f lflllllllllljfllflllllllfllfllll lllzllllllllslllljall' W:- . r. 5: Mini " ' _ r: h 0‘. ‘ i This is to certify that the thesis entitled ' A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES, KNOWLEDGE, AND EXPERIENCE OF TEACHERS REGARDING HANDICAPPING CONDITIONS AND MAINSTREAMING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS presented by Gayle Mary Clapp has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Family Ecology x..- / / ‘ 7 4 z W gig??? an, a first Major professor Date November 9, 1979 0-7639 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to Book drop to remove this checkout from'your record. M.U F'" a! 2 199. W73 149.99.99.53; 999-999 a. I ”225.. 359 9 .‘.._'m..... '1 _ ‘ ©Copyright by GAYLE MARY CLAPP 1979 A £1:}>—"' -. 7 - :‘rzpzfi‘; I! " an 57.9! '1 v - ”tick: “Ll 11130"; '=. 9 ‘ , (M. for the J y .9 DOCTOR GP 99*912 w A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES, KNOWLEDGE, AND EXPERIENCE OF TEACHERS REGARDING HANDICAPPING CONDITIONS AND MAINSTREAMING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS BY Gayle Mary Clapp A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family Ecology 1979 l 6////ég, .‘ \ .9! ' ‘ _ “V9 ‘W 9.9:“. .zf" "t VIP" ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES, KNOWLEDGE, AND EXPERIENCE OF TEACHERS REGARDING HANDICAPPING CONDITIONS AND MAINSTREAMING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS BY Gayle Mary Clapp This study was descriptive and comparative in nature. The primary purposes of the study were to determine, des- cribe and compare the attitudes, knowledge and experience of preprflnary teachers regarding the mainstreaming of young handicapped children into existing child care programs. Another purpose of the study was to determine if the degree which preprimary teachers are willing to accept handicapped children into their regular classrooms is a function of one or more of the following four factors: a) the amount of experience the teachers have had interacting with young handicapped children; b) the severity of a child's handi- cap; c) the type of assistance the teachers would be offered to assist them in the mainstreaming process; and/or d) the level of knowledge teachers have about mainstreaming and handicapping conditions. The population of this study was preprimary teachers employed in PATHWAYS mainstreamed, Head Start mainstreamed and community non-mainstreamed child care centers. The total sample of seventy-nine teachers were employed in centers located in five Michigan cities. Thirty of the sub- jects were PATHWAYS teachers, twenty-eight were Head Start Gayle Mary Clapp teachers and twenty—one were community center teachers. The data were obtained from a set of three questionnaires which were either personally delivered or mailed to the centers in which the teachers were employed. The findings of the study indicated that PATHWAYS teach- ers had significantly more positive attitudes toward main- streaming than either Head Start or community center teach- ers. There was no positive relationship between the type of center in which the teachers were employed and the amount of experience they had interacting with young handicapped chil- dren regarding their attitudes toward mainstreaming. A main effect was evidenced for type of center but not for amount of experience. A positive relationship existed among the level of knowledge, amount of experience, type of assistance offered to teachers, and the severity of a child's handicap with respect to the willingness of all teachers to accept a mildly, moderately or severely handicapped child into regular classrooms. There were no differences among the three groups of teachers on the background variables of age, sex, racial and ethnic background, parental status or amount of experience interacting with young handicapped children. These variables have little or no impact on the formation of positive attitudes toward mainstreaming by teachers. The data show no significant differences among the three groups of teachers on educational variables such as amount of edu- cation, attainment and kind of teacher certification, type of college degree earned and number of inservice training 'w .—.r Gayle Mary Clapp sessions and college courses taken on meeting the needs of handicapped children. The likelihood that these variables have some impact on the formation of positive teacher atti- tudes toward mainstreaming is high given the significant relationship between knowledge and attitudes. Based on the results of this study, the researcher sug- gests implications for the development of inservice training programs for regular preprimary teachers and for the reor- ganization of university teacher training programs which would encourage the development of positive teacher (student) attitudes toward mainstreaming and provide teachers (stu- dents) with the knowledge, skills and practical experience necessary to meet the needs of both handicapped and non- handicapped children so they would be more willing to vol- untarily accept handicapped children into their programs. The researcher also implies that the use of an ecological perspective and a developmental approach to planning for and placing young handicapped children into early childhood programs is paramount to the implementation of a mainstream- ing program which provides the handicapped child, "typical” children, program staff, and the parents of the handicapped child with a "successful" mainstreaming experience. 1771‘ DEDICATION A person who gives of herself with honesty, compas- sion and unyielding patience so that another may realize a dream is truly a friend to be treasured. The times when I was physically ill, in doubt of my ability to continue in this program and sorely in need of a friend, she has come to my rescue -— opening her heart, her home, and her mind to provide me with shelter, care, encouragement, guidance and self-confidence. She also shared in my joys and successes realized as I progressed through my educational pursuits and grew as a human being. She has taken me under her wing and served as my mentor throughout these years. She is responsible for fostering my interest in the education of young handicapped children and has guided me in my pursuit of understanding more about the needs and abilities of these special children. My mind has been broadened and I am a better person because of this experience. For all of this I am eternally grateful to Dr. Nancy A. l Carlson, to whom this dissertation is dedicated. Without her this work could not have been realized. ii ‘gr. 2! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to offer my heartfelt thanks and gratitude to the many people who have enriched my life and without whose guidance and support this dissertation would not have achieved its present form and detail. To Dr. Eileen Earhart, I owe my utmost gratitude. She has supported me throughout my doctoral program, guided my numerous experiences and has loyally offered her expert assistance as the chairperson of my doctoral committee. Without her technical guidance, questioning, and support this document would not have attained its present stature. My thanks is also extended to the other members of my com- mittee. Dr. Nancy Carlson, the co-chairperson of my thesis has made an everlasting impression on my life. Dr. Margaret Bubolz, Dr. Marilyn Parkhurst, Dr. Lawrence Alexander and Dr. Lou Alonzo were all committed to helping me achieve my goal and encouraged me to strive for excellence. Each of these persons have worked together to help me grow as a professional and as a person. I would also like to thank all of the PATHWAYS, Head Start and community childhood center directors and teachers who so willingly gave their time to complete my question- naires. Without them I could not have begun or completed iii this project. Thank you all. I have made so many friends during this time who have also played a major role in helping me to complete this pro- gram. My thanks and love go out to these people: Lillian Phenice, Anne Soderman, Alice Whiren and Betty and Alan Abedor. Their friendship, support and sharing of ideas during times of stress and happiness have helped me to per- severe throughout these years. What we have shared will last forever. Finally, I wish to thank my family whom I love so much and who have again, as in the past, shown how much they love and care for me. My father and step-mother, Allen and Lanette, my brother and sister-in-law, Eugene and Gina, and my Aunt Katherine and Uncle Merwin have provided me with their love and encouragement throughout these often trying years. It's hard to imagine what or where I would be now if it had not been for their loving support and encourage- ment . iv TABLE or CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . 1 Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 "I}" 9 ' Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 “ Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 ngil . _ - Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . 22 9 I. Operational Definitions . . . . . . . . . 24 vi Conceptual_Definitions . . . . . . . . . . 26 Conceptual Orientation . . . . . . . . . . 28 Attitude Theory . . . . . . . . . . . 28 *' 4‘: A Relationship Between Affective and ‘-M j ' Cognitive Behaviors . . . . . . . . 29 Ecological Perspective . . . . . . . . 32 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . {39' iijkxvrrw'or LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ as Trends in the Education of the ' 9 Handicapped . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 :~ streaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sq; . ,. 99‘ Alternative Educational ::L1 I‘ ‘ 3:". filmiro‘mmts - e o o o I e I n . pervrvv _ CHAPTER Assessment and Labeling Skepticism about the Influence of Integration on Children and Parents . . . . . . . . Teacher Qualifications Classroom Ratio of Handicapped Children to Non- -handicapped Children. Teachers' Attitudes Toward Main- streaming . . . . . Attitude Theory and Measurement Theory . Measurement III. PROCEDURES Selection of the Subjects Description of Instruments Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming Backgrounds, Experience and Willing- ness to Accept Handicapped Children . Knowledge About Mainstreaming and Handicapping Conditions . . Design . Data Analysis Summary IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECTS Profile of Teachers Summary vi PAGE 43 46 49 53 56 64 64 68 72 72 80 80 85 87 89 96 98' 102 102 117 g . PAGE ,ANALrsrs or RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . .‘. . . 127 Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 143 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 _Hypothesis ‘ I” Hypothesis .5. ,P. i ‘ Hypothesis .i-e9 { Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Til. . Hypothesis \OmNO‘m‘l-‘LDNH Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Summary of Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . 9199 “ 3- H.» SUMMARY, LIMITATIONS, FINDINGS AND «.fi'f IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Asig. .7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203, 13,99 '97, Limitations . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . 204. ' 'ilrumngs. ... .. ... .. ... .. . mm A-J,Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216; MyAPPENDICES................'..23.17". “"4" ‘9 ' ;}5 APPENDIX A Instruments . . . . . . . . . U3 .Support Letters to Subjects . c Codebook . . . . . . . . . . TABLE LA.) 9 s~ s~ to t» w u bk-l-‘L‘J—‘J-‘L‘b LAND-‘Ul-l-‘UN \oooxroxmb .11 .12 .13 LIST OF TABLES Design for Hypotheses 2, and 3 . 1 Design for Hypothesis 4 Design for Hypothesis 5 . Design for Hypothesis 6 Design for Hypothesis 8 Teachers in Each Type of Center . Ages of Teachers. Differences Among Teachers on Education Variables. . . . . . . . . . Amount of Education by Type of Center . Type of Degree by Type of Center Teaching Certificate by Type of Center Kind of Certification by Type of Center . Number of Years Teachers Attended College . College Major by Type of Center . Parental Status by Type of Center . Frequency of Teachers with Children who are Handicapped, Non- -handicapped, In Preschool, Not in Preschool by Type of Center . Significance of Variables Related to Teaching . . . Presently Teaching in a Class with at Least One Handicapped Child viii PAGE 90 92 93 95 97 103 103 111 112 112 TABLE 4.14 p .16 .17 .9 PAGE Ever Taught in a Class with at Least One Handicapped Child. . . . . . . . . . 113 Experience Interacting with Handicapped Children in Situation Other Than Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Months Teaching in Present Position . . . . . . 115 Months Teaching in Other Than Present Mainstreaming Position . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Differences Among Teachers on Items Related to Number of Inservice Training/Workshops and College Courses Taken in Specific Subject Matter Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Inservice Training/Workshops Taken on Meeting the Needs of Handicapped Children by Type of Center . . . . . . . . 119 College Courses Taken on Meeting the Needs of Handicapped Children by Type of Center . . . . . . . 120 College Courses Taken on Working with Parents of Young Children by Type of Center . . . . . . 121 College Courses Taken on Planning and Implementing Programs for Young Children by Type of Center . . . . . . . . . 122 Frequency of Inservice Training/Workshop and College Courses Taken on Nonsignificant Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Level of Significance of the Attitudes of Teachers Employed in Three Types of Centers on Three Attitude Scales . . . . . . 129 Means and Standard Deviations for Teachers by Center on Support for Educational Alternatives Attitude Scale . . . . . . . . 130 Analysis of Variance Table of Support for Educational Alternatives Attitude Scale by Type of Center . . . . . . . 130 Means and Standard Deviations of Teachers' Mean Combined Item Scores on the Benefits of Mainstreaming Attitude Scale. . . . . . . 133 ix TABLE 5.5 PAGE Analysis of Variance Table on Benefits of Mainstreaming Attitude Scale by Type of Center . . . . , 133 Means and Standard Deviations of Teacher Scores on Skepticism About Mainstreaming Attitude Scale by Type of Center. . . . . 137 Analysis of Variance Comparing Teachers' Mean Combined Item Scores on Skepticism About Mainstreaming by Type of Center. . . . . . . 137 Means and Standard Deviations of Teachers' Scores on the Survey of Knowledge. Mainstreaming and Handicapping Conditions by Type of Center . . . . . . 140 Analysis of Variance Comparing the Level of Knowledge of Teachers in Three Types of Centers . . . . 140 ANOVA Table of Main Effects for Type of Center and Experience on the Attitudes of Teachers Toward Mainstreaming . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 ANOVA Table of Main Effects for Knowledge and Type of Center on the Attitudes of Teachers Toward Mainstreaming . . . . . . . 144 Means and Standard Deviations for Teachers' Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming by Type of Center . . . _ 147 ANOVA Table Comparing Teacher Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming by Type of Center . . . 147 ANOVA Table Comparing Teacher Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming by Level of Knowledge About Mainstreaming and Handicapping Conditions . . . . . . 148 Means and Standrad Deviations of Teachers' Scores on Knowledge of Mainstreaming and Handicapping Conditions Regarding Their Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming . . . . . 148 Results of T- Tests Comparing Teachers' Mean Willingness to Accept a Handicapped Child by Amount of Experience if Offered No Additional Assistance . . . . . . 154 TABLE 5.17 Results of T-Tests of Severity of Handicap with Amount of Experience for Willingness of Teachers to Accept a Handicapped Child if Offered the Assistance of an Additional Teacher Aide . . . . . . . . . . Results of Paired T-Tests of Severity of Handicap with Amount of Experience for Willingness of Teachers to Accept a Handi- capped Child if Offered the Assistance of an Experienced Resource Person . . Results of Paired T-Tests of Severity of Handicap with a Low Amount of Experience for the Willingness of Teachers to Accept a Handicapped Child if Offered the Assist- ance of an Additional Teacher Aide and an Experienced Resource Person . . . . Results of Paired T-Tests of Severity of Handicap with Level of Knowledge for Willingness of Teachers to Accept a Handicapped Child if Offered No Additional Assistance . Results of Paired T-Tests of Severity of Handicap with Level of Knowledge for Willingness of Teachers to Accept a Handicapped Child if Offered the Assist- ance of an Additional Teacher Aide . . Results of Paired T-Tests of Severity of Handicap with Level of Knowledge for Willingness of Teachers to Accept a Handicapped Child if Offered the Assist- ance of an Experienced Resource Person . Results of Paired T-Tests of Severity of Handicap with Level of Knowledge for Willingness of Teachers to Accept a Handicapped Child if Offered the Assist- ance of an Additional Teacher Aide and an Experienced Resource Person . . . . Results of T-Test Comparisons of Grand Means of the Willingness of Teachers to Accept a Mildly, Moderately, or Severely Handicapped Child into Their Classes xi PAGE 160 164 168 176 180 184 188 L:-a--:"* LIST OF FIGURES Methods Used in Data Analysis Level of Willingness of Teachers to Accept a Handicapped Child by Amount of Exper- ience if Offered No Additional Assist- ance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level of Willingness of Teachers to Accept a Handicapped Child by Amount of Exper— ience if Offered the Assistance of an Additional Teacher Aide. . . . Level of Willingness of Teachers to Accept a Handicapped Child by Amount of Exper- ience if Offered the Assistance of an Experienced Resource Person. . . . Level of Willingness of Teachers to Accept a Handicapped Child by Amount of Experience if Offered the Assistance of an Addi- tional Teacher Aide and an Experienced Resource Person . . . . . . . . Level of Willingness of Teachers to Accept a Severely Handicapped Child by Amount of Experience if Offered Various Types of Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . Level of Willingness of Teachers to Accept a Handicapped Child by Level of Knowl- edge if Offered No Additional Assist- ance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level of Willingness of Teachers to Accept a Handicapped Child by Level of Knowl- edge if Offered the Assistance of an Additional Teacher Aide . . . . . . xii PAGE 99 152 158 162 167 170 174 FIGURE 5.8 Level of Willingness of Teachers to Accept a Handicapped Child by Level of Knowl- edge if Offered the Assistance of an Experienced Resource Person . Level of Willingness of Teachers to Accept a Handicapped Child by Level of Knowl- edge if Offered the Assistance of an Additional Teacher Aide and an Exper- ienced Resource Person . . . . . Means of Willingness of Teachers in Three Types of Centers to Accept a Handicapped Child if Offered No Additional Assist- ance . . Means of Willingness of Teachers in Three Types of Centers to Accept a Handicapped Child if Offered the Assistance of an Additional Teacher Aide . Means of Willingness of Teachers in Three Types of Centers to Accept a Handicapped Child if Offered the Assistance of an Experienced Resource Person . Means of Willingness of Teachers in Three Types of Centers to Accept a Handicapped Child if Offered the Assistance of an Additional Teacher Aide and an Exper- ienced Resource Person . . . . Grand Means of Willingness of Teachers to Accept a Handicapped Child . . . . Summary of Analyses xiii PAGE 182 186 191 193 