.III I' I
., I“, .
{i w
3': ‘

,5;._5 _ ‘.,~

1

If}! u... ’I‘ III)";
‘g‘d’tfll‘ “If“ II‘
It if?
k '6‘4 5 ‘5 ..- n-‘M

' “'0‘ :III\II ’{th‘ ‘I 1.4": ! ‘I‘Qi‘fl {9
‘ ‘ .
I

Viv ,\ 'iJ
‘: If“ .l|
. ”Y" ';I; {III .'

.:,:S n F‘”

«(<t fl'
'5 l

v‘. .
I EL %WI$&% II?"
Wm” 59

'I‘"

 

, 1 I o
I I ‘IV
I .
I " ‘
5‘ ‘I II" I
' I I I II o I
'I I! I N'
"h ' .23 'I‘ l l . .2
I ‘ ' I. / I I ‘ ' .
I J8 ‘n I II -
.. up Is.
I III." " "] | .
I 'H "J I
‘ 'I I'll! . ,I . . ‘ .
II ‘ 'I‘.’ . . . I ‘
I .
' "HEI am 4’0 ‘1‘. I f n I I ._ ’

THE”

run any
’ £555 .é‘tl

hunt-Can III-- ' Irv-Irv-

Hung-75:41:}!

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS
OF TEACHERS, PARENTS, AND ADMINISTRATORS
OF COMPETENCIES MOST CRITICAL TO THE
BEGINNING TEACHER OF THE SEVERELY HANDICAPPED

presented by

Shirley Beverley Gogoleski

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Counseling, Educational

Psychology, and Special
Education

W4 M

Major professor

Ph ' D ° degree in

 

Donald A. Burke
Date March 15, 1985

MSULI an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 042771

 

 

 

 

 

)VIESI.J RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
LIBRARJES remove this checkout from
._c—-. your record. FINES will

 

 

 

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS
OF TEACHERS, PARENTS, AND ADMINISTRATORS
OF COMPETENCIES MOST CRITICAL TO THE
BEGINNING TEACHER OF THE SEVERELY HANDICAPPED

by

Shirley Beverley Gogoleski

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology,
and Special Education

1985

f/

L. I

@1986
SHIRLEY BEVERLEY GOGOLESKI

All Rights Reserved

ABSTRACT

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY or THE PERCEPTIONS
or TEACHERS, PARENTS, AND ADMINISTRATORS
or: COMPETENCIES MOST CRITICAL TO THE
BEGINNING TEACHER or THE SEVERELY HANDICAPPED
BY

Shirley Beverley Gogoleski

In response to a need to better prepare teachers of the severely
handicapped to be competent to meet the needs of the influx of more severely
handicapped children into public schools, teacher preparation programs at
colleges and universities began to examine their offerings. The first step was to
identify competencies the teacher of the severely handicapped would need to
teach this population with unique needs. A number of attempts were made to
identify competencies and plan curriculums for teacher preparation around those
competencies.

The purpose of this study was to identify competencies most critical to the
beginning teacher of the severely handicapped as perceived by teachers, parents,
and administrators who have direct contact with this population. In addition, the
rating of 96 competencies would reveal a value for categories into which the
competencies had been sorted namely, Planning for Instruction, Instruction, and
Evaluation.

The target population for this study was graduates of the Michigan State

University teacher preparation program in mental retardation during the 1978 -

SHIRLEY BEVERLEY GOGOLESKI

1981 years. These graduates, currently employed as teachers, were asked to
recruit parents and administrators as respondents to the survey.

This was an exploratory study which focused on gathering demographic
data, rating and ranking competencies and determining if there were a consensus
in perceptions of competencies most critical to the beginning teacher of the
severely handicapped from teachers, parents and administrators and a consensus
of values for categories.

The respondents did not provide a consensus about which of the 96
competencies rated were perceived to be most critical to the beginning teacher
of the severely handicapped; nor was the value of the categories determined.
Teachers, parents, and administrators were willing to participate in a study, and
their ratings reflect the complexity of the task of determining what is best for

this population.

DEDICATION

To my mother,

a life-long learner

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of this study is the result of the spirited cooperation of
many people, some of whom will be acknowledged here:

my committee--Dr. Donald A. Burke, Chair; Drs. Charles E. Henley,
Howard Hickey, and James L. Page--who gave unselfishly of their time
and good will

the teachers at North School, Lansing, Michigan, whose input led to the
focus on the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped

Drs. Thomas B. Hoeksema and Fredrick G. Briscoe for their willingness to
be candid in the development of the questionnaire and to Dr. Fred
Ignatovich who gave me initial direction

Rafa Kasim, research consultant, who guided me through the statistical
analysis and gave me the concept of "no shame"

Barbara Reeves, typist-editor, who honed the manuscript and devoted
herself to the completion of the project

Sherry Halpert and Carolyn Hastings who worked so enthusiastically to
prepare the document for the oral defense and Walter Davis who
prepared the chi-square tables with fervor

Susan Cocciarelli whose wise counsel kept the whole process in perspective
for me

Dr. Phillip E. Runkel who invited me to join the Michigan Delegation of
Administrative Leaders' tour of the People's Republic of China in 1982

and gave me the opportunity for an incredible journey

iii

Dr. John W. Porter, on that same journey, who engaged in debate about the
education of all children and reminded me that teacher competence is
reflected in student success

my family-~Mom, Johnny, and Pat--and my dear friend Dr. Lorraine I.
Jakubielski who gave financial help and unqualified love throughout
this mission

and the first 36 students at the Kent Day Care Training Center in Grand
Rapids, Michigan, who let me enter their lives and enriched mine, as
well as Dr. Edward L. Birch who advocated for my employment at that

school

Thanks be to God who wanted me to go to China and complete my doctoral

program .

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of I Tables

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

Background
Statement of Need
Purposes of the Study
Questions

Overview of the Study

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

Review of Competency Based Teacher Education

Review of Competency Based Teacher Education
for Special Education

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY

Introduction
Questions
Population
Instrumentation
Development of Questionnaire
Description of Questionnaire
Data Collection Procedures
Treatment of Data
Demographic Data
Competency Data

CHAPTER IV. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

Introduction
Demographic Data
Teachers

Parents
Administrators

vii

12
13
14

15

15
15

21

33

33
33
314

36
39
39
40
ill

42

an

#4
M!
M!
52
57

Competency Data

Summary of Findings
Demographic Data
Competency Data

CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary
Demographic Data
Teachers
Parents
Administrators
Competency Data
Discussion
Conclusions and Recommendations

APPENDICES

A. Michigan State Board of Education Teacher Competencies

B. Questionnaire as Mailed to Respondents

C. Letters of Request to Obtain Graduate Addresses,
of Acknowledgement of Request, of Confirmation, and
Accompanying List of Names of Graduates

D. Recrutiment Letter to Graduates and Return Postcard
Letters of Acknowledgement to Teachers, Parents, and
Administrators; Folow-up Letter to Graduate Respondents;
and Teacher, Parent, and Administrator Surveys

F. Ratings and Rank Orders of Competencies by Teachers,
Parents, and Admiistrators; and Combined Ratings and Rank
Orders of Competencies for Teachers, Parents, and
Administrators

G. Teachers, Parents, and Administrators' Comments about
the Competencies Listed and the Competencies not Listed
in the Questionnaire of 96 Items

H. Highest Ranked Items from Ratings from Teachers, Parents,

and Administrators

LIST OF REFERENCES

vi

61
88

89

91

91
92
92
92
92
93

98

102
107

113
117

119

130

142

145

148

10.

11.

12.

13.

Ill.
15.

16.

LIST OF TABLES

Region, State and City of Teacher Respondents
Program Descriptors Reported by Teacher Respondents

Administrative Organization of Programs Reported
by Teacher Respondents

Setting Descriptors of Programs Reported
by Teacher Respondents

Programs Segregated and not Segregated from
Other Populations as Reported by Teacher Respondents

Age Level Descriptors Reported by Teacher
Respondents of Students in Programs

Years of Experience Reported by Teacher Respondents
Type of Additional Training Reported by Teacher Respondents
Sex and Age-Range of Parent Respondents

Handicaps and Labels of Children Reported
by Parent Respondents

Degree of Child's Handicap or Label Reported
by Parent Respondents

Handicapped Child's Residence Reported
by Parent Respondents

Program Identification of Child's Placement
by Parent Respondents

Current Positions of Administrator Respondents

Territories of Responsibility Reported
by Administrator Respondents

Academic Degrees Reported by Administrator Respondents

vii

45
47

48

48

49

50
51

52
53

53

54

55

56
58

59
59

17.

18.
19.
20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

Years of Experience in Current Position Reported
by Administrator Respondents

Highest Ranked Items from the Combined Rating of Respondents
Lowest Ranked Items from the Combined Rating of Respondents

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator
Perceptions of Competencies Critical to the Beginning
Teacher of the Severely Handicapped: Ability to Teach
Students to Read

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator
Perceptions of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher
of the Severely Handicapped: Ability to Use Evaluation

to Affect Appropriate Changes in Students' Goals and Objectives

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator
Perceptions of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher
of the Severely Handicapped: Ability to Teach

Students to Self Feed.

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator
Perceptions of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher
of the Severely Handicapped: Ability to Teach

Students to Self—Dress.

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator
Perceptions of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher
of the Severely Handicapped: Ability to Teach to

Varying Ratios: Large Groups.

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator
Perceptions of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher
of the Severely Handicapped: Knows How to Intercede on

the Student‘s Behalf (i. e., Students Advocate).

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator
Perceptions of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher
of the Severely Handicapped: Ability to Assess

Students' Perceptual Skills.

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator
Perceptions of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher
of the Severely Handicapped: Ability to Assess

Students' Gross and Fine Motor Skills.

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator
Perceptions of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher
of the Severely Handicapped: Ability to Assess

Students' Social and Emotional Development

viii

60
63
66

7O

71

72

73

74

75

77

78

79

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator
Perceptions of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher
of the Severely Handicapped: Ability to Assess

Students’ Cognitive Skills

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator
Perceptions of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher
of the Severely Handicapped: Ability to Assess Students'
Language and Speech Skills

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator
Perceptions of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher
of the Severely Handicapped: Ability to Identify Needs

for Further Assessment

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator
Perceptions of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher
of the Severely Handicapped: Ability to Plan Classroom
Structure to Control Behavior: Daily Routine.

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator
Perceptions of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher
of the Severely Handicapped: Ability to Influence the

Hiring of Other Personnel

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator
Perceptions of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher
of the Severely Handicapped: Ability to Make a "Life-Plan"
for Students: Project Their Needs Beyond School Years.

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator
Perceptions of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher

of the Severely Handicapped: Ability to Assist Parents of Severely
Handicapped Students to Use Services of Community Agencies.

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator
Perceptions of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher
of the Severely Handicapped: Ability to Teach Students

to Write.

ix

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Current political and economic climates threaten teacher preparation
programs in special education. Diminishing resources, technology, and
alternative programming for the handicapped are the changes in the field which
will affect university training programs (Birch, 1982). Federal legislation in
particular will affect teacher preparation programs for special education
(Weintraub 6r Baressi, 1981).

These changes will affect programs for the handicapped and, consequently,
programs will change the teacher competencies critical to the teaching of the
students in these programs. There is a need to determine what people are doing
in the field, what competencies are required for their jobs, and what can be done
to reduce fragmentation in the training of special education teachers (Birch,
1982).

Confrontations between parents and teachers and administrators and
teachers indicate a need for a meeting of the minds. Working with parents needs
to be addressed in personnel training programs (Weintraub, 1982; Birch, 1982).
Historically, parent groups, acting as advocates for such populations as the
severely handicapped have exercised enough influence to cause the
implementation of new programs and services for the population.

Conventionally, parents have not had input into curriculum planning for
their impaired children. Teachers and administrators often saw themselves as
the more knowledgeable experts on what is best for the severely handicapped

student.

The individual educational planning committee (IEPC) process mandated by
PL 915-1152, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, now offers a forum
for parents' input to the educational program plan for their children. However,
there is still room for improvement in acknowledging parents as contributors to
educational research.

Additionally, administrators tend to view serving the severely handicapped
as problematic and expect teachers to manage the students, particularly those
with severe behavior problems, within the classroom. Parents may be
dissatisfied with what the teacher is doing for their children. Some teachers are
frustrated by both sets of critics, because they feel they are exerting every
effort to meet the demands of the complex population of the severely
handicapped on a daily basis. The contradictions in the perceptions each group
has, compared to the others, of the competencies that the teacher of the
severely handicapped needs seem to be at the root of the conflicting views cited.

Another issue in the global aspect of preparing teachers of the severely
handicapped is the certification and endorsement/approval of such teachers by
state departments of education. Some states have already changed from
preparing teachers for specific categories of handicaps such as mentally
retarded, emotionally impaired, visually impaired, etc., to preparing teachers to
teach across categories. Cross-categorical preparation in some cases is also
addressed to serve either mildly or severely handicapped populations.

Because categorical definitions do not always fit individual students' needs,
controversy is aroused. In Michigan, for example, there are programs for the
severely multiply impaired (SXI). Severely multiply impaired persons have, as
the categorical name suggests, a number of handicaps, one of which is mental
retardation. Students placed in programs for the severely multiply impaired are

often assigned to classrooms regardless of the degree of their retardation.

Often students with a variety of cognitive levels are assigned to the same
classroom. Parents view this practice as stigmatizing for those students who
might have a higher level of cognition. A movement to eliminate the category
of severely multiply impaired gained some momentum in Michigan. In addition,
it was proposed that the word mentally would be eliminated from programs for
the severely mentally impaired which would then be known as programs for the
severely impaired. The leaders of the movement reasoned that because severely
multiply impaired persons are placed in programs for the severely mentally
impaired, eliminating the program rule for severely multiply impaired (SXI) and
eliminating the word mentally from programs for the severely mentally impaired
(5M1) would allow placements to be made in "less stigmatizing" programs for the
severely impaired (severely handicapped). The movement was stalled, and the
SXI and SMI rules have not yet been changed.

Regardless of the outcome of any movement to redefine or eliminate
categories, the Michigan Department of Education recognizes the need to
"develop criteria for severely impaired teacher training and university program
approval" (M DE, 1984).

The reality remains, whether rules for programs are changed or not, that
severely handicapped students need to be taught and teachers need to be
prepared to teach them. The MDE acknowledges the need for new or different
teacher preparation and endorsement programs and holds the university

responsible for the development of the criteria.

Background
During the school years, 1972 through 1976, the investigator served as the
principal of an Intermediate School District's (ISD) program for the severely

handicapped, and was required to evaluate teachers of the severely handicapped.

The task revealed that competencies for these teachers were many and varied,
especially depending upon the particular group of severely handicapped the
teachers might have at a given time.

During this tenure as a principal, the researcher identified the fact that
parents perceptions of teacher competency varied, usually because of success or
lack of success the student was experiencing. To complicate matters, teachers
perceptions of critical competencies varied, usually dependent on the group with
which they worked. And, as an evaluator, the administrator had even other
perceptions about which competencies were critical or desirable, usually
dependent on all of the above.

As more severely handicapped students were being admitted to public
school programs, the group a teacher might be assigned to became more
complex. It was observed that as newer degreed and certified teachers were
being employed, some of these beginning teachers were more competent to teach
the severely handicapped than others. These factors stimulated the writer to
reflect on how beginning teachers might be better prepared to teach the severely
handicapped.

Also, as an Intern Consultant to Special Education at Grand Valley State
Colleges, 1976-1979, the writer needed to evaluate the performance of the
student-intern preparing to teach the handicapped. The evidence from this
activity reinforced the notion that teachers, and their students, might profit
from a better or more specific type of pre-service education to teach the
severely handicapped.

Classroom visitations by the writer led to confirmation of the idea that
severely handicapped students, across categories, were more alike than they
were different and the training of the teachers might better be done using a

cross-categorical training approach.

This interest and the desire to teach in a teacher preparation program,
motivated the writer to begin a doctoral program in College Teaching at
Michigan State University. Then, as a graduate assistant, instructor and field
supervisor in the teacher preparation program in special education, working with
Michigan State University students and certified teachers in the field, the
evidence gathered supported these notions:

l. the unique needs of severely handicapped students required

teachers who were uniquely prepared to teach them;

2. teachers, parents and administrators agreed and differed about

what the teacher should be able to do;

3. although there were extensive lists of competencies for teachers

of the severely handicapped, there was no prescribed list for
beginning teachers; and

4. teaching the severely handicapped was becoming more complex

as new students were being admitted to the schools and teacher
training institutions needed to examine their preparation

programs and at least revitalize them.

Statement of Need

The need to change teacher preparation programs for the handicapped is
based on the fact that student performance outcomes in programs for the
severely handicapped often do not meet the needs of students as perceived by
teachers, parents, and administrators. Sometimes the student's failure to
achieve desirable performance outcomes is considered the fault of the teacher;
i.e., the teacher does not have the particular competency to teach what would
result in a favorable performance outcome for the student (a severely impaired

student who has severely inappropriate behaviors is viewed to be this way,

especially by administrators, because the teacher lacks the behavior
management competency to modify the inappropriate behavior). Feedback from
parents of the severely handicapped indicates that parents may be pleased with
some of their children's performance outcomes, but almost secretly wish other
performance outcomes could be reached; i.e., if only the teacher could stop
him/her from slamming his/her fingers in the suitcase (the pre-vocational
performance; e.g., sorting nuts and bolts is fine, but . . . ). This may be a
reflection of desired priorities in performance outcomes of the student, but it is
generally seen as a lack of teacher competency.

There has been little if any systematic effort to obtain the perceptions of
teachers, parents, and administrators who deal directly with this population, to
determine which competencies would bear directly on the desired performance
outcomes for the severely handicapped. It is reasonable to expect that these
persons could identify competencies considered to be important to the teaching
of the severely handicapped and further to determine which of the important
competencies are critical to the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped.

It is not expected that teacher preparation programs develop total
expertise in the beginning teacher in all competencies. "The very nature of
teacher education makes this impossible, for the effective teacher is himself a
continuous learner" (Briscoe, 1972, p. l) and " . . . recognition of the fact that
competence in the tasks of teaching develops over a long period of time as a
result of formal preparation and experience" (Hoeksema, 1975, p. 6).

Since determining and analyzing competencies are the necessary first steps
in developing and validating special education teacher training models (Iacino 6r
Bricker, 1978), a logical approach would identify which competencies are
perceived to be most critical to the beginning teacher of the severely

handicapped and then begin the development of those critical competencies in

the preservice component of the teacher's career. By seeking and using
perceptions of parents and administrators, perceptions which have been
neglected or ignored, a broader base is available for pragmatic change in teacher
preparation programs for the severely handicapped.

In addition, the use of teacher, parent, and administrative expertise could
result in the identification of some common perceptions which could serve to
begin the healing of rifts previously identified and establish a cooperative
climate for parents and professional educators to pursue the determination of
what is best for the severely handicapped child.

The need to change teacher preparation programs for the handicapped has
also been recognized by the Delegate Assembly of the Council for Exceptional
Children (CEC) in April, 1983, which adopted a Code of Ethics, Standards for
Professional Practice, and Standards for the Preparation of Special Education
Personnel. These documents were published in Exceptional Children (November,
1983). These position papers evoke principles relating to performance, practice,
and behavior of special educators in an effort to strengthen the profession.
Professional competency is addressed in the Code of Ethics, Principle 11:

Special education professionals promote and maintain a hi h
level of competency and integrity in practicing their profession p.
2051).

The Standards for Professional Practice clearly recommend that
professionals in parent relationships:

Seek and use parents' knowledge and expertise in planning,
conducting, and evaluating special education and related services for
exceptional persons (1.4.1.2, p. 207).

An exemplary study would use parent respondents.

The need for administrators to. participate is made clear in 2.4,

Professional Development:

Professionals in administrative positions support and facilitate
professional development (2.11.3, p. 208).

Administrative respondents should be invited to participate in the study of
professional development.

The obligation of professionals to facilitate professional development is
further stressed in 3.1, to the teacher educator:

Special education professionals initiate support and/or
participate in research related to the education of exceptional
persons with the aim of improving the quality of educational services,
increasing the accountability of programs and generally benefiting
exceptional persons (3.1.5, pp. 208-9).

Primary reasons which justify conducting research in this area of
professional development are reflected in CEC Standards for the Preparation of
Special Education Personnel (1983). First, from Curricula for Basic Programs:

From 2.4, Use of Guidelines Developed by National Learned
Societies and Professional Associations: Standard: In planning and
developing curriculum of teacher education, the institution studies
the recommendations of national professional associations and
learned societies and adopts a rationale for the selection and
implementation of pertinent sets of recommendations for each
teacher education program (p. 208).

Second:

From 2.5, Student Participation in Program Evaluation and
Development: Standard: The institution makes provisions for
representative student participation in the decision-making phases
related to the design, approval, evaluation, and modification of its
teacher education program (p. 214).

The fact that there is discussion of the need to revise teacher preparation
programs in special education, and particularly those at Michigan State
University, to address the changing needs of the handicapped, provides impetus
for investigation according to the standards stated above.

The need to revise special education teacher preparation programs also

arises from mandatory special education legislation (Public Act 198, 1971) in

Michigan which increased the diversity of educational programs for the

handicapped by including new programs for the severely mentally and severely
multiply impaired.

To date, the state of Michigan, hence Michigan State University, has made
no differentiation in the preparation and approval of teachers of the mentally
impaired which would identify specific competencies to teach specific sub-
groups of the handicapped such as the severely mentally impaired, the multiply
impaired, and the severely multiply impaired. Consequently, some graduates
find it necessary to learn skills on the job, if given the opportunities, which they
would have learned in preservice programs. Data from the field could be used in
the decision making process for the modification of content and structure of
preparation programs in special education at Michigan State University and other
universities that prepare teachers to work with the severely handicapped. The
data could also be applied to the concerns in revising teacher certification and
endorsement/approval practices in Michigan and other states.

This discussion then identifies the need to identify competencies most
critical to the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped. Such findings
would benefit several populations.

1. For teacher educators in special education, knowing which

 

competencies are perceived to be most critical to the beginning
teacher of the severely handicapped, university faculty could
assess the needs of their preparation program. Expectations,
process, and performance outcomes for prospective teachers of
the severely handicapped could be changed. Findings also should
serve as a guide to the development of inservice experiences to
continue the development of teaching competencies which began

to be developed in the preservice program.

10

For the Michigan Department of Education ( pecial Education

Services-~SES), this research should provide information relevant

 

to revising teacher certification and endorsement/approval
practices in special education. Further, it could assist in the
development of pragmatic preservice and inservice programs in
special education personnel development on a state-wide basis.

For students in special education teacher preparation programs,

 

the identified most critical competencies a teacher needs to
develop could serve as indicators to the students of precisely
what kind of energies and skills they will need if they choose a
career in the education of the severely handicapped.

For teachers of the severely handicapped, the competencies

 

perceived to be most critical to the beginning teacher of the
severely handicapped could enable teachers to assess and analyze
their own performance and encourage them to identify priorities
in their own professional development on a continuing basis.

For administrators of programs for the severely handigpped, the

 

knowledge of most critical competencies for the beginning
teacher would directly relate to the hiring of personnel for such
programs. The administrator would be better able to assess the
potential of a teacher of the severely handicapped by
determining if the teacher preparation program from which the
candidate graduated began the development of the perceived
critical competencies or not.

For parents of the severely handicapped, the knowledge of the

 

competencies perceived to be most critical to the beginning

teacher of the severely handicapped could give the parents an

11

awareness of the skills the teacher brings to the task and could
enhance the working relationship between parent and school and
provide for realistic planning for the student, especially at the
Individual Educational Planning Committee (IEPC) meeting.

7. For students who are severely handicapped, the identification of
competencies perceived to be most critical to the beginning
teacher of the severely handicapped could assure a greater
probability of the students' needs being met and a greater
opportunity for successful performance outcomes and
consequently a better quality of life for the severely
handicapped student.

Development of the competencies most critical to the beginning teacher of
the severely handicapped is a long-range activity and should involve a carefully
planned process by which the preservice teacher could begin the development.
The process should include at least the following points.

1. Teachers, parents, and administrators should be surveyed and

asked to use their expertise to determine which competencies, in
their perceptions, are most critical to the beginning teacher of
the severely handicapped.

2. The competencies perceived to be most critical to the beginning
teacher of the severely handicapped could serve as the basic
curriculum to that teacher's preparation program.

3. The measurement and validation of the teacher's demonstration
of a beginning development of competencies could be done in a

f ield-based experience with severely handicapped students.

12

4. The validation of teacher competencies could be made by a team

of university and state officials to determine the students'
readiness for the teaching position.

5. A determination of which of the most critical competencies need

to be addressed in inservice could be made based on a study of
the amount of time and field experience needed beyond
preservice program provisions.

