Private Institutions; and rank 45, #9, Males and Females. 76 We note that there are similarities in the ranks of least importance for the United States and the manner in which items were perceived across nations. Item #32 (Enabling Handicapped to Drive) and #4 (Breaking Down Categories) were within the last 5 ranks in Attention not only for the United States but also across nations. Item .m. #43 (Teacher Training in Exceptionalities), was also low both for the United States (rank 50) and across nations (rank 41). Item #22, Provisions in Private Institutions, was likewise low for the United States (rank 46) and across ; nations (rank 44). In contrast, item #5, Architectural Barriers, per- ceived as very low across nations (rank 49, mean 2.49), was high for the United States (rank 13, mean 3.26). Let us now consider items of highest mean for the United States, or objectives attracting considerable attention. The first five items of highest mean for the United States were all items previously notable as high ranking in mean across nations. These were: #36, Adjusting School Requirements (rank 1, United States and rank 6, across nations); #34, Regulating Class Size, (rank 2, United States and rank 7, across nations); #44, Teacher Training, Basic Courses (rank 3, United States, and rank 8, across nations); #38, Involving Parents in Education (rank 4, United States and rank 4, across nations); #39, 'rV A d,‘ 77 Special Therapies in School (rank 5, United States and rank 1, across nations). In contrast, we find that other objectives high in mean rank for the United States were not perceived to be so across nations. Examples were: #7, Influencing Legislation (rank 6, United States, mean 3.45, but rank 29, across nations, mean 3.05); #26, Classes for Emotionally Disturbed (rank 7, United States, mean 3.41 but rank 39, across nations, mean 2.90); #8, Color and Race Lines (rank 8, United States, mean 3.38 but rank 45, across nations, mean 2.58). In all, thirty-four of the fifty objectives were perceived in the moderate range of attention (3.00—3.77) for the United States. Sixteen were judged as receiving slight attention (2.98-2.18). Question Three: Emergent Objectives Which of the selected United States objectives ap- peared to these observers to be both manifest and emphasized by attention (1) across nations and (2) in the United States? Introduction Certain of the fifty objectives were identified as high on the Manifest Factor across nations. Others were identified as high on the Attention Factor. Objectives chosen as worthy of more careful study were those which emerged from the general data as high on both factors. 78 0H.m omadmoHchm no oqupCmoo< mH Hm.m HmHomdm on Cmstom .mCHComoB moHuomCm m: mm :H.m psoomsm HmHoCmCHm MH mm :H.m ooCmumHmm< oHCpMHCommm wCHCmMmo pm mm mH.m COHumoComm oCm CoHCMospm HMonmCm om Hm NH.m CoHpmpCmpmm HmpCmECosH>Cm :H om mH.m moCMCmHmm< HMCOHpmoo> :m mH mH.m COHpacHCHccceH sHeam mH wH om.m mspmpm mo mmmHomemm szCsuCoado Hm NH :m.m ooCmHConm xCoz omCmuHmCm Com szCCpsoodo Hm mH mm.m mCOHwHooQ Emma msmCHHQHomesmpCH o: mH om.m sacmOCd cCHH Hmcoe H HH mm.m mCmHCCmm HahdpompHCoC< m mH mm.m mmHoccm< aCHcessoo mcHNHHHeD H: NH mm.m pmaqmoHpCmm map wCHpHonCMCB mm HH mm.m HoCComHmm omeHHmzo Mo pCmEpHCComm m: 0H :m.m pooomoHpCmm mHQHpHCz pCm zHoHoeom o m mm.m moCHH comm pCm COHoo m w H:.m ponsspmHQ mHHmCOHuoEm How mmmmMHo mm s m:.m cOHpaHmHmcH mcHeccsHCcH a o m:.m Hoonom CH mmHQmCmCB HmHomCm mm m mz.m COHumospm CH mpCmCmm wCH>Ho>CH mm : w:.m momssoo onmm .wCHCHmCB CoCommB : m mm.m mNHm mmmHo wCHpmHCmmm : m mw.m mpCoEmCHCvmm HooCom wCHpmsmCH mm H Cmo Co E: EmpH z m>Hpomwno Co COHpaHsome SMsz mo mem C wm>Hp .msmsmogd Cmmdohzm poon> msm>smmno whommn mHmom pCHoano>HC w Co Came mo omem mas Iomhno COHpmoCUm HwHoQO AHMHM "nonspm popHCD me CH Honomm COHpCmCQHII w mH 79 r—lLflLfiNNwd) ®[\\O\OL{\:I'r—l NNNNNNNN mmeHHmCOHmeoxm CH wCHCHmHB CoCommB m>HCQ op oodomoHpCmm wCHHQmCm whopCmo pCoEQOHm>mQ ECHCOHHHCO onComoumo C309 wCmeoCm mCOHpCpHmeH oum>HCm CH mCOHmH>osm monEmm pcm monz mCoumosom HmHomom Com mmm mumsvmps pmmomoHpCmm Ho mCoCommB mo mspmpm HmCCowsom HMCOHmmoCOCQICoz wCHNHHHpD podgmoHoCmm wasps: Com mmHoHCCpHomdo mpHmCoQ COHpmHCQom COHmeHEommHQ Cosmmmom wHOHmemHCHEU< Cog mpsmpCmpm CoHpmonHpCmo COHpmonm HmHoQO oCm HmCoCmo aEmHCom UmqqmoHoCmm mHHCOHmmCm .COHpmoCom CmaHm pouCHw Com mCOHmH>osm wCHEEmaosm mHonon mummz wCHowso on wCHme©¢ wCHCowme CH COHumEoCCH mCHNHHHpD o>Hm on mCo mowg «mmoH>Hmw COHpmozom mOH>ComICH Com mCHoH>oCm Cosmmmmm CoHpo< pCm COHpmpCmsHCmoxm mwOHOCHECmB CH COHmCMCoo COHmeHm>m psosm wCHComoe m>HpmHHommsm ma mm mH mm m: m: NH HH wH mm mm mm 0H mm mm mH om mm om nm om m: m: as m: m: z: m: m: H: 0: mm mm em mm mm :m mm mm om mm mm mm mm 80 Identification of Emergent Objectives Emergent Objectives for special education across nations were considered to be those items most "manifest" (the "hear and see" response factors were high and the zeros few) and the items which commanded highest rankings on the five-point scale (the attention or emphasis factor). Emergent items on the Manifest Factor included the first sixteen items on that scale1 and also items #12, #37, #38, and #46. Emergent items on the Attention Factor included the first sixteen items on that scale2 and also items #6, #10, #18, and #19. No items were considered if they fell within the last eleven ranks on either scale. The nineteen items which qualified as emergent on both factors are shown on Table 8. Classification of Emerggnt Objectives The nineteen Emergent Objectives were examined as to content. Five of them suggested a continuum of responsi- bility for the handicapped, ten suggested the individuali- zation of educational services, and four appeared to be primarily administrative in aspect. They were: 1See Table 5, p. 67. 2See Table 6, p. 72. 81 TABLE 8. --Nineteen items identified as Emergent Objectives on basis of Attention Factor and Manifest Factor ranking of fifty items across nations. . . Rank of Fifty Items ggem Description of Objective ' 7 Attention Manifest Factor Factor 1 Total Life Program 5 6 6 Severely and Multiply Handicapped 22 12 10 Flexible Programming 19 10 13 Financial Support 14 14 18 Early Identification 27 4 19 Services, Ages One to Five 35 13 20 Broad Evaluation 12 7 21 Opportunity Regardless of Status 3 1 24 Vocational Assistance l3 3 27 Offering Psychiatric Assistance ll 16 31 Opportunity for Sheltered Work Experience 16 8 34 Regulating Class Size 7 2 36 Adjusting School Requirements 6 11 37 Prescriptive Teaching 9 39 38 Involving Parents in Education 4 18 39 Special Therapies in School 1 5 40 Interdisciplinary Team Decisions 2 9 44 Teacher Training, Basic Courses 8 21 46 Status of Teachers of Handicapped ~.10 28 82 Continuum of Responsibility: #1. Total Life Program #38. Involving Parents in Education #19. Services, Ages One to Five #24. Vocational Assistance #31. Opportunity for Sheltered Work Experience Individualizing Educational Services: #18. Early Identification #20. Broad Evaluation #20. Interdisciplinary Team Decisions #39. Special Therapies in School #10. Flexible Programming #36. Adjusting School Requirements #34. Regulating Class Size #6. Severely and Multiply Handicapped #27. Offering Psychiatric Assistance Administrative Aspects: #13. Financial Support #21. Opportunity Regardless of Status #46. Status of Teachers of Handicapped #44. Teacher Training, Basic Courses Question Four: Altered Perceptions How did the observers perceive the selected United States objectives just before and again just after their exposure to European approaches to special education? Introduction This question was answered to some extent through a study of the scores of the fifty items as to the Manifest Factor and again as to the Attention Factor. Examination was also made of the nineteen Emergent Objectives. 