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem The concept and practice of mainstreaming handicapped children into regular classrooms became a reality in Michi- gan with the passage of the Michigan Mandatory Special Educa- tion Act of 1971 (Public Act 198). This law required that all handicapped children between birth and twenty-five years of age be provided with special education and services in the public schools. The mandates of Public Act 198 were expanded upon and strengthened with the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142) by the United States Congress in 1975. This law was the result of a Congressional investigation which indicated that there were more than eight million handicapped children in the United States whose special needs were not being ade- quately met in the public schools and over one million handi- capped children who were not receiving a public education. Public Law 94-142 required that all handicapped children between three and twenty-one years of age be assured of a free public education in the ”least restrictive environment" according to their individual needs and abilities (U.S. Con- gressional and Administrative News, 1975; Federal Register, August, 1977). Given the fact that mainstreaming exists, educators would like to assume that they can articulate which par- ticular combination of variables or events need to be 2 present or occur within a classroom in order to claim that a mainstreaming effort is ”successful". It might also be assumed that mainstreaming is of value to society. First, most educators support the belief that early identification and intervention for young handicapped children is an important first step toward providing ”spe- cial" children with as ”normal” a life as possible while at the same time reducing the threat of their handicapping con- ditions becoming more severe due to inadequate attention during the early years (Siegel, 1969; Wynne, Brown, Dakof, and Ulfelder, 1975; Lewis, 1973; Weininger, 1973). Second, many early childhood educators believe that mainstreaming provides benefits for parents, teachers and non—handicapped children as well as for the handicapped child (Carlson, 1978; Bricker, 1978; Bricker and Bricker, 1978). Third, Bricker (1978) indicated that mainstreaming may have a positive affect on the attitudes of parents, teachers, other "normal" children, and the community toward handicapped persons and their ability to effectively function within society. In order for "successful" mainstreaming to occur, it is hypothesized that the following factors are necessary within any educational program. First, most educators be- lieve that the teacher must have a positive attitude toward mainstreaming and the handicapped child (Bricker, 1978; Lance, 1976; Guralnick, 1978; Klein, 1975; Bertness, 1976). Second, a review of research has shown that teacher 3 experience interacting with handicapped children in an inte- grated setting may have a direct positive influence on the attitudes of teachers toward mainstreaming (Carlson, 1975, 1978). It has also been suggested that such teacher exper- iences serve to increase their skills in observing and inter- preting ...what is and is not appropriate behavior and skill achievement for a given age (child)” (Wynne, et. a1., 1975, p. 58). Third, several proponents of mainstreaming have indicated that regular early childhood education teachers need an adequate support system (e.g. consultant help, teacher aide) to assist them in the successful implementa- tion of the mainstreaming process (Carlson, 1975, 1978; Kelin, 1975; Meisels, 1978). Fourth, it has been reported in the mainstreaming literature that if teachers are pro- vided with (or have) some knowledge about mainstreaming and handicapping conditions, they will more readily accept a handicapped child into their classrooms and feel more com— petent in their ability to meet the needs of a special child as well as the needs of the rest of the children in the class (Klein, 1975; Panda and Bartel, 1972; Gickling and Theobald, 1975). Finally, Carlson (1978) has stated that careful matching of the needs and characteristics of the handicapped child with the personality of the teacher and a classroom environment which will meet those needs is impor- tant for "successful" mainstreaming to occur. These hypotheses have not been adequately tested, thus indicating a need for a study in which each of these 4 variables is closely examined and analyzed. This study was designed to investigate and specify the relationship between knowledge and the experience of regular early childhood education teachers in two types of mainstreamed programs (PATHWAYS1 and Head Start) and community non-mainstreamed programs with respect to their attitudes toward mainstream- ing. Need for the Study Public Law 94-142 (the Education for All Handicapped Act of 1975) mandated the integration or mainstreaming of handicapped children into the least restrictive educational environment according to an individual child's capability to function within a situation. In accordance with the law, privately operated child care centers in Michigan are begin- ning to mainstream handicapped children into their programs. However, the knowledge and experience levels of regular early childhood education teachers related to meeting the needs of young handicapped children tend to be almost non- existent due to lack of training and experience in this area (Carlson, 1978; Ackerman and Moore, 1976). Information about the attitudes of teachers toward mainstreaming is relatively scarce. Additionally, very few IPATHWAYS is a demonstration project, based on the Michigan State University campus, concerned with providing a ”Human Support System for Integrated Handicapped Children and Their Families". The project is partially funded by the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, DHEW; Project Director: Nancy A. Carlson, Ph.D. 5 studies (Carlson, 1978; Bricker, 1978; Karnes and Teska, 1975) have mentioned or attempted to determine if a rela- tionship exists between the level of knowledge and degree of experience a regular classroom teacher needs to inter- act with young handicapped children and their attitudes toward mainstreaming. If integration is to continue, addi- tional research in these areas seems to be indicated. Studies by Johnston (1972), Gorelick (1973) and Abelson (1976) suggested that preprimary teachers were more or less willing to accept handicapped children into their regular classrooms depending on the type and severity of handicaps the children had and the amount or kind of support the teachers would receive in mainstreaming the children. The studies also indicated that the less severe the handicapping condition and the more support the teacher would be offered, the more willing the teacher would be to accept a special child into the classroom. If the teacher is offered less support and the child's handicap is more severe, the teacher may be much less willing to accept a handicapped child. These studies suggest a need for further research regarding the relationship between the knowledge and experience of teachers and the kind of support offered to teachers with respect to their willingness to accept (attitudes toward accepting) handicapped children into their regular class- rooms . Tr——————_- 6 Objectives The primary objective of this research is to investi— gate questions regarding the relationship between the know- ledge and experience of preprimary teachers who are employed in PATHWAYS (mainstreamed), Head Start (mainstreamed) and community (non-mainstreamed) child care centers and their attitudes toward mainstreaming. Specifically, answers to the following questions will be sought. 1. Is there a difference in attitudes toward main- streaming among preprimary teachers employed in PATHWAYS, Head Start and community child care centers? 2. Is there a difference in the level of knowledge about mainstreaming and handicapping conditions among preprimary teachers employed in PATHWAYS, Head Start and community child care centers? 3. Is there a difference in the amount of experience PATHWAYS, Head Start and community center teachers have had interacting with young handicapped chil- dren? 4. Is there a relationship between PATHWAYS, Head Start and community center teachers' level of knowledge about mainstreaming and handicapping con- ditions and their attitudes toward mainstreaming? 5. Is there a relationship between PATHWAYS, Head Start and community center teachers' amount of experience interacting with young handicapped 7 children and their attitudes toward mainstream- ing? To what extent are the decisions of PATHWAYS, Head Start and community center teachers to accept handicapped children into their regular classrooms affected by the kind of additional support they would be offered to assist them in the mainstream- ing process? To what extent do child care center teachers differ in their willingness to accept children with handi— caps of varying degrees of severity into their regular classrooms? To what extent do PATHWAYS, Head Start and com- munity child care center teachers differ in their willingness to accept children with handicaps of varying degrees of severity into their regular classrooms? To what extent are the amount of experience teach- ers have interacting with young handicapped chil- dren, level of knowledge teachers have about mainstreaming and handicapping conditions and their willingness to accept mildly, moderately or severely handicapped children into their classrooms affected by the type of assistance they would be offered to implement mainstreaming? H1: 8 Hypotheses The following hypotheses will be tested: There is no difference in PATHWAYS, Head Start and com- munity center teachers' attitudes toward mainstreaming. H11: H12: H1 H1 H15: H16: 4: Teachers employed in PATHWAYS centers will have higher mean combined item scores on the "support for educational alternatives" attitude scale than teachers employed in Head Start centers. Teachers employed in Head Start centers will have higher mean combined item scores on the ”support for educational alternatives” attitude scale than teachers employed in community centers. Teachers employed in PATHWAYS centers will have higher mean combined item scores on the "benefits of mainstreaming" attitude scale than teachers employed in Head Start centers. Teachers employed in Head Start centers will have higher mean combined item scores on the "benefits of mainstreaming" attitude scale than teachers employed in community centers. Teachers employed in PATHWAYS centers will have higher mean combined item scores on the "skepti- cism about mainstreaming" attitude scale than teachers employed in Head Start centers. Teachers employed in Head Start centers will have higher mean combined item scores on the "skepticism about mainstreaming” attitude scale H2: H3: H4: 9 than teachers employed in community centers. There is no difference in PATHWAYS, Head Start and com— munity center teachers' level of knowledge about main- streaming and handicapping conditions. H2 H22: 1: PATHWAYS teachers will have a higher level of knowledge about mainstreaming and handicapping conditions than Head Start teachers. Head Start teachers will have a higher level of knowledge about mainstreaming and handicapping conditions than community center teachers. There is no difference in PATHWAYS, Head Start and com- munity center teachers' amount of experience interacting with handicapped children. H31: H3 PATHWAYS teachers will have had a greater amount of experience interacting with handicapped chil- dren than Head Start teachers. Head Start teachers will have had a greater amount of experience interacting with handicapped chil- dren than community center teachers. There is no relationship among PATHWAYS, Head Start and community center teachers' amount of experience interacting with handicapped children with respect to their attitudes toward mainstreaming. H41 : The relationship between amount of experience interacting with handicapped children and the attitudes of teachers toward mainstreaming will be greater for PATHWAYS teachers than for Head H5: H6: 10 Start teachers. H42: The relationship between amount of experience interacting with handicapped children and the attitudes of teachers toward mainstreaming will be greater for Head Start teachers than for com- munity center teachers. There is no relationship among PATHWAYS, Head Start and community center teachers' level of knowledge about mainstreaming and handicapping conditions with respect to their attitudes toward mainstreaming. H51: The relationship between the teachers' level of knowledge about mainstreaming and handicapping conditions and their attitudes toward mainstream— ing will be greater for PATHWAYS teachers than for Head Start teachers. H52: The relationship between the teachers' level of knowledge about mainstreaming and handicapping conditions and their attitudes toward mainstream- ing will be greater for Head Start teachers than for community center teachers. There is no relationship among the amount of experience interacting with young handicapped children teachers have and the type of assistance they would be offered in mainstreaming a mildly, moderately or severely handicapped child with respect to their willingness to accept a handicapped child into their regular class- rooms . lib H6 H6 H6: H6 H6: 1: 2: 4: 11 Teachers who have a high amount of experience and are offered no additional assistance will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. Teachers who have a medium amount of experience and are offered no additional assistance will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. Teachers who have a low amount of experience and are offered no additional assistance will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more will- ing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. Teachers who have a high amount of experience and are offered the assistance of an additional teacher aide will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handi- capped child and more willing to accept a moder- ately handicapped child than a severely handi- capped child. Teachers who have a medium amount of experience and are offered the assistance_of an additional ”raw, H66: H6 H68: H69: may 9 12 teacher aide will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handi- capped child and more willing to accept a moder- ately handicapped child than a severely handi- capped child. Teachers who have a low amount of experience and are offered the assistance of an additional teacher aide will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. Teachers who have a high amount of experience and are offered the assistance of an experienced resource person will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than severely handicapped child. Teachers who have a medium amount of experience and are offered the assistance of an experienced resource person will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. Teachers who have a low amount of experience and H610: H611: H612: 13 are offered the assistance of an experienced resource person will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. Teachers who have a high amount of experience and are offered the assistance of a teacher aide and a resource person will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. Teachers who have a medium amount of experience and are offered the assistance of a teacher aide and an experienced resource person will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. Teachers who have a low amount of experience and are offered the assistance of a teacher aide and an experienced resource person will be more will- ing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. H7: 14 There is no relationship among the level of knowledge about mainstreaming and handicapping conditions teach- ers have and the type of assistance they would be offered in mainstreaming a mildly, moderately or severely handicapped child with respect to their will- ingness to accept a handicapped child into their regular classrooms. H71: Teachers who have a superior level of knowledge and are offered no additional assistance will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more will- ’ing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. H72: Teachers who have an average level of knowledge and are offered no additional assistance will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. H73: Teachers who have a below average level of know- ledge and are offered no additional assistance will be more willing to accept a mildly handi- capped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handi— capped child than a severely handicapped child. H74: Teachers who have a superior level of knowledge and are offered the assistance of an additional H7: H7 H77: H78: 62 15 teacher aide will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handi- capped child and more willing to accept a moder- ately handicapped child than a severely handi- capped child. Teachers who have an average level of knowledge and are offered the assistance of an additional teacher aide will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. Teachers who have a below average level of know- ledge and are offered the assistance of an addi- tional teacher aide will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moder- ately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. Teachers who have a superior level of knowledge and are offered the assistance of an experienced resource person will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. Teachers who have an average level of knowledge 1"" H7 H710: H711: l6 and are offered the assistance of an experienced resource person will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. Teachers with a below average level of knowledge and are offered the assistance of an experienced resource person will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. Teachers who have a superior level of knowledge and are offered the assistance of a teacher aide and an experienced resource person will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. Teachers who have an average level of knowledge and are offered the assistance of a teacher aide and an experienced resource person will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. “l H8: 17 Teachers with a below average level of knowledge and are offered the assistance of a teacher aide and an experienced resource person will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. There is no difference among PATHWAYS, Head Start and community center teachers' willingness to accept a mildly, moderately or severely handicapped child into their classroom with respect to the type of assistance H8 1: H82: H8 .they would be offered. PATHWAYS teachers will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than Head Start teach- ers if offered the assistance of an additional teacher aide than if offered no additional assist- ance. Head Start teachers will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than community center teachers if offered the assistance of an additional teacher aide than if offered no addi- tional assistance. PATHWAYS teachers will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than Head Start teach- ers if offered the assistance of an experienced resource person than if offered an additional teacher aide. H8 H8 . H8 H8 H88: 4: 18 Head Start teachers will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than community center teachers if offered the assistance of an experienced resource person than if offered an additional teacher aide. PATHWAYS teachers will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than Head Start teach- ers if offered