An exploratory study designed to follow the first two steps in competency-
based education-(a) determining competencies, and (b) analyzing competencies
for curriculum mentioned above-—seemed the most logical way to reach the
desired outcome, that of identifying competencies most critical to the beginning
teacher of the severely handicapped.

The involvement of teachers, parents and administrators in the process
seems logical. To include graduates of a program would serve to communicate
to those persons that their preparation program values their input. To extend
the inquiry to parents and administrators acknowledges the importance of their
expertise concerning the education of the severely handicapped and teacher
preparation for this population. The inclusion of parents and administrators is

long overdue.

Purposes of the Study
Identification of competencies is the first step in the process of developing
a competency based teacher preparation program. The general purpose of this
exploratory study was to determine the perceptions of teachers, parents, and
administrators concerning competencies judged to be most critical to teachers
of the severely handicapped. This study is seen as the first step in the process of

developing a competency based teacher preparation program for the teachers of

the severely handicapped.

concerned
priorities

However,

time of graduation based on the fact that development of teaching competence

is an on-going process which continues during employment.

13

with the education of this population would be helpful in identifying
for a preservice program for teachers of the severely handicapped.

it was recognized that a teacher is not completely prepared at the

specific purposes of this study were:

1.

In an effort to identify a cluster of competencies most critical to the

beginning
addressed.

1.

2.

to identify a cluster of competencies perceived to be most
critical in the formation of the preservice instructional program
for beginning teachers of the severely handicapped; and

to identify within the cluster of competencies perceived to be
most critical in the formation of the preservice instructional
program of beginning teacher of the severely handicapped, the
relative importance of planning for instruction, instruction, and

evaluation of instruction.

Questions

teacher of the severely handicapped, the following questions were

Do teachers' perceptions of competencies most critical to the
beginning teacher of the severely handicapped equate with

parents' perceptions?

Do teachers' perceptions of competencies most critical to the
beginning teacher of the severely handicapped equate with
administrators' perceptions?

 

Do rents' perceptions of competencies most critical to the
beginning teacher of the severely handicapped equate with
administrators' perceptions?

 

Do teachers value planning for instruction, instruction, or
evaluation of instruction categories?

An analysis of the perceptions of persons most

Therefore, the

Ill

5. Do parents value planning for instruction, instruction, or
evaluation of instruction categories?

6. Do administrators value planning for instruction, instruction, or
evaluation of instruction categories?
Overview of the Study
Chapter 11 contains a review of literature related to the topics of this
study. In Chapter III, the methodology used in the study will be discussed, and
Chapter IV presents the study's findings. In Chapter V the study will be
summarized, conclusions will be drawn, and recommendations and implications

for further research will be made.

CHAPTER 11

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

The literature appears to support the contention that evaluation has
become a necessary component of any educational program at any level. Such
evaluation requires specificity of outcomes. In teacher education, these
outcomes have come to be known as specific teaching competencies (Kowalski,
1977).

The review of literature is organized under two major headings. The
headings are:

1. review of competency based teacher education in regular education
and

2. review of competency based teacher education in special education.

Review of Competency Based Teacher Education

By definition, a competency based teacher education program specifies the
competencies to be demonstrated by the student, makes explicit the criteria to
be applied in assessing the students' competencies and holds the student
accountable for meeting those criteria (Cooper & Weber, 1973).

Criteria of teacher competencies have been identified at three levels:

1. certification based largely on knowledge demonstration,

2. assessment of the performance of the teacher, and

3. product criteria: evidence that the teacher can, in whatever way,

obtain specified results with learners in the classroom (DeVault 6t
Gollady, 1977).

15

16

The competency based teacher education movement was developed along
with management by objectives and accountability emphases (DeVault 6c Gollady,
1977). An operational plan for program development in teacher education was an
effort to respond to the competency based teacher education movement in 1972
and reform teacher education. The operational plan was described as a context
in which research could be generated to provide a flow of information necessary
to direct a continuing reform of teacher education (Rosner, 1977).

A major aspect of Dean's grant projects has been to identify the
competencies and/or capabilities teachers must have if they are to perform in
accordance with the high principles and expectations of the new policies. The
intent of these major institutional revisions was to ensure that present and
future generations of instructional and support personnel are equipped with the
skills necessary to master the challenges which exist in the public schools
(Behrens, 1980).

The effort at reform in teacher education resulted in attempts to gather
information on teacher effectiveness, and an increasing number of educational
projects are being devoted to the identification of competencies or skills that
are required by some particular occupational or learning groups.

This phenomenon appears to have emerged from interest in program
effectiveness and the development of performance based teacher education
programs of the early 1970s as well as from the applications of "systematic
approaches" to the design and development of learning programs (Branson, 1975;
Corrigon , 1975; Dick 6: Carey, 1978).

Cooper and Weber (1973) offer that a systems approach would be a logical
and analytical approach to competency based teacher education. They defend
the systems approach by saying, "The three features (of a system) of purpose,

process, and components comprise a way of analyzing, describing, and/or

l7

designing a teacher education program. The application of such a systematic
strategy to any human process is called a systems approach" (p. 12).

A systematic approach forces the examination of the product the system
produces. In teacher education, the product, of course, is the teacher. An
educational program using a systems approach design would require reference to
educational theory and research.

Ideally, the examination of the product, the teacher, is done through
process-product research which attempts to relate teacher behavior to student
outcomes. But the relationship between specified teacher competencies and
desired student outcomes cannot (yet) be defended (Cooper & Weber, 1973).

Identified teacher competencies may not be based on what students need to
learn as is pointed out by MacMillan (1982):

Although the advent of special classes brought about prescribed
certification standards for those who were to teach the mentally
retarded (Bruinks & Reynolds, 1971), we might question the need for
specialized training, either in terms of courses or competencies. This
question need not be restricted to special education but could be
raised for general education as well (Popham, 1971). This does not
mean, of course, that teacher training per se is irrelevant but that
what is being taught to teachers must be evaluated in the light of
what children need to learn to be successful adults (p. 468).

The identified competencies for a teacher preparation program have
usually been gathered from experienced teacher educators' opinions. Cooper and
Weber (1973) note, "When we have also identified teaching behaviors that relate
strategy to pupil outcomes, teacher education will have a research base that can
lead to improved training programs" (p. 16).

The concept of competency arose in discussions with the rise of something
called performance-based teacher education. This all arose out of discussions of

accountability in education which is itself an offshoot of behavioral objectives

(Pearson, 1980).

18

The issue of accountability of teachers in Michigan was an issue larger than
life when the the Michigan State Board of Education saw fit to adopt 12
competencies recommended for all teachers in the state by the State
Superintendent for Public Instruction (M DE, 1972).

1. Demonstrate the ability to set educational goals.

2. Establish reasonable expectations for every student in the
instructional program in advance of instruction.

3. Demonstrate the ability to identify entry level skills of learners,
plan and implement specific learning activities as the class or
student shows readiness.

4. Assess outcomes of instruction and interaction between students
and teachers and participate in self-assessment activities.

5. Communicate and work with support personnel and community
resource persons in order to facilitate an attainment of the
students' performance objectives.

6. DevelOp the ability to use various resources available to assist in
better responding to each student's unmet need.

7. Demonstrate the ability to relate the instructional program to
unmet student needs.

8. Demonstrate the ability to reevaluate the instructional process
and to redesign and implement changes as indicated.

9. Relate meaningfully to students, to parents, and to other
professional and paraprofessional personnel so as to enable
communication and cooperative planning to take place on a
continuous basis.

10. Demonstrate knowledge of various classroom organizational
structures and instructional methods.

11. Demonstrate the ability to create a positive environment in the
classroom that facilitates learner motivation and self-concept.

12. Understand federal, state, and local statutes and guidelines
relating to education, and respond appropriately to these
mandates in the discharge of their professional responsibilities
(see Appendix A for full text).

19

The 12 competencies reflect the suggested purposes of competency-based
education as named by Dick et al. (1981): "What are the skills, knowledge, and
attitudes that an individual must know and use to be successful ?"

Competencies would appear to be "in the eyes of the beholder." Identifying
the competencies necessary to a particular occupation or learner is dependent
upon perceptions of respondents and investigators.

Shores, Cegelka, and Nelson (1973) verified perceived competencies of
experts against perceptions of teachers, parents, and administrators and
concluded that "expert" opinion (i.e., teacher educators, state department
leaders, and researchers in special education) is an appropriate place to begin in
identifying teacher competencies, but that such opinion is not sufficient
validation of critical teaching skills; and further some teacher educators have
gone a step farther and verified competencies identified by experts against
opinions or judgments of practicing teachers (Mackie, Kravaceus, 6: Williams,
1957; Bullock dc Whelan, 1971).

The validation of assessment of the critical teaching skills or competencies
should not be left to the teacher education institution alone. Dodl and Schalock
(1973) acknowledge no precedents exist for choosing the appropriate mix of
agencies and/or persons to select and specify appropriate knowledge, behaviors,
or product outcomes, but suggest:

It seems reasonable that representatives from state departments

of education, professional education, associations, teachers' unions,

citizens from school districts, and students themselves should join

university faculties in determining what knowledge, behaviors, and
product outcomes shall stand as a basis for competency assessment

(p. 49).

In the identification of competencies, educators ask educators to

determine what skills are important to be effective. This process is known as

the consensus approach (Dick et al., 1981) and is used to identify the

20

competencies required of teachers. The method assumes that the teachers being
asked have a common understanding of competencies they are asked to rate and
that the agreed upon competencies are not only complete and acceptable but are
valid and useful as well.

The other process of the two described in the literature is the Model-
Building Approach. The competency identification process is initiated by
developing a model or is a description of the total process that is required to
design, implement, and evaluate a successful education or training program (Dick
et at., 1981).

Successful implementation was made of the consensus approach by the
Council on Teacher Education in Florida (1976) when it reviewed lists of
competencies to begin to identify the generic skills required of effective
classroom teachers. Because of duplication and overlap in the lists, the lists
were reduced to 50 skills. A sample of #500 randomly selected Florida teachers
were asked to rate the importance of these skills in their day to day work. The
list of 50 skills was reduced to 22 generic skills clustered in areas of basic skills;
physical, social, and academic development of students; technical skills; and
classroom management skills. The list then served as a basis for the
development of tests for candidates for teacher certification and influenced the
curriculum of teacher training institutions.

The consensus approach then starts with "what is" in terms of what
teachers judge themselves to be doing on a day to day basis. It focuses on and
emphasizes what is known and accepted, to date, in the field in order to deliver
effective instruction.

The literature cited suggests that seeking expert opinion or using the
consensus approach is acceptable to the identification of a particular set of

competencies for a particular set of learners. The difficulty lies in the fact that

21

teaching itself is such a broad activity that one cannot specify in advance all
that the teacher will be called upon to do (Pearson, 1980).

The identification of competencies is the first step: relating them to
student outcomes needs to be explored and confirmed. Further difficulty arises
in the attempt to measure the competencies required and to validate their
implementation by teachers. This all suggests that the identification of
competencies is not an easy task and has its limitations.

Review of Competency Based Teacher Education
for Special Education

The special education teacher is first and foremost a teacher, therefore,
the competency based teacher education review is practical for the preparation
of special education teachers. However, the role of the teacher of the severely
handicapped is unique to the population being served. Further, the setting in
which the severely handicapped population is served is frequently not a
traditional classroom setting. The role and setting, therefore, affect the job
description for the teacher of the severely handicapped.

The treatment of work descriptions is always arbitrary. Job definitions and
functions to be performed, for example, may be extremely broad or narrow. In
describing work, five levels of differentiation are commonly displayed: jobs,
functions (the largest units of work within a job), activities (the largest units of
work within a function), tasks (the largest units of work within an activity), and
actions (the largest units of work within a task). While no hard and fast
boundaries surround any of these levels of differentiation, they are intended to
indicate the level of detail at which a particular analysis of work is focusing
(Schalock, 1981).

The role of the teacher of the severely handicapped encompasses all five of

the these levels. The fact that they are used to analyze details of a work

22

description validates the position of Sontag, Burke, and York (1973): "There is a
direct relationship between the level of the student's disability and the
competencies of the teacher; i.e., the more pronounced the level of disability,
the more specific and precise are the competencies required of the teachers" (p.
23). The need then for special and precise competencies requires attention to
detail on the job (role) description for the teacher of the severely handicapped
and particularly for the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped.

Attention must also be given to the setting in which the teacher of the
severely handicapped may work with this population. Besides the public school,
conventional classroom locale, a teacher of the severely handicapped may be
assigned to teach the population in school-centered programs and/or group
homes, sheltered workshops, activities centers, half-way houses, residential
facilities, clinics, hospitals, community programs, university/research affiliated
programs.

The variable of working in a setting other than a classroom is another
factor that affects the need for a particular competency and the opportunity to
demonstrate that competency. Neither traditional teacher preparation nor
traditional school setting is sufficient preparation for the beginning teacher of
the severely handicapped.

We do know the definition of a competent teacher in a prescribed role such
as the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped: "A competent teacher is
one who performs satisfactorily all or the majority of functions included within a
particular position; a teacher demonstrates a competency by demonstrating the
ability to perform successfully a given function" (Nickse, 1981, pp. 1118-175).

Traditional teacher education programs heavily emphasize program
entrance requirements while competency based program emphasize exit

requirements (Cooper 6: Weber, 1973). "Competency based teacher preparation

23

derives from instructional activities designed and implemented to produce
teachers who possess designated competencies for entry into the teaching
profession (Dodl dc Schalock, 1973, p. l46).

In special education the designated activities may be peculiar to the
particular handicap the teacher chooses to serve. In serving the severely
handicapped, a teacher must be prepared to play a number of roles within the
scope of this multifaceted population and in addition expect to have the role
affected by the setting if it is other than in a traditional classroom.

The application of the concept of competency based teacher education to
special education teacher education is favorably viewed (Connor, 1976). Further,
the need for competency based teacher education in special education is
acknowledged by Abeson (1979-80):

Despite the fact that an adequate supply of teachers for the
handicapped is not yet available in many nations, there is a clear call

for the development, use, and refinement of standards in selecting

and training such individuals. What can be predicted is that with

growing emphasis upon organizing children on the basis of specific

learning needs, teacher training will focus increasingly on the
techniques to meet those needs. This translates into greater

emphasis upon competencies. (p. 383)

More severely handicapped children are being educated in the public
schools, and their needs demand teachers with critical competencies unique to
their needs. Most teachers currently working with the severely handicapped
have not been prepared to teach to the unique needs of the severely handicapped.
The training of teachers of the severely handicapped must be restructured
(Brown 6: York, 1974; Meyen, 1978; Sontag, Burke, 6: York, 1973).

Seven training needs were identified by Stainback et a1. (1976) as a result of

their examination of components they found would have to be integrated into the

existing structures of teacher training programs to adequately prepare teachers

24

for this relatively new population of the severely and profoundly handicapped.

The seven training needs were:

1.

9??!"

we

diagnostic evaluation,
curriculum,

methodology,
interdisciplinary teamwork,
field experience,

parent training, and

prosthetic aids.

Because the field of competency based teacher education (CBTE) is

relatively new to special education, few investigators have attempted to identify

the competencies necessary to be able to teach the handicapped let alone the

severely handicapped (Wilcox, 1977; Homer, 1977).

Homer described how teacher competencies should be divided into three

blocks:
1.

2.

3.

those directly related to changing the behavior of clients (e.g.,
use of attention and prompts),

those indirectly related to changing client behavior (e.g., task
analysis), and

those related to professional performance (e.g., legal aspects).

Wilcox proposed several more specific strategies for identifying

competencies for personnel training programs. These were:

I.

converting existing courses and course work into a set of skills to
be learned,

having teachers and professionals who work with the handicapped
list behaviors they consider important for working in this area,

asking employers and supervisors of teachers to suggest
competencies they consider important, and

observing good teachers and attempting to identify the skills
they demonstrate.

25

Burke and Cohen (1977) generated a list of 50 skills, divided into 19 areas of
competency that they believed teachers of the severely and profoundly
handicapped should demonstrate. They developed the list by "extensive review
of the literature, surveys of current training programs, discussion with
colleagues, and numerous analyses of curriculum available for both severely and
profoundly handicapped youngsters and their teachers" (p. M7). The 19 areas
included history; right to education; interdisciplinary communication; parents;
utilization of local, state, and national resources; development of community-
based services; administrative skills; classroom organization; public speaking and
writing; training; normal child development; medical bases; handling of health
problems; prosthetic strategies; assessment; applied behavior analyses;
curriculum development; and curriculum (Zane et al., 1982).

In his unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hoeksema (1975) cites the efforts
of faculty in the Department of Special Education at the University of Missouri-
Columbia to develop and implement a CBTE program at the graduate level using
a two-fold approach to competency identification (Altman & Meyen, 1974). The
initial phase of this project involved the systematic identification of
competencies through empirical research. First, relevant literature in
education, sociology, psychology, and business was explored; second, structural
interviews were conducted with 587 public school personnel in nine different
educational roles.

Public school personnel were asked to respond in two ways to a
questionnaire containing 100 competency statements:

1. an importance ranking from zero to four, and

2. a trainability index using the following categories:

26

a. QC: best developed through on-campus curriculum,
JT: best developed through on—the-job training, and
c. SG: not amenable to training; a matter of self growth.

Altman and Meyen (1974) note that "the eliciting of information from the
field adds significantly to the competency identification process," and the
analysis of data "yielded meaningful guidelines for both module development and
student counseling relative to the training objectives."

An approach similar to that used at the University of Missouri-Columbia
(Altman dc Meyen, 1974) was first used by Mackie, Williams, and Dunn (1957) in
their nation-wide survey of teachers of the mentally impaired. Competencies
identified by experts were verified by asking classroom teachers to rate their
importance. Anttonen (1972) surveyed building principals as well as teacher
educators and special class teachers, thus adding a third group to the process of
competency identification (teacher educators, special class teachers, and
principals).

Shores, Cegelka, and Nelson (1973) critically examined the literature
dealing with competency based teacher education (CBTE) in terms of the
"derivation and validation of teacher competencies." They found that
competency statements varied widely in their level of specificity, ranging from
broad standards such as those by Cruickshank (1966) to specific behavioral
statements such as those by Rosenshine and Furst (1971). Shores et a1. (1973)
pointed out a similarity in a number of competency statements in which they
found "the majority were grounded on 'expert' opinion (i.e., those of teacher
educators, state department leaders and researchers in special education)" (p.
193).

We do not know the answers regarding teacher education; we hardly know

the questions. We are still seeking the best means of identifying the specific

27

competencies needed by teachers of the severely and multiply handicapped
children (Connor, 1975). The competency areas contained in most personal
preparation programs for teachers of the severely handicapped, according to
Burke & Cohen (1977), include:

1. assessment,

2. curriculum development,

3. measurement systems,

4. parent unit,

5. interdisciplinary communication,

6. community based services,

7. prosthetic strategies, and

8. curriculum units.

Professional activity domains described by Maher (1982) in a time
management program developed to address the need for more productive use of
time on the part of public school special services providers, identifies another
way to look at the areas of competencies for special educators. The five
professional activity domains are:

l. identification and assessment which consist of screening and
testing activities;

2. program planning which consists of goal setting and instructional
strategy selection activities;

3. program evaluation which consists of implementation,
monitoring, and evaluation of goal attainment;

4. direct services which consist of individual, group, and parent
counseling activities; and

5. administration which consists of report writing and clerical
activities (e.g., updating files, etc.) (pp. 523-528).

The focus on competencies for teachers of the severely handicapped began

with Sontag, Smith, 6: Sailor (1977), suggesting that special education be

28

remodeled into three global areas: early childhood education, general special
education, and severely handicapped special education with emphasis on basic
skills development which precedes academic instruction. The basic skills are
language acquisition; self-care abilities; and building early cognitive, motor,
perceptual, and social skills.

Based on the suggestion that three global areas be the model and one of
these be severely handicapped education, Snell (1978) proposed that teacher
training would be characterized by the development of competencies in the
corresponding areas.

Fredricks, Anderson, 6t Baldwin (1979) identified a set of skills and
knowledge and/or behavior (competency indicators) that could be taught to
teachers of the severely handicapped and that could be consequently shown to
affect student performance. Eighty-six competency indicators were identified
by teachers from the list drawn from the literature.

Some other attempts at identification of competencies for special
education personnel include competencies for teachers of the hearing impaired
(Scott, 1983), for teachers of students with autistic characteristics (Smith, 1979),
for doctoral students in visual impairment: competency based curricula (MSU,
1978), for persons responsible for classification of mentally retarded individuals
(Cegelka, 1978), for mainstreaming competency specifications for elementary
teachers (Redden & Blackhurst, 1978), special education administration
competencies of the general education administrators (Nevin, 1979).

It is clearly evident that the training of an educator is never completed.
The process begins long before the career decision is made and continues--
systematically or not--as long as the educator remains in the profession

(Stewart, 1972).

29

All competencies perceived to be important to the teacher of the severely
handicapped could not possibly be taught in the time allotted for an
undergraduate teacher preparation program. 'I'Ime constraints of an
undergraduate teacher preparation program and the acknowledgment that
preservice preparation is only the beginning of the development of teaching
competency demand that sorting and selecting of competencies is the first
logical step in determining which competencies are critical to the beginning
teacher of the severely handicapped.

Iacino and Bricker (1978) identify the Burke and Cohen (1977) model of
determining and analyzing competencies as the necessary first steps in
developing and validating special education teacher training models. In their
own efforts, Iacino and Bricker conceptualized the generative teacher, a label
used to describe an ideal educational interventionist; but the label itself is less
important than the concepts underlying this multifaceted approach to the
preparation of teachers of the severely/profoundly handicapped. This approach
is composed of four interrelated aspects of educational competency as described
below:

1. CONCEPTUALIZER: the teacher has a broad conceptual base to
"develop" programs for a specific child in a particular learning
situation. Requires knowledge of behavior technology,
awareness of developmental processes, and familiarity with the
broad content of curricular domains to develop conceptual skills.

2. SYNTHESIZER: seeks, evaluates, and implements information
from a wide range of professionals.

3. INSTRUCTOR: provides instruction to the severely handicapped
children assigned to the classroom, their parents, and other

primary care givers; college students in academic training

30

programs for practicum placement with the severely
handicapped population.

4. EVALUATOR: assesses child's level of functioning to determine
appropriate training targets; sets priorities; develops
intervention strategies; develops monitoring system for child's
progress; relates information useful to program decision-making.

The roles ascribed to the generative teacher above are indicators of

the scope of the position held by the teacher of the severely handicapped.
In addition, however, the role of the teacher of the handicapped is more
complex and the role of the teacher of the severely handicapped has
greater complexity as described by Snell (1978):

Your job as teachers of the moderately and severely handicapped

will be a complex one--only outsiders are fooled by the small number

of students you have in comparison to regular classrooms. The range

of skills you must be ready to teach will range widely from visual

tracking and toilet training to functional reading and employment

skills; the members of your immediate teaching team will vary as

much as the handicaps displayed by your students. (p. 1)

The particular position of the teacher of the severely handicapped is
ascribed other functions by other sources. Among these are witness/advocate in
due process hearings (Scandary, 1981), technologist having computer literacy
(Budoff 6r Hutten, 1982), and disciplinarian handling the law with special
education students (Flygare, 1981). One source goes so far as to say a teacher
may be forced to choose a role of advocate for students or professional employee
viewed as faithful to the job or to the administration (Frith, 1981). Other
descriptors are simply planner, instructor and evaluator, and adjunct therapist
(this researcher's term for the teacher carrying on the prescribed therapies in
the classroom such as physical, occupational, and speech-language therapy).

A recent analysis of personnel preparation programs in the area of the

severely and profoundly handicapped seems to indicate the increasing degree of

31

complexity in the content that needs to be acquired by individuals preparing to
become teachers of severely handicapped students. In addition to the 19 primary
competency areas with 50 sub-elements identified by Burke and Cohen (1977), 25
modules composed of 322 informational competencies and 128 performance
competencies developed by Homer, Holvolt, and Rinne (1976), a current text
(Snell, 1983) includes chapters on parent-professional interactions, routine and
emergency medical procedures, and competitive vocational training.

The list continues with a proliferation of language training programs,
advancements in the area of prosthetic devices and procedures (Macey,
Stancliffe, Beumer 6c Roper, 1974; Robinault, 1973; Smith 6c Niesworth, 1975),
new developments in alternate modes of communication (Carrier 6: Peake, 1975;
Clark & Woodcock, 1976; Harris-Vanderheiden 6r Vanderheiden, 1977; Stremel-
Campbell et al., 1977), and the increasing emphasis on the parent-professional
partnership (Turnbull, 1978; R005, 1977; Sontag et al., 1979).