83 Manifest Factor Examination of the U.S. Pretrip and the U.S. Posttrip data showed only a scattering of differences as to the availability of objectives for scaling. The judgment of the twenty-two observers appeared to be consistent in this regard. However, the differences which did show themselves have one characteristic in common. Where a change of three or more responses occurred, it was without exception toward more rather than fewer responses for the item. Table 9 identifies those eight items which the observers were able to judge for the United States in retrospect more inclusively as a group. It might be noted that this data represents a total of 44 possible responses on Pretrip and only 42 possible responses on Posttrip, but despite that the movement was toward a greater number of total responses for each item. The single item which moved most markedly was #43, Teacher Training in Exceptionalities, for which nine more responses were recorded on Posttrip. This change in aware- ness of what is available in the United States may have come in part through the observers noting wide differences across nations on this item, observing only slight concern for the item in five of the ten European countries visited. On both the U.S. Pretrip and the U.S. Posttrip Forms this lSee tables in Appendix A. The countries perceived as giving higher priority to this objective were, in order of attention: Hungary, France, U.S.S.R., Sweden, and Switzerland. 1 ft .: ‘ .‘i _.'__.Pu1D-—:-: :‘d'fi ... __t‘ rr 84 mar; I l . \rtd 1.1 . I . «.4an .;-.:L .mmmCommmC mHnHmmon m: MON .mmmCodmoC mHnHmmoo a: no H m mm mm voodooHpCmm on» wCHpCoamCMCB mm m mm mm COHpMCHEmmmHQ Cosmomom mH m 0: mm omdQMoHoCmm mHHmOHmsz .COHpMoCUm CmaHm mm a 0: mm szmCmQ COHpmHCQom HH 0 o: :m mCmHCCmm HmsspompHCoCC m m N: mm mmHeHHacOdeooxm cH mchHcce cascade ma : mm mm wCHCommB m>HuQHCommsm um m am Hm chszpHpmcH mpathg cH chHmH>0hd mm mmmmCoCH NCHCppmom HQHCmem m>Hpomnno no COHpoHnommo CMMMMZ 111‘ .mECom phOdmm dHCppmom .m.b pCm CHCpoCm .m.D Co mCo>Cmmno an powonpCH.mm C0deozom HwHomdm COC mm>Hpomnno zpmHm on» no quHo mo Copomm pmmMHsz CH mmmoCoCHll.m mqmde 85 same item (#43) was extremely low in rank on the Attention Factor (Pretrip, rank 50, mean 2.18 and Posttrip, rank 49, mean 2.31). Even though the observers felt considerably more able to judge the item on Posttrip (+9 responses Manifest) they held firmly to their judgment as to the relative insignificance of the objective for the United States. Attention Factor Little apparent difference was noted as to the overall Attention Factor accorded the fifty selected objec- tives on the U.S. Pretrip form versus the U.S. Posttrip form. When the fifty items are examined individually, however, certain objectives are noticeably higher or lower on the two forms. Table 10 provides a summary of data concerning those items which were perceived as higher on the Attention Factor by the U.S. Posttrip form than by the U.S. Pretrip 8 form. About these items the observers were in effect saying, "I now judge that we pay mggg attention to this objective in the United States than I thought we did before I took this tour." Eight items for which a mean change of .25 or more was noted were, as listed in rank order of mean change: (1) #15, Curriculum Development Centers; (2) #16, Research Dissemination; (3) #28, Provisions for Gifted; (4) #46, Status of Teachers of Handicapped; (5) #10, 86 TABLE lO.