the assistance of an additional teacher aide and an experienced resource person than if offered the assistance of only an exper- ienced resource person. Head Start teachers will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than community center teachers if offered an additional teacher aide and an experienced resource person than if offered the assistance of only an experienced resource person. PATHWAYS teachers will be more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than Head Start teachers if offered the assistance of an addi- tional teacher aide than if offered no additional assistance. Head Start teachers will be more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than com- munity center teachers if offered the assistance of an additional teacher aide than if offered no additional assistance. H8 H810: H8 H813: 11: 19 PATHWAYS teachers will be more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than Head Start teachers if offered the assistance of an exper- ienced resource person than if offered an addi- tional teacher aide. Head Start teachers will be more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than community center teachers if offered the assistance of an experienced resource person than if offered an additional teacher aide. PATHWAYS teachers will be more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than Head Start teachers if offered the assistance of an addi- tional teacher aide and an experienced resource person than if offered only the assistance of an additional resource person. Head Start teachers will be more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than com- munity center teachers if offered an additional teacher aide and an experienced resource person than if offered the assistance of only an exper- ienced resource person. PATHWAYS teachers will be more willing to accept a severely handicapped child than Head Start teachers if offered the assistance of an addi- tional teacher aide than if offered no additional assistance. H814: H8 H816: "H817: H818: 15‘ 20 Head Start teachers will be more willing to accept a severely handicapped child than community center teachers if offered the assistance of an additional teacher aide than if offered no addi- tional assistance. PATHWAYS teachers will be more willing to accept a severely handicapped child than Head Start teachers if offered the assistance of an exper- ienced resource person than if offered an addi- tional teacher aide. Head Start teachers will be more willing to accept a severely handicapped child than community center teachers if offered the assistance of an exper— ienced resource person than if offered an addi- tional teacher aide. PATHWAYS teachers will be more willing to accept a severely handicapped child than Head Start teachers if offered the assistance of an addi- tional teacher aide and an experienced resource person than if offered only the assistance of an additional resource person. Head Start teachers will be more willing to accept a severely handicapped child than commun- ity center teachers if offered the assistance of an additional teacher aide and an experienced resource person than if offered only the assist- ance of an additional resource person. H9: 21 There is no difference in the teachers' willingness to accept a mildly, moderately or severely handicapped child into their regular classrooms. H91: Teachers are more willing to accept mildly handi- capped children into their classrooms than moder— ately handicapped children. H92: Teachers are more willing to accept moderately handicapped children into their classrooms than severely handicapped children. Assumptions The following assumptions underlie this study: 1. An initial understanding of the relationships that exist between different levels of cognitive (knowledge and experience/application) and affective (attitudes, responding, valuing and organization) behaviors can be assessed using the "Likert-type" questionnaire and a survey technique. 2. Each affective behavior has a corresponding cogni- tive behavior to which it is related (Krathwohl, Bloom, Masia, 1964). 3. Early childhood education teachers share responsi- bility with parents for the education and social- ization of young children (Soderman, 1979; Karnes and Lee, 1979). 4. The positive (negative) attitudes of early child- hood center teachers regarding handicapped 22 children and mainstreaming are two of the factors which determine the success or failure of main- streaming efforts. 5. All Head Start centers are presently mainstreaming handicapped children into their programs in accord- ance with the mandates of Public Law 94-424 of 1972. Limitations of the Study This study is limited to the selected sample of teach- ers employed in PATHWAYS, Head Start and community child care centers in cities with between 50,000 and 197,000 people. This fact makes generalizability limited. However, general- izations to the population of the fifty teachers who were teaching in PATHWAYS are appropriate because all of this population was surveyed and a highly representative sample of thirty teachers was obtained. The use of an ex post facto research design imposed several limitations on this study. First, the "truth” of the hypothesized relationship between the dependent and independent variables cannot be asserted with the confidence of an experimental situation due to an inability to control the independent variables (Kerlinger, 1973). A second limitation of this type of research is the inability to randomly select and assign subjects to groups, thus the A‘subjects within groups are fixed. The a priori self- Aselection of subjects into groups is a third limitation of this research. History and maturation also limit the “.3 23 internal validity of this study (Kerlinger, 1973; Campbell and Stanley, 1963). The interaction of history and treatment affects the external validity of this study because the survey was con- ducted at the end of the academic school year when preprimary teachers tend to be extremely busy completing final reports on pupil progress, conducting parent conferences, and pre- paring to close the school for the summer or preparing for the summer session. These external factors have produced responses to the survey which may not have been evidenced at another time of the year (Campbell and Stanley, 1963, p. 20). That this study was conducted near the end of the aca- demic school year also limited the number of community and Head Start centers which could be selected and thus reduced the number of teachers available to participate in the study. This limitation resulted in a smaller sample size of Head Start and community center teachers than ordinarily would have been available. The validation procedures of the study are limited in that only one of the three instruments used in this study had been previously validated with subjects of similar char— acteristics to those subjects who participated in the study. The Integration Opinionaire had been previously validated and coding procedures standardized. Three attitude scales, each consisting of from five to eight items included in the Integration.0pinionaire were also determined to be reliable 24 with an Alpha Reliability score of .50 or above. These three scales were: 1) benefits of mainstreaming; 2) sup- port for educational alternatives; and 3) skepticism about mainstreaming. The Background and Experience Information and the Survey of Terminology; Mainstreaming and Handicapping Conditions questionnaires were only pilot tested on a small sample (n = 15) of child development teachers and students with a wide range of both knowledge and experience regarding handicapped children and mainstreaming. Furthermore, since the latter two instruments were developed by the investi- gator solely for the purposes of this study, methodological and coding procedures had not been established previously. The possibility of using complex statistical procedures such as multivariate techniques was also a limitation of this study. Such techniques could not be utilized due to the interval nature of the dependent variable willingness to accept a handicapped child into a regular classroom. This limitation explains the need for many additional alter- native hypotheses. Operational Definitions The following definitions of terms used throughout this study provide a common basis for understanding. Community non-mainstreamed center: an early childhood education center which serves preschool aged children but is not currently mainstreaming handicapped children into its regular classrooms. 25 Early Childhood Education Center or Child Care Center: ...means a facility, other than a private residence, receiving more than six preschool or school age children for group care for periods of less than twenty-four hours a day, and where the parents or guardians are not immediately available to the child. It includes a facility which provides care for not less than two consecutive weeks, regard- less of the number of hours of care per day. The facility is generally described as a child care center, day care center, day nursery, nursery school, parent cooperative, preschool, play group, or drop-in center. (Department of Social Services, 1977) For the purposes of this study, school age children are not included. Handicapped children: ...means mentally retarded, hard of hear- ing, deaf, speech impaired, visually handi— capped, seriously emotionally disturbed, crippled, or other health impaired children who by reason thereof require special education and related services. The term includes children with specific learning disabilities to the extent that such chil- dren are health impaired children who by reason thereof require special education and related services. (Federal Register, August 23, 1977) The definition as it relates to this study includes only those handicapped children between the ages of two and six years. Head Start mainstreamed center: an early childhood education center which is mainstreaming handicapped children into its classrooms according to the mandates of Public Law 94-424 passed by Congress in 1972 which states that ten percent of the children served in Head Start classrooms shall be handicapped. 26 Integrated: ”Containing a mixed population of handi- capped and non-handicapped children where curricular pro- gramming is apprOpriate to the needs of both” (Soderman, 1979, p. 14). Mainstreaming: The legislatively mandated practice of integrating handicapped children into the regular classroom (Meisels, 1978; Soderman, 1979). "Normal" children: This term is used synonymously with the terms "non-handicapped" and "typical" to refer to chil- dren between the ages of two and six years who cannot be labeled or defined as handicapped children. PATHWAYS mainstreamed center: an early childhood edu- cation center which is mainstreaming handicapped children with the support of the Michigan State University PATHWAYS Project. Teacher or caregiver: refers to an adult providing direct care, supervision, and guidance to children between two and six years of age in an early childhood education cent er . Conceptual Definitions Affective domain: encompasses those human behaviors which emphasize a ...feeling tone, an emotion, or a degree of acceptance or rejection" (Krathwohl, et. a1., 1964, p. 7). This domain includes the individual's interests, attitudes, appreciations, values, codes, principles or sanctions which are internalized and serve in the formation 27 of judgements and as guides of conduct (Good, 1959; Krathwohl, et. a1., 1964). Attitude: "...a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual's response to all objects and situations with which it is related" (Allport, 1935, p. 810). Cognitive domain: encompasses human behaviors which involve such intellectual (mental) tasks as remembering or recall of information, comprehension, problem-solving, syn- thesis, and evaluation (Krathwohl, et. a1., 1964; Bloom, 1956). Experience: refers to the length of time a teacher has spent interacting with (a) handicapped child(ren) between two and six years of age. Experience is determined by multiplying the total number of hours per week spent inter- acting with the handicapped chi1d(ren) by the total length (number of years/months) of interaction time spent with the handicapped child(ren). Knowledge: "Knowledge of specifics refers to types of information that can be isolated and remembered separ- ately..." (Bloom, 1956, p. 7). Knowledge, for the purposes of this study, refers to the preprimary teacher's ability to recall information (terminology, specific facts, cate- gories and classifications) related to mainstreaming and handicapping conditions as defined in the Survey of Terminologyu Mainstreaming and Handicapping Conditions 28 developed for this study. Level of Knowledge: refers to the degree which pre- primary teachers' have knowledge about mainstreaming and handicapping conditions as measured by the number of correct responses given on the Survey of Terminology: Mainstream- ing and Handicapping Conditions developed by the investigator for this study. Opinion: a verbal expression or index of an attitude which can be classified and measured along a continuum from positive to negative (Thurstone, 1967a, 1967b; Allport, 1935). Conceptual Orientation Attitude Theory The study of human attitudes appears more frequently than any other form of human behavior or phenomena through- out experimental and theoretical literature (Allport, 1935; Thurstone, 1967a; Rokeach, 1968). The definition of atti- tude provided by Allport (1935) will serve as the foundation for the conceptual orientation of this study. Allport (1935) defined an attitude as: ...a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual's response to all objects and situations with which it is related. (p. 810) According to Allport (1935), attitudes are formed through life experiences involving perceptions, imitations of others and traumatic situations. The experiences are supplemented 29 with individual behavioral patterns and conceptual systems which provide direction to the person's adaptive conduct. An attitude is related to, but is not, a belief or an opinion. Beliefs are components of and instrumental in the formation of attitudes. Alternately, opinions are verbal expressions or indexes of attitudes (Thurstone, 1967a, 1967b). Thurstone (1967a) suggested that an attitude con- sists of numerous beliefs which may be positive, neutral or negative according to the source of their information. Stereotyped or prejudiced attitudes, which tend to be highly controversial, generally exist on either the positive or negative end of a continuum. However, those attitudes which are formed as a result of socialization throughout child- hood and which often evoke the same response over a period of time are classified as neutral (Allport, 1935; Shaw and Wright, 1967). In addition to classifying attitudes according to their intensity, Allport (1935) contended that people's attitudes may also be identified as public or private. Public attitudes are those which are socially determined and most readily disclosed by an individual. Private attitudes are those attitudes which are often reserved within the individual's mind and are seldom revealed (Allport, 1935). Relationship Between Affective and Cognitive Behaviors Many well known psychologists believe a strong rela- tionship exists between the affective (e.g. attitudes, 3O interests, values) and cognitive (e.g. knowledge, problem- solving, evaluation) behaviors of human beings (Krathwohl, et. a1., 1964). Evidence of the strength of this relation- ship is presented in Scheerer's (1954) statement that: ...behavior may be conceptualized as being embedded in a cognitive-emotional-motivational matrix in which no true separation is possible. No matter how we slice behavior, the ingred- ients of motivation-emotion-cognition are present in one order or another. (p. 123) In a discussion related to the analysis of cognitive behavior, Rokeach (1960) pointed out that "...every affect- ive state also has its representation as a cognitive state in the form of some belief or some structural relation among beliefs within a system” (p. 339). Krathwohl, et. a1. (1964, pp. 54-56) recognized that not only are the affect- ive and cognitive domains interrelated, but often acog- nitive behavior may be used as a means to an affective behavior or even as a kind of prerequisite for the behavior ,and visa versa. For example, in the procedures of Carlson's (1975, 1978) studies on mainstreaming, the preprimary teach- ers were provided with knowledge or information (cognitive behaviors) related to interacting with and meeting the needs of young handicapped children and an opportunity to apply their learning (cognitive behavior) through actual exper- iences interacting with handicapped children in an inte- grated classroom setting. Prior to the acquisition of this knowledge and experience, the teachers were enthusiastic but somewhat skeptical (affective behavior) about their abili- ties to meet the needs of handicapped children in a regular 31 classroom. However, with increasing knowledge and exper- ience, the teachers tended to develop more positive atti- tudes toward mainstreaming and their abilities to meet the needs of both the handicapped and typical children in a regular classroom setting. The fact that increased knowledge and experience, as evidenced in the above example, does not always produce positive affective behaviors is reflected in Rokeach's (1956) argument that the degree of intensity and direction (positive to negative) of an attitude (affect) are directly related to the content of an associated cognitive object, plan, idea or phenomena. Krathwohl, et. al. (1964) also indicated that the relationship between affective and cog- nitive behaviors may vary according to the type and amount of learning experiences an individual has had. Therefore, one might conclude that if a teacher has had only content learning experiences without actual practical experience, the teacher may develop different attitudes toward main- streaming than a teacher who has had both types of learning experiences or a teacher who has had neither type of learn- ing experiences. However, the specific combination of and number of learning experiences which are necessary to pro- duce a positive affect is unknown and may only be hypothe- sized without further investigation into the relationship between affective and cognitive behaviors. 