It is evident that the role of a teacher of the severely handicapped is
multifaceted. To identify competencies without focusing on the roles played by
the teacher would be futile. It is crucial then to look at competencies for the
beginning teacher of the severely handicapped within the scope of the role
played by that teacher.

In keeping with the concept of competence within a role, Gale and Pol
(1981) point out:

Competence signifies the ability to do something well.
Ordinarily it refers to a job, a role or complex task like managing a
business or a farm, functioning as a scientist or surgeon, or playing
tennis or chess. 1n everyday terms the concept of competence
applies equally well to being a mother, homemaker, student, or
citizen. What is important about the general meaning attached to
the term is its linkage to a role or position. (p. 153)

In addition, the setting in which the teacher of the severely handicapped

plays the role must also be taken into consideration. The Southeastern Regional

32

Coalition for Personnel Preparation to Work with the Severely/Profoundly
handicapped (1982) recommends that competencies to be acquired by students
should, among other things, reflect a rationale based upon needs analysis and
review of professional literature.

From the review of literature above it is apparent that the severely
handicapped population has complex and unique needs. Consequently, the range
of competencies for the teacher of the severely handicapped is extraordinarily
wide.

Some attempts have been made to identify the competencies of the
teacher for the severely handicapped that need to be part of the outcome of the
personnel preparation program. A proliferation of competencies identified has
compounded the problem of how best to prepare a teacher of the severely
handicapped.

The acknowledged need to identify competencies and the limited efforts to
do so leave us with the problem: what are the competencies necessary to teach
the severely handicapped? And, since all the competencies identified to date
cannot be taught in a pre-service program, which competencies are most critical

to the beginning teacher?

CHAPTER III
M ETHODOLOGY

Introduction

As previously discussed, the primary goal of this study was to determine
the perceptions of teachers, parents, and administrators concerning the
competencies most critical to the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped.
This study was based on the assumption that three groups of respondents,
teachers, parents, and administrators, who have direct responsibility for the
severely handicapped could rate competencies for the beginning teacher of the
severely handicapped. Therefore, the focus of the study was to gather the
perceptions of these three groups for purposes of identifying a cluster of
competencies most critical in the formation of a preservice instructional
program and, further, to identify within that cluster the relative importance of
competencies associated with planning for instruction, instruction, and
evaluation of instruction.

In this chapter, questions, population, instrumentation, and procedures for

data collection are discussed in detail.

Questions
The study addressed six questions which are stated below.
1. Do teachers' perceptions of competencies most critical to the

beginning teacher of the severely handicapped equate with

parents' perceptions?

33

34

Do teachers' perceptions of competencies most critical to the
beginning teacher of the severely handicapped equate with

administrators' perceptions?

 

Do Erents' perceptions of competencies most critical to the
beginning teacher of the severely handicapped equate with

administrators' perceptions?

 

Do teachers value planning for instruction, instruction, or
evaluation of instruction categories?
Do parents value planning for instruction, instruction, or
evaluation of instruction categories?
Do administrators value planning for instruction, instruction, or

evaluation of instruction categories?

Population

Because the identified consumers, namely, teachers, parents,

administrators, reportedly have different perceptions of teacher competencies
needed to meet the expectations for the severely handicapped, these three

groups were asked to participate in this study.

rationale for their selection follow.

1.

Teachers. Teacher respondents for this study were an identified
group of 196 persons who received a degree and/or
approval/endorsement from Michigan State University to teach
the mentally impaired since the implementation of the
mandatory special education law, 94-142.

Teachers provide direct, daily service to the severely
handicapped and are able to report what competencies they need

to meet the expectations for this population.

The participants and the

35

2 Parents. Parent respondents for this study are persons who have
handicapped children. Each child may or may not be living with
the surveyed parents at this time. Each teacher was asked to
identify the parent of the third, seventh, or eleventh child on the
class enrollment register as a parent participant for this study.

Parents have 24—hour care of their severely handicapped
children and have performance data on their children which
enables them to determine what and how much their children
have learned and what the teacher needs to be able to teach
them.

3. Administrators. Administrator respondents for this study are

 

persons who are currently engaged in the activities of director,
supervisor, principal, and curriculum supervisor, of programs of
the handicapped. Each teacher was asked to identify his/her
immediate supervisor as the administrator participant in this
study.

As personnel evaluators and employers, administrators are
on the front line of program implementation for the severely
handicapped and can identify the competencies teachers of this
complex population need to meet the expectations of the

students and parents.

Instrumentation
Qualitative researchers focus on the insider's perspective. They talk with
people who have had firsthand experiences with the educational activities or
procedures being investigated. It is assumed that close, firsthand experience

provides the most meaningful data (Stainback 6r Stainback, 1984).

36

Since the primary respondents in the study were teacher graduates
scattered across the United States and in one foreign country, conversation with
them would be costly at the least. Other possibilities for gathering the desired
information and other possibilities of instrumentation were considered. All
seemed less expeditious and more expensive than the questionnaire. Therefore,
the decision was made to develop a questionnaire to capture the perceptions of
teachers, parents, and administrators concerning the competencies most critical

to the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped.

Development of Questionnaire

 

The instrumentation for this study evolved from discussion with teachers
who are currently working with the severely handicapped, interviews with
parents of the severely handicapped, and interviews with administrators who are
responsible for programs for the severely handicapped who were NOT subjects in
the study.

Teachers currently working with severely handicapped children revealed
their frustration with their own perceived lack of competencies to teach this
complex population now being served in their classrooms in the public schools.

Parents of the severely handicapped expressed their wishes that teachers
of their children had different competencies which could lead to preferred
outcomes for their children.

Administrators repeatedly said teacher training institutions needed to
examine the traditional methods of preparing teachers and address this new,
complex population the public schools have been mandated to serve, one that

demands non-traditional teaching competencies.

37

As an experienced observer, teacher, consultant, and administrator in the
education of the severely handicapped, the researcher identified still other
performance competencies most critical to the beginning teacher of the severely
handicapped.

The literature was reviewed, and over 200 competencies were identified
for teachers of the severely handicapped. A wide range of competencies was
perceived to be important to the teacher of the severely handicapped, but no one
list was recommended.

A list of these identified competencies was taken to a group of selected
teachers of the severely handicapped who were not to be subjects in the study.
The teachers were asked to identify the competencies most critical to the
beginning teacher of the severely handicapped and to sort these competencies
into categories. The teachers found the sorting of competencies into categories
too cumbersome and reported that they would prefer to have the categories
identified for them. They indicated that this modification would eliminate
ambiguity and would accelerate the process of identifying the competencies
most critical to the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped.

To provide a more manageable format for the identification of most
critical competencies, the literature was again reviewed, and it showed that
other researchers had attempted to group competencies into clusters or
categories (Certo & York, 1976; Stainback et al., 1976). In an attempt to
encompass the roles prescribed, assigned, or perceived for the teacher of the
severely handicapped, competencies were sorted into six categories. The
categories suggest roles played by the teacher of the severely handicapped in
varying degrees at various times:

1. assessment/management/evaluation (pretest/growth/posttest)

2. curriculum and instruction

38

3. behavior management/classroom
4. parent training

5. management/indirectly related service delivery/disciplinary
teamwork

6. knowledge

This categorization was supported by the teachers who reported that
having the categorization of the competencies supplied to them did eliminate
ambiguity and accelerate the process of identifying the competencies most
critical to the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped. Their responses
also revealed that

l. competencies should begin to be developed in the preservice

preparation period, and

2. particular competencies appeared to be critical to the beginning

teacher of the severely handicapped.

The list of competencies within the six categories was then submitted to in
the field for close scrutiny. Two teacher educators affirmed the need for
categories, realigned some competencies, suggested that some competencies
might fit in more than one category, restructured the list to include and exclude
categories, found redundancy and reduced the number to be listed, and
recommended a new categorization. This activity reduced the number of
competencies to 96 which could be sorted into three categories, namely: (a)
planning for instruction, which is defined as planning the curriculum, the learning
environment, the management of behaviors, assessing, setting instructional
objectives, and selecting appropriate goals; (b) instruction, which is defined as
any implementation of the planning for instruction and as teaching, managing,
and carrying out the plan; and (c) evaluation of instruction, which is defined as

any effort to judge the quality of instruction as record keeping and analysis of

39

performance data and determining if the planned curriculum and environment

meet the students' needs.

Description of Questionnaire

 

The questionnaire (Appendix B) followed the preferred format which
teachers, parents, and administrators found manageable. A decision was made to
list the 96 competencies and not identify the categories in the questionnaire but
to use the categories in the data analysis.

The actual questionnaire section begins with instructions for rating each
competency, encouraging respondents to rate each competency based on their
own perceptions and not on how others might rate the competency. The
assumption was that all the items were considered critical but some MOST
critical.

A Likert type scale was used to offer five choices for rating each

competency: (A) Most Critical, which means the BEGINNING teacher of the

 

severely handicapped cannot begin to teach without it; the other ratings suggest
the competencies could be acquired later (e.g., on the job, with inservice, or
additional coursework); (B) Very Critical; (C) Critical; (D) Somewhat Critical; (E)

Least Critical.

Data Collection Procedures
Approval/endorsement records maintained by the Counseling, Educational
Psychology, and Special Education Department (CEPSE) in the Office of Student
Affairs, College of Education, Michigan State University, showed that 196
persons received degrees and/or approval/endorsement to teach the mentally
retarded between the summer of 1978 and the summer of 1981 (see Appendix C).
A list of these 196 graduates with their student numbers and dates of granted

approval was submitted to the Michigan State University Alumni Donor Records

40

Office for current or permanent addresses. This Office's search yielded 140
current/permanent addresses. There were "no records" on the balance of 56.

A pre-mailing letter of request and return postcard were sent to the 140
graduates on record in order to determine:

1. the graduate's willingness to participate in the study,

2. the graduate's current employment status with the mentally
impaired,

3. the type of program in which the graduate works, and

4. confirmation or correction of current address (see Appendix C).

Of the 140 graduates to whom the pre-mailing was sent, 75 indicated a
willingness to participate in this study. Two graduates were located in the field
and agreed to participate, for a total of 77 teacher respondents.

A teacher questionnaire was mailed to each of the 77 graduates with a
cover letter requesting the identification and addition of a parent and an
administrator participant. Questionnaires for parents and administrators were
enclosed along with stamped, return envelopes for each (Appendix B).

Of the 77 graduates, 36 returned completed questionnaires as a result of
the initial mailing. Follow-up letters and questionnaires with stamped, returned
envelopes were sent to 41 non-respondents who had initially agreed to
participate. This follow-up effort yielded nine responses for a total of 45
teacher questionnaires. Eighteen parents returned completed questionnaires, as

did 24 administrators.

Treatment of Data
Because little was known about the Michigan State University graduates
after they received their approval/endorsement in the teacher preparation
program in Mental Retardation, demographic data was designed to gather some

information about where they located, if they were employed in programs for the

41

handicapped, what kind of administrators the programs had, and how parents
perceived programs in which their children were enrolled. The data gathered
were aggregated and reported in numbers with their per cent equivalent for each

group and reported in tables for convenient reading.

Demogaphic Data

 

The demographic data were collected for each group to reflect the
distinctive characteristics of each group. Teachers were asked to indicate their
sex, age, whether they were currently employed, what type of program they
taught in, the level of district and the setting, the mix of the population taught,
the age level of students, how many years teaching experience they had, whether
they had additional training and what form they chose for additional training.

Parents were asked to indicate their sex, age, whether they were the
biological parent or their relationship to the child, whether the child was
enrolled in a school program, whether the child was severely handicapped, a
description of the child's handicap, the age of the child, where the child lives,
how the program in which the child is enrolled is defined.

Administrators were asked to indicate their sex, age, their current
position, the area covered by their duty, their preparation/training for their
current position, how many years they held their current position, their previous
positions and whether they had ever taught the severely handicapped.

Knowing that each group of respondents would have a different perspective
to bring to the task of rating competencies most critical to the beginning
teacher of the severely handicapped, the demographic data questions were
designed to gather as much information as possible to reflect each group's

uniqueness.

42

There were no predictable qualifiers for the group of respondents other
than the fact that they were a teacher, parent or administrator who had direct
contact with the population of the severely handicapped. It would be useful to
know, for example, whether the Michigan State University graduates were
actually teaching and if so where they were teaching. All graduates were
certified to teach in the state of Michigan but had they actually remained in
state?

The teacher preparation program at Michigan State University trained
them to work with all degrees of mental retardation. Were they actually
teaching the retarded or other special populations? It would be interesting to
know what kinds of settings teachers worked in, particularly if they were not in a
classroom, and then what kind of supervision or administration they found.

Because parents of the handicapped are rarely asked to participate in
research studies, there is little known about their perceptions. Having teachers
recruit parents to participate in this study would give additional information
about the students with whom these Michigan State University graduates are now
working.

It seemed all this information would provide a clearer picture of how the
Michigan State University teacher preparation program in mental retardation

might be maintained or changed to meet the professional needs of its graduates.

Competency Data

 

In an effort to determine the relative perceptions of the teacher, parent
and administrative respondents in the study, the results of their ratings of the 96
competency items had to be reported in some meaningful way. In order to be
able to rank order the 96 items, means and standard deviations had to be

calculated for each item rated by each respondent.

43

It was determined that the ratings by each group could be compared with
the others to identify the competencies perceived to be most critical to the
beginning teacher of the severely handicapped. Further, if the group ratings
were combined and rank-ordered, it would be easy to see which items surfaced as
most critical.

The mean and standard deviation were determined for each of the 96 items
rated by each group of respondents. The rank order was made to reflect that
some items had the same mean. The standard deviation was reported for each
item to reflect the strength of items that could be perceived to be tied, by the
mean, for a particular rank. The lists were combined to give a rank order, by
mean, with standard deviation for all items by all groups.

In addition to the reporting the demographic data and analyzing the ratings
of teachers, parents and administrators, a further analysis, using the Chi Square
Test was accomplished to determine if there was a relationship between group
membership and ratings of items.

An application of a chi square test to this study was deemed appropriate
because the chi square test does not make any assumptions about the shape or
variance of population scores. No assumptions are made concerning the
distribution of the population and normality is not assumed. The chi square test
is particularly applicable to studies with small samples, and with data in the
form of frequency counts such as in this study. When variables can be placed on
nominal and ordinal scales, as in this study, it is appropriate to use the chi square
test. The alpha level .05 was chosen for this study which is the value set for

rejection of the null hypotheses.

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

Introduction

This chapter presents the analysis and discussion of the data. An attempt
was made to identify the competencies perceived to be critical to the beginning
teacher of the severely handicapped. Two major sections are presented. First,
the demographic data are presented. These are more interesting than usual
because recruited respondents were scattered beyond Michigan. Second, to
answer the question posed by the study, the ratings of the competencies by
teachers, parents and administrators were combined, then analyzed, by group and
then combined for further analysis. In addition, the chi square test was used to
determine if there was a relationship between the group to which the respondent

belonged and the respondent's rating of the items.

Demographic Data
Teachers
The 44 teacher respondents represent 13 states and one foreign country.
Table 1 shows the regions of the United States, the states, and the cities where
those Michigan State University graduates of the teacher preparation program in
mental retardation are employed. The regions are taken from a representative

map in the Chronicle of Higher Education (August 29, 1984).

 

44

Table 1

Region, State and City of Teacher Respondents

 

n = 44

Region State Ci y (12

WEST Oregon Coos Bay 1
Washington Tacoma 1
Utah Ogden 2

MIDWEST Iowa Council Bluffs 1
Wisconsin Milwaukee 1
Illinois Oak Park 1
Michigan Alden

Battle Creek
Berrien Springs
Boyne City
Caro

Clinton

East Lansing
Eaton Rapids
Essexville
Flint

Grand Rapids
Harper Woods
Jackson
Laingsburg
Lansing
Mason

Mio

Mt. Clemens
Okemos
Owosso

Port Huron
Saginaw
Southfield
Troy
Ypsilanti

46

Table 1, continued

 

 

Eggipg State 91 (_n__)_
SOUTHWEST Texas Houston 1
Woodlands 1

SOUTH Kentucky Lexington 1
Virginia Penn Laird 1
North Carolina Weaverville 1
Georgia Albany 1

MIDDLE District of Washington 1

STATES Columbia

NEW ENGLAND none none

FOREIGN COUNTRY

 

Africa Sudan Atabara 1
UNKNOWN 1
TOTAL 44

 

 

The geographical distribution of respondents is important because terms
used to describe programs, levels, and populations served were used
interchangeably, and new and different terms were used.

The term "resource room" which is used to describe a particular kind of

classroom program in Michigan was usedto describe many and varied classroom

47

arrangements and services in different states. Table 2 shows the types of

programs represented and the number of graduates employed in them.

Table 2
Program Descriptors Reported by Teacher Respondents (n: 44)

 

 

Prcgram Descriptor I1 16
Educable classroom 7 15.9
Trainable classroom 9 20.4
Severely impaired classroom 5 11.4
Severely multiply impaired classroom 10 22.7
Resource room 7 15.9
Other

Combined above 2 4.5
Vocational evaluation 1 2.3
Adaptive physical education 1 2.3
Community based independent 1 2.3
Living training program (TMI + EMI) 1 2.3

TOTALS 44 100.0

 

 

The term "county program" was used to describe a level of administration
that would equate with Michigan's intermediate school districts (ISDs) that serve
county-wide populations. Table 3 shows the administrative organization of

programs and the number of respondents in each.

48

Table 3
(Admingstrative Organization of Programs Reported by Teacher Respondents
n = 44

 

 

Administrative Organization [1 96
Local 27 61.3
Intermediate 12 27.3
Regional 1 2.3
Other

County 3 6.8

State school 1 2.3
TOTALS 44 100.0

 

 

One respondent checked the descriptor "community education" to describe
a setting that would better be described as an "agency" in Michigan. Table 4
shows the types of settings in which programs are housed and number of
graduates in each setting.

Table 4
Setting Descriptors of Programs Reported by Teacher Respondents (n = 44)

 

 

Setting Descrytor [1 fi
School (non-specific) 14 31.8
Regular school 15 34.0
Center-based program 11 25.0
(school or community)
Sheltered workshop 1 2.3
Community 1 2.3
Other 1 2.3
Missing 1 2.3

TOTALS 44 100.0

 

 

49

These responses suggest that there are other descriptors used than those
offered in the questionnaire; i.e., the lists of descriptors for programs, levels,
and settings were not "all-encompassing."

The terms used by respondents in an effort to respond to the survey
questions are evidence that although there is a national mandate (PL 94-142) to
serve the handicapped, there is not a nationally recognized glossary of terms to
describe the programs services for the severely handicapped.

The fact that some respondents worked in more than one type of program
or setting reflects the complexity of the population of the severely handicapped
and the complex role the beginning teacher may play. The program or setting in
which the respondent spent most of the working day was considered the dominant
setting and recorded as such. Table 5 shows the number of programs segregated
from other populations and non-segregated programs. It is interesting to note
that 6196 of the programs are not set apart (segregated) from the regular
education's mainstream. Those identified as segregated are programs
geographically apart from the mainstream such as center programs described
earlier.

Table 5

Programs Segregated and Not Segregated from Other Populations as Reported by
Teacher Respondents (n = 44)

 

Descriptor n 26
Segregated (from regular school) 17 39
Non-segregated 27 61

TOTALS 44 100

 

 

50

The age-level descriptors provided in the questionnaire cover the ages as
they are served in Michigan, that is, preschool through vocational programs.
Again respondents offered other descriptions of the age levels of populations
they are currently serving. All descriptions are reflected in Table 6.

Table 6

Age Level Descriptors Reported by Teacher Respondents of Students in
Programs (n = 44)

 

 

Age Level Descriptor 3 fi
Preschool 0 0.0
Early 2 4.5
Later 4 9.0
Middle 8 18.2
Secondary 8 18.2
Post-secondary 2 4.5
Pre-vocational 0 0.0
Vocational 0 0.0
Other
3 to 4 years 1 2.3
3 to 20 years 1 2.3
4 to 20 years 1 2.3
7 to 16 years 1 2.3
15 to 21 years 1 2.3
18 to 55 years 1 2.3
20 to 26 years 1 2.3
Combined level
4 or more levels 2 4.5
3 or more levels 2 4.5
2 or more levels 9 20.5
TOTALS 44 100.0

 

 

Table 6 provides evidence that the ages of students served in programs for
the severely handicapped range from age 3 to 55 years. The table also reflects
that, in some programs, age levels are combined. In other words the teacher is
expected to be able to teach from pre-school age through adult aged students

and possibly have a combination of ages in one group. The data suggest that the

51

placement of students is probably based upon their mental ability, their mobility,
their medical disorders but not primarily on their chronological age.
Consequently, the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped has a compound
problem of teaching a wide range of ages within a group of severely handicapped
students and the wide range of abilities found within any given group of students.

Table 7
Years of Experience Reported by Teacher Respondents (n = 44)

 

 

Years of Experience 9 fl
5 or more 9 20.5

a 9 20.5

3 11 25.0

2 14 31.8

1 l 2.2
TOTALS: 44 100.0

 

 

Teaching experience varies from one year to more than five years. The
range is reflected in Table 7. The fact that 31.8% of the respondents are still in
the beginning stage of their careers enables them to identify the needs of the
beginning teacher of the severely handicapped. It suggests that the teachers are
close enough to the beginning of their own careers to remember the impact of
their own first year on the job. Also, by being so new to the field, they are
receiving more seriously handicapped students than experienced teachers had
previously received and are the best witnesses to testify to which competencies
are critical to the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped. The influx of
the more severely handicapped student into the public schools is probably a
function of deinstitutionalization. The nationwide deinstitutionalization effort

was designed to return persons in institutions to their communities and was a

52

response to the perception that institutions, for the most part, did not constitute

appropriate placement or the least restrictive environment for these persons.

Table 8
Types of Additional Training Reported by Teacher Respondents (n = 44)

 

 

Types of Training 3 96
Graduate School
and In Service 16 36.4
Graduate School Only 18 40.9
In Service Only 7 15.9
No Additional Training 3 6.8
TOTALS 44 100.0

 

 

Inspection of Table 8 reveals that 77.3% of the Michigan State University
graduates elected to pursue additional training in graduate programs. Some of
the teachers (36.4%) had in-service training in addition to their graduate work to
increase their competencies. The high percentage of respondents in graduate
school may reflect the fact that graduate school is one of the options prescribed
by a particular state department of education for continuing teacher

certification.

Parents
As can be seen in Table 9, eighteen persons responded to the parent survey.
It is interesting to note that one response was from both parents, which suggests
a collaborative effort to rate the 96 competencies. The male parent was 65 and
the female parent was 69 years of age. A decision was made to count this

particular case as a "female" respondent.

53

Table 9
Sex and Age-Range of Parent Respondents (n = 18)

 

Ass
More than Less than
_Se_x n 26; 36 Years 35 Years R_ar1gg
Male ' 3 16.7 I 1 35.50
Female 15 83.3 6 10 22-69
TOTALS: 18 100 7 ll

 

 

Parents described their children as having varied handicaps and labels.
These findings are reported in Table 10. The notion of multiple handicaps
reflects the nature of the population of the severely handicap as being complex
and their existence compounded by medical problems and a need for special
accommodations at home as well as in school.

Table 10
Handicaps and Labels of Children Reported by Parent Respondents (n = 18)

 

 

Handicap and Labels 9 96
Down's syndrome 5 27.8
Multiply impaired 3 16.6
Mentally retarded 2 11.1
Trainable mentally retarded 2 11.1
Cerebral palsy 2 11.1
Learning disabled 2 11.1
Spina bifida l 5.6
Developmentally disabled 1 5.6
TOTALS 18 100.0

 

 

In reporting the degree of severity of their child's handicap and label, some
of the parents again reported the fact that their child had multiple handicaps.
The parents reported the primary handicap or label and indicated the degree of

severity for that only (See Table 11).

54

Table 11
Degree of Child's Handicap or Label Reported by Parent Respondents (n = 18)

 

22852 :1 E
Severe 9 50.0
Other than severe 7 39.0
Not reported 2 11.0
TOTALS 18 100.0

 

 

Severely handicapped persons are not always able to live at home with
their biological parents for a multitude of reasons. Among those are: the
severely handicapped person's condition deteriorates and requires hospitalization;
the burden of 24 hour care of the person can no longer be assumed by the family;
aging parents cannot provide the physical care and handling the person requires;
the younger parent has suffered psychological trauma from the birth of the
severely handicapped child and many be unable to cope; the person's behavior
patterns become increasingly volatile and cannot be managed by the family;
siblings are being affected adversely by the presence of the severely handicapped
person in the home, especially if the parents need to devote most of their time
and attention to the handicapped child.

In this study, as reported above in Table 9, the parent respondents ranged
in age from 22 to 69 years. It seems particularly significant, in view of this
finding, that 83.3% of the severely handicapped children in this study do live at
home with their parents (See Table 12).