--Items perceived as higher on Attention Factor on U.S. Posttrip* form compared to U.S. Pretrip form. figem Description of Objective igcfizzii inGgigis** 15 Curriculum Development Centers .73 33 16 Research Dissemination .45 33 28 Provisions for Gifted .32 22 46 Status of Teachers of Handicapped .32 19 10 Flexible Programming .28 10 11 Population Density .27 17 4 Breaking Down Categories .27 10 9 Males and Females .25 12 * Mean change .25 or more us Of fifty items Flexible Programming; (6) #11, Population Density; (7) #4, Breaking down Categories; (8) #9, Males and Females. Table 11 provides a summary of data concerning those items which were shown perceived as lower on the Attention Factor by the U.S. Posttrip form than by the U.S. Pretrip form. About these items the observers were in effect saying, "I now judge that we pay lg§§_attention to this objective in the United States than I thought we did before we took this tour." Nine items for which a mean change of .25 or more was noted were, as listed in rank order of mean change: (1) #5, Architectural Barriers; (2) #49, Utilizing £'__.n_ m _... _;. ‘7’" 87 Non—professional Personnel; (3) #8, Color and Race Lines; (4) #31, Opportunity for Sheltered Work Experience; (5) #19, Services, Ages One to Five; (6) #1, Total Life Pro— gram; (7) #36, Adjusting School Requirements; (8) #17, Opportunities for Mature Handicapped; (9) #3, Confusion in Terminology. TABLE 11.--Items perceived as lower on Attention Factor* on U.S. Posttrip form compared to U.S. Pretrip form. §E?m Description of Objective Eficfizzii ngikifi 5 Architectural Barriers .61 31 49 Utilizing Non-Professional Personnel .55 8 8 Color and Race Lines .49 3o 31 Opportunity for Sheltered Work Experience .41 26 19 Services, Ages One to Five .39 14 1 Total Life Program .38 26 35 Adjusting School Requirements .29 2 17 Opportunities for Mature Handicapped .28 6 3 Confusion in Terminology .26 15 * Mean change .25 or more xx Of fifty items .‘u’l': -_Hpomnno mmpMpm UopHCD pCoowEm 1‘ momhsoo onmm I!hrHHWWI. mo. H m:.m m:.m m 2 .wCHCHmBH. .HmCommB 3: m. m. ooQQMoHprm a.» mm. : mH.m mm.m m NH do machomme co masccm we mww mspmpm mo m. mH. H mo.m om.m OH m mmcHetawmm schaHCOddo Hm u mo. m om.m 2H.m m w uneddsm Hchcach mH moflmpmfimman. mH. m mm.m aH.m m m OHCpcheama wchoceo am Tl ooQQmOHoCmm W OH. H am.m am.m o m stHnHaz a chtcecm m M mH. m oa.m mm.m a H cNHm mmmHo wchcHsmcm am _; muCoEmCHddom W mm. m ma.m as.m : m Hoaxem meHcmaHea mm w mm. a mm.m oo.m a HH mchOace cerdHnomcem em I mCOHmHomQ Emmy % mo. H Hm.m mm.m m m scmcHHdHochacch o: m Ho. H 0H.m mo.m m m cOHHasHmem ecocm om 0 am. a mm.m mH.m m a cOHaaOHCanceH sHCam mH u H:. m mm.m am.m m a cocmHnmdxm sacs swamp o uHmcm Com schaHCOddo Hm 0 Ho. H mH.m mH.m m a cocacmHmma HacOHeaoo> am w meHm on m. mm. a H©.m do.m a m mco mama .mmaHeccm mH n COHpmosom m mo. H om.m m:.m m m cH mpccccd wcHeHoecH mm mm. m mm.m mm.m HH m scsmocm oHHH Hates H mmmosomo mmmmCoCH QHCB QHCB CHAR QHCE . Cams Cmmz mem lumom Imam lumom Imam . Co so 5. COHuQHComoQ EwwH Imwmmwm owaCo Cam: *mem CoopoCHC mo mCOHmeonQ QHCpumom .m.D oCm QHhumhm .m.D mo ComHthEoo OHmocOcmO 0H.m m mm.m m mm.m OH mH.m O oo.m oH szECow mm.m m OH.m m OO.N O HO.m m Hm.m H OcchchHzm mm.m m oo.m s om.m m mz.m HH ::.m m moCmCm Hm.m m mO.m O OO.m H HH.H O HH.m O eeaHmem Hm.m H mH.m H OO.m m m:.m m mm.m m dHCchm .m.o Cmmz mem Cmoz wam Cam: mem Cmmz mem Cmos mem 1.3%. HHHHHH