32 Ecological Perspective From an ecological perspective, teachers of young chil- dren are regarded as one component of a large educational system which provides support for the family ecosystem and society in general. Teachers provide input into the family ecosystem in the form of information about the child's growth and development and about the child's interpersonal relationships and interactions with other adults, children and objects within the educational system. As mentioned pre- viously, a combination of factors contribute to a teacher's acquisition of knowledge and to the development of atti- tudes about the development and education of young children. A teacher who was reared and socialized in a family system and environment which was open to the acquisition of know- ledge and to trying out "new" alternative forms of educa- tion may be more likely to desire to learn more about the individual and unique differences in children than a teacher who was reared and socialized in a relatively closed family system. Such teachers, those reared in an open system, would also be more likely to accept mainstreaming as a viable educational alternative for many young handicapped children, given the positive experiences and open views develOped while growing up. The family ecosystem acts as an interface between the child and his/her needs and the environment (e.g. the school, society, natural environment) in which the child resides. Therefore, both the educational system, including 33 teachers, staff and other parents and children, and the family ecosystem have a tremendous impact on the child's development and the types of opportunities that are made available to the child regarding the type of education and interactions the child will have with the environment. The degree to which the educational system, in this case the teachers within the system, and the family eco- system are open, closed or indifferent to the concept of mainstreaming young handicapped children into regular pre- primary educational programs depends on the attitudes and perceptions of these persons regarding the possible benefits and hazards such programs might present for the handi- capped child, typical children, and themselves. If either group of persons' believe that the possible hazards of main- streaming outweigh its benefits, one or both of the systems will either be totally closed to mainstreaming or attempt to regulate and control its implementation. On the contrary, when both the educational and the family ecosystems believe that mainstreaming will provide benefits for all of the children and, possibly, themselves which outweigh the possible ill-effects of such a program, the systems will be open to mainstreaming and its implemen- tation and will provide assistance to make such a program a success. Open systems provide greater opportunities for many handicapped children to function within a normalized environment and for typical children to become aware of and begin to accept individual differences among people. Open 34 systems also provide a situation through which teachers and parents can develop an even greater awareness of the simi- larities and differences, needs and abilities of all young children. PATHWAYS, one of the three types of programs par- ticipating in this study, has developed an ecosystem approach to the challenge of mainstreaming. PATHWAYS par- ticipation is voluntary on the part of teachers, centers, children, families and supporting agencies. Voluntary par- ticipation tends to contribute to openness in systems and also to the creation of the types of willing attitudes des- 'cribed above (Carlson, 1978). Overview Chapter II includes a review of literature pertinent to this study. Chapter III includes the selection of the sample, a description of the instruments, data collection procedures, the research designs and the procedures used for analysis of the data. A description of the subjects and related background factors is presented in Chapter IV. A description and discussion of the data and results are included in Chapter V. A summary, limitations, findings and implications for further research and instructional programs are presented in Chapter VI. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Four areas of literature pertinent to this study are presented. First, trends in the education of handicapped children are reviewed to provide a foundation for under- standing how education for the handicapped has evolved in the United States. Historical pattern and judicial deci- sions that are shaping the parameters for mainstreaming young handicapped children are examined. Second, contro- versies surrounding mainstreaming indicate the problems in- volved in the implementation of mainstreaming. Third, atti- tudes of teachers toward mainstreaming are reviewed to show how teachers are thinking about the education of young chil- dren in integrated settings. Finally, attitude theory indi- cates that attitudes are develOped through experience and the imitation of others. 'The review of attitude measurement shows that attitudes can be measured as opinions, which infer attitudes but do not predict overt behavior. Trends in the Education of the Handicapped Education of the handicapped child in regular public classrooms has been encouraged by educators for over one hundred years (Lance, 1976; Wynne, et. a1., 1975). The trend during the 19th Century and for at least half of the 20th Century was to incarcerate the handicapped in insti- tutions or to segregate them into large residential facili- ties thus excluding them from the mainstream of society 35 36 (Bricker, 1978; Lance, 1976; Heiny, 1971). Two trends which began in the 1940's, and which con- tinue to prevail among professionals, are: 1) "early identification of children with handicaps and developmental delays concurrent with immediate intervening programming and treatment” and 2) mainstreaming or integration, "meaning an effort to integrate, rather than segregate, exceptional youngsters with so-called normals in educational settings” (Abelson, 1976, p. 216). Elise Martens (1944) of the Office of Education wrote, "The concept of free public education for all children admits no exceptions,‘ and "no State program of services for exceptional children is complete until it includes them all, with preference for none" (pp. 1, 13). During this period, organizations, such as The Council for Exceptional Children and the National Association for Gifted Children, supported the concept of full services to all children by writing model legislation (Weintraub, 1972) and promoting innovations in education for the exceptional child (Lance, 1976). In the 1960's and 1970's, the movement towards equal education and full services for all children gained strength and momentum" In 1961, President Kennedy established the President's Committee on Mental Retardation to investigate special education programming and to determine the needs of the handicapped population in the United States. In the early 1970's, two landmark court cases estab- lished precedents for laws mandating the right to a free 37 and public education for all handicapped children (Gearheart and Weishahn, 1976; Bricker, 1978; Abeson and Zettel, 1976). The first, The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Chil- dren (PARC) v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972), involved a class action suit charging the state with alleged failure ...to provide all of its school age children who were retarded with the right to a free public education” (Abeson and Zettel, 1976, p. 219). The court ordered that all retarded children between six and twenty-one years of age be provided with a free public education. The decision of the court in the second case, Mills v. the Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972), required public schools to provide a free education to fill handicapped children, ”...even if they did not fit the educational mold" (Gearheart and Weishahn, 1976, p. 15). The court further ruled "...that lack of funds is not an acceptable excuse for excluding handicapped children from public schools” (Bricker, 1978, p. 12). Following these precedent setting cases, many Federal and state laws were enacted which solidified "the right to education" principle and encouraged the integration of handicapped children into the mainstream of public educa- tion. According to Abeson (1972), by 1972 nearly 70% of the states had adOpted mandatory special education legis- lation with each state defining specific handicaps and the ages of children to which the laws applied. All but two states had passed similar legislation by 1976 (Bricker, 1978). 38 Michigan's Mandatory Special Education Act of 1971 (Public Act 198) requires appropriate education and ser- vices for all handicapped children from birth through age twenty-five. This mandate also requires child placement and services according to individual children's needs and provided specific guidelines intended to protect the rights of handicapped children and their parents (Scholl, 1973). In addition to state mandates, three Federal laws have had an impact on educational opportunities provided for handicapped children. First, the Economic Opportunity Act Amendments of 1972 ensured that ten percent of the enroll- ment in Project Head Start classrooms would be handicapped. Second, Title IV-B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Public Law 89-313) provided states with assistance in initiating educational programs for handicapped children (Ackerman and Moore, 1976). Finally, in 1975, the Educa- tion for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142) was passed following a United States Congressional investi- gation into how handicapped children were being educated. The regulations of this law provided: 1) assurance that all handicapped children between three and twenty-one years have available to them a free appropriate public education; 2) assurance that the rights of special needs children and their parents are protected; 3) assistance to state and local governments to provide for the education of the handi- capped; and 4) means to assess and evaluate the effective- ness of efforts to educate handicapped children (U.S. 39 Congressional and Administrative News, 1975; Federal Regis- Egg, August, 1977). By fiscal year 1978, all handicapped children between ages three and eighteen were to have access to public education; by 1980, the age limit will be twenty- one (Bricker, 1978; Milbauer, 1977). Milbauer (1977) re- ported that two aspects of this law are of particular inter- est to regular classroom teachers: 1) that handicapped children will be placed in the "least restrictive environ- ment” according to their individual needs and abilities and 2) that each handicapped child will have an "individualized educational plan” (IEP) written by a qualified school offi- cial, the child's teacher, and parents, and, if possible, by the child. Abeson, Bolick, and Haas (1975) indicated that giving parents a legal process through which they can protect their children's educational rights and demanding parental participation in the educational planning and place- ment of their children should improve the accountability of many public school systems. To summarize, the education of handicapped children has progressed from isolation and incarceration in institutions to the provision of a free public education for all children under the law. Although vaguely supported in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, the concept of mainstreaming has only recently received substantial support from educators, par- ents, the courts, and state and Federal legislatures. Even though the laws have been passed mandating public education in the least restrictive environment for the handicapped, .40 controversies do exist as to how the laws shall be imple- mented and the effects mainstreaming has on teachers, chil- dren and families. Controversies Surrounding Mainstreaming Controversy among educators, parents and others on is- sues related to the relevance of mainstreaming are classi- fied into the following five categories: 1) alternative edu- cational environments; 2) assessment and labeling; 3) skep- ticism about the influence of integration on children and parents; 4) teacher qualifications; and 5) classroom ratio of handicapped children to non-handicapped children. Alternative Educational Environments. 'Educational op- tions available to young handicapped children include the child's home with parents providing instruction, segregated classrooms/education and complete integration (Wynne, et. a1., 1975). In segregated classroom settings handicapped children are taught separately (or isolated) from their non- handicapped peers. In what is called "partial integration", young handicapped children are placed in both integrated and segregated settings. In this instance, the child may inter- act with typical peers for part of a day and receive spe- cialized training related to his particular needs (e.g. mobility training for a blind child) during the other part of the day. The most controversial educational option now available to many young handicapped children seems to com- plete integration. "The most common feature of this type of setting is that all of the children in the program.are 41 involved in the same activities when they are in school, and that special resources (room, services, personnel) are available to all children in the program" (wynne et. a1., 1975, p. 20). Valletutti (1969), Reger (1974) and others reported skeptical opinions about integration as a worthwhile educa- tional placement for most handicapped children. Valletutti (1969) stated that: Segregation without program is just as destructive as integration without under- standing. Returning to an educational system which ignores the promise and possibility of the special class would disregard the imperatives of educational history, which have mandated an alternative to wide-range heterogeneity (p. 405). Reger (1974) warned advocates of mainstreaming "...that to place all handicapped children in classes with non-handi- capped children would put many handicapped children back where they were before the advent of special education" (p. 515). Wynne et. al. (1975) listed other reservations people have about integration. The authors proposed that parents and educators feared that the handicapped child: 1) would be harassed, ignored or isolated by the class; 2) would not develop a healthy self-concept; 3) would have his spe- cial needs ignored by the teachers; 4) might develop negative attitudes about himself and "normal" children be- cause of his mainstreaming experiences. Martin (1976) provided two reasons why a controversy 42 exists about which educational model is better--segregation or integration--in the following statement: Our present thinking about education for handicapped and nonhandicapped children may be based on two false assumptions: A) that handicapped children are a small discrete population, not central to the school's concerns, and B) that the learning prob— lems they present are unique and not rele- vant to regular education (p. 5). According to Bricker (1978), Martin's statement highlighted the belief that, in the case of most young children, one cannot categorize them according to handicapped or nonhandi- capped because of the differences in abilities and skills all young children are developing between birth and age six. Weininger (1973) indicated that in the special class, the child's specific disability is usually of prime concern, not the whole child. Weininger stated that: The child must be seen as a whole func- tioning individual with unique needs (p. 139)....We need to recognize...that none of his characteristics can be dealt with in isolation--at school, at home, or in the larger community (p. 140)....Unless we want to produce adults who cannot func- tion in the world, it is not wise to try to educate children apart from the world they must inhabit (143). This statement reflected the primary tenet of the con- cept of normalization as described by Wolfensberger (1972). The concept of normalization posits that children should be allowed to live and be educated in the most "normal-like" environment possible, implying that all children who have the ability to cope and learn in a regular school classroom should be placed there (Wolfensberger, 1972; Bricker and 43 Bricker, 1978; Weininger, 1973). The proponents of integration not only believe that most handicapped children can cope with and learn in a regular class, but also contend that both handicapped chil- dren, nonhandicapped children, teachers, and parents can benefit in many ways from integration (Carlson, 1978; Bricker and Bricker, 1978; Guralnick, 1978; Wynne et.al., 1975; Meisel, 1978; Planning Staff, ODC, Bureau of Educa- tion for the Handicapped, 1976). Assessment and Labeling. Two aspects involved in the mainstreaming controversy are related to the assessment tools and procedures used to identify handicapping conditions and the effect labeling young children as "handicapped" has on their lives. Siegel (1969) stated that many young children are inadequately diagnosed and treated, which often tends to cause their problems to intensify in magnitude later in life. Bricker (1978) stated, "The inability of diagnosticians to predict future performance of the young child based on the child's current repertoire is not encouraging” (p. 9). McCall, Hogarty, and Hurlburt (1972) and Bricker (1978) sug- gested that intelligence tests and social maturity instru- ments used by diagnosticians today are almost useless as predictors of the young handicapped child's future intel- lectual or social-vocational performance. These findings seem to warn educators against basing the planning of pro- grams and educational placement for young handicapped chil- dren strictly on the results obtained from such diagnostic 44 instruments. A second problem associated with the assessment of chil- H dren is that ...there are too few peOple trained in the process of identification, diagnosis and assessment of chil- dren under six, particularly those with handicapping condi- tions" (wynne, et. a1., 1975, p. 55). Educators who favor integration generally use some standardized measurements to estimate a child's level of functioning, but also employ more informal assessment procedures (e.g. checklists of be— haviors, observation) as collaborative evidence to describe .the child's repertoire of skills, behaviors, physical, socio- emotional and cognitive development (Carlson, 1978; Wynne, et. a1., 1975). Martin (1978) summarized many educators' concerns about assessment (or the lack of assessment) by cautioning that ...there is all too frequently a failure to evaluate carefully the child's progress toward specific educational objectives so that we will have to rely, as in the past, on our subjective judgements as to whether or not the child is, in fact, better off in mainstreamed settings (p. 70). Martin (1978) also suggested that any assessment used to determine a child's level of development must include all aspects of development, including socio-emotional develop- ment, since many of the positive aspects of mainstreaming are based within this area. The use of labels to describe handicapped children being mainstreamed into regular classrooms has been shown to have a detrimental effect on the expectations of teachers 45 for the abilities of children to perform in the classroom. Gillung and Rucker (1977) compared teacher expectations for handicapped children who are labeled with the expectations of teachers for children with identical behaviors who are not labeled. The respondents were asked to determine what the most appropriate educational placement would be for each child when they were presented with either a description of the child's behaviors with a label attached or without a label attached. The results indicated that both special education and regular classroom teachers tend to have lower expectations for handicapped children with labels and place these children more often in special class situations. Gillung and Rucker (1977) concluded that behavioral descrip- tions of a child without a label are particularly important when considering the placement of handicapped children into mainstreamed classes. Lilly's (1975) article on the use of labels to describe handicapped children supported Gillung and Rucker's (1977) conclusions. Lilly stressed that the use of labels: 1) may cause instructional problems for the handicapped H child; 2) enables educators to ...overgeneralize concern- ing individual children" (p. 168); 3) identifies the cause of repeated classroom failures as problems in the child rather than in the selected method of teaching or some other cause; and 4) often cause embarassment to the children because the labels are inaccurate. Lilly (1975) suggested that children's problems should be described as specific 46 observable behaviors. Furthermore, Lilly indicated that teachers should develop specific, achievable objectives