55

Table 12
Handicapped Child's Residence Reported by Parent Respondents (n :18)

 

Residence 11 26
At home with parents 15 83.3
In a group home 1 5.6
In a foster home 2 11.1
TOTALS 18 100.0

 

 

Parents were asked to describe by definition the type of programs in which

their children were placed, selecting from one of two choices. The functionalljI

 

defined flogram choice meant the child had been placed by the fact that s/he

 

had been described as "very poorly functioning," regardless of the type of

handicaps involved. The operationally defined progam choice offered meant the

 

child had been placed in a program based on his/her "primary impairment." The
child may have had multiple handicaps, but the primary handicap, sometimes
called the dominant handicap, determined his/her placement. The primary
handicap may be his/her mental retardation or physical impairment or emotional
impairment or other. The level of impairment could be mild to severe.
Consequently, a child identified as "very poorly functioning" could be in a
classroom of presumably non-retarded students with varied and multiple kinds of
handicaps, but all "very poorly functioning." Or the child could be found in a
program for the mentally retarded where, in fact, all the students were very
poorly functioning. The program identification of placement findings are

reported in Table 13.

56

Table 13
Progra)m Identification of Child's Placement Reported by Parent Respondents
(n = 18

 

 

Program Identification n 9_6_
Operationally defined 12 66.6
Functionally defined 3 16.7
Not reported 3 16.7

TOTALS 18 100.0

 

 

The responses reported in Table 13 indicated that 66.6% of the handicapped
children in this study were placed in programs based on the "primary or dominant
handicap." Only 16.796 were placed in functionally defined programs where
placement is based on the child's "level of functioning" regardless of his
handicap. This suggests that degrees of severity of handicap and levels of
functioning can vary widely within programs.

The demographic data from teachers, parents and administrators illustrates
that classrooms for the severely handicapped are units of complexity for
teachers and administrators and suggests that parents, who have 24 hour care of

the children, have a multitude of difficulties with which to cope at home.

57

Administrators
Previous positions held by the 24 administrator respondents reflect an
incredible range of experiences which may or may not have prepared them for
their current positions as administrators of programs for the severely
handicapped. A list of previous positions held by some administrators includes:

educational strategist

teacher consultant

special education administrator
other principal

physical education teacher/coach
speech-language teacher
coordinator

supervisor

teacher in residential setting
teacher in state hospital

work coordinator

school psychologist

federal project director
behavioral consultant

case manager

program specialist

work study coordinator
training specialist

pre-school director

curriculum coordinator
teacher coordinator

school social worker

adaptive physical education instructor

Precise descriptions of the positions previously held by the administrative
respondents were not provided.

As previously reported, demographic data revealed that the settings for
programs for the severely handicapped vary widely across the country. The
descriptors used in the questionnaire to identify current positions of
administrators were generally descriptive of administrative positions in
Michigan. All administrator respondents were able to select the one that most

nearly described their current role. The responses are reported in Table 14.

58

Table 14 shows that 5096 of administrators held the position of principal
and 2596 were supervisors. Others had varying degrees of administrative
responsibility.

Table 14
Current Positions of Administrator Respondents (n = 24)

 

Position 2 26
Intermediate director 0 0.0
Local director 1 4.2
Supervisor 6 25.0

Principal
of school 9 37.5
of center 3 12.5

Other

Assistant principal 2 8.2
ISD coordinator/ planner 1 4.2
Supervisor-principal l 4.2
Coordinator, residential services 1 4.2
TOTALS 24 100.0

 

 

The territory covered by the administrators' duties are shown in Table 15.
It is interesting to note that 45.8% of the administrators reported responsibility
for school programs. This suggests that some programs for the severely
handicapped are not isolated but are part of the mainstream of public education.
In contrast, 37.596 of the administrators are responsible for center programs,
which, in Michigan, are schools set apart from the mainstream and in some

cases, geographically isolated from the mainstream of education.

59

Table 15
Territories of Responsibility Reported by Administrator Respondents (n = 24)

 

Territory _n_ _
District 3 12.5
Center 9 37.5
School 11 45.8
Other: county 1 4.2
TOTALS 24 100.0

 

 

Table 16 indicates that 66.6% of administrators reported having earned a
Master's Degree. The major emphasis of the degree was not given and it cannot
be assumed that the Master's Degree was in administration. Table 11 shows the
types of degrees held by administrators.

Table 16
Academic Degrees Reported by Administrator Respondents (n = 24)

 

295$ 11 &
BA/BS a 16.6
MA/MS 16 66.6
Ed.S. l 4 2
ABD l 4 2
Ph.D. 0 0

MSW l 4.2
UNK l 4.2

TOTALS 24 100.0

 

 

60

It is interesting to note that only two administrators (8.4%) had degrees
beyond the Master's which gives the general impression that advanced degrees
are not necessary for the administrator of programs for the severely
handicapped. The years of experience in current positions held by administrators
are shown in Table 17.

The results in Table 17 reveal that 29.2% of the administrators are in the
first year of experience in the administration of a program for the severely
handicapped and 37.1% are in their second, third or fourth year. The first
general impression would be that the administrators are beginners or at least
relative newcomers to the administration of programs for the severely
handicapped.

Table 17

Years of Experience in Current Position Reported by Administrator Respondents
(n = 2(5)

 

 

Years of Experience 2 %
l 7 29.2
2 2 8.3
3 4 16.6
4 3 12.5
5 l 4.2
7 2 8.3
9 1 4.2
10 1 4.2
14 2 8.3
20 l 4.2

TOTALS 24 100.0

 

 

Of the 24 administrator respondents, 21 had previously taught, one had
been a supervisor, one had been a case manager, and one had been a school
psychologist. Twelve of the administrator respondents had actually taught the

severely handicapped, and 12 had never taught the severely handicapped.

61

Competency Data

An attempt was made to determine which of the 96 competencies rated
were perceived to be critical to the beginning teacher of the severely
handicapped and then to determine which competencies and, consequently, which
categories were valued by each group. The competencies and categories
identified might then be used as a basis for preservice preparation programs for
teachers of the severely handicapped.

The specific questions to be answered were:

1. Do teachers' perceptions equate with parents' perceptions?

2. Do teachers' perceptions equate with administrators'
perceptions?

3. Do parents' perceptions equate with administrators'
perceptions?

4. Do teachers value planning for instruction, instruction, or
evaluation?

5. Do parents value planning for instruction, instruction, or evalu-
ation?

6. Do administrators value planning for instruction, instruction, or
evaluation?

The list of competencies was designed into a five-point Likert-type
questionnaire with a score of 5 designated as "most critical" and a score of _1_ as
"least critical." A decision was made to graduate the scale from top to bottom
i.e., MOST CRITICAL to LEAST CRITICAL. As all the items are considered
important, there was no intent to eliminate any of them. A Likert type scale
was used to offer five choices for rating each competency: (A) MOST CRITICAL

means the BEGINNING teacher of the severely handicapped cannot begin to

 

teach without it; the other ratings suggest the competencies could be acquired
later (e.g., on the job, with inservice, or additional coursework) (B) VERY

CRITICAL; (C) CRITICAL; (D) SOMEWHAT CRITICAL; (E) LEAST CRITICAL.

62

The final questionnaire consisted of 63 competencies with 33 sub-items for
a total of 96 competencies to be rated. For data analysis and computer
manageability, the Likert scale was reversed. Consequently, a score of _l_ was
designated as "most critical" and a score of 5 as "least critical." The items were
sorted in descending order. The rank order was based on the mean for each item.
Each group of respondents, teachers, parents, and administrators rated the 96
items differently. All the ratings, including mean, standard deviation and rank
order, for each group of respondents and for the groups combined are reported in
Appendix F.

As can be seen in these tables, there was no consensus concerning which
competencies were most critical. Nor was there agreement as to which
categories were valued.

The lack of consensus in the ratings among groups answers the six specific
questions posted above in the following way:

1. Teachers' perceptions do not equate with parents perceptions.
Although there appeared to be some degree of agreement on some
items, the agreement was not enough to merit an equation.

2. Teachers' perceptions do not equate with administrators' perceptions.
Although there appeared to be some degree of agreement on some
items, it was not enough to affirm a consensus.

3. Parents' perceptions do not equate with administrators perceptions.
Although there appeared to be some degree of agreement on some

items, it was not enough to identify a consensus.

4. Teachers apparently did not value Planning for Instruction,
Instruction or Evaluation as a preferred category.

5. Parents apparently did not value Planning for Instruction, Instruction
or Evaluation as a preferred category.

6. Administrators apparently did not value Flaming for Instruction,
Instruction or Evaluation as a preferred category.

In sum, there was no agreement on the criticalness of items by the three

groups. Therefore, no decision can be made about which competencies are most

63

critical to the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped or which categories
are valued.

For the sake of discussion, the five items with the highest rank and the five
items with the lowest rank were selected from the combined ratings of teachers,
parents and administrators for observation and discussion here.

It is interesting to note that the ability to plan classroom structure to
control behavior with consistent rules, Item 163, a planning competency, ranks
number one in the combined ratings of teachers, parents and administrators. ‘lhe
first general impression might be that all severely handicapped children have
behavior problems which require more management. However, a second general
impression may be that all classrooms need consistent rules, as part of the
classroom structure, to control the management of behavior. The combined
rating on this item suggests that all three respondent groups perceive behavior

control to be a critical issue in the programs for severely handicapped students.

Table 18
Highest Ranked Items from the Combined Rating of Respondents

 

 

 

Item Combined
Number Competency Rank Category
168 Plan Classroom Structure: Control 1 Planning for
Behavior with Rules Instruction
62 Communicate Effectively with 2 Evaluation

Parents RE: Child's Performance

 

 

4 Establish Realisitic Goals 3 Planning for
Instruction
63 Derive a Sense of Accomplishment 4 Evaluation

Despite Small Gains by Student

 

61 Use Evaluation to Change 5 Evaluation
Teaching/Instructional Hethods

 

 

64

The ability to communicate effectively with parents about the
performance of their severely handicapped child (Item 62) is of course a highly
desirable competency for an educator. The important feature of this evaluation
competency, which is rank ordered second in the competency ratings, is the
preference for communication about the student's performance. Parent-teacher
conferences, we know, are an opportunity for communication, but the critical
part is to focus on the student's performance (the word performance was
underlined in the questionnaire for emphasis). A number of skills are required
for effective communication with parents by educators and could be trained at
the pre-service level. As can be seen by the combined ratings and the rank order
assigned, all three groups at least recognize the need for such competency. Item
62 is in the third category, Evaluation.

The ability to establish realistic goals, a planning competency (Item 4),
ranked third in the list of the combined ratings of 96 items. Establishing goals
for students is a basic competency for any teacher but the ability to establish
realistic goals is seen as critical to the beginning teacher of the severely
handicapped. This rating by teachers, parents and administrators could infer
that particular skill is required to set goals for students whose learning ability is
hampered by physical limitations as well as mental or emotional impairment and
conceivably by a combination of all three. It is especially important for this
population to have success through individualized goals since the usual goals for
non-handicapped children of the same age are not feasible.

The teachers ability to derive a sense of accomplishment (Item 64), an
evaluation competency, is critical as can be seen by the fourth place ranking of
the combined ratings it received on the list of 96 competencies.

In regular education, a teacher gauges his/her accomplishment perhaps by

the reading or math levels students achieve. The teacher can also furnish much

65

physical evidence of what the child has learned in a particular length of time.
With the severely handicapped, some of the gains can be termed minute and have
taken an incredible amount of time and repetition as compared to the learning
of non-handicapped students. There is also some evidence of regression in
learning by the severely handicapped over the school holidays, and in some cases
what was determined as learned on Friday needs to be taught again on the
following Monday.

The recognition of the students small gains and their effect on the
teacher's feeling of lack of accomplishment is apparently evident to
administrators. As one administrator noted ". . . this is perhaps the most
significant item of the 96 items on the list and I applaud the inclusion of it in
this survey . . ."

In view of the fact that each severely handicapped child may have
compound learning difficulties, it is interesting to see that the fifth-ranked item
of the combined ratings in the list of 96 competencies is the one that states that
the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped should have the ability to use
evaluation, obviously an evaluation competency, to change teaching methods
and/or instructional materials (Item 61).

Frequently, packaged or time-honored instructional materials must be
adapted to the needs of the child. It can be noted that this is true for non-
handicapped learners who have different styles of learning. But, again, the
handicapped learner may have not only a particular learning style but also
physical, mental or social limitations that interfere with learning.

The time-honored methods of teaching academics may have to be adapted
considerably to meet the needs of the severely handicapped student. The critical
feature of this competency is the teacher's ability to use evaluation of the

student's performance and/or the teacher's performance to determine what

66

appropriate changes can be made in methods or instructional materials to assure
student success.

As can be seen in Table 18, of the items that earned the top five rankings
of the combined ratings, two were in the category of Planning for Instruction and
three were in the category of Evaluation. It is interesting to note that no items
from the category of Instruction were in these top five combined ratings.

Although no conclusions can be drawn from these rankings, as previously
indicated, discussion of the items that earned the last five rankings (Items 92-96)
of the combined ratings of 96 items, seems warranted, especially if the bottom
of the rank-ordering is perceived as least critical to the respondent.

Table 19 . .
Lowest Ranked Items from the Combined Rating of Respondents

 

 

Item Combined
Number Competency ' Rank Category
39C Use Latest Hardware/Technology: 92 Instruction

Train Students to Use

 

 

' Planning for

20 Make a "Life-Plan" for Students. 93 '
Project Needs Beyond School Years Instruction
39A Use Latest Hardware/Technology: 94 Instruction

Identify for Purchase

 

398 Use Latest Hardware/Technology: 95 Instruction
Train Teachers/Non-certified
Staff to Use

 

f Other 96 Planning for
19 igiigfigzi Hiring 0 Instruction

 

 

The ability to use the latest in hardware/technology (e.g., computers,
communications devices) and train students to use them (Item 39C) ranked 92nd

of 96 items on the combined ratings.

67

The general first impression of this instructional competency might be that
the students are too handicapped to use any kind of equipment but the paradox is
that some of the equipment is the only modality they have for learning. For
example, the student who does not have use of his hands for the conventional
way of writing or typing may have enough dexterity to use a stick to manipulate
the computer, even if he puts the stick in his mouth.

The beginning teacher's ability to make a "life-plan" for students and to
project their needs beyond school years (Item 20) was ranked 93rd on the
combined ratings of 96 items. At first glance, the rating of this planning
competency would seem to reflect the feeling of respondents that many severely
handicapped children may have a short-life span and may not require a plan
beyond their school years.

The incongruity rests in how the lack of a "life-plan" would affect the
selection of appropriate goals for the student. If educational goals are to be
made without regard for what the student will be able to do the rest of his life,
perhaps the goals are in fact inappropriate. More and more the severely
handicapped are entering the mainstream of life and are striving for some degree
of independence through employment capabilities after school.

Another impression from this rating is that perhaps respondents do not
perceive the ability to make a "life-plan" for the student as most critical to the
beginning teacher, but as a competency that could be acquired later on, with
experience.

Item 39 A related to new technology ranked 94th of 96 items on the
combined ratings. It may be that the beginning teacher‘s ability to identify for
purchase the latest in hardware/technology (e.g., computers, communication
devices) is not perceived to be his/her responsibility. This instructional

competency may be perceived as an administrator's task.

68

The ability to use the latest in hardware/technology (e.g., computers,
communication devices), that is train teachers/non certified staff to use (Item
39B), ranked 95th on the combined ratings of 96 items.

It is interesting to note that this instructional competency (Item 39),
namely the ability to use the latest hardware/technology (e.g., computers,
communication devices) and the sub-items, that is the ability to identify for
purchase (Item 39A), the ability to train teachers and non-certified personnel to
use (Item 398) and the ability to train students to use (Item 39C) the latest
hardware/technology, received three of the five lowest rankings on the combined
ratings of 96 items.

The beginning teacher's ability to influence hiring of other personnel (Item
19) ranked as 96th on the combined ratings of 96 items. Although administration
is usually primarily responsible for the hiring of personnel, the need for a person
with particular skills as a teacher's aide, for example, may be critical to the
classroom. If aides, for example, are hired en masse and assigned by an arbitrary
method, the person most suited to a particular group could be lost. Frequently,
the need for a particular set of skills and strengths can influence the hiring of
personnel. In general, this may not be perceived to be a critical competency for
the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped. In the items rank-ordered
92-96, all the items are in the category of Instruction.

Consensus of all groups on which competencies are most critical to the
beginning teacher of the severely handicapped is impossible to achieve because
of the different points of view held by the respondents. However, each group's
top rankings may be very valid and significant to designing a training program.
In view of this, the top 10 competencies ranked by each group are presented in

Appendix H.

69

The lack of consensus in this study supports the literature previously
discussed which claims that the seeking of a consensus often leads to additions to
the list of what is already perceived to be important. Because there was no
consensus about which competencies were most critical to the beginning teacher
of the severely handicapped, an additional effort was made to analyze the data.

A Chi square test was applied and 17 of the 96 items analyzed were
identified as having significant value at the .05 level. The test revealed that the
group to which the respondent belonged (teacher, parent or administrator) and
the respondent's ratings of the item were related.

In other words, not only was there no consensus among the respondents
concerning their perceptions of the relative importance of the competencies, the
additional analysis indicates that group membership influenced the respondent's
ratings of competencies. The items reporting a significant value are presented
in the following tables. Tables 20 to 36 reflect the results of the chi square test
application to the data which yielded 17 items of significant chi square value.
Not all five of the rating choices, MOST CRITICAL, VERY CRITICAL,
CRITICAL, SOMEWHAT CRITICAL and LEAST CRITICAL, are reflected in the
Tables 20-36. Thirteen of the 17 tables reflect the use of MOST CRITICAL,
VERY CRITICAL and CRITICAL; three tables reflect the use of VERY
CRITICAL, CRITICAL and SOMEWHAT CRITICAL; and one table reflects the
use of only two points of the Likert type scale: VERY CRITICAL and
CRITICAL. As can be seen, not all five points of the Likert type scale appear in
any of the tables. This simply reflects the fact that some of the points of the
scale had no responses recorded for that item. Rather than print the entire scale
in each table, a decision was made to show only those points actually used for

rating by respondents.

70

There seems to be some agreement among the groups on two of the 17
significant items, namely the ability to teach students to read (Item 52B) and the
ability to use evaluation to affect appropriate changes in students' goals and
objectives (Item 60). However, the highest perceived value for both items is only
VERY CRITICAL and consequently cannot be considered as MOST CRITICAL to
the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped. Tables 20 and 21 report

these data.

Table 20

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator Perceptions
of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher of the Severely
Handicapped: Ability to Teach Students to Read (Item 522)

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Parents Administrators Row Total
(ns44) (n-18) (n=24) (N=86)
Very 26 10 8 44
Critical 60.5% 55.6% 33.3% 51.8%
3 5 10 18
Critical 7.0% 27.8% 41.7% 21.2%
Somewhat 14 3 6 23
Critical 32.6% 16.7% 25.0% 27.1%
Column 44 18 24 N=86/100%
Total
Degrees Value
Item 528 Chi-Square 12.71336% of Freedom 4 Significance .0128

 

NOTE: Each cell reflects the number of respondents and the percentage
equivalent of that number for that column only.

 

 

The beginning teacher's ability to teach students to read was viewed as
VERY CRITICAL by teachers (60.5%), parents (55.6%), and administrators
(33.3%). Other administrators rated it only CRITICAL (41.796). None of the
respondents rated it MOST CRITICAL. In general, there is some agreement

among groups on this item.

71

Table 21

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator Perceptions
of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher of the Severely
Handicapped: Ability to Use Evaluation to Affect Appropriate Changes
in Students' Goals and Objectives (Item 60)

 

 

 

 

Teachers Parents Adminstrators Row Total

(n-44) (n-18) (n=24) (N-ee)
Very 4O 15 15 70
Critical 90.0% 83.3% 62.5% 81.4%

4 3 9 16
Critical 9.1% 16.7% 37.5% 18.6%
Column 44 18 24 N=86/100%
Total
Degrees Value of

Item 60 Chi-Square 8.33300% of Freedom 4 Significance .0155

 

NOTE: Each cell reflects the number of respondents and the percentage
equivalent of that number for that column only.

 

 

The beginning teacher's ability to use evaluations to affect appropriate
changes in students goals and objectives was viewed as VERY CRITICAL by
teachers (90.0%), parents (83.3%) and administrators (62.5%). None of the
respondents rated it as MOST CRITICAL. In general, there is strong agreement

that the item is important but not MOST CRITICAL to the beginning teacher of

the severely handicapped.

72

Although there is some agreement on the ability to teach students to self-
feed (Item 52A), the ability to teach students to self-dress (Item 523), the ability
to teach to varying ratios, namely large groups (Item 56C), knows how to
intercede on the student's behalf as an advocate (Item 58), it is not strong enough
to consider these items as MOST CRITICAL to the beginning teacher of the

severely handicapped. These data are reported in Tables 22, 23, 24 and 25.

Table 22

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator Perceptions
of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher of the Severely
Handicapped: Ability to Teach Students to Self Feed (Item 52A)

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Parents Administrators Row Total
(n-44) (n-18) (n-24) (N=86)
Most 28 8 12 48
Critical 65.1% 44.4% 50.0% 56.5%
Very 14 4 5 23
Critical 32.6% 22.2% 20.8% 27.1%
1 6 7 14
Critical 2.3% 33.3% 29.2% 16.5%
Column 43 18 24 N=86/100%
Total
Degrees Value of

Item 52A Chi-Square 12.86796% of Freedom 4 Significance .0119

 

NOTE: Each cell reflects the number of respondents and the percentage
equivalent of that number for that column only.

 

 

73

The beginning teacher's ability to teach the students to self-feed was
viewed MOST CRITICAL by teachers (65.1%), administrators (50.0%), and
parents (44.4%). Although there seems to be strong agreement among all three
groups, it should be noted that a significant number of parents (33.3%) view it as

only CRITICAL. In general, there is some agreement on this item.

Table 23

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator Perceptions
of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher of the Severely
Handicapped: Ability to Teach Students to Self-Dress (Item 528)

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Parents Administrators Row Total

(nn44) (n=18) (n-24) (N=86)
Most 27 7 12 46
Critical 52.9% 38.9% 50.0% 54.1%
Very 14 5 5 24
Critical 32.6% 27.8% 20.8% 28.2%

2 6 7 15
Critical 13.3% 33.3% 29.2% 17.6%
Column 44 18 24 N=86/100%
Total
Degrees Value of

Item 528 Chi-Square 10.62579% of Freedom 4 Significance .0311

 

NOTE: Each cell reflects the number of respondents and the percentage
equivalent of that number for that column only.

 

 

74

The beginning teacher's ability to teach students to self-dress was viewed
as MOST CRITICAL to teachers (52.9%), administrators (50.0%) and to some
extent to parents (38.9%). However, some of the parents (61.1%) viewed it as
only VERY CRITICAL and CRITICAL as did some of the administrators (50.0%).

In general, there seems to be some agreement among groups on this item.

Table 24
Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator Perceptions
of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher of the Severely

Handicapped: Ability to Teach to Varying Ratios: Large Groups (Item
56C)

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Parents Administrators Row Total
(n=44) (n=18) (n=24) (N=86)
Most 26 5 10 41
Critical 59.1% 27.8% 41.7% 47.7%
Very 13 s 5 23
Critical 29.5% 27.8% 20.8% 26.7%
5 8 9 22
Critical 11.4% 44.4% 37.5% 25.6%
Column 44 18 24 N=86/100%
Total
Degrees Value of
Item 56C Chi-Square 10.64235% of Freedom 4 Significance .0309

 

NOTE: Each cell reflects the number of respondents and the percentage
equivalent of that number for that column only.

 

 

75

The beginning teacher's ability to teach to varying ratios: large groups (as
opposed to small groups or one on one) was viewed as MOST CRITICAL by
teachers (59.1%), administrators (41.7%), and to some degree by parents (27.8%).
However, more parents (44.4%) saw it as only CRITICAL and administrators
(58.3%) saw it as VERY CRITICAL or CRITICAL. In general, there is some

agreement on this item.

Table 25

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator Perceptions
of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher of the Severely
Handicapped: Knows How to Intercede on the Student's Behalf (i.e.,
Student's Advocate) (Item 58)

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Parents Administrators Row Total

(n-44) (n-l8) (n=24) (N=86)
Most 21 11 4 36
Critical ' 47.7% 61.1% 16.7% 41.9%
Very 12 5 8 25
Critical 27.3% 27.8% 33.3% 29.1%

11 2 12 25
Critical 25.0% 11.1% 50.0% 29.1%
Column 44 18 24 N=86/100%
Total
Degrees Value of

Item 58 Chi-Square 11.66815% of Freedom 4 Significance .0200

 

NOTE: Each cell reflects the number of respondents and the percentage
equivalent of that number for that column only.