has. mafia. haw...» Com mpHCspComao mooH>Com CH>Ho>CH 3mm mmm Hx wCHCCmoCoO mm>Hp .COHpmoscm HOHo 00 “no.0 psmmeEm mam CH mpHHHonCoammH mo mpHsCHpCoo s m>Hm op summon CH pomeH mm mCoHBMC Co>oHMII.:H mHmCE 95 Class Size. It appeared low, ranked tenth of eleven nations, on #37, Prescriptive Teaching and also on #10, Flexible Programming.1 Nations perceived as first rank on any of these ten objectives were: the U.S.S.R. on six items, Holland on three items, and Czechoslovakia on one. These objectives r- were for the U.S.S.R.: #18, Early Identification; #20, Broad Evaluation; #40, Interdisciplinary Team Decisions; #39, Special Therapies in School; #37, Prescriptive Teaching; and #34, Regulating Class Size. For Holland g, first ranking items were: #10, Flexible Programming; #36, Adjusting School Requirements and #6, Severely and Multiply Handicapped. Czechoslovakia was perceived in first rank for attention to #27, Offering Psychiatric Assistance. If we consider the overall picture for these ten Objectives, we find them being accorded attention by nation in this order: (1) U.S.S.R” (2) Holland, (3) Switzerland, and (4) Sweden. Next come Finland and Czechoslovakia, which appear similar overall, both ranking high (1 and 2) on #27, Offering Psychiatric Assistance, while differing widely on #18, #39, and #37. L838 obviously concerned with these objectives overall, and in Posttrip ranks on both of these items were consider— ably more favorable to the United States, #37 advancing from rank 10 of 11 ranks to rank 6 of 12 ranks, and item gigkadvancing from rank 10 of 11 ranks to rank 4 of 12 3. However, the overall rank placement for both Pretrip and Posttrip United States remains in the region of rank 7. mm.m O HH.O H OO.m m OO.O H OH.m H OcaHHom Om.m O OH.O O HO.m m Om.m H Om.m H cocosm OO.m m HO.N O HH.m O OO.m O OH.m O OCOHCHC NH.N OH mO.m O OH.O H HH.O O Om.m m .m.m.m.O O0.0 HH OH.O HH OO.m HH OH.O OH O0.0 O spawns: mO.m H HH.O O mm.m O HH.m H HH.O O OHHO>OHuonoouo OO.N O mO.m OH mm.m H O0.0 O OH.m HH OcdeCcO HO.O O OO.O H OH.O O OH.O O OO.O O OcOHcmNOHzm OH.O O OO.m H HO.O OH OH.O HH HO.m H moccsm HH.O H HH.m O OO.O O HO.O O OO.O O Ocmecm HH.O H HO.O O O0.0 H HH.O m OO.m OH dHCpcsd .0.0 cam: xcmm cams xcwm Emmi xcmm Emmi xcmm Emmi 32mm ooCmpmHmm< meQOOHoCmm mNHm mmmHo mHCmEoCHsdom wCHEsmaopm CoHumz OHCOOHOOHOO HHOHOHa: OcHOOHOOOO HoocOO OHcchHO wCHComwo UCO mHmCo>om wCHpmswo< HOH OH HOO OOH OHO OH.O O OO.O m OO.O H OO.m m HO.O O OcOHHom Om.m O HH.m O OO.m O Hm.m O HH.m O Cuvozm HH.m m OO.m O OH H Om.m m Hm.m HH chHCHm OO.m H OO.m H OO.m H OO.m H OH.m H - .m.m.m.n mm.m O OH.O OH O0.0 O OH.m H OO.m O Onamcam OH.O O mm.m O OO.m m Om.m O OO.O m OHHO>OHmonOmuo HH.O O OH.O H OO.O .OH HH.m HH OO.m OH Ocdscao Om.m H OO.m H OO.m m mm.m H mm.m m ccmHCmuuHsm OO.m HH OO.m HH OO.m HH O0.0 ,OH HH.m H museum HH.m H Om.m O HO.O O O0.0 O OH.m O OcaHmcm OO.m OH OH.m O Om.m O O0.0 O OH.O H dHCucaa .m.O Cue: xcmm Cmmz xcmm Cmoz xcmm Cmmz mem Cde . xcmm wCHComoe Ho0Com CH mCOHmHooo.smoB COHpmsHm>m COHHOOHMHpCoCH o>HuQHComoCm mdemgoCB znmCHHQHomHCCopCH pOOCm mHhmm HmHoodm COHpuz HOO OOH OHO OmH OHH .CoHpmosnm HmHoQO op CoOOCQQm omuHHmsoH>HoCH Cm wCHCCmoCoo mo>Huoonno uCoowem op onmmon CH nomeu mm nCoHomC C0>0Hmll. mH mamon0Comuo OO.O OH HO.m O HH.m HH O0.0 O Ocmssco 2:.m m mm.m O mm.m m mm.m m UCmthuszm mm.m H mm.m m mm.m m mm.m HH moCmCm OH.N HH O0.0 O O0.0 H HH.O O Ocancm OH.m H O0.0 HH OO.O O HH.O H OHCOOCO .0.0 Imam: mem Cam: mem Cwmz wam Cam: wam ....OO.OH. OHOOMM. .. Ir. scummme Co mspmpme Ommwmmmwmmw HammmeHm COHpmz lat 0>HpmspmHCHsow Csom op cmpme.C0Humospm HmHooqm mo mpoonm C mm>Hpowwoo qumCmEm on ma oomeC mCOHumC Co>mHmII.OH mqm