for the handicapped child and teach to those objectives; pro- vide activities directed toward increasing the child's self- confidence; and evaluate student progress and performance in terms of growth from a previously identified level of suc- cess, not on the basis of other students' performance. Skepticism about the Influence of Integration on Chil- dren and Parents. The primary concern of most people when discussing integration is how it will affect handicapped and typical children and their parents. Many peOple fear that handicapped children in integrated classes: 1) will become isolated from the other children (Wynne et. a1., 1975; Carl- son, l978; Bricker, 1978) and 2) will be bullied and har— rassed by other children (Yaffe, 1979; Weininger, 1973; Syra- cuse University, 1974; MacMillan, et. a1., 1974). Evidence of isolation and harrassment was presented in Sheare's (1974) review of the literature related to the acceptance of mentally retarded students in elementary and secondary set- tings, but few studies support the view that such behaviors occur at the pre-school level. Results of Wynne et. al.'s (1975) study suggested that teachers did not believe small children were without biases, "...whether inherently or be- cause of cues picked up from their environment, and they must be taught to accept the deviant behaviors and/or appear- ances of others" (pp. 59-60). MacMillan et a1. (1974) pointed out that peer rejection was most often viewed as 47 resulting from the negative and/or aggressive behaviors exhibited by the handicapped children. Kennedy and Bruin- inks (1974) found that preprimary-aged children generally have less negative attitudes toward hearing impaired chil- dren than do older children. Weininger (1973) noted that most young children are generally acceptant of handicapped peers. Caldwell (1973) supports this observation. She says that: ...Young children are not so prone to isolate and segregate on the basis of any characteristic, whether it's the develop- mental level that a child has reached, his skin color, behavior patterns, or whatever. They have much more of the ability to accept one another than do older children and adults (p. 3). Yaffe (1979), Carlson (1978), Guralnick (1978), and Bricker (1978) indicated that both handicapped and typical children benefit emotionally and socially in an integrated setting. Yaffe (1979) also reported that emotionally dis- turbed children gained in their ability to cope with frus- tration and tended to act and appear more normal in their interactions with normal peers. Bricker and Bricker (1978) found that handicapped chil- dren acquire new responses from observing and imitating "normal" children's behavior. The authors suggested that most children selectively imitated each other's behavior most often during play. Guralnick (1978) observed ...No differences in constructiveness or appropriateness of normal children's 48 play when playing in a group with other normal children or in a group of children with widely varying developmental levels (p. 138). Results reported from the evaluation of the Handicapped Children's Early Education Program's (HCEEP) indicated that overall, the HCEEP projects had a positive impact on handi- capped children's growth in the areas of personal-social and cognitive development, adaptive behavior, and communication skills. The area of greatest growth was in the personal- social domain which included: 1) self concept, 2) social role, 3) expressing emotions/affect, 4) coping, 5) moral development, 6) adult interactions, and 7) peer interac- tions (Planning Staff, ODC, Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, 1976). Carlson (1978) reported that all handicapped children in the PATHWAYS Project centers showed improvement in emo- tional and social development. Carlson said that the ”... more severely handicapped children showed greater gains than mild to moderately disabled children in adjustment to school, interactions with teachers, and inner control/emo- tional development" (p. 77). The mild to moderately handi- capped showed more significant gains than severely disabled children in the areas of self concept and interactions with other children. Carlson (1978) also indicated that both handicapped and typical children benefitted from their inter- actions in a regular class setting. Parents according to Barnes' (1975), suggested that their handicapped children were more verbal, independent and 49 competitive as a result of their integration experiences. They also perceived that their children learned from and enjoyed interacting with typical children. Zigler and Hambleton (1976) conducted an observational study of two classes of young trainable mentally retarded (TMR) children who were moved from a special education set- ting to a regular public school. The children's interactions with typical children were observed in nonacademic (free play, playground) situations. A behavioral checklist was used containing thirteen categories of play ranging from solitary noninvolvement to cooperative play. The results indicated that: l) nonretarded children do not single out and deliberately victimize retarded children; 2) interac- tions involving only retarded children were mainly positive; 3) placement of retarded children into regular classes is effective in promoting reciprocal interactions between typical and retarded children; and 4) retarded children play, converse, help, intervene and comfort each other although less frequently than typical children in similar situations. Spollen and Ballif (1971) also concluded that regular classroom placement was effective for these chil- dren but warned that a great deal of attention to program and activity design was needed in order to obtain such an effect. Teacher Qualifications. More than 500,000 teachers are needed to teach handicapped children in the United States according to 1976 figures released by the Bureau of Education 50 for the Handicapped, Division of Personnel Preparation (Ackerman and Moore, 1976). Of the handicapped children needing services, approximately 18% were estimated to be preschool-aged. Ackerman and Moore (1976), using these fig- ures, estimated that there were an estimated total of 90,000 teachers needed to teach handicapped children at the pre- primary level. The fact that teacher training and certification in almost all states is preparation for teaching typical chil- dren and, therefore, does not provide the knowledge base for regular classroom teachers to work with handicapped chil- dren is listed by some educators as an obstacle to success- ful implementation of mainstreaming (Ackerman and Moore, 1976; Warnock, 1976; Martin, 1978). The results of Yaffe's (1979) study proposed regular class teachers believed that although there were difficulties involved in integrating handicapped children, many children (e.g. hearing impaired, legally blind, orth0pedica11y impaired) could participate in regular classes with relative ease. However, most teach- ers also believed newer teachers could cope with integra- tion more easily than teachers who had been teaching for a long time because the new teachers expected to have to inte- grate and had less well established teaching styles. The teachers in the Yaffe study expressed a desire for inservice training related to meeting the unique needs of the handi- capped and assistance in planning for special children. Carlson (1975, 1978) found that preschool teachers who 51 had been trained in Early Childhood Education were initially apprehensive about accepting a handicapped child into their -classrooms because of their lack of knowledge and experience in working with such children. When offered support and in- service taining, however, these teachers were more willing to attempt integration. Teachers with one yearof experience working with integrated handicapped children felt fairly secure in their ability to interact effectively with the handicapped children and still meet the needs of the entire class. Klein (1975) reported that when the Economic Opportun- ity Amendments of 1972 were passed requiring that ten per- cent of Project Head Start's enrollment be handicapped, Head Start teachers had many reservations and anxieties. Klein claims that the teachers worried about:' 1) their ability to meet the need of handicapped children; 2) acceptance of special children by their typical peers, and 3) having an inadequate base of knowledge such that they would have to get degrees in special education. The Head Start teachers said, after mainstreaming was initiated, that attending lectures and workshops sponsored by national organizations and agen- cies such as the National Easter Seal Society had helped them accept integration and learn about the characteristics and needs of handicapped children. In addition to in-service training Klein stated, By utilizing and building on knowledge of young children and child development, teachers are able to sort out things that 52 are related to the handicap and behaviors that pertain to other aspects of the child's development (pp. 321-322). The controversy related to whether regular or special education teachers are best qualified to teach handicapped children also includes the teacher's ability to teach appro- priate behaviors and needed skills to the handicapped child. Considering the type of training special education teachers receive (e.g. related to specific disabilities), educators in the 19th Century and most of the 20th Century believed handicapped children could best be taught needed skills and appropriate behaviors in self—contained, segregated class- rooms (Ackerman and Moore, 1976; Bricker, 1978). This atti- tude continues to prevail among some educators (Lance, 1976). Presenting an alternative point of view, Wynne et a1. (1975) stated, ...the teacher working with only 'spe- cial' children may lose perspective on what is and is not apprOpriate behavior and skill achievement for a given age. Mainstreaming tends to keep teachers in touch with what normal two-to-five year old children are doing (p. 58). To summarize, in 1976, approximately one hundred thou- sand preprimary teachers were needed to teach young handi- capped children (Ackerman and Moore, 1976). However, the present system used in colleges and universities to train and certify teachers to teach at the preprimary level does not provide the teacher trainees with knowledge or exper- iences related to interacting with and planning for meeting the needs of handicapped children. This fact is viewed by 53 ‘many educators as an obstacle to the successful implementa- tion of mainstreaming at the preprimary level (Ackerman and Moore, 1976; Warnock, 1976; Martin, 1978). Several educators have reported that the lack of know- ledge and experience of regular classroom teachers related to interacting with and planning for handicapped are at least partially responsible for teachers expressing skeptical or hesitant attitudes toward accepting such a child into their classes (Carlson, 1978; Klein, 1975; Yaffe, 1979). Such knowledge and experience, according to Wynne, et a1., (1975), is beneficial for the teachers, the handicapped and the typical children in the classroom as teachers become more aware of individual differences in behaviors and skills among the children. , 9 , Classroom Ratio of Handicapped Children to Non-handi- capped Children. Strategies for the implementation of the law at the preprimary level also is surrounded by controver- sy (Meisels, 1977; Carlson, in press). Specifically, this issue addresses the problem.of identifying an "ideal” ratio of handicapped children to non-handicapped children in the regular classroom, Meisels (1978) indicated that "...there is probably no 'ideal' ratio of classroom composition" (p. 5). Therefore, this question may be answerable only when the previously identified issues regarding mainstream- ing are resolved (e.g. most appropriate educational environ- ment; assessment and labeling; teacher qualifications; effects of mainstreaming on children and parents; amount and 54 kind of support teachers need to mainstream a child). Cur- rently, early childhood education programs throughout the United States are using different strategies to resolve this ratio issue. Each program tends to choose the ratio which best meets its own particular program needs. The Equal Opportunity Acts of 1972 mandated that ten percent of the children in Head Start classrooms be handi- capped thus resolving the issue of how many handicapped children per classroom would be adequate to meet Head Start objectives for mainstreaming. The PATHWAYS Project at Michigan State University has a ratio similar to that of Head Start. The rationale of the PATHWAYS Project supports the hypothesis that the integration of one or possibly two young handicapped children (in classrooms with highly trained and experienced teachers) is the most appropriate strategy for implementing a mainstreaming program. Carlson (in press) indicated that the rationale for such a classroom ratio is founded on the belief that: ...Individuals. specifically teachers, who are learning about aspects of handicapping conditions can understand and appreciate similarities and differences more easily and thoroughly when their learning exper- iences are related to only one child. When they learn how to design, implement and evaluate a program, then they can go beyond the stereotype. Then they can overlook the label. Then they can general- ize. For many individuals who are asked to take responsibility for a child con- sidered to be handicapped, it is much easier if that child can first be seen as a unique and special person instead of a child who is 'blind' or 'retarded' (pp. 4&5). 55 The beliefs of Head Start and the PATHWAYS Project re- garding what constitutes an appropriate handicapped child to typical child classroom ratio are not the same as the beliefs of many other early childhood education programs in this country. Programs such as High Scope, in Ypsilanti, Michigan, maintain approximately a one to one ratio of handicapped to non-handicapped children. Other programs such as the Precise Early Education of Children (PEECH) Project, located on the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana came puses, serve approximately a two to one ratio of handicapped to non-handicapped children (Karnes and Lee, 1979). Pro- grams such as the PEECH Project are engaged in what is commonly referred to as "reverse mainstreaming". These pro- grams integrate non-handicapped children into programs orié ginally designed for the handicapped (Bricker, 1978; Carlson, in press; Meisels, 1977; Wynne, et a1., 1975). The inclusion of a higher classroom ratio for mainstream: ing is supported by Meisels (1977) who assumes ...that the objectives of mainstreaming probably cannot be met if only one special needs child is enrolled in a regular class- room. This child eventually may feel isolated and segregated from the group (p. 6)- Wynne, et a1., (1975) concluded from their review of main- streaming programs and literature that "reverse mainstream- ing" programs may "...be more likely to provide design fea- tures that would account for the special needs of exceptional children" (p. 21). Given the wide variety of philosophies underlying early 56 childhood programs throughout the United States; the hetero- geneity of classroom pOpulations; the wide range of indi- vidual differences among teachers and children; and a diver- sity in the amount and kind of technical assistance avail- able for teachers in various communities, it may be futile to attempt to define an ”ideal" handicapped to non-handi- capped child ratio for mainstreamed preprimary programs. Many advocates of the concept of mainstreaming seem to agree that the best ratio is that which suits the needs and capa- bilities of the philosophy, staff and children of a program. The general trend is an individualized determination of classroom ratio. The criteria used for determining an appro- priate classroom ratio are similar to those used in the selection of apprOpriate educational placements for handi- capped children based on their individual needs and capabil- ities. Teachers' Attitudes Toward Mainstreamipg Several authors and researchers involved in investiga- tions related to integration or mainstreaming support Klein's (1975) statement that, "The teacher's attitude toward a handicapped child is the key to having the child accepted by the group" (p. 322). Since 1972, many reports and re- search studies have been prepared and conducted to determine the effectiveness of services provided to handicapped chil- dren in Head Start (Lapides, 1973; Syracuse University, 1974; Head Start Services to Handicapped Children, 1974). From these reports have come an overall view of Head Start's 57 ‘mainstreaming efforts and some general conclusions concern- ing the attitudes of Head Start staff toward mainstreaming. Conclusions stated in the reports reviewed indicated that: l) the development of positive attitudes among teachers responsible for handicapped children are probably of greater importance to the in-service training of Head Start staffs than are specific skills, technologies, or the use of spe— cial materials (Syracuse University, 1974); 2) although Head Start teachers had many reservations and questions when they first heard about integration, they have developed positive attitudes toward integration if provided with in- service training and information about handicapping condi- tions (Head Start Services to Handicapped Children, 1974, Klein, 1975); and 3) Head Start teachers believed inte- gration is beneficial for both handicapped and non-handi- capped children (Klein, 1975; Head Start Services to Handi- capped Children, 1974; Lapides, 1973). However, Ensher, Blatt and Winschell (1977), indicated that Head Start teachers in Michigan, who were normally con- fident in their abilities, had grave doubts about their ability to serve severely handicapped children (e.g. blind, deaf, severely retarded, and children with gross motor development problems). Ensher et a1. (1977) also reported that Head Start teachers were dissatisfied due to lack of support and special in-service training. Carlson (1975) conducted a pilot study of the atti- tudes of teachers and support personnel toward integrating 58 preschool handicapped children into Michigan State Univer- sity Laboratory Child Care Centers. The questionnaire Carlson and Wilson (1977) developed was designed to measure positive and negative changes in the attitudes of teachers and support staff in integrated classrooms for periods of one term (9-10 weeks) over a two-year span of time. An analysis of the data suggested that: l) the attitudes of teachers toWard integration, the handicapped child and their ability to positively interact with the handicapped child increased over time, from fear and hesitancy to posi- tive willingness to interact with the child and a desire for further experience in integrated classrooms and 2) the children integrated into each classroom tended to adapt very well to the "normal" children and to the regular class- room program within a one-to-two month period. As part of the PATHWAYS Project evaluation component, Carlson (1978) conducted a study on the attitudes of indi- viduals toward integration at the preschool education level. The investigation consisted of a survey of a total sample of 104 parents, teachers, PATHWAYS advisory council members, special education service providers and supporters, and citizens-at-large to determine their attitudes toward inte- gration. Responses received on the pilot Integration Opin- ionaire reflected teacher attitudes similar to those found in the 1975 study. More specifically, the survey findings indicated that: 1) teachers who have