 

 

76

The beginning teacher's ability to intercede on the students' behalf (i.e.,
student's advocate) is viewed as MOST CRITICAL by parents (61.1%) and
teachers (47.7%) and to a lesser degree by administrators (16.7%).
Administrators (50.0%) appear to view it as only CRITICAL. In general, there is
some agreement on this item.

There was some degree of agreement on the ability to assess students:
perceptual skills (Item 34A), gross and fine motor skills (Item 348), social and
emotional development (Item 34C), cognitive skills (Item 34D) and language and
speech skills (Item 34E) by teachers and parents. However, administrators
perceptions differed from that of the teachers and parents and these items could
not be considered MOST CRITICAL to the beginning teacher of the severely
handicapped. It is interesting to note that all of these items were about the
teacher's ability to assess students' skills. Tables 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 report

these data.

77

Table 26

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator Perceptions
of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher of the Severely
Handicapped: Ability to Assess Students Perceptual Skills (Item 34A)

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Parents Administrators Row Total
(n-44) (n-18) (n-24) (N=86)
Most 23 9 2 34
Critical 52.3% 50.0% 8.3% 39.5%
Very 13 5 9 27
Critical 29.5% 27.8% 37.5% 31.4%
8 4 13 25
Critical 18.2% 22.2% 54.2% 29.1
Column 44 18 24 N=86/100%
Total
Degrees Value of
Item 34A Chi-Square 15.90597% of Freedom 4 Significance .0031

 

NOTE: Each cell reflects the number of respondents and the percentage
equivalent of that number for that column only.

 

 

The beginning teacher's ability to assess student's perceptual skills was
viewed as MOST CRITICAL by teachers (52.3%) and parents (50.0%).
Administrators (54.2%) view it as only CRITICAL or at best VERY CRITICAL
(37.5%). There seems to be some agreement between teachers (29.5%) and
parents (27.8%) since they are also in close proximity in rating it VERY
CRITICAL. In general, teachers and parents seem to have a similar perception

of it's value, but administrators differ.

78

Table 27

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator Perceptions
of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher of the Severely
Handicapped: Ability to Assess Students' Gross and Fine Motor Skills
(Item 348)

 

Teachers Parents Administrators Row Total

 

 

 

 

(na44) (n-18) (n=24) (N=86)
Most 24 11 6 41
Critical 54.5% 61.1% 25.0% 47.7%
Very i3 3 7 23
Critical 29.5% 16.7% 29.2% 26.7%

7 4 11 22
Critical 15.9% 22.2% 45.8% 25.6%
Column 44 18 24 N=86/100%
Total
Degrees Value of

Item 348 Chi-Square 10.10726% of Freedom 4 Significance .0387

 

NOTE: Each cell reflects the number of respondents and the percentage
equivalent of that number for that column only.

 

 

The beginning teacher's ability to assess students' gross and fine motor
skills was viewed as MOST CRITICAL by parents (61.1%) and teachers (54.5%).
Administrators (45.8%) saw it as only CRITICAL. However, the administrators
(54.2%) did view it as VERY CRITICAL or MOST CRITICAL. In general,

teachers and parents seemed in closer agreement while administrators differ.

79

Table 28

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator Perceptions
of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher of the Severely
Handicapped: Ability to Assess Students' Social and Emotional
Development (Item 34C)

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Parents Administrators Row Total
(ns44) (n=18) (n=24) (N=86)
Most 23 9 4 36
Critical 52.3% 50.0% 16.7% 41.9%
Very 13 4 9 26
Critical 29.5% 22.2% 37.5% 30.2%
8 5 11 24
Critical 18.2% 27.8% 45.8% 27.9%
Column 44 18 24 N=86/100%
Total
Degrees Value of
Item 34C Chi-Square 10.12668% of Freedom 4 Significance .0383

 

NOTE: Each cell reflects the number of respondents and the percentage
equivalent of that number for that column only.

 

 

The beginning teacher's ability to assess students' social and emotional
development was viewed as MOST CRITICAL by teachers (52.3%) and parents
(50.0%) while administrators (45.8%) saw it as only CRITICAL or at best VERY

CRITICAL (37.5%). In general, the teachers and parents are in close agreement

but the administrators differ.

Table 29

80

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator Perceptions
of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher of the Severely

 

 

 

 

 

Handicapped: Ability to Assess Students' Cognitive Skills (Item 34D)
Teachers Parents Administrators Row Total

(ns44) (n-18) (n-24) (N=86)
Most 24 8 2 34
Critical 54.5% 44.4% 8.3% 39.5%
Very 14 6 ii 31
Critical 31.8% 33.3% 45.8% 36.0%

6 4 11 21
Critical 13.6% 22.2% 45.8% 24.4%
Column 44 18 24 N=86/100%
Total
Degrees Value of

Item 34D Chi-Square 16.05774% of Freedom 4 Significance .0029

 

NOTE: Each cell reflects the number of respondents and the percentage
equivalent of that number for that column only.

 

 

The beginning teacher's ability to assess students' cognitive skills was
viewed by teachers (54.4%) to be MOST CRITICAL. Most parents (44.4%) also
rated it MOST CRITICAL or only CRITICAL. Administrators (91.6%) rated it
VERY CRITICAL or only CRITICAL. In general, teachers and parents are in

close agreement, but administrators differ.

81

Table 30

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator Perceptions
of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher of the Severely
Handicapped: Ability to Assess Students' Language and Speech Skills
(Item 342) -

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Parents Administrators Row Total
(n-44) (n-18) (n-24) (N=86)
Most 20 10 3 33
Critical 45.5% 55.6% 12.5% 38.4%
Very 15 5 11 31
Critical 34.1% 27.8% 45.8% 36.0%
9 3 10 22
ritical 20.5% 16.7% 41.7% 25.6%
Column 44 18 24 N886/100%
Total
Degrees Value of
Item 348 Chi-Square 10.61138% of Freedom 4 Significance .0313

 

NOTE: Each cell reflects the number of respondents and the percentage
equivalent of that number for that column only.

 

 

The beginning teacher's ability to assess student's language and speech
skills was viewed as MOST CRITICAL by most parents (55.6%) and many
teachers (45.5%). Most administrators (91.6%) rated it as VERY CRITICAL or
CRITICAL. In general, parents and teachers agree and administrators differ.

The first general impression would be that administrators do not value the
teacher's ability to assess students' skills. However, examination of the tables
reveals that administrators view the competencies as only VERY CRITICAL or

CRITICAL but not MOST CRITICAL as do some of the teachers and parents.

82

As can be seen in the text for Tables 31-36, teachers, parents and
administrators differ in their perceptions of the ability to: identify needs for
further assessment (Item 1), plan classroom structure to control behavior by
daily routine (Item 16A), influence the hiring of other personnel (Item 19), make
a "life-plan" for students, that is, project their needs beyond school years (Item
20), assist parents of severely handicapped students to use services of community
agencies (Item 23), teach students to write (Item 52D). Although five of the six
items had some ratings of MOST CRITICAL and the ability to make a 'life-plan"
for students, that is, project their needs beyond their years in school (Item 20)
rated as VERY CRITICAL, these responses were not great enough to be
conclusive evidence for being the MOST CRITICAL to teachers of the severely

handicapped.

Table 31

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator Perceptions
of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teahcer of the Severely
Handicapped: Ability to Identify Needs for Further Assessment (Item
1)

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Parents Administrators Row Total
(n-44) (n-18) (n=24) (N-86)
Most 18 11 5 34
Critical 40.9% 61.1% 20.8%
Very 17 i 10 28
Critical 38.6% 5.6% 41.7%
9 6 9 24
Critical 20.5% 33.3% 37.5%
Column 44 18 24 N=86/100%
Total
Degrees Value of

Item 1 Chi-Square 11.262% of Freedom 4 Significance .0238

 

NOTE: Each cell reflects the number of respondents and the percentage
equivalent of that number for that column only.

 

 

83

The beginning teacher's ability to identify the need for further assessment
of the student seems MOST CRITICAL to parents (61.1%) and some teachers
(40.9%) but not to administrators. In fact, administrators (79%) rated it VERY
CRITICAL or CRITICAL while teachers (79%) rated it MOST CRITICAL or

VERY CRITICAL. In general, the groups differ in their perceptions.

Table 32

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator Perceptions
of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher of the Severely
Handicapped: Ability to Plan Classroom Structure to Control
Behavior: Daily Routine (Item 16A)

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Parents Administrators Row Total
(n-44) (n-18) (n=24) (N=86)
Most 19 7 14 40
Critical 43.2% 38.9% 58.3% 46.5%
Very 19 3 5 27
Critical 43.2% 16.7% 20.8% 31.4%
6 8 5 19
Critical 13.8% 44.4% 20.8% 22.1%
Column 44 18 24 N=86/100
Total
Degrees Value of
Item 16A Chi-Square 10.60620% of Freedom 4 Significance .0314

 

NOTE: Each cell reflects the number of respondents and the percentage
equivalent of that number for that column only.

 

 

84

The beginning teacher's ability to plan classroom structure to control
behavior using a daily routine seems MOST CRITICAL to administrators (58.3%).
Although teachers (43.2%) rated it a MOST CRITICAL too, an equal number of
teachers (43.2%) rated it as VERY CRITICAL. Parents (38.9%) rated it MOST
CRITICAL, but a greater number of parents (61%) saw it as only CRITICAL or
VERY CRITICAL. In general, the groups differ in their perceptions.

Table 33

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator Perceptions
of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher of the Severely
Handicapped: Ability to Influence the Hiring of other Personnel (Item
19)

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Parents Administrators Row Total

(n-44) (n-18) (n-24) (N=86)
Very 6 19 4 19
Critical 13.8% 50.0% 16.7% 22.1%

16 4 6 26
Critical 36.4% 22.2% 25.0% 30.2%
Somewhat 22 5 14 41
Critical 50.0% 27.8% 58.3% 47.7%
Column 44 18 24 N=86/100%
Total
Degrees Value of

Item 19 Chi-Square 11.35231% of Freedom 4 Significance .0229

 

NOTE: Each cell reflects the number of respondents and the percentage
equivalent of that number for that column only.

 

 

85

The beginning teacher's ability to influence the hiring of other personnel
was not viewed as MOST CRITICAL by any of the respondents. Parents (50.0%)
saw it as VERY CRITICAL, but teachers (50.0%) and administrators (58.3%) saw
it as less than critical and rated it SOMEWHAT CRITICAL. In general, the

groups differ in their perceptions.

Table 34

Chi Square Value for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator Perceptions of
Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher of the Severely
Handicapped: Ability to Make a "Life-Plan" for Students: Project
Their Needs Beyond School Years (Item 20)

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Parents Administrators Row Total

(n-44) (n-18) (n-24) (N=86)
Very 18 a 7 33
Critical 40.9% 44.4% 29.2% 38.4%

16 2 4 22
Critical 36.4% 11.1% 16.7% 25.6%
Somewhat 10 8 13 31
Critical 22.7% 44.4% 54.2% 36.0%
Column 44 18 24 N=86/100%
Total
Degrees Value of

Item 20 Chi-Square 9.969906% of Freedom 4 Significance .0458

 

NOTE: Each cell reflects the number of respondents and the percentage
equivalent of that number for that column only.

 

 

 

86

The beginning teacher's ability to make a "life-plan" for students: to
project their needs beyond school years was not viewed as MOST CRITICAL by
any of the respondents. Although parents (44.4%) viewed it as VERY CRITICAL,
an equal number (44.4%) viewed it as only SOMEWHAT CRITICAL. Teachers
(40.9%) were in close accord with parents (44.4%) in rating it VERY CRITICAL,
but a near equal number of teachers (36.4%) rated it as only CRITICAL.
Administrators viewed it only as SOMEWHAT CRITICAL. In general, the groups

differ in their perceptions.

Table 35

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator Perceptions
of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher of the Severely

Handicapped: Ability to Assist Parents of Severely Handicapped
tudents to Use Services of Community Agencies (Item 23)

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Parents Administrators Row Total
(n-44) (n-18) (n=24) (N=86)
Host 8 11 4 20
Critical 18.2% 44.4% 16.7% 23.3%
Very 18 5 5 28
Critical 40.9% 27.8% 20.8% 32.6%
18 5 15 38
Critical 40.9% 27.8% 25.5% 44.2%
Column 44 18 24 N=86/100%
Total
Degrees Value of
Item 23 Chi-Square 9.5177l% of Freedom 4 Significance .0494

 

NOTE: Each cell reflects the number of respondents and the percentage
equivalent of that number for that column only.

 

 

The beginning teacher's ability to assist the parents of severely
handicapped students to use services of community agencies was viewed by
parents (44.4%) as MOST CRITICAL. Teachers (40.9%) viewed it as VERY

CRITICAL but an equal number of teachers (40.9%) viewed it as CRITICAL. The

87

bulk of administrators (46.3%) viewed it as VERY CRITICAL or only CRITICAL.

In general, the groups differ in their perceptions.

Table 36

Chi Square Values for Teacher, Parent, and Administrator Perceptions
of Competencies Critical to the Beginning Teacher of the Severely
Handicapped: Ability to Teach Students to Write (Item 52D)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers Parents Administrators Row Total
(n-44) (n=18) (n=24) (N=86)
Host 7 9 4 20
Critical 16.3% 50.0% 16.7% 23.5%
Very 19 i 5 25
Critical 44.2% 5.6% 20.8% 29.4%
3 6 9 18
Critical 7.0% 33.3% 37.5% 21.2%
Somewhat 14 2 6 22
Critical 32.6% 11.1% 25.0% 25.9%
Column 44 '18 24 N=86/100%
Total
Degrees Value of
Item 52D Chi-Square 24.71145% of Freedom 4 Significance .0004

 

NOTE: Each cell reflects the number of respondents and the percentage
equivalent of that number for that column only.

 

 

The beginning teacher's ability to teach students to write was viewed as
MOST CRITICAL by parents (50%). Administrators viewed it as only CRITICAL
or SOMEWHAT CRITICAL (62.5%). Although teachers (44.296) viewed it as
VERY CRITICAL, other teachers (32.6%) rated it as only SOMEWHAT
CRITICAL. In general, the groups differ in their perceptions.

88

Summary of Findings
The major findings of the study are the following.

Demographic Data

 

The 44 graduate teacher respondents represented 13 of the
United States and one foreign country. The teachers are
employed in a variety of programs for the handicapped ranging
from the mildly retarded to the severely handicapped.

Most of the programs are in local districts but in a wide variety
of settings besides the conventional classroom in a school.
Some of the programs are segregated from regular schools and
other programs are part of the mainstream of public education.
The teachers are responsible for students in preschool through
vocational programs for adults. The students range in age from
three years to 55 years. In some cases, teachers have a
combination of levels and ages.

Most of the teachers, who are graduates of Michigan State
University's teacher preparation in mental retardation, have
had additional training since they received their
approval/endorsement at Michigan State University only four of
24 teacher respondents reported no additional training.
Teachers chose graduate school or attended in-service training
as ways to increase their competency.

The parent respondents had children with multiple handicaps
and described the children by their primary handicap.

Parents reported all degrees of mental retardation and physical
impairment in their children as well as varying degrees of
learning disabilities.

Some parents reported that their children were severely
handicapped while others used the descriptor not severe based
on the child's primary handicap. However, all parents explained
that their child's multiple handicapping conditions made this
identification difficult.

Of 18 parents responding, sixteen reported their child living at
home and not in alternative settings.

Most of the children were in programs identified as
"operationally defined" meaning they were placed in programs
based on their primary or dominant impairment.

Administrators had many different professional experiences
before they became administrators of programs for the severely
handicapped.

10.

11.

3.

89

Most of the administrators are principals of programs and hold
Master's degrees. The administrators are relatively new to
their positions.

Most of the programs are housed in schools or center sites.

Competencj Data

 

Each group of respondents rated each item differently. There
was no consensus on which competencies were most critical to
the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped.

Each group valued the 96 competencies differently and
consequently the value of the categories of Planning for
Instruction, Instruction and Evaluation of Instruction could not
be determined.

The first five items on the rank-ordered list of combined
ratings of 96 items were primarily from the category of
evaluation but the lack of consensus for a rating of MOST
CRITICAL prohibits citing the category of evaluation as the
most valued category.

The last five items on the rank-ordered list of combined ratings
were primarily from the category of instruction but the lack of
consensus prohibits citing the category of instruction as least
valued.

The chi square analysis rejected the null hypotheses of this
study and revealed that the rating of the items was related to
the group to which the respondents belonged: teacher, parent
or administrator.

The analysis identified seventeen of the 96 as significant at the
.05 level. The significant items give evidence that the ratings
of the respondents were related to the group to which they
belong. In other words, whether the respondent was a teacher,
parent or administrator apparently affected their rating of the
item.

There was agreement on two items, namely, the ability to teach
students to read (52E),and the ability to use evaluation to
affect appropriate changes in students goals and objectives (60).
The agreement although not at the MOST CRITICAL level was
judged to be very critical for beginning teachers of the severely
handicapped.

A group of four items, namely, the ability to teach students to
self-feed (52A), the ability to teach students to self-dress (52B),
the ability to teach to varying ratios-large groups (56C), knows
how to intercede on the student's behalf (i.e., student's
advocate) (58) came from the category of Instruction (58).

90

These items had some agreement among the different groups.
However, the agreement was not powerful enough to warrant
consideration of these items as MOST CRITICAL to the
beginning teacher of the severely handicapped (Tables 22-25).

9. Another group of five items of the 17 significant items was
from the category of Instruction, namely, the ability to assess
student's perceptual skills (34A), the ability to assess student's
gross and fine motor skills (34B), the ability to assess students'
social and emotional development (34C), the ability to assess
students' cognitive skills (34D), the ability to assess students'
language and speech skills (34E). As can be seen, all the items
are about the teacher's ability to assess a student's capability.
Teachers and parents only showed some agreement on all these
items related to the teacher's ability to assess children's
abilities, but the agreement was not at the MOST CRITICAL
level. Administrators perceived these assessment competencies
as only VERY CRITICAL or CRITICAL to the beginning teacher
of the severely handicapped.

10. A cluster of six of the 17 significant items had no consensus.
The items in this cluster included the ability to identify needs
for further assessment (1), the ability to plan classroom
structure to control behavior with daily routine (16A), the
ability to influence the hiring of other personnel (19), the
ability to make a "life-plan" for students, that is, project their
needs beyond school years (20), the ability to assist parents of
severely handicapped students to use services of community
agencies (23), and the ability to teach students to write (52D).
Five of the items are from the category of Planning for
Instruction; item 52D is from the category of Instruction. The
groups differed on all these items.

As predicted by the literature, seeking a consensus on a list of items,
whatever the subject, frequently reveals no consensus but adds items to the
original list of what is perceived to be important. That is precisely the major
finding in this study. All 96 items identified as important to the teacher of the
severely handicapped received at least a SOMEWHAT CRITICAL rating by some
group of respondents. MOST CRITICAL competencies did not surface as a
cluster from all groups of respondents. Consequently, a value of the categories,
namely, Planning for Instruction, Instruction and Evaluation could not be

determined from the ratings of the competencies.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The purpose of this research was to identify the competencies perceived to
be most critical to the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped by
teachers, parents and administrators. It was hypothesized that there would be
agreement, across the three groups, as to which of the 96 competencies offered
for rating, would be most critical for the beginning teacher of the severely
handicapped. It was also hypothesized that the ratings of the three groups would
indicate a common value for competencies categorized as planning for
instruction, instruction, and evaluation.

A questionnaire was built for the purpose of data collection. The
questionnaire items were competencies known to be important to teachers of the
severely handicapped, some of which could be rated as most critical to the
beginning teacher of the severely handicapped as perceived by teachers, parents,
and administrators.

Data were collected from 44 Michigan State University graduates of the
teacher preparation program in mental retardation representing 13 of the United
States and one foreign country. Data were gathered from parents and
administrators identified by the graduates. All respondents had direct contact
with severely handicapped persons.

Treatment of the data included a thorough analysis of the demographic
data reported through use of descriptive statistics. Rank orders of the

competencies as rated by each group of respondents and a combined rank order

91

92

were arranged. Standard deviations were completed for ratings of each
competency in each of the four rankings. In addition, a chi square test was
applied to the data to determine if there were a relationship between the role of
the respondent and their ratings of the competencies.

The major findings of the study were the following.

Demographic Data
Teachers

1. Michigan State University graduates are scattered over the
United States and one foreign country. Michigan State
University graduates (teacher respondents) are not confined to
employment in the state of Michigan.

2. Teacher respondents work in a wide variety of settings and
teach a wide range of ages and handicaps.

3. Most teacher respondents chose graduate school as a form for
continuing to develop their competencies.

Parents

4. The age range for parent respondents of handicapped children
was 22-69 years.

5. The parent respondents acknowledged that their children have
multiple handicaps even though they carry a label for a primary
handicap.

6. Most of the children (83.3%) in this study live at home with
their parents.

7. Most of the children (66.6%) in this study are placed in

operationally defined programs, i.e., placed in a program based
on their "primary impairment."

Administrators

 

8. Administrators bring an extensive variety of experience to their
positions from previous roles they have played. However, they
are relatively new to their current positions as administrators
of programs for the severely handicapped.

9. Half of the administrator respondents are classified as
principals (50.0%).

93

10. Many of the administrators (45.8%) have the territorial
responsibility of a school building. Others (37.5%) are
responsible for center programs.

11. Many administrators (66.6%) have a Master's Degree but it
cannot be assumed the degree is in administration.

Competency Data

1. There was no consensus among groups concerning which

competencies were most critical to the beginning teacher of

the severely handicapped.

2. There was no agreement as to the relative value of the
categories of planning for instruction, instruction or evaluation.

3. The five highest ranked competencies on the combined list of
96 items were from the categories of planning for instruction,
and evaluation. There were no items from the category of
instruction.

4. The five lowest ranked items on the combined list of 96 items
were from the categories of planning for instruction and
instruction. There were no items from the category of
evaluation.

Discussion
The education of the severely handicapped is relatively new to public
education because of the enactment of recent legislation (PL 94-142), the
Education of All Handicapped Children Act (1975). The influx of severely
handicapped children into the regular education system has raised the issue of
how to prepare teachers to teach this population and prepare for all the roles
they must play in the process.
Conventional teacher training methods are not sufficient to prepare the
teacher to cope with the complexities of this population and a need to alter
current teacher preparation programs has been identified. In response to this

need, some attempts have been made to identify the competencies critical to the

teachers of the severely handicapped.

94

Michigan State University is examining its program in teacher preparation
for the severely handicapped. Consequently, the graduates of the program, who
are now employed as teachers, were recruited for this study to help identify the
competencies critical to the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped. In
an effort to obtain more help, the graduates were asked to recruit parents of
handicapped children and administrators of programs for the handicapped for
their input.

In this study it was assumed a number of competencies would be identified
as most critical to the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped and values
for categories into which the competencies were sorted would emerge. These
competencies and categories could then constitute the basis of a curriculum for
the preparation of teachers of the severely handicapped. The results of the
study did not identify such a list of competencies, in fact, the results indicate
that teachers, parents, and administrators did not even agree as to relative value
of Planning for Instruction, Instruction, or Evaluation. However, the study gives
credence to the notion that a consensus of opinion is difficult to reach,
particularly as it applies to a group of individuals with incredibly unique needs:
The population of the severely handicapped.

The results of this study and the literature to date acknowledge the fact
that seeking a consensus of opinion tends to add to the list of competencies
already identified as being important to the teacher of the severely handicapped.

The results further suggest that it may be an entirely arbitrary decision on
what competencies are preferred for the beginning teacher of the severely
handicapped. The beginning teacher of the severely handicapped, no matter the
preparation, cannot be perceived as completely prepared to teach the population

by one group.

95

The fact that graduates from the training program are located throughout
the country suggests that the scope of their pre-service training be widened to
acknowledge that although they are being trained in the state of Michigan, (by
Michigan standards) they could conceivably be employed in another continental
state or even a foreign country which uses an entirely different set of criteria
and management style for programs for the severely handicapped. Perhaps in
the pre-service program the undergraduate could do a comparative study or
investigation of how other states operate their programs for the severely
handicapped and what impact this might have upon them if they chose to teach
in another state. The undergraduate needs to recognize that s/he may have to
adapt to another set of standards for programming in another state when s/he
takes his first teaching job. As a beginning teacher of the severely handicapped,
s/he may find that settings, age ranges, abilities of students, degrees of severity
of handicaps are programmed very differently from Michigan where s/he was
trained.

It was interesting to note that age range concerning parent respondents
was (22 to 69) and that over 83% were caring for their multiply handicapped
child in their homes.

The increase in the number of newborn severely handicapped children, kept
alive with new medical technology, created a need for early intervention with
parents by professionals to lessen the impact of the trauma and help the parents
cope. It is only recently that the needs of the parent, for relief from 24 hour
care of the severely handicapped child, has been acknowledged and provided for,
to some extent, by care facilities and persons trained to come into the home.

The economic stress placed on the family of a severely handicapped child
should be cited. The need for relief from care and cost of keeping a severely

handicapped child was recognized by the Michigan legislature which passed a bill

96

to provide nominal financial award to parents. Though there are no precise
stipulations as to how the monies would be used to relieve parents, some pay
medical care costs and others use it to provide some respite for family
caretakers. They may be able to hire a sitter for the child, in some cases for the
first time, or take a trip while the child stays in a respite care setting.

The fact that administrators in this study were relatively new to their
current positions as administrators of programs for the severely handicapped
suggests that they may have no formal preparation for this particular role.

The combined rankings of the ratings of respondents, though not
statistically significant, should be of interest to teacher training programs. The
first ranked item of the 96 items on the combined list is the ability to plan
classroom structure to control behavior with consistent rules (16B) from the
category of planning for instruction. As suggested earlier, this is one of the
major concerns expressed by administrators in interviews, the desirability for
teachers to have the skills to manage behavior. Apparently the teachers and
parents share this concern. Further, control of behavior in any classroom is
more likely with rules, if the children learn and obey them. The interesting
feature of this response, control with consistent rules (16B), is that it was the
one selected from six alternatives to controlling behavior: daily routine,
consistent rules, physical arrangement, minimize stimuli, remove dangerous
objects or retrieve seductive materials.

The second ranked item on the combined list, the teacher's ability to
communicate effectively with parents about the child's performance (62) from
the category of evaluation, is a competency viewed by experts (Birch, 1982;
Weintraub, 1982) as a highly desirable one and is one that is currently lacking.

The word performance was underlined to emphasize that the child's performance

97

should be the primary focus of discussion with parents. It's all too easy to have
pleasant conversations without ever discussing this critical factor in parent and
teacher conferences. It is interesting that this issue in special education, the
need to communicate with parents, surfaces as second in these combined
rankings, especially when this item identifies the business to discussed: the

child's performance.

 

The third ranked item on the combined list, the teacher's ability to
establish realistic goals (4), from the category of planning for instruction, is a
competency perceived to be important to any teacher. It seems especially
important to the severely handicapped when we acknowledge the extent of their
capabilities and establish goals which they, with their uniqueness, can
successfully achieve.

The fourth ranked item on the combined list, the teacher's ability to derive
a sense of accomplishment despite small gains by the student (62) from the
category of evaluation, is identified in the literature in an almost cautionary
sense, i.e., if you plan to teach this population, you need to be satisfied by
seemingly small accomplishments. On the other side, if the small gains are
viewed in their proper perspective, they are large gains for the severely
handicapped and great celebration and satisfaction accompany them!

The fifth ranked item on the combined list of the five highest rankings, the
ability to use evaluation to change teaching and instruction goals, from the
category of evaluation, is another basic principle in good teaching. Rather than
a teacher arbitrarily changing teaching and instructions, s/he bases the change
on evaluation of student or self. Hopefully, on-going evaluation of the student's
performance and the teacher's performance would take place. If assessment of

student needs is critical to begin appropriate instruction, it would seem

98

evaluation could be used to guarantee some degree of successful outcomes for
the severely handicapped student.

Three of the five items ranked 92nd through 96th on the combined list of
96 items, were about the ability to use the latest hardware/technology, that is,
to train students to use it (39C), to identify which to purchase (39A), and to train
teachers and non-certified staff to use it (398).

The use of hardware and technology may have been controversial at one
time, but currently the literature on competency based education identifies it as
a necessary competency for teachers. The literature in special education lists it
as important to the teacher of the severely handicapped because of the
proliferation of new technology which aids in mobility, communication and even
socialization. The paradox is interesting. The competency is viewed as
important in the education of the severely handicapped but is perceived by
teachers, parents and administrators as three of the lowest ranked items on the

combined list of 96 categories.

Conclusions and Recommendations
The following conclusions seem warranted based on the findings of the
study.

1. A consensus is difficult, if not impossible, to reach in the
identification of competencies. A more worthwhile effort
might be to focus on outcomes for students who are severely
handicapped and determine how the teacher might better be
able to help students reach those outcomes.

2. No teacher may be totally prepared to teach any group, the
teacher preparation program may aim to begin a cluster of
competencies in pre-service and identify the resources
available to the beginning teacher to continue competency
building upon employment.

3. Parents who were recruited were willing to contribute their
expertise about their severely handicapped children. The
parents can be a major resource for the teacher in competency
building.

99

4. Administrators new to the population of the severely
handicapped may need on the job education about this
population. The beginning teacher of the severely handicapped
could help provide that education.

The recommendations for use of the findings of this study are addressed to
the special populations previously identified, namely: teacher educators in
special education; Michigan Department of Education: Special Education
Services Area; students in special education; teachers of the severely
handicapped; administrators of programs for the severely handicapped; parents
of the severely handicapped.

The results could be useful if these groups would compare their views of
what is most critical to the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped with
the ranks of the 96 items and a reflection on the standard deviations of items
especially where several items are tied for a rank.

This could be an informal way of comparing one consensus of opinion with
another. Teacher educators, for example, could find where the competencies
they currently teach rank in this particular study of a small sample of teachers,
parents and administrators.

The unusual role, assignment and setting of the teacher of the severely
handicapped would preclude a prescribed list of competencies being used by the
state department for certification of these teachers.

Students preparing to become teachers of the severely handicapped might
be asked to rate these 96 competencies and then compare their results to the
results of this study. The fact that the three groups in the study did not have
consensus would in itself aid prospective teachers in knowing what lies ahead in
their career.

Teachers of the severely handicapped might find comfort in the fact that it

may be difficult if not impossible to please parents and administrators with their

100

performance, a frustration identified in this study, and try to identify for
students the most desirable outcomes for student success on a continuing basis.

Parents of severely handicapped persons could see that no one teacher of
the severely handicapped will come fully prepared to deal with one particular
child and the parent could communicate to the teacher and the administrator
which outcomes he/she preferred for his/her child.

Administrators of programs, who are identified as having strong feelings
about what a teacher ought to be able to do, could recognize that parents and
teachers perceptions may be different and design a way to identify those
perceptions in favor of the particular population of the severely handicapped
which they administer.

The student who is severely handicapped could profit very favorably from
the results of this study if all the other populations identified above
acknowledged the fact that the list of competencies critical to the beginning
teacher of the severely handicapped is expanded by his/her uniqueness. It would
seem that this uniqueness could be acknowledged at the individual's educational
planning committee meeting and any lack of teacher competency critical to the
unique student's needs could be compensated for with the expertise of others.

The recommendations for future research activity in this area of teacher
competency for teachers of the severely handicapped include:

1. direct research activities to determine university's role in
developing teacher competencies in developing teacher
competencies after the pre-service preparation;

2. develop studies to examine whether the in-service might better
be provided by the staff of the employing district or be in
addition to what the university provides or a combination of
both;

3. design follow-up studies to determine which competencies,

from those already listed do in fact result in successful
outcomes for the student;

101

direct data collection activities to determine how parent
expertise can be harnessed to provide valuable input for
teachers and administrators of programs for the severely
handicapped for successful outcomes for the student;

develop studies to determine what kind of information
administrators need to successfully administer programs for the
severely handicapped and design a delivery system; and

design an experimental system for communications for
teachers, parents and administrators that will result in
successful outcomes for the severely handicapped student.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

MICHIGAN STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
TEACHER COMPETENCIES

MICHIGAN STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
TEACHER CONPETENCIES

1.0 DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO SET EDUCATIONAL GOALS

2.0

3.0

The (inst step 06 inst/Laotian is the identification 06 the goats 05
instauction. A goat 50a instauction is a genenai statement 06 the
puapose 06 instauction as Opposed to objectives 06 instauction which
ane measunabie paogaess checks 05 the aesuits 05 instnuction as the
student paognesses.tpaund attainment 06 the goat. The deue£0pment 06
goats and objectives ane necessany phenequisites to the individuaiiza-
tion 05 instanction. In onden to deveiop goats 06 instinction, the
teachea must aefiea to sevenai sounces inciuding student needs, society's
needs, and patent needs. The ciassaoom teachen must then be abie to:

1.01 Identify group goals for the course of study as a whole for.
students.

1.02 Identify individual goals based upon cognitive, affective, and
psychomotor domains.

ESTABLISH REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS FOR EVERY STUDENT IN THE INSTRUCTIONAL

 

PROGRAM IN ADVANCE OF INSTRUCTION

Once the teaches has identifiied the ghoup and the individuai goats 50h
insinuation, the teachen must be abie to deueiop student expectations

to enabie the student to attain the goats 06 insinuation. This may be
inteApaeted as the annuai goat component 06 the I.E.P. pnocess. In
oaden.to estabiish heasonabie'expectations (on each chiid, inciuding the
handicapped chiid, a teaches must:

2.01 Utilize various sources of information in determining student
expectations including formal and informal testing, information
provided by support personnel, fellow staff members, and objective
observations. 5

2.02 Establish minimum curriculum requirements for grade and subject
area for each individual student in the cognitive, affective, and
psychomotor domains.

DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY ENTRY LEVEL SKILLS OF LEARNERS, PLAN
AND IMPLEMENT SPECIFIC LEARNING ACTIVITIES AS THE CLASS 0R STUDENT SHOHS
READINESS ‘

 

 

To detenmine a staating point 06 instauction (on any student, the teachea
must identifiy the point at which the student is in the sequence 05 instanc-
tion. This con/responds to the par/sent ieuei 05 penfiolunance component 06
the I.E.P.

3.01 Use data obtained in standardized, informal, and objective observa-
tion to assess each student's knowledge and skill level in the
cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domain.

1nn

4.0

5.0

6.0

103

3.02 Establish individual objectives based upon assessments in the
three domains.

3.03 Establish a delivery system utilizing a variety of materials,
methods and techniques to obtain these objectives.

ASSESS OUTCOMES OF INSTRUCTION AND INTERACTION BETWEEN STUDENTS AND
TEACHERS AND PARTICIPATE IN SELF-ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES

E55ectiue instauction nequines constant assessment 05 student pnogness
as a nesuit 06 teaching and modifications 06 inst/motion as needed. .
This paocess aeiates to the annuai neuiew component 05 the I.E.P.
Anaiysis 06 instauction inciudes methods, mateniais, and seifi-assess-
ment 06 teachea behavioa and attitudes. To accompiish these tasks the
teachea must:

4.01 Utilize effective techniques to obtain information from students,
parents, and other educators as a basis for self—assessment.

4.02 Evaluate data from student achievement and classroom performance
of goals and objectives.

4.03 Analyze teacher attitudes and behavior toward the handicapped.

COMMUNICATE AND WORK WITH SUPPORT PERSONNEL AND COMMUNITY RESOURCE

 

PERSONS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE AN ATTAINMENT OF THE STUDENTS' PERFORM-

 

ANCE OBJECTIVES

 

Thene ane a vaniety 05 aesounces a teachen may use to enhance the
instauetionai paocess and bettea undeastand the needs 05 the handicapped
student. Efifiectiue teaching must pnovide the teachen.unth.shiiis to:
5.01 Utilize the referral and placement process.

5.02 Include knowledge of the role of support personnel.

425.03 Obtain and use information provided by parents.

5.04 Use community resources to facilitate instruction; e.g., business]
industry, service agencies, municipal service agencies and personnel,
libraries, and local state agency branch offices.

5.05 Maintain on-going communication with special education support
person responsible for the handicapped student.

DEVELOP THE ABILITY TO USE VARIOUS RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO ASSIST IN BETTER
RESPONOING TO EACH STUDENT'S UNHET NEEDS

Phobiem soiuing is an integaafi component 06 meeting the needs 05 handicapped
students in the aeguiaa ciassaoom. Atthough the usuai teaching stnategies
ane veny tiheiy.to be efifiective, these ane occasions ahen.they ane not. The
teachea must:

7.0

8.0

9.0

104

6.01 State clearly and concisely student needs/problems to support
personnel.

6.02 Collect data on observable behaviors.

6.03 Develop a system to use the assistance of volunteers (other students,
parents, etc.) to reinforce and supplement classroom activities.

6.04 Develop and implement a plan to use parents in supporting the learn-
ing activities of their child at home.

DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO RELATE THE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM TO UNMET
STUDENT NEEDS

 

Students have many needs. No estabiished cunnicuium on counse 05 study
can meet theia unique needs. As a consequence, the teachen must took at
each individuai, be the student handicapped on not, and identifiy and
attempt to meet those unique needs. To accompiish this goat the teachea
must:

7.01 Gather information on student needs from staff members.

7.02 Use observational techniques and fbrmal and infbrmal evaluation
techniques to assess students' unmet needs.

7.03 Modify the instructional methods, or the organizational structure
of the classroom insofar as possible to meet these student needs.

DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO REEVALUATE THE INSTRUCTIONAL PROCESS AND TO

 

REDESIGN AND IMPLEMENT CHANGES AS INDICATED

 

Constant evafiuation 05 the success 06 the inst/Lamond paocess in te/uns
06 student 910th is essentiai i6 ins/auction is to be individuafized.
Because both handicapped and nonhandicapped students shoutd beneéit fiaom
an individuaLized inst/Luctionai paogaam, the teaches; must know how to:

, 8.01 Reconvene the I. E. P. C. (Individualized Educational Planning

Committee)
8.02 Assist in writing a new I.E.P.
8.03 Implement the plan.

RELATE MEANINGFULLY TO STUDENTS, TO PARENTS, AND TO OTHER PROFESSIONAL
AND PARAPROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL 50 AS TO ENABLE COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATIVE

 

PLANNING TO TAKE PLACE ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS

Communication betueen the ciassaoom teachea and those.uMO ane conceaned
with the paogaess 06 an individuai student is a paenequisite to success.
Education is indeed a gaoup efifioat and must be appaoached as such. As a
consequence, teachea must:

10.0

11.0

105

9.01 Utilize a feedback system that furnishes continuous data to parents,
students, and other educators on student progress toward individual
goals.

DEMONSTRATE KNOWLEDGE OF VARIOUS CLASSROOM ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES AND
INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS

 

Once goats and objectives have been estabtished, the teachea must detenmine
hownthey ane to be attained as a nesuit 06 teaching. Ciassaoom oaganization
and.teaching methods must be deteamined to fiaciiitate instauction. The
teaches must:

10.01 Develop, schedule, and maintain a variety of grouping patterns that

provide opportunities for handicapped students to reach cognitive,
affective, and psychomotor objectives.

10.02 Provide an optimal classroom setting through arrangement and adaptation

of the physical properties of the classroom.

10.03 Implement a flexible time schedule that provides for the learning'

needs of each student in cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains.

10.04 Develop, adopt, modify, and implement teaching strategies and techniques.

10.05 Develop, adopt, modify, and implement appropriate materials to meet

individual student needs.

DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO CREATE A POSITIVE ENVIRONMENT IN THE CLASSROOM
THAT FACILITATESfLEARNER MOTIVATION AND SELF-CONCEPT

Chiidaen ieaAn best in an envinonment which achnowiedges theia pensonai
wOath, necognizes the/UL individuai gnowth and in which tea/wing is a
successfiui activity. An efifiective teachen.is one wmose phiiosOphy necognizes
.that such a positive ieanning enviaonment is a paeaequisite to .ieaAning. The
teachen must be a positive modei 50a students and must engage in specifiic
activities to insane that such an envinonment exists: To do this the.teachen
must: '

11.01 Implement behavior management techniques to manage individual and

group behavior.

11.02 Provide learning tasks which are within the student's capability.

11.03 Provide learning materials which give the student immediate feedback

regarding progress.

11.04 Acknowledge appropriate behaviors in each student in order to

stimulate continued effort.

11.05 Structure the learning environment to insure positive reinforcement

of the student for appropriate academic and social behavior.

11.06 Prepare the regular class for the entry of special students into the
classroom.

12.0

A

106

11.07 Conduct class activities in such a way as to encourage interaction
between and among students.

11.08 Identify the positive aspects of integration of the handicapped
upon both the handicapped and the regular education student.

UNDERSTAND FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL STATUTES AND GUIDELINES RELATING TO
EDUCATION, AND RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO THESE MANDATES IN THE DISCHARGE
OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Thane one a nume/L 05 iaws, hates, neguiatéons, and poticies which
impinge upon the teachen 05 both the handicapped and nonhandicapped
student. Foa.the paotection 06 the teachea, the student, panents, and
the community, as unit as to maximize the impact 06.the educationai
pnocess, the teachen must identigy aesounces 60a infionmation on tans
peataining to:

12.01 Free appropriate public education.

12.02 Nondiscriminatory evaluations.

12.03 Due process.

12.04 Records and confidentiality.

12.05 The I.E.P.C. (Individualized Educational Planning Committee) and
the I.E.P. (Individualized Educational Plan).

12.06 Barrier free facilities.
12.07 Child/drug abuse.

12.08 Traffic and transportation.
12.09 Graduation requirements.

12.10 Teacher certification.

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE AS MAILED TO RESPONDENTS

A SURVEY TO IDENTIFY COMPETENCIES
CRITICAL TO THE BEGINNING TEACHER
OF THE SEVERELY HANDICAPPED '

INSTRUCTIONS

Please read the directions for rating each competency.

Please return the questionnaire in the enclosed, labeled, postage-paid envelope.
T0

Shirley Gogoleski

Special Education

342 Erickson Hall

Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824

***************************************

Please fill in your name and address below. This information will enable us
to keep track of who has returned the survey. It will be detached from the
rest of the questionnaire as soon as we receive it to insure confidentiality.
If you would like a copy of the results of the study, please check here.

 

NAME

 

 

Last First Title

ADDRESS

 

Street

 

City State Zip Code

TELEPHONE L )

107

108

QUESTIONNAIRE

All of the competencies listed are considered to be important to the teaching of the
severely handicapped. We need to determine which of these are MOST CRITICAL to the
BEGINNING teacher. By rating a competency as MOST CRITICAL, we mean the
BEGINNING teacher cannot begin to teach the severely handicapped without it. The other
ratings suggest the competencies could be acquired later (e.g., on the job with inservice
additional course work). Please circle the letter which best reflects y_o_u_r opinion.

 

 

Ratings
A = Most Critical (means the BEGINNING teacher must have it)
B = Very Critical
C = Critical
D = Somewhat Critical
E = Least Critical
COMPETENCIES *
l. Able to identify the needs for further assessment (1) A B C D E
2. Able to modify assessment devices and procedures as (2) A B C D E
necessary
3. Able to determine students' readiness for learning (3) A B C D E
activities
4. Able to establish realistic goals (4) A B C D E
5. Able to write behavioral objectives (5) A B C D E
6. Able to prioritize behavioral objectives (6) A B C D E
7. Able to effectively plan and evaluate the Individual (7) A B C D E

Educational Plan (I.E.P.)

>
U’
(1
(3
I11

8. Able to prepare written lesson plans (8)

9. Able to prepare a comprehensive and developmentally (9)
sequenced curriculum for severely impaired students

10. Able to plan a purposeful, organized, consistent schedule (10) A B. 'C D E
of daily activities for severely impaired students

ll. Able to task-analyze and sequence learning tasks (11) A B C D E
12. Able to structure tasks and activities so they end in (12) A B C D E
positive, successful experiences for severely impaired
students
13. Able to structure transition—from one activity to ( 13) A B C D E

another—for severely impaired students

*This column reflects Computer Input of 96 Items for Ranking.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

109

Able to identify target behaviors to be changed
a. Identify the antecedent events

b. Describe the consequences

Able to prevent problem behaviors; altering the
environment

Able to plan classroom structure to control behavior
a. Daily routine

b. Consistent rules

c. Physical arrangement

d. Minimize stimuli

e. Remove dangerous objects

f. Retrieve seductive materials

Able to design and implement a systematic behavior

management plan (timelines, specified order for
intervention techniques)

(14)
(15)
(16)

3.

>>>>>>>

Able to furnish classrooms with equipment and materials (24) A

Able to influence hiring of other personnel

Able to make a "life-plan" for students: project their
needs beyond school years

Able to upgrade level of instruction
a. Content

b. Materials

c. Techniques

Able to determine use of time, facility, additional
personnel

Able to assist parents of severely impaired students to
use services of community agencies

Able to help parents set goals for their severely handi-
capped children

*This column relfects Computer Input of 96 Items for Ranking.

(25) A
(26) A

(27) A
(28) A
(291A
(301A

(31) A

(321A

05 03 UGO’WGU

woman:

0

0000000

0

0000

C

0

0000000

0

0000

I11 mmmmrnrnm

111111111171

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.
30.
31.

32.
33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

110

Able to help parents manage the behavior of their
severely handicapped children

Able to teach travel skills to the parents of the
severely handicapped.

Able to remain objective about the families of
severely impaired students

Able to define the characteristics and causes of
severe handicapping conditions

Able to define the legal rights of the handicapped

(33)

(34)

(35)

(36)

A

A

Able to define normal growth and developmental patterns (37) A

Able to recognize the medical complications
accompanying certain syndromes

Able to define the normalization principle
Able to administer tests and interpret results
Able to assess students' skills

a. In perception

b. In gross and fine motor

c. In social-emotional development

d. Cognitive

e. Language/speech

f. Self-care/ feeding, toileting, dressing

Able to assess basic academic skills of severely
impaired students

(38)

(39)
(40)

(41)
(42)
(43)
(44)
(45)
(46)
(47)

Able to assess pre-academic/readiness skills (attending, (48)
following, identifying colors, recognizing basic shapes, etc.)

Able to assess pre-vocational and vocational skills
(sorting, matching, etc.)

Able to train non-certified personnel to work with
the severely impaired

Able to use the latest in hardware/technology (e.g.,
computers, communication devices)

a. Identify for purchase
b. Train teachers/non-certified staff to use

c. Train students to use

(49)

(50)

(51)

A

A

>>>>>>>

(52) A

(53)

A

*Tkie nn1nmn moFlnr+c annntor Tnnnt nF QR Tfnmc Fnr

BC
BC
BC
BC
B
BC
B
B
B
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
B'C
Rankinn

0000000

['11

U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 "1

40.
41.

42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.

48.

49.
50.
51.

52.

53.

54.

111

Able to administer prescribed medications
Able to handle seizures

Able to do physical positioning

Able to conduct daily exercise regimens

Able to teach vocational skills

Able to teach students to respond to social stimuli

Able to teach students to play with toys, games, etc.

Able to teach travel skills to the severely handicapped

a. Special seating arrangements

b. Boarding/entering vehicles

c. Disembarking

d. Toilet problems enroute

Able to implement toilet-training technology
Able to teach students to imitate desired behavior
Able to teach students to communicate

Able to teach students to

a. Self-feed

b. Self-dress

c. Self-ambulate

d. Write

e. Read

f. Compute

g. Cope with their sexuality

Able to apply the principles of behavior modification]

management to specific classroom situations

Able to teach and assist students in developing
self-control -

*This column reflects Computer Input of 96 Items for Ranking.

>>>>>>>>

(77)A

WWWWCDU’W WWUDWWUU

WUUCDWUIOJW

B

0000000 00000000

00000000

C

ooooo'oou

00000000

0000000

U

mmrnrnrnrnrn mmmrnrnrnmrn

mmmrnrnrnrnrn

55.

56.

57.
58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

112

Able to use management control techniques

a. Voice modulation (78) A B C
b. Facial expression (79 ) A B C
c. Planned ignoring (80) A B C
d. Proximity control (81) A B C
e. Tension release (82) A B C
f. Relaxation activities (83) A B C
g. Physical restraint (84) A B C
h. Time-out _ ( 85) A B C
i. Therapeutic holding (86) A B C
Able to teach to varying ratios

a. Individuals (87 ) A B C
b. Small groups I (88) A B C
c. Large groups (89) A B C
Able to modify self-abusive behavior (90) A B C
Knows how to intercede on the students' behalf (91) A B C
(i.e., students' advocate)

Able to conduct on-going evaluation of students' progress(92) A C

Able to use evaluation to affect appropriate change in (93) A B
students' goals and objectives

Able to use evaluation to change teaching methods and/or (94) A B C
instructional materials

Able to communicate effectively with parents about the (95) A B C
performance of their severely impaired children

Able to derive a sense of accomplishment, despite the (96) A B C
small gains made by severely handicapped students

*This column reflects Computer Input of 96 Items for Ranking.