had experience work- ing in an integrated setting where external support was 59 provided had the most positive attitudes toward the integra- tion of young handicapped children into regular preschool classes; 2) teachers, more than any other group surveyed, believed that the attitudes of peeple toward the handicapped can be enhanced by providing opportunities for young handi- capped and typical children to interact in a natural, matter- or-fact way in an integrated classroom; and 3) teachers be- lieved the integration of handicapped children into regular preprimary programs has a positive impact on all children -- handicapped and non-handicapped. Teachers strongly disagree, more than other groups, with opinion statements related to: a) the inability of regular teachers to meet the needs of handicapped children and provide them with a total educa- tional experience, b) the inability of special needs and typical children to make friends and have positive interac- tions, c) mainstreaming being a frustrating experience for disabled children because they may not be able to do the things other children do, and d) that handicapped children are disruptive and undesirable models for "normal" children. Relative to the participation of teachers in PATHWAYS integration efforts, survey results indicated that, by the end of the 1977-1978 school year, the teachers were "some- what satisfied" with their participation in the project and almost totally satisfied with the "overall support of fami- lies" and their "relationships with the case facilitators” (liaison and support person for teachers and families). The teachers indicated that their initial reactions to working 60 with a handicapped child were neither secure nor apprehen- sive but might be classified as "neutral". When asked six months later how they felt about their ability to meet the needs of the handicapped child in their classroom, the major- ity of teachers indicated that they felt "quite secure". At H the end of the year, ...all teachers were very willing to work with handicapped children in integrated programs in the future" (Carlson, 1978, p. 81) under certain conditions. The conditions for accepting a handicapped child into their classrooms were: 1) consultant support, 2) limited class size, 3) adequate staff and equipment, A) adequate time to adjust and adapt to increased responsibilities incurred as a result of integrating a child into the classroom. Several investigators (Guralnick, 1978; Johnston, 1972; Galloway and Chandler, 1978; Condell and Tonn, 1965) have provided support for many aspects of Carlson's (1975, 1978) findings. Condell and Tonn (1965) conducted a study regard- ing teachers' willingness to teach retarded children. The results of their investigation showed that as teachers gained experience working with retarded children, their willingness to teach such children increased. Guralnick (1978) claimed in his study of mainstreaming efforts at the Experimental Preschool of the National Children's Center that: l) "...a significant independent, positive contribu- tion to the deve10pment of handicapped preschool children can be achieved through appropriate involvement in integrated programs" (p. 132) and 2) teachers believed both 61 handicapped and normal children benefit from their inter- actions in a regular preschool program. Directly related to the attitudes of teachers toward integration is their willingness to accept children with a variety of handicapping conditions into their classrooms. Lilly (1975) stated that "...the success or failure of main- streaming will depend primarily on the willingness and abil- ity of classroom teachers to make it work" (p. 168). Gorelick (1973) conducted a questionnaire survey of the willingness of directors in over 200 private nursery schools to accept referrals of children with handicaps. Gorelick also inquired about the nature of the handicaps the direc- tors would be willing to accommodate in their preschool pro- grams. Gorelick found that 83 percent of the respondents indicated a willingness to accept referrals of handicapped children. The types of handicaps indicated as most accept- able were: 1) partially deaf; 2) partially blind; and 3) mildly mentally retarded. The next most acceptable handicaps were: 1) orthopedically handicapped; 2) mild cerebral palsy; 3) epilepsy; 4) emotional disturbance; and 5) Down's Syndrome. The least acceptable handicapping conditions were: 1) profound deafness; 2) autism; 3) total blindness; 4) severe cerebral palsy; and 5) se- vere mental retardation. Reasons given by respondents who would not accept referrals were: 1) lack of staff with special training; 2) inappropriate facilities; and 3) lack of appropriate license. Gorelick noted that the 62 third reason given -- lack of appropriate license -- is not really a valid excuse for not accepting a handicapped child into a program. It is, Gorelick indicated, a misinterpreta- tion of the law by the center directors. Abelson (1976), in association with the Early Inter- vention Project at the University of Michigan, measured the readiness of preschool directors and teachers to mainstream handicapped children. Abelson's methodology included obser- vations in 45 preschools in the county, interviews with the director of each program, and completion of a questionnaire by the director of the center. The directors of all 45 pre- schools indicated that they would be willing to accept handicapped children into their programs. When asked to indicate which handicaps would be acceptable, the most highly accepted handicaps were: 1) speech delay; 2) hard of hear- ing; 3) mildly mentally retarded; and 4) partially sighted. The least acceptable handicaps were 1) confined to a wheel- chair; 2) upper extremity problems that would interfere with feeding and dressing; 3) blindness; 4) nonambulatory but able to crawl and sit in a chair; and 5) cardiac and respiratory conditions such as asthma where the level of the child's activity would have to be monitored. In response to the question, "Would you be willing to accept a child who is not yet toilet trained?", half of the respondents (22) said yes on the condition that there was a possibility of training the child in the program, and half of the respond- ents (23) said "no”. Twenty-five of forty-one centers in 63 which interviews were conducted indicated that they had pre- viously accepted handicapped children into their programs. In summary, the studies available suggest that teachers who participate in mainstreamed preprimary programs gener- ally have positive attitudes toward handicapped children and integration. It was noted, however, that the initial reac- tions of teachers to integration were somewhat hesitant but became more positive as they gained information about and experience working with special needs children. The willing- ness of teachers to accept handicapped children into their classrooms increased significantly when they were promised external support from persons trained in special education. The teachers in each of the studies reviewed believed that both handicapped and non-handicapped children benefit from an integrated preschool experience. Reports related to the willingness of child care center directors to accept handicapped children into their programs indicated an extremely high rate of positive responses. However, when the directors were asked to indicate which handicaps were acceptable, they unanimously selected those handicaps seen as "mild" as most acceptable and those handi- caps perceived as "severe" as least acceptable. These data provide preliminary indications that handi- capped children would be accepted by regular child care center directors and teachers. Further investigations into the areas of the attitudes of preprimary teachers toward mainstreaming are warranted in order to substantiate or 64 refute these findings. Theory and Measurement of Attitudes Theory. The study of human attitudes has been investi- gated and reviewed in the literature for more than half a century. In the past fifty years, several definitions of "attitude” have been posited (Rokeach, 1968; Thurstone, 1967; Shaw and wright, 1967). Rokeach (1968) defined an I! atittude as ...an organization of several beliefs focused on a specific object (physical or social, concrete or ab- stract) or situation, predisposing one to respond in some preferential manner" (p. 16). Thurstone (1967a) suggested that an attitude is ...the affect for or against a psycho- logical object" (p. 20). Shaw and Wright (1967) intimate. that attitudes are ...the end products of the socializa— tion process, (which) significantly influence man's re— sponses to cultural products, to other persons, and to groups of persons” (p. 1). Each of the above definitions, including Allport's (1935) definition (presented in the Conceptual Orientation), have at least one common charac- teristic. They all suggest that an attitude predisposes man "...to respond to social objects which, in interaction with situational and other dispositional variables, guides and directs the overt behavior of the individual" (Shaw and Wright, 1967, p. 2). Allport (1935) identified the following four conditions for the building of attitudes which have served as a basis for most of the theory and research in the area. First, 65 attitudes are formed through the integration of numerous experiences involving similar sensations, feelings or per- ceptions. Second, experience is supplemented with the segre- gation of behavioral patterns and conceptual systems which provide the individual with attitudes appropriate to the ”...direction of his adaptive conduct” (Allport, 1935, p. 810). The third source of attitudes is a person's re- sponse to a traumatic experience. Finally, attitudes are formed through the imitation of significant others in an individual's life, such as parents, teachers and peers. These conditions for the formation of attitudes imply the multi—dimensional characteristics of this concept which have caused considerable controversy as to their nature and defi- nition. The characteristics of attitudes have been described throughout research and theory literature. Attitudes, ac- cording to Shaw and Wright's (1967) review of literature H on attitude theory, ...are based upon evaluative concepts regarding characteristics of the referent object and give rise to motivated behavior" (p. 6); vary in quality and intensity on a continuum from positive to negative; are learned, rather than innate or a function of maturation; have specific social referents or classes; are inter- related to one another in varying degrees; and are fairly stable and enduring in nature. An attitude is related to, but is not, a belief or an opinion. An attitude consists of numerous beliefs which 66 may be positive, neutral or negative according to the source of their information (Thurstone, 1967). Beliefs are com- ponents of and are instrumental in the formation of atti- tudes. Opinions are verbal expressions or indexes of atti- tudes (Thurstone, 1967a). Thurstone (1967a) provided clari- fication of the difference between the two concepts, opinion and attitude. Thurstone (1967a) stated that The concept of attitude denotes the sum total of man's inclinations and feelings, prejudice or bias, preconceived notions, ideas, fears, threats, and convictions about any Specified topic (p. 77). An opinion, on the other hand, is merely a verbal symbol of an attitude. The cognitive component of attitudes renders them difficult or impossible to classify and measure (Allport, 1935). It is an individual's verbal account (opin- ion) of his attitude that can be classified and measured along a continuum from positive to negative (Thurstone, 1967a, 1967b; Allport, 1935). Traditionally, individuals who express negative opin- ions about what they believe are said to maintain stereo- typed or prejudiced attitudes toward some object or situa- tion. This is particularly true with regard to highly controversial subjects such as racial preferences or sexual equality (Thurstone, 1967a). In actuality, stereotyped or prejudiced attitudes may exist on either end of the con- tinuum. These attitudes are characterized as inflexible, stable, and intensely emotional such that they resist change and often distort an individual's perception and judgement 67 of a situation (Allport, 1935). Thurstone's (1928; cited in Thurstone, 1967a) study of the attitudes of Americans toward different nationalities reflected the characteristics of prejudice. The preference attitudes of Americans were either strongly affirmative or negative toward different national- ities. The attitudes were also homogeneous from coast to coast. Not all attitudes, however, can be classified as ex- tremely positive or negative. Extreme attitudes,which are formed as a result of socialization during early childhood or youth during which time stereotyped or "ready-made" atti— tudes are handed-down by one's parents or result from numer- ous experiences involving an object, evoke the same response over a period of time (Allport, 1935; Shaw and Wright, 1967). Some attitudes are classified as neutral. When an individual has had little or no experience concerning an object or situation, the attitude of the individual may be "neutral" toward the object. The individual does not believe or have an opinion one way or another (positively or negatively) about the object or situation. In addition to classifying attitudes according to their intensity, Allport (1935) contended that the attitudes of people may also be either public or private. Allport (1935) stated that ”Most people reserve for themselves the right to say one thing and think another" (p. 824). What a person says is often his "public" attitude (opinion) which is so- cially determined and most readily disclosed. Private 68 attitudes reflect what a person thinks. These attitudes are usually only discovered after long acquaintanceship or when a person candidly states his opinion on a subject (Allport, 1935). A person's opinions and thoughts may be the same, but are most often contradictory. Schanck (1932; cited in Allport, 1935) surveyed a population in an attempt to deter- mine their public and private attitudes toward institutional practices and policies. The results indicated that the private and public attitudes of individuals are often quite opposed to one another depending on whether the expressed opinions are given in the context of group membership or as a private individual. As members of a group, attitude re- sponses tended to be homogeneous toward their institution's practices and policies. Private attitudes were often moder- ate and variable and tended to resemble the attitudes of the general public. Measurement. The measurement of the attitudes of indi- viduals toward some object, idea, event, form of conduct or principle is the most common form of research in the behav- ioral sciences (Allport, 1935; Fishbein, 1967). According to Thurstone (1967a), the concept of attitude "...denotes the sum.tota1 of man's inclinations and feelings, prejudice or bias, preconceived notions, ideas, fears, threats and convictions about any specific topic” (p. 77). Attitude measurements, however, do not predict the overt actions of a person or group of people. They are merely indicators of 69 what people say they believe to be true about some desig- nated topic (Fishbein, 1967). Allport (1935) suggested that due to the affective na- ture of attitudes, they are impossible to categorize and measure. However, opinions, verbal expressions or indexes of attitudes, can be categorized and measured along a con- tinuum from positive to negative (Thurstone, 1967b). There— fore, what investigators commonly refer to as attitude mea- sures are in actuality opinion measures from which attitudes are inferred. The most frequently used methods of measuring atti- tudes require subjects to indicate their agreement or dis- agreement with a set of opinion statements about something (Thurstone, 1967a; Likert, 1967). The ”Likert-type" method of measuring attitudes requires subjects to rate opinion statements on a hierarchy scale (e.g. on a scale from one to five with one indicating that the subject "strongly agrees" with the statement and five indicating that the subject "strongly disagrees" with the statement) (Likert, 1967). Allport (1935) indicated that the Likert-type "...a priori method of scoring in arbitrary units (one to five) when applied to attitude scales often yields results as reliable as psychophysical scores themselves. The agree- ment between the two methods is nearly .90" (p. 831). Therefore, the measurement of attitudes can be accomplished fairly reliably by having individuals rate opinion state- ments related to some idea, object, principle, event or 70 action by using a Likert-type scale. Likert (1967) and Thurstone (1967b) suggested the following seven steps to be used in constructing a reliable attitude scale: 1) specify the attitude variable(s) to be measured; 2) collect a wide variety of opinion statements of desired behaviors related to the variable(s); 3) state and edit each statement so the wording is clear, concise and straightforward; 4) calculate or assign a specific numerical value to each statement; 5) pilot test items and eliminate some items by the criter- ion of ambiguity or irrelevance through the use of an item analysis; 6) select a shorter list of twenty to thirty opin— ion statements which can be evenly graduated on the scale; 7) test the internal consistency of the scale by comparing the response reactions of subjects that constitute one ex- treme of the scale with the response reactions of the group constituting the other extreme of the scale. The reasons why an item (statement) may be considered to be ambiguous, irrelevant or undifferentiating were out- lined by Likert (1967, p. 92). The reasons provided by Likert were that the: 1) statement may involve a different issue from the one involved in the rest of the statements; 2) statement may be responded to in the same way by practic- ally the entire group; 3) statement may be misunderstood by members of the group because of the way it was stated; and 4) statement may concern a fact which individuals who fall at different points on the attitude continuum will be equally liable to accept or reject. 