000000000

00000

D

rnrnrnrnrnmmrnrn

rnrnrnrnrn

m

APPENDIX C

LETTER OF REQUEST TO OBTAIN GRADUATE ADDRESSES,
LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REQUEST,
LETTER OF CONFIRMATION, AND
LETTER ACCOMPANYING LIST OF NAMES OF GRADUATES

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

I an

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION - DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELING. EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN - 48824-1054
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION

February 4, 1983

Mr. Joseph E. Dickinson

Vice President for Development
220 Nisbet Building

1407 S. Harrison

East Lansing, MI 48824

Dear Mr. Dickinson:

Leigh Waltersdorf, Manager, Alumni Donor Records, advised me to write to you
for permission to obtain the current addresses of/lQQ’graduates of the College
of Education, from his office. )4L

I am currently a doctoral candidate and graduate assistant in the Department
of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education in MSU's College
of Education.

My dissertation proposal, "An Exploratory Study of the'Perceptions of Teachers,
Administrators and Parents of Competencies Critical toABeginning Teacher, of
the Severely Handicapped" was approved January 03, 1983.

From records in the Student Affairs Office, 134 Erickson Hall, I determined that
there are 199’persons who received their degree and/or approval to teach the
mentally impaired in the State of Michigan. The degrees and/or approvals were
granted during Summer of 1978 through Summer, 1981.

These graduates of our Special Education Teacher Preparation Program in Mental
Retardation are the primary subjects for my study. I need their current addresses
to mail my survey to them. May I have your permission to use the records of the
Alumni Records Office for this purpose?

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

I
f/ / é/ / "
/, [£2 £2 . fgf'Z/ és
'Shirley Gogdéeski ff
Graduate Assistant
Counseling, Educational Psychology &
Special Education

SG:cd

113

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

114
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

ALUMNI/DONOR RECORDS . 320 NISBET BUILDING EAST LANSING ° MICHIGAN ° 48824

February 18, 1983

Ms. Shirley Gogoleski

Graduate Assistant

Counseling, Educational Psychology,
and Special Education

Dear Ms. Gogoleski,

This is acknowledge receipt of your request pertaining to the 199 graduates

of the College of Education. I anticipate that this request will take
approximately 5 to 7 days to complete. There is one problem that may make this
request somewhat difficult to complete from our point of view. That problem is
that we do not retain the necessary teaching certificate information for
graduates of Michigan State University. Should this prohibit our identifying
these 199 graduate, would it be possible for you to provide the names and
student number for these individuals. If so, would you please forward the
necessary list to our office.

///
a1 {er‘do// 5";'// //

k//Manager, Alumni Dd/or Recow
Michigan State University
320 Nisbet Building

1407 Harrison Road

East Lansing, Michigan

Thank you.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

 

[- 2‘

v
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824
OFFICE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS

134 ERICKSON HALL

February 22, 1983

Mr. Joseph E. Dickinson

Vice President for Development
220 Nisbet Building

l407 S. Harrison

East Lansing, MI 48824

Dear Mr. Dickinson:

At the request of Ms. Shirley Gogoleski I am writing to confirm that she is

a doctoral student in the College of Education. Her dissertation topic, "An
Exploratory Study of the Perceptions of Teachers, Administrators, and Parents
of Competencies Critical to Beginning Teachers of the Severely Handicapped"
requires that she contact a number of recent graduates from the Special
Education Program. The College of Education supports her request for addresses
as legitimately related to the completion of her doctoral dissertation.

If you have questions or need additional information, please feel free to
contact me.

Sincerely,

. /" O ’1
M ‘ é” /(;¢afi/‘ 1/

D.H. Nickerson
Assistant Dean

CS

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

116
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN - 48824
DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELING AND EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY March 1 , 1983

Leigh G. Waltersdorf

Manager, Alumni Donor Records
Michigan State University

320 Nisbet Building

1407 Harrison Road

East Lansing, MI 48824

Dear Mr. Waltersdorf:

Enclosed is the list of names and student numbers of the 12§_graduates of
the College of Educatio I plan to survey, as you requested. I have
also included the date each person's approval was granted. In addition
to each graduate's current address, may I have the address of parents or
any ”permanent" address that may be listed? My colleagues advise that
this information is critical to the follow-up procedure.

I hope this list is helpful in our search! Thank you.
Sincerely,

."J/Lbizc 4- , V/f7“7v/[ J [1

Shirley Gogo{:ski ,
Graduate Assistant-CEPSE
342 Erickson Hall

MSU is an Allirmatir: Action/Equal ()boortunih' Institution

APPENDIX D

RECRUITMENT LETTER TO GRADUATES
AND RETURN POSTCARD

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ' DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELING, EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN - 48824-1034
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION

May a, 1983

Dear Graduate: .

Evaluation, modification, and improvement of the teacher training program in mental
retardation are on-going activities conducted by the faculty. Teacher preparation
programs across the nation are being evaluated and restructured to meet the needs of the
field.

Recommendations of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education,
the United States Office of Education, and the Council for Exceptional Children all
suggest that in order to make informed decisions, all persons affected by a training
program must be involved in the evaluation of that program. We need to know what your
perceptions are in order to justify and validate what we are doing and to make decisions
about what we should be doing.

The purpose of this letter is to ask for your involvement in a survey of selected graduates
of the training program in mental retardation. The survey will seek your perceptions of
competencies critical to the teaching of the severely handicapped.

Please indicate your willingness to respond to the survey by completing the enclosed
postcard. We trust that our recognition of the importance of your involvement will be
matched by your professional concern for improving training in mental retardation at
Michigan State University.

Thank you very much for your help.

Sincerely,

Wfl/QM j/,.[. 75 j” MM:
Donald A. Burke Shirley B. CO leski /

Professor Instructor

DAB-SBG/bar

117

MS U is an ”fir-motive Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

APPENDIX E

LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO TEACHERS,
LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TO PARENTS,
LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TO ADMINISTRATORS,
FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO GRADUATE RESPONDENTS,
TEACHER SURVEY,

PARENT SURVEY, AND
ADMINISTRATOR SURVEY

118

2mm. USA 13c

   
   

Ms. Shirley B. Gogoleski Historic Preserx anon
Special Education

342 Erickson Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 148824

O USPS 1982

I am currently employed or have been employed as a
teacher of the mentally impaired
yes no

 

 

If yis, my most recent experience with the mentally
impaired has been in the following type of program

educable trainable
severely

I would be willing to complete a questionnaire
yes no

 

 

Name and current address:

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OP EDUCATION . DEPARTMENT or COUNSELING. EAST LANSlNG ' MICHIGAN ' ‘88“
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION

June 01, 1983

Dear Teacher:

Thank you for your willingness to engage in research to identify the
competencies critical to the beginning teacher of the severely handi-
capped.

We would like to report the views of teachers, administrators and parents
in this study. We need your help in identifying the administrator-
respondent and the parent-respondent. The administrator-respondent would
be your immediate supervisor. The parent-respondent could be the parent
of the first, third or seventh student on your class list.

Would you enlist the cooperation of the administrator and a parent?
Letters of explanation are attached to the appropriate copies of the
questionnaire. A labeled, postage-paid envelope is enclosed for each
respondent (teacher, administrator, parent).

We thank you for your professional response to our request and for your
investment in this study.

With appreciation,

Maw ' a 1,412;

Donald A. Burke Shirley B. Gogoleski
Professor Instructor

 

Enclosures: 3 questionnaires
3 return envelopes

119

"\l Is an .‘I/tirmutn-r Actmn Fqual ()ppnrtunitx Institution

120

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION - DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELING. EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 48824
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION I.

June 01, 1983

Dear Parent:

The faculty within Special Education at Michigan State University are currently
preparing teachers of the severely handicapped. The faculty is attempting to
identify the competencies critical to the beginning teacher of the severely
handicapped.

You have been selected (via a random sampling) to provide your view of the
competencies critical to the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped.
You are in a position to provide us with the parent's view of the beginning
teacher of the severely handicapped.

The 62 competencies listed are all considered important to the teaching of
the severely handicapped. This study is designed to determine which of these
competencies are critical to the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped.

Neither you nor your child will be identified; confidentiality of your responses
will be protected.

When you have completed the questionnaire, kindly return it using the labeled,
postage-paid envelope provided.

We thank you for your assistance in this important project.

Sincerely,
Donald A. Burke Shirley . Gogoleski 3
Professor Instructor

Enclosure: questionnaire
return envelope

M.” u an Alhnmitn-c .‘Ictmn Equal Opportunity Institution

121

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION - DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELING. EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 4882i
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION

June 01, 1983

Dear Administrator:

The faculty in Special Education at Michigan State University prepares
teachers of the severely handicapped. In an effort to be more responsive
to the needs of the population, this study is being conducted to gather
the perceptions of teachers, administrators and parents of competencies
critical to the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped.

You have been identified by an MSU graduate of the teacher preparation
program in mental retardation as his/her immediate supervisor. You are

in a unique position to provide us with the administrator's view of the
competencies critical to the beginning teacher of the severely handicapped.

Your response will be treated confidentially. When you have completed

the questionnaire kindly return it using the labeled, postage-paid envelope
provided.

We thank you for your assistance in this important project.

Sincerely,

0 2 fl 0
A w'
.KJQZEP1HflAfi21 (g;,,€;:>CAa4€::_\\\ Agf' -7::>.,/ } L.
Donald A. Burke Shirley B. Gogoleski E7

Professor Instructor

Enclosure: questionnaire
return envelope

"\l 'n' 4» 'I/hnnatn-r ."6""" Fund! Opportunity Institutinn

122
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ' DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELING. EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN - «824-1054
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION

October 5, 1983

Dear Graduate:

Your returned postcard indicating your willingness to engage in research to
identify "Competencies Critical To The Beginning Teacher of the Severely
Handicapped“ was received.

To date, your response to the survey has not been received. We are counting
on your commitment to this research. Questionnaires and postage-paid envelopes
are enclosed.

We hope the request for two additional respondents (Administrator and Parent)
did not inconvenience you. We recognized an opportunity to collect additional
data with your help. -

It is important that we receive the completed questionnaires as soon as possible.
Your commitment is critical to this research. Please respond.

WM JAG E’fl/IAA

Donald Burke Shirley B. ogoleski
Professor Instructor
DB/SG:cd

MSU is on Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

123
Teacher Survey

We need to know a little about you so that we can see how different groups of people feel
about items on the survey.
1. Male Female

2. Age

 

3. Have you been or are you currently employed as a teacher of the mentally impaired?

Yes No

 

 

4. If "yes," in what type of progam for the mentally impaired did you teach?
a. educable classroom
b. trainable classroom
c. severely impaired classroom
d. severely multiply impaired classroom
e. resource room

f. other (please describe)

 

5. Level
a. local
b. inter mediate

c. regional

 

d. other (please describe)

 

6. If "yes," what kind of setting did/do you work in?

school __ clinic _
regular school __ hospital __
center-based program __ institution __
group home __ research/affiliate university—

sheltered workshOp __ community program __

activity center . agency

half-way house - residential facility

 

other (please describe)

 

lo.

11.

124

Is the population:

a.
b.

C.

segregated?
mixed?

mainstreamed?

What age level do you teach?

a.

b.

C.

1.

How many years teaching experience have you had?
special education experience; do not count student teaching; count the current year

preschool
early

later

middle
secondary
post-secondary
pre-vocational

vocational

 

other (please describe)

 

as one full year.)

0

 

Have you had additional training since you received your endorsement from MSU?

I 2 3 It

 

 

 

Yes No

 

If "yes," what form?

a.
b.

C.

graduate school

inservice

 

other (please describe)

(Include both regular and

5 or more

 

125

If you are not currently teaching the mentally impaired, please describe your
current position.

 

 

Please feel free to make any additional comments about:

I. Competencies listed

2. Competencies not listed

When rating these competencies, please keep in mind that we are interested in your
perception of the competencies critical to the beginning teacher of the severely
handicapped, not how others would rate the competencies.

Please rate each competency by circling (O) the one response which best represents your
Opinion. Please rate all items.

126

Parent SurLey

We need to know a little about you (so that we can see how different groups of people feel
about items on the survey.

1. Male Female

2. Age

 

3. Are you the biological parent of a handicapped child?
Yes No

 

It. If "no," what is your relationship to a handicapped child?

 

 

5. Is your dIild
a. enrolled in a school program?
b. a graduate of a school program?
6. Is your child considered to be severely handicapped?

Yes No

 

 

7. Describe your child's handicap.

 

 

8. How old is your child?

 

9. Is your child living
a. at home?
b. in a group home?
c. in a foster home?
d. in an institution?

e. in another setting (please describe)?

 

10. How is the population of the severely handicapped defined in your district?
a. operationally (i.e., by primary impairment—5M1, SXI, SE1)?

b. functionally (i.e., "very poorly functioning")?

127

Please feel free to make any additional comments about:

i. Competencies listed

2. Competencies not listed

When rating these competencies, please keep in mind that we are interested in your
perception of the competencies critical to the beginning teacher of the severely
handicapped, not how others would rate the competencies.

Please rate each competency by circling (O) the one response which best represents your
Opinion. Please rate all items.

l 28
Administrator Survey

We need to know a little about you so that we can see how different groups of people feel
about items on the survey.
1. Male Female

2. Age

 

3. What is your current position?
a. Intermediate Director
b. Local Director
c. Supervisor
d. Principal

e. Other (please specify)

 

It. What are is covered by your duty?
a. District wide
b. Center program

c. School

 

d. Other setting (please describe)

 

5. Describe your preparation/training for your current position:

 

 

6. How many years have you held this position?

 

7. What were your previous positions?

 

 

8. Have you ever taught the severely handicapped?

Yes No

129

Please feel free to make any additional comments about:

i. Competencies listed

2. Competencies not listed

When rating these competencies, please keep in mind that we are interested in your
perception of the competencies critical to the beginning teacher of the severely
handicapped, not how others would rate the competencies. °

Please rate each competency by circling (O) the one response which best represents your
Opinion. Please rate all items.

APPENDIX F

RATINGS AND RANK ORDERS OF COMPETENCIES BY TEACHERS,
RATINGS AND RANK ORDERS OF COMPETENCIES BY PARENTS,
RATINGS AND RANK ORDERS OF COMPETENCIES BY ADMINISTRATORS, AND
COMBINED RATINGS AND RANK ORDERS OF COMPETENCIES
(TEACHERS, PARENTS, AND ADMINISTRATORS)

Teachers' Ratings and Rank Orders of the 96 Competencies for Beginning
Teachers of the Severely Handicapped (sorted in descending order)

 

 

Item 3; S_.D; Rank
168 1.36 .61 1
52A 1.37 .54 2
62 1.41 .62 3
10 1.43 .66 5

51 1.43 .63 5
56A 1.43 .79 5
523 1.44 .67 7.5
63 1.44 .70 7.5
12 1.46 .59 10.5
568 1.46 .73 10.5
59 1.46 .70 10.5
61 1.46 .66 10.5

4 1.48 .73 13
41 1.50 .76 14
57 1.51 .71 15
34F 1.55 .79 16.5
60 1.55 .73 16.5
52C 1.58 .88 18
34D 1.59 .73 19.5
53 1.59 .97 19.5
35 1.61 .78 21.5
37 1.61 .75 21.5
11 1.64 .69 23.5
56C 1.64 .99 23.5
348 1.66 .86 25.5
54 1.66 .75 25.5

7 1.68 .77 27.5
36 1.68 .86 27.5
16E 1.71 .80 30
34A 1.71 .88 30
34C 1.71 .88 30
55C 1.73 .87 32
49 1.77 .81 35

3 1.77 .83 35
16A 1.77 .92 35
42 1.77 .83 35
50 1.77 .86 35
15 1.79 .82 38
24 1.81 .87 40
34E 1.81 .95 4O
58 1.81 .92 40
17 1.83 .96 42
55F 1.84 .82 43

1 1.84 .86 44

6 1.84 .83 44

130

131

Teachers' Ratings and Rank Orders of the 96 Competencies for Beginning
Teachers of the Severely Handicapped (sorted in descending order) continued

 

 

Item __)_<_ Si); Rank
14A 1.86 .77 46.5
46 1.86 .74 46.5
21c 1.89 .92 48
55E 1.91 .95 49.5
148 1.91 .77 49.5
55 1.93 .92 51

31 1.96 .86 53
55B 1.96 .94 53
55c 1.96 .91 53
21A 1.98 .88 56.5
44 1.98 .96 56.5
55A 1.98 .90 56.5
27 1.98 1.0 56.5
55H 2.00 1.1 59

9 2.01 1.0 60
38 2.02 88 61.5
551) 2.02 90 61.5
16c 2.05 .86 63.5
47 2.05 .80 63.5
25 2.07 .90 65

5 2.09 .98 66
21B 2.11 .90 67
52c 2.14 1.1 68
16D 2.18 1.0 70
29 2.18 .97 70
43 2.18 .82 70
30 2.20 1.1 72

2 2.27 1.1 73
16F 2.34 .99 74
23 2.36 .94 76
13 2.39 1.2 76.5
33 2.39 1.2 76.5
48D 2.47 . 8 78
488 2.58 1.1 79

8 2.61 1.2 80
48C 2.61 1.2 81.5
22 2.61 .90 81.5
18 2.63 .87 83
52E 2.67 1.4 84
28 2.70 1.2 85.5
48A 2.70 .98 85.5
52D 2.72 1.4 87
32 2.73 . 5 88
20 2.75 1.0 89.5
40 2.75 1.3 89.5
45 2.77 .95 91

52F 2.88 1.4 92

132

Teachers' Ratings and Rank Orders of the 96 Competencies for Beginning
Teachers of the Severely Handicapped (sorted in descending order) continued

 

Item A S.D. Rank
39C 2.93 1.2 93
393 3.23 1.2 94
39A 3.30 1.2 95
19 3.55 . 5 96

133

Parents' Ratings and Rank Orders of the 96 Competencies for Beginning
Teachers of the Severely Handicapped (sorted in descending order)

 

 

Item _l(_ PAL Rank
60 1.44 .78 1.5
61 1.44 .78 1.5
57 1.50 .70 3
59 1.56 .78 4.5
62 1.56 1.1 4.5
16E 1.61 1.2 10
51 1.61 1.1 10
58 1.61 1.0 10
63 1.61 1.2 10
168 1.67 1.1 11

2 1.67 . 4 11

4 1.72 1.3 11

3 1.72 1.1 13
34B 1.72 1.1 13
34E 1.72 1.0 13
37 1.72 . 9 13
7 1.78 1.1 17.5
42 1.78 1.1 17.5
1 1.83 1.2 20.5
34A 1.83 1.1 20.5
36 1.83 1.2 20.5
56A 1.83 1.2 20.5
12 1.89 1.1 25.5
34D 1.89 1.1 25.5
41 1.89 1.3 25.5
43 1.89 1.1 25.5
53 1.89 .90 25.5
54 1.89 1.1 25.5
10 1 94 1.2 30.5
16C 1.94 1.1 30.5
35 1.94 .87 30.5
52A 1.94 1.0 30.5
9 2.00 1.3 37
23 2.00 1.2 37
34C 2.00 1.3 37
50 2.00 .91 37
52B 2.00 .97 37
52C 2.00 1.1 37
55D 2.00 1.0 37
55F 2.00 1.0 37
29 2.06 1.3 45.5
44 2.06 1.3 45.5
55A 2.06 1.3 45.5
55E 2.06 1.0 45.5
55H 2.06 .94 45.5

134

Parents' Ratings and Rank Orders of the 96 Competencies for Beginning
Teachers of the Severely Handicapped (sorted in descending order)

 

 

 

Item _X_ S.I_D_._ Rank
551 2.06 1.1 45.5
56B 2.06 1.2 45.5
40 2.06 1.5 45.5
16D 2.11 1.1 51
52D 2.11 1.3 51
55C 2.11 1.3 51

6 2.17 1.2 56
11 2.17 . 9 56
16F 2.17 1.4 56
21C 2.17 .99 56
22 2.17 1.0 56
46 2.17 1.2 56
52E 2.17 1.3 56
16A 2.22 1.2 64
21A 2.22 1.1 64
24 2.22 1.4 64
32 2.22 1.0 64
34F 2.22 1.3 64
48B 2.22 1.3 64
48C 2.22 1.3 64
52F 2.22 1.1 64
526 2.22 1.4 64
13 2.27 .95 69
15 2.28 1.4 72
218 2.28 1.1 72
25 2.28 1.2 72
33 2.28 1.2 72
47 2.28 1.2 72
31 2.33 1.5 77
48D 2.33 1.2 77
49 2.33 1.1 77
55B 2.33 1.5 77
56C 2.33 1.1 77

5 2.39 1.2 80.5
14A 2.39 1.1 80.5

8 2.44 1.5 84
17 2.44 1.3 84
38 2.44 1.4 84
48A 2.44 1.3 84
55C 2.44 1.4 84
18 2.50 1.0 87.5
39A 2.50 1.2 87.5
14B 2.56 1.2 89.5
39C 2.56 1.3 89.5
19 2.61 1.2 92.5
28 2.61 1.3 92.

135

Parents' Ratings and Rank Orders of the 96 Competencies for Beginning
Teachers of the Severely Handicapped (sorted in descending order)

 

Item 23. S.D. Rank
30 2.61 1.5 92.5
45 2.61 1.2 92.5
398 2.78 1.4 95
20 3.01 1.6 96

136

Administrators' Ratings and Rank Orders of the 96 Competencies for Beginning
Teachers of the Severely Handicapped

 

 

Item _)_(__ §_.__1_)__: Rank
16B 1.50 .66 1

4 1.54 .78 2
16E 1.63 .77 3

5 1.67 .92 5
16A 1.67 .89 5
63 1.67 .96 5
62 1.71 1.0 7
10 1.75 1.0 8
56A 1.79 .98 10
57 1.79 .78 10
61 1.79 1.0 10
56B 1.83 1.0 12
59 1.88 .95 14.5

6 1.88 .80 14.5
12 1.88 .99 14.5
50 1.88 .95 14.5
16D 1.92 .83 18.5
51 1.92 1.2 18.5
52A 1.92 1.0 18.5
54 1.92 1. 18.5

3 1.96 .81 24

8 1.96 .91 24
16C 1.96 .86 24
16F 1.96 .81 24
34F 1.96 .95 24
41 1.96 1.0 24
52B 1.96 1.2 24
53 1.96 1.0 24
52C 2.00 1.1 29.5
60 2.00 1.2 29.5
56C 2.08 1.1 31

7 2.04 1.2 32.5
37 2.08 1.1 32.5
11 2.08 1.0 35
17 2.08 .83 35
520 2.08 1.1 35
558 2.09 .95 38
55D 2.09 .85 38
55C 2.09 .85 38
13 2.13 .98 38
14A 2.13 .99 41
55A 2.13 1.1 41
15 2.17 .92 46.5
42 2.17 1.0 46.5
46 2.17 .96 46.5

137

Administrators' Ratings and Rank Orders of the 96 Competencies for Beginning
Teachers of the Severely Handicapped

 

Item _X_ SQ; Rank
47 2.17 .92 46.5
49 2.17 1.1 46.5
55C 2.17 1.0 46.5
55F 2.17 .77 46.5
55H 2.17 1.0 46.5
1 2.21 .83 51.5
148 2.21 .97 51.5
30 2.25 1.0 54
34B 2.25 . 0 54
36 2.25 1.2 54
24 2.29 1.0 57
25 2.29 1.0 57
27 2.29 .96 57
55E 2.30 .82 59
34E 2.33 .76 60.5
35 2.33 1.1 60.5
21B 2.38 .97 65
21C 2.38 .97 65
29 2.38 1.1 65
31 2.38 .92 65
43 2.38 1.1 65
4.4 2.38 1.3 65
48C 2.38 1.1 65
21A 2.42 1.0 71
34C 2.42 .97 71
38 2.42 1.2 71
48B 2.42 1.0 71
58 2.42 . 8 71
551 2.44 .95 74
48A 2.46 1.2 75.5
48D 2.46 .98 75.5

2 2.54 1.0 78
32 2.54 1.2 78
34A 2.54 .78 78
340 2.50 .88 80
23 2.63 .79 81
22 2.67 .96 82

9 2.71 1.2 83
18 2.79 .83 84
28 2.83 .96 85.5
40 2.83 1.6 85.5
52D 2.88 1.3 87
39C 2.92 1.0 89
52E 2.92 1.3 89
52F 2.92 1.2 89
33 3.00 .99 91

39A 3.08 .83 92

138

Administrators' Ratings and Rank Orders of the 96 Competencies for Beginning
Teachers of the Severely Handicapped

 

Item A S.D. Rank
45 3.17 1.2 93
39B 3.25 1.4 94
20 3.38 1.1 95
19 3.63 1.2 96

139

Combined Ratings and Rank Orders of Teachers, Parents and Administrators of
the Compentencies for Beginning Teachers of the Severely Handicapped.

 

 

Item X SL9; Rank
16B 1.47 .75 l
62 1.52 .88 2

4 1.53 .88 3
63 1.54 .89 4
61 1.55 .81 5
57 1.59 .69 6.5
59 1.59 .80 6.5
51 1.60 .95 8
56A 1.62 .95 9
10 1.63 .91 10
52A 1.65 .87 11.5
60 1.65 .90 11.5
12 1.66 .85 13.5
16E 1.66 .88 13.5
56B 1.69 .95 15
528 1.71 .92 16.5
41 1.71 .98 16.5
37 1.76 .89 18.5
53 1.76 .98 18.5
54 1.78 .93 20
52C 1.79 1.02 21

7 1.80 .96 22.5
34F 1.80 .98 22.5
3 1.81 .87 24
16A 1.84 .98 25.5
34B 1.84 .96 25.5
50 1.85 .89 27
11 1.87 .88 28.5
36 1.87 1.05 28.5
35 1.88 .95 30.5
42 1.88 .96 30.5
1340 1.91 .‘93 32.5
56C 1.91 1.08 32.5
6 1.92 .90 34

1 1.94 .92 36
34E 1.94 .95 36
58 1.94 .97 36
34A 1 97 .96 38.5
34C 1.97 1.05 38.5
15 2.00 .99 42
16C 2.00 .91 42
49 2.00 .98 42

140

Combined Ratings of Teachers, Parents and Administrators of the the
Compentencies for Beginning Teachers of the Severely Handicapped, continued.

 

 

Item 5; _s_.1_3_: RANK
55C 2.00 1.07 42
551= 2.00 .86 42
46 2.02 .93 45
55c 2.02 .98 46

5 2.03 1.03 47.5
24 2.03 1.07 47.5
55A 2.04 1.02 50
55D 2.04 .91 50
17 2.04 1.02 50
14A 2.05 .92 52.5
55E 2.05 .93 52.5
55H 2.06 1.06 54
27 2.07 1.06 55.5
55B 2.07 1.09 55.5
21c 2.08 .96 57
16D 2.09 .97 58
551 2.10 .98 59
44 2.11 1.13 60
47 2.13 .92 61.5
14B 2.13 .97 61.5
52G 2.14 1.17 63
21A 2.15 .96 64.5
31 2.15 1.05 64.5
25 2.17 1.00 66.5
43 2.17 .98 66.5
16F 2.19 1.05 68

9 2.21 1.21 69.5
29 2.21 1.06 69.5
2 2.22 1.06 72
21B 2.22 .95 72
38 2.22 1.10 72
13 2.26 1.00 74
30 2.30 1.16 75
23 2.36 1.02 76

8 2.39 1.22 77
480 2.44 1.16 78
488 2.46 1.13 79.5
48c 2.46 1.16 79.5
22 2.53 .95 81.5
33 2.53 1.16 81.5
32 2.57 1.03 83
48A 2.58 1.15 84
40 2.64 1.45 86
521) 2.64 1.34 86
52E 2.64 1.34 86
18 2.65 .90 88
28 2.72 1.13 89

141

Combined Ratings of Teachers, Parents and Administrators of the
Compentencies for Beginning Teachers of the Severely Handicapped, continued.

 

 

ITEM x §._1_3_._ RANK
521: 2.75 1.31 90

45 2.85 1.10 91.5
39c 2.85 1.19 91.5
20 2.99 1.19 93
39A 3.07 1.67 94
398 3.14 1.16 95

19 3.37 1.13 96

APPENDIX G

TEACHERS, PARENTS, AND ADMINISTRATORS' COMMENTS
ABOUT THE COMPETENCIES LISTED AND
THE COMPETENCIES NOT LISTED
IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE OF 96 ITEMS

TEACHER COMMENTS

Competencies Listed:

There is a great need to be cognizant in the laws associated with the use of
management Control techniques.

All of the competencies listed are very important in the everyday routine
of a teacher. While teaching these skills, it should be stressed that there
will be variances from district to district. Also, teachers are being
required to develop positioning and feeding programs more. Possibly,
classes in these areas could be added curriculum.

#41 Ithink that somewhere in the program the students should learn about
all severe physical problems they may need to deal with (i.e., colostomy,
glass eye, seizures), and proper medical care that they may need to provide
on a daily basis or in an emergency basis until trained personnel arrives.

#42 Proper positioning and handling of students should be discussed along
with adaptive equipment and the reasons for using it.

20 - important for secondary staff.

Many of the competencies listed in this study are vital to the beginning
teacher, however, classroom experience is the only logical way to
completely understand them. Somehow, reading about these items in a
textbook is fine, but it seems like a completely different thing when you
see it in the classroom.

Competencies Not Listed:

Have knowledge of cultural differences in children.
Know your own strengths and weaknesses.
Flexibility.

After seeing much of our trainable population mainstreamed in the regular
classroom, I wonder if it would be valuable for the elementary teacher to
have a few special education introductory classes.

Able to assess administrative support and direction.

Able to communicate and work with ancillary O.T. P.T. Sp. Lang., etc.
Able to assess alternative communication programs and their applications.
Able to advocate for students and program development.

It is important that beginning teachers know how to deal with the aide in
the classroom, regardless of the competency of that person. PR and
interpersonal relations are very critical in dealing with all of the people a
teacher works with - from the child, to the parent, aETnInistration, and
support personnel.

 

142

143

PARENT COMMENTS

Competencies Listed:

I feel that a teacher in special education should have great love for
children - to be able to see a person inside the handicapped child and use
all avenues to help that student feel good about himself and be successful
in his efforts, to be realistic in goals for him and to be supportive to
family.

Competencies Not Listed:

I feel that teachers have so much to be concerned with other than time
spent with students - that sometimes the students needs aren't met.

The most important things a teacher of the severely handicapped must
have are patience, kindness, cheerfulness and a sense of humor.

We feel our child has had very good teachers, they have to be good to work
with children that are special.

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS

Competencies Listed:

For a beginning teacher I feel the interaction with students, the skills
needed to be successful w/students and in the best interest of students is
most critical. Other competencies will be learned with time. Student
interaction and planning the student program is #1.

Re: community agencies and assessments - most often support
staff/itinerant staff are available to assist here.

In some areas, "A" was not checked because therapists would be assisting
the teacher in assessment and development of appropriate program for
individual (Speech, physical, and occupational therapists). However, most
of the listed competencies are very important for beginning teachers.

Legal rights and computer design continue to change and so can be an
ongoing learning activity.

If you are describing your curriculum for teachers of severely handicapped,
I commend you. Your graduate teaching in my school is excellent! Those
competencies rated as less than A or B are so noted Ecause of our
procedures, etc. With more applicants than teaching vacancies {HE
applicant who's abilities rate high in these areas will be at an advantage.

144

Competencies Not Listed:

Assess student's skills in-community based instruction, Life Education (Sex
Ed .

Able to determine how a skill can be worked on age appropriately and
functionally for each individual student.

Supervise non-certified personnel (train is mentioned but supervision is
ongoing).

Intergrate skills such as communication, fine motor, and behavior all day
long, not in isolation.

1 think growing up as a child of parents who are teachers, etc., prepares
you in ways that cannot be learned in college. Expectation of financial and
educational rewards are more realistic.

Teachers should have knowledge and be able to use pre/post testing
instruments and data to design individual student needs. You talked a lot
about evaluations and assessments and testings. Teachers don't need to
have mastered standardized IQ testing - just pre/post testing (eg:
Brigance).

Evaluating a comprehensive and developmentally sequenced curriculum for
functional use (A); working with educational team members (P.T., O.T.,
other teachers (A); communicating with other teachers and non-certified
staff (A); stress management skills (a sense of humor and reality) (A).

Be more aware of child abuse/neglect so as to better act as child advocate
Be aware of community in which you teach, the economic climate, the
educational teach, the economic climate, the educational and cultural
background and expectations of parents, etc.

Maximum experience in working w/severely handicapped prior to
completing degree program. O..‘1.T. remains first and foremost in
developing those competencies essential in working with students having
very extensive needs.

APPENDIX H

HIGHEST RANKED ITEMS FROM RATINGS FROM
TEACHERS, PARENTS, AND ADMINISTRATORS

Item

16B

52A

62

10

51

56A

52B

63

12

56B

HIGHEST RANKED ITEMS FROM TEACHER RATINGS

Competency Rank

 

Plan classroom structure; 1
control behavior with rules

Able to teach students to 2
self-feed

Able to communicate effectively 3
with parents about the perfor-

mance of their severely handi-
capped children

Able to plan a purposeful, 4
organized, consistent schedule

of daily activities for severely
handicapped students

Able to teach students to 5
communicate

Able to teach to varying ratios: 6
individuals

Able to teach students to 7
self-dress

Able to derive a sense of accom- 8

plishment despite the small gains
made by severely handicapped
students

Able to structure tasks and 9
activities so they end in posi-

tive, successful experiences for
severely impaired students

Able to teach to varying ratios: 10
small groups

145

 

Category

Planning for instruction

Instruction

Evaluation

Planning for instruction

Instruction

Instruction

Instruction

Evaluation

Planning for instruction

Instruction

Item

60

61

57

59

62

16E

51

58

63

16B

146

HIGHEST RANKED ITEMS FROM PARENT RATINGS

Competerg

 

Able to use evaluation to affect
appropriate Change in students'
goals and objectives

Able to use evaluation to
change teaching methods and/or
instructional materials

Able to modify self-abuse
behavior

Able to conduct on-going evalua-
tion of students' progress

Able to communicate effectively
with parents about the perfor-
mance of their severely
handicapped children

Able to plan classroom structure
to control behavior; remove
dangerous objects

Able to teach students to
communicate

Knows how to intercede on the
students' behalf

Able to derive a sense of accom-
plishment despite the small
gains made by severely handi-
capped students

Able to plan a classroom struc-
ture to control behaviors with
rules

Rank

1

10

Category

Evaluation

Evaluation

Instruction

Evaluation

Evaluation

Planning for instruction

Instruction

Instruction

Evaluation

Planning for instruction

Item

 

16B

16E

16A

63

62

10

56A

57

147

IGHEST RANKED ITEMS FROM ADMINISTRATOR RATINGS

 

Com petency

 

Able to plan classroom struc-
ture to control behavior with
rules

Able to establish realistic goals

Able to plan classroom structure
to control behavior: remove
dangerous objects

Able to write behavioral objec-
tives

Able to plan classroom structure
to control behavior with daily
routine

Able to derive a sense of accom-
plishment, despite the small
gains made by severely handi-
capped students

Able to communicate effectively
with parents about the perfor-
mance of their severely handi—
capped; children

Able to plan a purposeful,
organized, consistent schedule
of daily activities for severely
handicapped students

Able to teach to varying ratios:
individuals

Able to modify self-abusive
behavior

Rank

l

10

928E

Planning for instruction

Planning for instruction

Planning for instruction

Planning for instruction

Planning for instruction

Evaluation

Evaluation

Planning for instruction

Instruction

Instruction

LIST OF REFERENCES

Abeson, A. (1979-80). Projecting the future of the professional: A consideration
of U. S. and international directions in special education. Yearbook of
Special Education, fifth edition. A report of the 1978 annual meeting of
state directors of special education, reprinted 379-385.

 

 

Altman, R., 6c Meyen, E. R. (1974, January). Some observations on competency-
based instruction. Exceptional Children, fl“), 260-265.

 

Anttonen, :1. E. (1972). Competencies for teachers of educable mentally
retarded as perceived by building principals, teacher trainers and special
class teachers. Unpublished dissertation, University of Oregon.

Behrens, T. (1980, April). Foreword in A common body of practice for teachers:
The challenge of Public Law 94-142 to teacher education. In M. C.
Reynolds et al. (Eds), The national sumt systems proyect. Washington,
DC: The University of Minnesota: AACTE and BEH.

 

Birch, E. L. (1982, March 11). State director's address, Michigan Council for
Exceptional Children annual meeting. Grand Rapids, MI: Council for
Exceptional Children.

Branson, R., (1975). Interservice procedures for instructional systems
development, phases 1, II, III, IV, V, and executive summary. Ft. Monroe,
VA: U. 5. Army TRADOC Pamphlet 350-30.

Briscoe, F. G. (1972). The professional concerns of first-year secondary teachers
in selected Michigan JJDIIC schools: A pilot study. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University.

 

 

Brown, L., at York, R. (1974). Developing programs for severely handicapped
students: Teacher training and classroom instruction. Focus on
Exceptional Children, _6_(2).

 

Budoff, M., 6: Hutten, L. R. (1982, October). Microcomputers in special
education: Promises and pitfalls. Exceptional Children, g2),123-128.

 

Bullock, L. M., 6: Whelan, R. J. (1971). Competencies needed by teachers of the
emotionally disturbed and socially maladjusted: A comparison.
Exceptional Children, _3_7, 485-489.

 

Burke, P., 6c Cohen, M. (1977). The quest for competence in serving the
severely/profoundly handicapped: A critical analysis of personnel
preparation programs. In E. Sontag, J. Smith, 6: N. Certo (Edsq)
Educational programming for the se_verely and profoundly handicapped.
Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children 445-465.

148

149

Carrier, 3., 6: Peak, T. (1975). Non-speech language initiation program (NON-
SLIP). Lawrence, KA: H 6: H Enterprises.

Cegelka, W. J. (1978, September). Competencies of persons responsible for the
classification of mentally retarded individuals. Exceptional Children, 45(1),
26-31.

CEC Delegate Assembly. (1983, April). Code of ethics and standards for
professional practice, as adopted. Exceptional Children, 205-218.

CEC Delegate Assembly. (1983, November). Code of ethics and standards for
professional practice, as adopted. Exceptional Children, 590).

Certo, N., 6: York, R. (1976). Minimal competencies for teachers of severely
and profoundly handicapped students. Madison, WI: Department of Studies
in Behavioral Disabilities, University of Wisconsin.

Clark, C., & Woodcock, R. (1976). Graphic systems of communication. In L.
Lloyd (Ed.), Communication assessment and intervention strategies.
Baltimore: University Park Press.

Connor, F. P. (1975). Some issues in personnel preparation-education of the
severely handicapped. An address given in New Orleans. New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University.

Connor, F. P. (1976, April). The past is prologue: Teacher preparation in special
education. Exceptional Children, _7_(42), 366-377.

 

Cooper, J. M., 6: Weber, W. A. (1973). A competency based systems approach to
teacher education. In J. W. Cooper, W. H. Weber, 6: C. E. Johnson,
Competency based teacher education: 2, a systems approach to design. In
D. W. Anderson, J. M. Cooper, M. V. de Vault, G. E. Dixon, C. E. Johnson,
6: W A. Weber (Eds.), Competency based teacher education. Berkeley, CA:
McCutcheon 7-18.

Corrigan, R. E., (1975). The system approach to education (SAFE). Anaheim,
CA: R E. Corrigan.

Council on Teacher Education. (1976). Guidelines for planning and conducting
essential competency studies. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of
Education.

Cruickshank, W. M. (Ed.). (1966). fie teacher of brain injured children.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

DeVault, M. V., Anderson, D. W., 6: Dickson, G. E. (1973). A systems gpproach
to program design, book 11 of Problems and prospects for the decades
ahead, books I and 11. Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon.

 

 

150

DeVault, M. V., a: Gollady, M. (1977). An operational plan for program
development in teacher education. In B. Rosner, 3e power of
competency-based teacher educgtion: A reart. The Committee on
National Program Priorities in Teacher Education. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon 47-83.

 

Dick, W., 6: Carey, L. (1978). The systematic design of instruction. Glenview,
IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

 

Dick, W., Watson, K., 6: Kaufman, R. (1981, October). Deriving competencies:
Consensus vs. model building. Educational Researcher, 5-13.

 

Dodl, N. R., 8: Schalock, H. D. (1973). Competency based teacher preparation.
In M. V. DeVault, D. W. Anderson, 6: G. E. Dickson, Competency based
teacher education: 1, problems and prospects for the decades ahead. In D.
W. Anderson, .‘1. M. Cooper, M. V. DeVault, G. E. Dixon, C. E. Johnson, 6:
W. A. Weber, Competency based teacher education. Berkeley, CA:
McCutcheon 45-52.

 

Flygare, T. J. (1981, May), Schools + The Law: Disciplining. Special Students
Phi Delta Kappan, 16(9), 670-1.

Fredericks, H. D., Anderson, R., 6: Baldwin, V. (1979, Spring). Identifying
competency indicators of teachers of the severely handicapped. The
American Association for the Education of the Severely/Profounaly'
HanéficapgeTReviewT-fifi), 81-95.

Frith, G. H. (1981, April) Advocate vs. professional employee: a question of
priorities for special educators. Exceptional Children, 47(7). 486-493.

 

Gale, L. E., 6: P01, G. (1981). Competence: A definition and conceptual scheme.
In H. D. Schlock, How can competencies be assessed? Issues in role-based
assessment. In R. Nickse & L. McClure (Eds.), Com tenc based
education beyond minimum competency testing. New YorE: Teachers
College, Columbia University.

Harris-Vanderheiden, D., 6: Vanderheiden, G. (1977). Basic considerations in the
development of communicative and interactive skills for non-verbal
severely handicapped children. In E. Sontag, J. Smith, 6: N. Certo (Eds.),
Educational programming for the severely and profoundly handicapped.
Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Cindren.

Hoeksema, T. B. (1975). The development of teachin . competencies: A study of
teachers Jof the mentally impaired. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University.

 

 

Horner, R. D. (1977). A competency-based approach to preparing teachers of
the severely and profoundly handicapped: Perspective 11. In E. Sontag, J.
Smith, at N. Certo (Eds.), Educational programming for the severely and
profoundly handicapped. Reston, VA: Division of Mental Retardation,
Council for Exceptional Children 430-444.

151

Homer, R. D., Holvelt, 3., 6c Rinne, T. (1976). Competency specifications for
teachers of the severely and profoundly handicapped. Lawrence, KS:
Department of Special Education, University of Kansas.

Iacino, R., d: Bricker, D. (1978). The generative teacher: A model for preparing
personnel to work with the severely/profoundly handicapped. In N. G.
Haring & D. D. Bricker (Eds.), Teaching the severeLLhandicapped, vol. 111.
Seattle: American Association for the Education of the
Severely/Profoundly Handicapped 62-76.

Kowalski, G. (1977). Preparation of teachers of the mentally impaired:
Candidates' perceptions ancf achievement of specific teaching
competencies. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University.

 

 

Macey, P., Stancliffe, 31., Beumer, B., 6: Roper, W. (1974). Mobilizing multiply
handicapped children-a manual for the design and construction of modified
wheelchairs. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.

Mackie, R. P., Kvaraceus, W., 6: Williams, H. (1957). Teaghgrs of children who
are socially and emotionally handicapped. Washington, DC: USEIPO.

 

 

Mackie, R. P., Williams, H. M., and Dunn, L. M. Teachers of children who are
mentally retarded. Washington, D.C.: USGPO, USOE Bulletin No. 3, I957.

MacMillan, D. L. (1982). Mental retardation in school and society, second
edition. Boston: Little, Brown 6: Co.

Maher, C. A. (1982, April) Time management training for providers of special
services Exceptional Children, 48(6), 523-528.

 

MDE: Michigan Department of Education, E. L. Birch, Director of Special
Education Services (1984, May 2). Proposed administrative rules.
Memorandum to Special Education Advisory Committee.

MDE: Michigan Department of Education, J. W. Porter, State Superintendent of
Public Instruction (1972) Michigan State Board of Education Teacher
Competencies.

Meyen, E. L. (1978). Preparing personnel for the severely and profoundly
mentally retarded. Paper presented at the Conference of Education of
Severely and Profoundly Retarded Students, New Orleans, April, 1975. In
M. E. Snell (Ed.), Sjstematic instruction of the ;moderately and severely
handicapped. Columbus, OH: Bell and Howell.

MSU: Michigan State University and supported by the USOE. (1978).
Competency Based Curricula for the Preparation of College Instructors at
the Ph.D. Level in Special Education - Visually Handicapped.

Nevin, A. (1979, February). Special education administration competencies
required of the general education administrator. Exceptional Children,
45(5), 363-365.

152

Nickse, R. (1981) Competency-based education beyond minimum competency
testing. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Pearson, A. T. (1980, Summer). The competency concept. Educational studies,
11(2), 145-152.

Redden, M. R., 6c Blackhurst, A. E. (1978, May). Mainstreaming competency
specifications for elementary teachers. Exceptional Children, fl(8), 615-
617.

 

Robinault, I. P. (1973). Functional aids for the multiply handicapped. New York:
Harper and Row.

 

Roos, P. (1977). A parent's view of what public education should accomplish. In
E. Sontag, J. Smith, & N. Arto (Eds.), Educational programmirm for the
geverely and Jrofoundly handicapped. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional
Children.

 

Rosner, B. (1977). The power of competency-based teacher education: a report,
The Committee on National Program Priorities in Teacher Education,
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Rosenshine, B., 6: Furst, N. (1971). Research on teacher performance criteria.
In B. O. Smith (Ed.), Research in teacher education—a symposium.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Scandary, J. (1981, Spring). What every teacher should know about due process
hearings. In Council for Exceptional Children, Teaching Exceptional
Children. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

 

Schalock, H. D. (1981). How can competencies be assessed? Issues in role-based
assessment. In R. Nickse & L. McClure (Eds.), Competgigy-based
education beyond minimum competency testing. New York: Teachers
College, Columbia University 145175.

 

Scott, P. L. (1983). Have competencies needed by teachers of the hearing
impaired changed in 25 years? Exceptional Children, 52(1), 48-53.

 

Shores, R. E., Cegelka, P. T., 6: Nelson, C. M. (1973, November). Competency
based special education teacher training. Exceptional Children, 42(3), 192-
197.

 

Smith, M. J. (1979). The develgament and study of competencies needed by
teachers of studentstith autistic characteristics. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University.

 

 

Smith, R., 6: Neisworth, J. (1975). The exceptional child: A functional
approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Snell, M. E. (Ed.). (1983). Systematic instruction of the moderately and severely
handicapped. Columbus, OH: Bell and Howell, Second Edition.

 

153

Snell, M. E. (Ed.). (1978). Systematic instruction of the moderately and severely
handicapped. Columbus, OH: Bell and Howell.

 

Sontag, E., Burke, P. J., 6c York, R. (1973, April). Considerations for serving the
severely handicapped in the public schools. Education and Training of the
Mentally Retarded, 8(2), 20-28.

 

Sontag, E., Certo, N., 6: Button, J. E. (1979, May). On a distinction between the
education of the severely and profoundly handicapped and a doctrine of
limitations. Exceptional Children, 45, 604-61.

 

Sontag, E., Smith, J., 6: Sailor, W. (1977). The severely and profoundly
handicapped. Who are they? Where are we? Journal of Special Education,
1_l, 5-11.

Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1980, February). Current trends in preparing
teachers of the severely and profoundly retarded. In M. A. Thomas (Ed.), A
conversation with Susan and William Stainback. Exceptional Children, Q0),
43—49.

Stainback, 5., 6c Stainback, W. (1984, February). Broadenin the research
perspective in special education. Exceptional Children, _5_0_(5 , 400-408.

Stainback, S., Stainback, W., 6: Maurer, S. (1976, January). Training teachers for
the severely and profoundly handicapped: A new frontier. Exceptional
Children, 43(4), 203-210.

Stewart, C. E. (1972). Facilitating local options and coordination of programs.
In B. Rosner, The power of competency-based teacher education: A report.
A report of the Committee on National Program Priorities in Teacher
Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Stremel-Campbell, K., Cantrell, D., 6: Halle, J. (1977). Manual signing as a
language system and as a speech initiator for the non-verbal severely
handicapped student. In Sontag, E., Smith, J., & Certo, N. (Eds.),
_Edgcational programmin for the severw and profoundly handicapped.
Reston, VA: Council for ceptional Children.

The Southeastern Regional Coalition for Personnel Preparation to Work with the
Severely/Profoundly Handicapped. (1982, Winter). Developing personnel
preparation programs to teach severely handicapped individuals. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 20), 46-51.

Turnbull, A. (1978). Parent-professional interactions. In M. Snell (Ed.),
Sfitematic_ instrggtion of the 5moderately and severely handicapped.
Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Weintraub, F. (1982), March 12) address, Michigan Council for Exceptional
Children annual meeting. Grand Rapids, MI: Council for Exceptional
Children (CEC).

154

Weintraub, F., & Baressi, J. (1981, November). Federal legislation to affect

teacher preparation pro rams in special education. Update, Council for
Exceptional Children, Q 3), 6.

Wilcox, B. (1977). A competency-based approach to preparing teachers of the
severely and profoundly handicapped: Perspective 1. In E. Sontag, J.
Smith, dc N. Certo (Eds.), Educational programming for the severely and
profoundly handicapped. Reston, VA: D1vision of Mental Retardation,
Council for Exceptional Children 418-429.

Zane, T., Sulzer-Azaroff, B., Handen, B. L., 6: Fox, C. J. (1982, Fall).
Validation of competency-based training programs in developmental
disabilities. TASH Journal, 8, 21-31.