71 The two attitude measures used in this study were of the Likert-type discussed in this section. The Integration Qpinionaire (Carlson, et a1., 1978) was developed and tested in the manner suggested by Likert (1967) and Thurstone (1967b). The "willingness to accept handicapped children" scale was developed in a similar-manner to reflect the de- gree to which teachers were willing to accept mildly, moder- ately or severely handicapped children if offered four dif- ferent types of support from their center administration. This measure was repeated for each type of severity of handi- cap in the final three questions of the Background and Exper- ience Information questionnaire (Appendix A). CHAPTER III PROCEDURES This chapter includes five areas: selection of the subjects, description of the instruments, data collection, research design and data analysis. Selection of Subjects The sample of teachers who participated in this study included teachers employed in two types of child care pro- grams which were mainstreaming young handicapped children (PATHWAYS and Head Start) as well as teachers employed in Community non-mainstreamed child care programs. Three reasons underlie the selection of teachers from two types of mainstreamed programs for comparison with non-mainstreamed programs. First, both the PATHWAYS and Head Start programs are federally funded projects which mainstream young handi- capped children, but each has basically different reasons why they are involved in mainstreaming. PATHWAYS is a fed- erally funded demonstration project under grant from the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped. The people who have become involved in this project have done so on a volun- tary basis in accordance with the guidelines under which it operates. Several of these guidelines distinguish the PATHWAYS project from Head Start regarding the procedures for placement of a handicapped child into a classroom: 1) generally, one, and no more than two, ”special" children are placed in any one classroom; 2) before a child who is 72 73 referred for placement or whose parents request placement is accepted into a classroom, a project staff member (case facilitator) and the child's parents review and observe the child's characteristics to determine if he/she is a "likely candidate" for integration and to determine if a mainstreamed experience would be beneficial for the child at that time. If they decide in the affirmative, then consideration is given to what kind of a program/classroom environment could best serve or meet that child's needs and abilities; 3) a child is not placed in a classroom unless the teacher is ready, willing to accept the child, and competent in his/her ability to work with, interact with and meet the needs of this child as well as the needs of the other children in the class. The teachers have a free-choice of whether or not to accept a child when asked; and 4) child placement and pro- gramming are matched and molded (fit) to meet the individual needs of the child. Special children are only placed in classes in which the project staff and parents believe the environment as well as the teacher's abilities and personal- ity fit the needs of the special child. Alternately, Head Start is a federally funded project which is mandated, under law, to maintain at least a one to ten ratio (10%) of handicapped to non-handicapped children in their classrooms. Head Start programs must accept and place all handicapped children (specified within the man- date) into their programs. There is very little if any chance to match child and program, and Head Start teachers 74 must accept the children who are recommended for placement whether they are ready or willing to accept such a child. Furthermore, all of the non-handicapped children who are accepted into Head Start programs are generally from a lower socio-economic level and class than are the children who attend PATHWAYS centers. Thus, the environmental stimu- lation and experiences afforded these children differ sig- nificantly. The teachers who participated in the study who were employed in community non-mainstreamed child care centers were believed to be representative of the majority of regu- lar preprimary teachers in the cities from which the sample was selected. It was believed that these teachers had very little knowledge about or experience with mainstreaming and would, therefore, serve as an adequate (control) group for comparison with teachers who were presently mainstreaming or had previously had experience and knowledge about mainstreamr ing. Two other criteria, other than type of center, were used as a basis for selection of the sample:1 1) the child care centers must be licensed by the State of Michigan; and 2) the teachers must be adults who are or have been respons- ible for providing direct care, supervision and guidance to children between two and six years of age. The centers were located in cities with population sizes between 50,000 and 197,000 people (Verway, 1978). The total sample consisted of seventy-nine preprimary 75 teachers. The entire population of teachers employed in mainstreamed PATHWAYS classrooms was sampled because: 1) PATHWAYS has outreach programs located in only two of the five cities from which the entire sample was being drawn and 2) the total population of PATHWAYS teachers consisted of only fifty teachers who were eligible to participate in the study, thus limiting the possibility of obtaining a large enough sample from this group if only a percentage of the population were sampled. Contact with the teachers was made through the center or program directors. Thirty re- sponses were received from a survey of the total popula- tion of PATHWAYS teachers. The selection of Head Start teachers was made through the local directors of Head Start in four of the five cities in which data were being collected. The local director of Head Start in the fifth city declined to distribute the sets of questionnaires to Head Start teachers in that area indi- cating that it was too late in the school year (the last week of school) to ask the teachers to participate in the study. This sample group consisted of twenty-eight teach- ers. Teachers employed in community non-mainstreamed cen- ters were selected in a manner similar to teachers from PATHWAYS and Head Start centers. However, the centers in which these teachers are employed were randomly selected from a list of licensed child care centers provided by the Michigan Department of Social Services. Those centers which 76 are participating in the PATHWAYS Project and in Head Start were eliminated from this list prior to random selection of the community centers. An additional difference in the se- lection of community center teachers and other teachers was that the directors of these centers were asked to select only one teacher from the staff who might be willing to participate in the study. This was done so that a wider variety of centers could be surveyed in each city. No teachers were selected from.one of the cities due to lack of availability of non-mainstreamed centers which were open during the summer. The total sample size of this group was twenty-eight. Prior to the collection of data, the following proce- dures were accomplished. First, the Director of PATHWAYS and the Outreach Coordinator of the project were personally contacted by the investigator. These persons each provided the investigator with a list of the centers, center direc- tors and teachers who were involved in PATHWAYS. Second, the local directors of Head Start in four of the five cities in which data were collected were contacted by the investigator. The purpose of the study was explained to the directors, the content of each questionnaire was dis— cussed and the cooperation of the directors was solicited in providing the names of the centers and teachers who were involved in Head Start in their area. The directors ex- plained that it was against their policy to provide the names of the teachers, but three of the four directors 77 volunteered to distribute the questionnaires to their teachers. The fourth refused, as mentioned previously. At this time, the director of Head Start in the fifth city was contacted by the investigator and c00peration was obtained. Thirty of the fifty sets of questionnaires which were sent to Head Start directors were completed and returned. Two sets of questionnaires were eliminated from the total sample for this group because of missing or uncodable data. The third pre-data collection procedure involved: a) obtaining a Directory of Child Care Centers (1979) from the Michigan Department of Social Services; b) extracting the lists of centers located in each of the five target cities from the total list; and c) eliminating all of the PATHWAYS and Head Start centers from these lists. This re- vised list of centers served as the sampling list from which the community non-mainstreamed centers were randomly se- lected using a table of random numbers. Ten centers in four of the five cities were randomly selected and the directors of the centers telephoned by the investigator. This list was revised when the investigator discovered that a majority of the child care centers in three of the cities were closing soon for the summer and the teachers would not be available to participate in the study. For this reason, additional centers operated on a full year basis in each of the five cities were randomly selected, replacing the centers which were closing. Given the final lists of centers and directors for each 78 of the groups, collection of data proceeded in the follow- ing manner. First, the investigator contacted each of the center directors by telephone and explained the purpose of the study. At this time, the directors of the community centers were asked if their program was currently main- streaming handicapped children. If the director answered "yes", the investigator thanked them for their time and eliminated them from the sampling. Alternately, if their reply was "no", the project was explained in greater detail and they were asked if they believed 222 teadher would be willing to cooperate in the study. A total of sixty sets of questionnaires were sent to teachers employed in commun- ity centers. The final size of this sample was twenty-one. Basically, the same sampling procedure was used in con- tacting and obtaining the cooperation of PATHWAYS teachers. For this group, however, the investigator mentioned that the center's participation in PATHWAYS was known and asked for the cooperation of all teachers in each center who were teaching in mainstreamed classes. If the director of the center replied that the teachers would probably be willing to participate in the study, the investigator asked how many teachers could be included and indicated that a package, including a separate set of materials for each teacher, would either be mailed or personally delivered by the investigator. Fifty sets of questionnaires were sent to PATHWAYS teachers and thirty were returned. As mentioned previously, the local Head Start directors 79 in four of the five target cities agreed to distribute the questionnaires to their teachers. Of the fifty sets of questionnaires sent to Head Start teachers, thirty were re- turned. Two of these were eliminated from the sample be- cause they contained a large amount of missing data or un- codable data, thus reducing the sample size of this group to twenty-eight. If the questionnaires and informed consent forms were not returned within two weeks after they were sent, the in- vestigator called the center director to find out: 1) if the questionnaire packets had been received at the center, and 2) when they might be returned. Collection of the data was completed in two months. In order to protect the identity of the respondents, only their social security numbers were requested at the top of each questionnaire. Since the informed consent form required the respondent's name, these forms were separated from the questionnaires upon their return and were filed separately. All participation by the teachers in this study was completely voluntary. Two additional forms of coding were placed on each questionnaire. Each type of center and each of the five cities were assigned the following color code: 1) PATHWAYS - blue; 2) Head Start - red; 3) Community centers - orange; 4) East Lansing/Lansing - black; 5) Flint - yellow; 6) Grand Rapids - brown; 7) Kalamazoo - pink; and 8) Jack- son - green. Two small lines, one indicating the type of 8O center and the other the city, were marked in the upper right—hand corner of each questionnaire to provide the in- vestigator with a means of determining how many returns were received from each type of center and city. Each set of materials sent to the teachers contained the following information: 1) a letter of introduction and ex- planation of the purpose of the study; 2) an informed con- sent form; 3) three questionnaires (Appendix A); and 4) a self-addressed, postage paid envelope. Description of Instruments Three instruments were used to gather data about: a) preprimary teachers' attitudes toward mainstreaming, b) background information, c) experience interacting with young handicapped children, d) willingness to accept handi- capped children into their regular classrooms and e) their knowledge about mainstreaming and handicapping conditions. Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming The Integration Opinionaire, designed by the PATHWAYS Project staff at the Institute for Family and Child Study, Michigan State University (Carlson, 1978), was one of three instruments used in this study. The purpose of the opin- ionaire was to elicit attitudes about the integration of handicapped children into early childhood education pro— grams. The Integration Opinionaire was pilot tested twice in order to elicit feedback from a wide variety of indi- viduals as to the validity of the statements and to 81 establish the reliability of the instrument. The original Integration Opinionaire contained forty (40) opinion statements related to various aspects of inte- gration. Items such as the following were included: A primary benefit of mainstreaming in early childhood is the opportunity it offers for typical children to learn how to interact with children of different skills and abilities. A disadvantage of mainstreaming is that it may be frustrating for a handicapped child to see other children doing things that he/she may not be able to do. Handicapped children can be best served by professionals specially trained to teach the handicapped. Parents of handicapped children would rather have their children placed in special class- rooms than risk potential unpleasant exper- iences with typical children. The Integration Qpinionaire uses a five-point Likert- type response format of "strongly agree", "agree", "dis- agree", "strongly disagree”, and "undecided". The instruc- tions for completion of the opinionaire indicate that the "undecided" category is to be used only if the respondent truly has no opinion about a statement. The first pilot test of the Integration Opinionaire took place during Spring, 1978. A total of 104 opinionaires were received from a sample of parents, teachers, PATHWAYS Advisory Council members, special education service pro- viders and supporters, and citizens-at-large (Carlson, 1978). The data were analyzed using a Varimax Rotated Factor Analysis to determine potential attitude scales. 82 Analysis results yielded four potentially reliable scales, with each scale consisting of three or more opinion items. The four scales were: 1) skepticism about integration; 2) realism of adult expectations surrounding handicapped children; 3) support for alternative educational environ- ments; and 4) benefits for "typical" children in integrated environments. The Alpha Reliability Coefficient for each of the scales was .75 or better except for the "realism of adult expectation" scale which had a reliability coefficient of .49. The reliability coefficient for the total scale was .79. Each of the four scales are substantiated in the liter- ature related to integrating handicapped children into pre— primary educational settings (Carlson, 1978; Guralnick, 1978; Johnston, 1972; Galloway and Chandler, 1978; Condell and Tonn, 1965; Panda and Bartel, 1972). Comparisons of across group responses on each scale item revealed significant differences among parents, teach- ers, advisory council members and citizens-at-large on cer- tain items. Teachers strongly agreed more than other groups on two items related to the effect of integration on parents of handicapped children and the enhancement of people's attitudes toward the handicapped. Teachers strongly dis- agreed more than other groups items related to: a) handi- capped children as undesirable models for typical children, b) the possibility of handicapped children becoming isolated in an integrated class, c) integration being a frustrating experience for a handicapped child, d) typical children's 83 unwillingness to interact with handicapped children, e) integrated programs not having enough structure to provide a total educational program.for a handicapped child, and f) who can best meet the needs of a handicapped child - a regular teacher or a teacher specially trained to teach the handicapped. Advisory Council members strongly agreed more than other groups that parents may keep a better perspective on what to expect in their children's behavior if handi- capped children are involved with typical children, and that adult biases toward the handicapped are more likely to occur in segregated than integrated settings. The advisory coun- cil members disagreed more than other groups with statements related to: a) parents of handicapped children being skep- tical about integrated programs, b) community support of integrated educational and recreational programs, and c) integration being more important at the elementary school level than at the preschool level. Parents disagreed more than other groups that only mildly and moderately handi- capped children should be integrated into regular programs. An item analysis of the original Integration Opinion- airs statements indicated that ten items had low correlation coefficients and were, therefore, considered to be undif- ferentiating. Given these findings, the opinionaire was modified omitting those ten undifferentiating items. The revision process also included rewording same statements which were identified by pilot study respondents as con- fusing and ambiguous. 84 The revised Integration Opinionaire contains thirty items and requires the same Likert-type responses to the opinion statements as the original version. This opinion- aire was pilot tested using a large (n = 1,000) sample of the Michigan Association for the Education of Young Chil- dren (MAEYC) membership during Winter, 1979. A total of ninety-six opinionaires were returned. The majority of re- spondents (49%) were teachers, 14.3% were consultants and 13.3% were child care center administrators. The data were analyzed using a Varimax Rotated Factor Analysis. The re- sults of this analysis yielded three attitude scales. The three scales and the numbers of the items included in each were: 1) support for educational alternatives (items: 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30); 2) benefits of integration (items: 1, 5, 9, 10, 17); and 3) skepticism about main- streaming (items: 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 15, 24). The Alpha., Reliability Coefficient for each of the scales was .90, .73 and .75 respectively. The revised thirty item.Integration Opinionaire (Appen- dix A) was used in this study to determine and compare the differences in attitudes toward mainstreaming among teachers employed in PATHWAYS, Head Start and community child care centers. The three attitude scales obtained in the second pilot test of this instrument were used in the study for the analysis of hypotheses concerned with attitudes toward main- streaming. An Analysis of Variance conducted to determine the 85 source of variation between and within people and between measures indicated that: l) the support for educational alternatives (support) scale was significant at .0001; 2) the benefits of integration (benefit) scale was signifi- cant at .0001; and 3) the skepticism about mainstreaming (skepticism) scale was significant at .0001. The Alpha Reliability Coefficient for each of the scales was: 1) sup- port .6922; 2) benefit — .7076; and 3) skepticism - .6342. The Alpha Reliability Coefficient for the total attitude scale was .6920. Background,_Experience and Willingness to Accept Handicapped Children The Background and Experience Information questionnaire (Appendix A) was developed by the investigator and surveyed information about the subject's: a) age; b) sex; c) racial and ethnic background; d) educational attainment; e) col- lege major; f) teaching certification and type of certifi- cation; g) parental status; h) amount of experience inter- acting with young handicapped children in teaching and non- teaching situations; i) experience with varying types of handicapping conditions in children; j) length of time employed in present position; k) present teaching position - i.e. in a mainstreamed or non-mainstreamed classroom; and l) attendance at workshops/inservice training sessions and college courses related to normal child growth and develop- ment, planning and implementing programs for young children, meeting the needs of handicapped children, and working with 86 parents of young children. In addition to the above items, this questionnaire contains three hypothetical questions regarding the willingness of teachers to accept mildly, moderately or severely handicapped children into their classes if they were offered one of the following four types of assistance from the school administration: a) no addi- tional assistance; b) an additional teacher aide; c) a resource person who has had extensive experience and train- ing working with young handicapped children to assist them in planning for and integrating a child; or d) both an additional teacher aide and a resource person. Three ”willingness to accept” scales were developed by combining the ratings of the willingness of teachers to accept a: l) mildly handicapped; 2) moderately handi- capped; or 3) severely handicapped child if offered four types of assistance. An analysis of variance conducted on each of these scales revealed the following information. The "acceptance of a mildly handicapped child" scale was sig- nificant at = .0001. The "acceptance of a moderately handicapped child" and the "acceptance of a severely handi- capped child" were also significant at = .0001. The Alpha Reliability Coefficient for each scale was: 1) acceptance of mildly handicapped child, .7398; 2) acceptance of mod- erately handicapped child, .6990; and 3) acceptance of a severely handicapped child, .8553. The ten teachers who were interviewed by the investi- gator were also asked the following question: 87 What are the reasons why you would not accept a handicapped child into your classroom? This open-ended question was asked to obtain some indication as to why preprimary teachers would not consider accepting a handicapped child into their regular classrooms. Knowledge About Mainstreaming and Handicapping Conditions The Survey of Terminology: Mainstreaming and Handi- capping Conditions (Appendix A) was used to determine the degree of knowledge the preprimary teachers had about main- streaming and handicapping conditions. This instrument was developed by the investigator with the assistance of Dr. Nancy A. Carlson. The format of the instrument was modeled after the Survey of Terminology: Learninngisabilities (1972) developed by the Great Lakes Regional Special Educa- tional Instructional Materials Center, Michigan State Uni- versity. The following process was used in the development of the Survey of Terminology: Mainstreaming and Handicapping Conditions. First, the investigator, having reviewed liter- ature pertinent to mainstreaming young handicapped children, made a list of approximately seventy words and phrases re- lated to mainstreaming and handicapping conditions. Second, a list of fifty items including matching terms, pairs of ”BETTER" statements, fill-in-the-blank and true or false questions was developed by the investigator. Third, the items were reviewed by a panel of experts in the fields of questionnaire design, child development, and special 88 education. All of the true and false questions were elimi- nated at this time due to the low (50 - 50) reliability and discrimination ability of such items. The formats of some of the true-false items were altered so they could be included in one of the other chosen formats. Fourth, the survey, now containing thirty-six items, was pilot tested with a sample of eleven persons who ranged in educational standing from a Freshman in college to professors of Child Development. These persons claimed to have "a great deal of knowledge" (n = 3), "some knowledge" (n = 3) or "very little” or ”no knowledge" (n = 5) about mainstreaming and handicapping con- ditions. The total number of correct responses possible on the survey was thirty—six, giving each item an equal weight of one point. 'Scores, on the pilot test ranged from 18 to 33. The length of time it took the pilot sample of respond- ents to complete the survey ranged from 11 to 30 minutes with a mean length of time of 18.8 minutes. After completing the survey, each respondent commented on the format of the survey and the readability and clarity of particular statements. None of the respondents recom- mended that an item be eliminated from the survey. Finally, based on the information provided from the pilot test, minor changes were made in the format of the survey and in the wording of particular items. None of the thirty-six items were eliminated from the survey. The final format of the Survey of Terminology: Main- streaming and Handicapping_Conditions contains thirty-six 89 items each scored with an equal weight of one point. The survey is divided into the following four sections: 1) matching (10 items); 2) pairs of "BETTER" statements (5 items); 3) fill-in-the-blank with the appropriate word (10 items) and 4) fill-in-the-blank by inserting the letter which represents the correct term listed above the state- ments (11 items). Design This study was descriptive and comparative in nature. The primary purposes of the study were to determine, describe and compare the attitudes, knowledge and experience of pre- primary teachers regarding the mainstreaming of young handi- capped children into existing child care programs. Another purpose of the study was to determine if the degree which preprimary teachers are willing to accept handicapped chil- dren into their regular classrooms is a function of one or more of the following four factors: a) the amount of exper- ience the teachers have had interacting with young handi- capped children; b) the severity of a child's handicap; c) the type of assistance (support) the teachers would be offered to assist them in the mainstreaming process; and/or d) the teacher's level of knowledge about mainstreaming and handicapping conditions. The following four designs were used in the study. DESIGN I: A one—way crossed design with a single fixed measure was used as a basis for analysis of Hypotheses 1, 90 2, and 3. This design is depicted in Table 3.1. TABLE 3.1 DESIGN FOR HYPOTHESES 1, 2, AND 3 Teachers Employed in Three Types of Child Care Centers PATHWAYS Teachers Head Start Teachers Community Center Teachers (mainstreamed) (mainstreamed) (non-mainstreamed) n = 30 n = 28 n = 21 The dependent variable for Hypothesis 1 was the mean combined item scores obtained from teacher responses on the Integration Opinionaire for each of three attitude scales. The three attitude scales were: a) support for educational alternatives b) benefits of mainstreaming c) skepticism about mainstreaming The dependent variable for Hypothesis 2 was the level of knowledge preprimary teachers have regarding mainstreamr ing and handicapping conditions. The three levels of know- ledge were classified as: a) superior a score between 24 and 36 b) average a score between 17 and 23 c) below average a score between 0 and 16 The dependent variable for Hypothesis 3 was the mean of the total amount of experience preprimary teachers have had interacting with young handicapped children. The three 91 levels of experience were classified as: a) High between 122 and 3,000 hours b) Medium = between 30 and 121 hours c) LOW’ between 0 and 29 hours DESIGN II: A two-way crossed design, fixed model, was used as the basis for analysis for Hypotheses 4 and 5. The independent variables for Hypothesis 4 were the three types of centers in which the teachers were employed and the amount of experience the teachers have had interacting with handi- capped children (3 levels). The dependent variable was the 'mean combined item scores of the teachers on the three atti- tude scales: 1) skepticism about mainstreaming, 2) bene« fits of mainstreaming and 3) support for educational alter- natives. The two-way design for Hypothesis 4 is depicted in Tabel 3.2. The independent variables for Hypothesis 5 were the ' three types of centers in which the teachers were employed and the level of knowledge the teachers have about main- streaming and handicapping conditions. The dependent var- iable for this hypothesis was the mean combined item scores of teachers on the three attitude scales classified as skep- ticism, benefits, and support. The design for Hypothesis 5 is presented in Table 3.3. DESIGN III: A nested design with repeated measures was used to test Hypotheses 6 and 7. This design was used to test for relationships between four independent variables with respect to the degree which all of the teachers were 92 AN u c mm u a on u a 304 3 x1 da 3A 533: us. mo 01.. 3 swam anacaaaoo uumum new: mw< 3onm mwmum>< HoHHmmnm zuwsdesou uumum emu: m><3=9H m mHmmmfiomwm mom zuHmmn m . m ”ma—mam. aBpaImoux go IaAaq 94 willing to accept a handicapped child into their regular classrooms. The five levels of the dependent variable, will- ingness to accept, were: a) always accept b) probably accept c) undecided d) probably not accept e) never accept These variables were arranged on a Likert-type scale with 5 indicating a response of "always accept" and 1 indicating a response of "never accept”. This measure was repeated for each kind of assistance offered and for each level of sever- ity of handicap. Design III with all levels of the independent variables for Hypothesis 6 is presented in Table 3.4. The insertion . of three levels of knowledge in place of the levels of exper- ience would present the design for Hypothesis 7. The ranges for both the levels of experience (in hours) and the levels of knowledge were presented in the discussion of Design II. DESIGN IV: A one—way crossed design with a single mea- sure was used as a basis for the analysis of Hypothesis 8. The independent variables were type of center and type of assistance the teachers would be offered in mainstreaming a child. The dependent variables were willingness to accept a mildly handicapped child, willingness to accept a moder- ately handicapped child and willingness to accept a severely handicapped child. TABLE 3.4 DESIGN FOR HYPOTHESIS 6 Severity of Handicap Severe Moderate Mild 95 HOSIBd aslnoseg 9 9PTV QJOH uosxaa aoznosaa aP‘FV Jeqoeal zloddns Is -u°13IPPV 0N uoszad aoxnoseg D aP'FV H308 uoszaa eclnosag aP‘FV Jeqoeal azoddns Is -u°13?PPV 0N uoszeg aoznosau 9 €va 1421021 uosxag aoxnosaa 9PTV zaqoeal axoddns Is -UOIJIPPV 0N Type of Assistance Offered High Medium eouerzadxg go IeAaq Low 96 Prior to depicting design IV, it should be noted that the dependent variable, mean willingness to accept a handi- capped child, was repeated over three questions for each type of assistance. Mean willingness to accept scores were available for EEEE.°f the respondents across all three types of severity of handicap (i.e. mild, moderate, severe). For this reason, the mean willingness to accept score for each type of severity of handicap was separately compared with the second independent variable (i.e. amount of experience, level of knowledge, type of center) for each hypothesis with respect to the type of assistance that would be offered. The method of analysis used were Ehrgg One-way Analyses of Variance. Design III is depicted for Hypothesis 8 in Table 3.5. Data Analysis The data obtained from all teachers on all instruments were coded, key punched on computer cards, and verified with the aid of a research consultant at Michigan State Univer- sity. The computer program used for analyzing the data was the Northwestern University Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The inferential statistical tests used in this study were One-WayAnalysis of Variance, Two- Way Analysis of Variance, and t-tests for differences be- tween means on repeated measures. The alpha level of sig- nificance for decisions regarding rejection of a null hypo- thesis was set at d = .05. 97 II Z am !| 2 mm ll Z on mm somumm mousommm can muw< umsommfi mu :Omumm mownommm an muw< Honommh on mocmumammd oz huacaaaoo unmum use: Hmucmu mo mmhh m mHmmmfiomV: mom szme m.m m4monono>mm AH v H H .nm humpaoomm Am v N H H zuoumHz Am v N N >onoHoom Am v N N «UHaocoom 050: Aq v m H H H xuoz HmHoom Am v a H M 0:02 Ac v m H a unmadon>mn nHHLQ \GOHumodnm .EmHm AHHV o q a H Hmnuo Ammv Hm m A m nOHumospm .EmHm AmmV cm s a ma .em nooeeHweo eHumm \uemeaon>mo eHwto Hat 2 z z 2 Hence Assameseo uumum emu: m><3me_H::EE:U m m _ HH munHm .221. N m m m><3=._.<._ 0'...‘ll|..|lI.l . I5.I:.|.‘.ul :oHpHHsu m:::> eta mariachi er.:oemH:E_ ere thrrrH; ”roach momuroo eme_cu .5 'itlll--ll II. . III IV: I‘ll“ ' 'II- ,lilllll 1-- Initllty'xi It'n‘li' Illlll 1"! H H H H H n N N H H N c n -'I ...l'u!!:l.lll‘ll' : -.ll'lnn. ..Ilullll. ltl >H 3.3.5.5: c m a c c N u.:~mm Home.— H c cH N H H H e H H m N H H H H H H I [I‘ll]!!! :outHH:c m::o> mo mucous; zqu m:quc3 q N m><3:._.<._ I'Ilu' {Inlll II-)I|:.|‘IIl-I I'llllll Iliu' . II I :I.l. ! : 5:116 .IAIl ”Err—m xuoeixcH: H .3... QUH>.~vm:H m .v n x H H SHEEEU c N a Human was: m m mH m><3=§o: ram rezouo 1Hqu Hmaucz I‘loalll‘ 11-51.... Ballrol: Iv-lllu ”eaczaxuo3\w:H:Hmua ooH>wmmtu l-.l!‘|‘ln.ltln"'"" II'..I ‘l'.. ulhlnl .‘1nllllt m H H H H m o H c anrnsaou m N H N N N N Q Ca Huxum 1cm: a c N m c N HH m><3=9<; :wunHHsu wcnc> new «fireman; wcHarmEmstH etc wchcmHL "maczmxuc3\w:H:_nu9 ooH>uoeru +o a N o n c m N H O iii. 3...; i. - 1 .5350 Nocwrrmum a: max? mmH= 82¢wmzH kc wozmzcmZL mN.¢ mneMH H.m «steam mocmHuodxm mo unnoa< son steam: ewe: J 4 ‘ oum>mm . mumuonoz . mm.N HH.m ..::\::::::\::\::\ma.m mHHz mo.q mm m \\\\\\\:\\\\\\\\Mm.q mo.q A L .__A- 1 a L. ILA- idaoov on ssauSurIITm go IaAaq 153 willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child (at = .000) and thus, alterna- tive hypothesis 3 was not rejected. Reviewed in Table 5.16 are the results of the paired t-tests comparing the mean willingness of teachers to accept a mildly, moderately and a severely handicapped child by amount of experience if offered no additional assistance in the classroom. According to Steel and Torrie (1960) it is possible to determine if main effects are present for variables and if an interaction exists between two variables from a graphic illustration of the variable means. With regard to main effects for the variable plotted on the X axis of a graph, if there is a change in the magnitude of means plotted on a line, there is a main effect for that variable. If the lines on which the means are plotted are sufficiently separated, there is a main effect for the variable plotted in the graph. In terms of treatment means presented in a two-way table, interaction may be a difference in magnitude of response or a difference in direction of response (Steel & Torrie, 1960, p. 198). The slope and separation of the lines graphed in Figure 5.1 indicate that there is a main effect for the amount of experience the teachers have had interacting with young children who are handicapped and a main effect for the severity of a child's handicap. The fact that the lines change in direction and are not parallel to each other suggests that there is a two-way interaction between amount 154 oH.n mHm cow. no.¢ 5% VHHEII .uo xm 30H com. am.N muo>mm Coo. mH ¢®.c Nam. oo.H aH m> mow. am.n mumuwtoz mom. mm.m oumhmtoz coo. wH mm.¢ mmm. cm. ©H m? was. no.q .uomfimflmmumz on. am.N ouo>wm coo. 0H Hc.c Noe. NH.H NH m> owe. HN.m memento: ewe. Hm.m machete: coc. oH om.m omN. no. NH m> 000 mm e .um xm—W H: i?E:H- .m.a H :oHumH>wa coo: :oHumH>mo new: 2 mHamHum> mo .me Ho o=Hm> numnnmum oocoumHuHa nuancmum 1J55 Nmo.a me.~ mto>mm coo. an as.“ . Asa. _ on. an m> . Hem. Ha.n euauoeo: .H. .m.: .H. COHUQHKVQG 2cm: COHUQH>®Q 3mm: 2 anmmum> Ho .me mo onHm> numccmum mocmuoumH: pumpcmum ApencHucoov oH.m mHaMH ~.m mesmee mocoHumnxm Ho unnoe< 30H aoHnoz :me J a q mpm>om . «N.m \qom mumumpoz . qw.m qw.m idaoov on sseufiurttrm go Iaaaq 159 teacher aide. Therefore, alternative hypothesis 6 was not rejected. The results of the paired t-tests computed between the means for acceptance of a mildly and moderately handicapped child and a moderately and a severely handicapped child by amount of experience if offered the assistance of an addi- tional teacher aide in the classroom are presented in Table 5.17. The graphed means in Figure 5.2 show a main effect for amount of experience and a main effect for severity of handi- cap. The magnitude of the main effects tended to change in a significantly downward direction between the willingness of teachers who had a medium amount of experience to accept a handicapped child and teachers who had a low amount of experience. A two-way interaction is evident for severity of handicap and amount of experience by the non-parallel positioning of the lines. The interaction effect points out the necessity to carefully evaluate all aspects regard- ing integration if all that can be offered is an additional teacher aide. H67: Alternative hypothesis: Teachers who have a high amount of experience and are offered the assistance of an experienced resource person will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. 160 Hma. cN.m oum>mm soc. Na ON.m wHN. He. on m> ems. em.n oumuopoz «mm. cm.m someone: cos. mm mn.m mum. me. an m> can. mm.c fiHHZ dwmmwm 30H mmo. cw.m th>mm coo. mH Nw.¢ mHN. on. OH m> woe. me.¢ wumhwtoz emq. me.q mumuopoz Ha. NH wa.N mmc. Nm. aH m> @NN. mo.q GHHZ .pomxm Eanmz mam. H¢.n ouo>om coo. cH oc.¢ HmN. mm. NH m> _ one. aN.¢ someone: ewe. @N.¢ summons: Ho. 0H oN.N NHN. Ne. NH m> ch. om.¢ pHHz .uwmxm :sz itI11Mi$: .m.: e :oHumH>mn row: :oHumH>on new: 2 oHanum> Ho .mHm mo man> pumpswum monohwuuH: pudendum maH< xm=oPH¢m>mm no mhmmhnh nmzHMH m.m musmae monoHumexm Ho unooe< sou steam: ewe: oum>mm . . .t/.\\\\\\a Ha.s oumuonoz . NmJW/////, / me. a XIII/1:: oo.m cm.q .ILHH- idaoov on sseuSurItrM go tenaq 163 handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child at the .02 level. A moderately handicapped child would also be accepted more often than a severely handicapped child (0‘ = .001). Therefore, alternative hypothesis 7 was not rejected. There was no difference in the willingness of teachers with a medium amount of experience to accept a mildly and a moderately handicapped child if offered the assistance of an experienced resource person. A significant difference at the .001 level existed for the willingness of these teachers to accept a moderately handicapped child more than a severely handicapped child. Alternative hypothesis 8 was rejected. Teachers who were offered the assistance of an exper- ienced resource person and who had a low amount of exper- ience were more willing to accept a mildly than a moderately handicapped child (¢( = .009). T-test results also indi- cated that the teachers were significantly more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handi- capped child at the .000 level. Therefore, alternative hypothesis 9 was not rejected. The results of the paired t-test comparisons of the mean scores discussed above are presented in Table 5.18. The slope, position and direction of the lines formed by the graphed means in Figure 5.3 indicate the presence of main effects and a two-way interaction for and between severity of handicap and amount of experience. It seems that the amount of experience teachers have interacting with 164 cow. c~.m oum>mm oco. Rm ow.n man. mm. mm m> Non. mm.c muouoco: . No“. Na.q assuage: ace. mm mm.~ NON. mm. mm m> den. mo.¢ sad: .pwmxm 3o; oao. -.c uum>om doc. mg mm.m mfia. on. ma m> mdm. am.¢ oumumpoz mam. mm.¢ momuocoz oo.d on o o Hfi. ma m> c oo.m cad: .uwmxm Bravo: nae. mw.m mum>mm use. ca o~.¢ «mm. om. Nd m> mac. mo.q mamumpoz mac. no.¢ mumuocoz No. cu mm.m cmc. om. m~ m> new. mq.¢ add: .uozxm :qu H .m.a H :ofiuou>wa cam: scuuoq>oa com: 2 odnwduo> uo .wam uo m3~o> pucvcmum mucououma: pumpcoum zomzmm moxSOmmx amozmHmmmxm z< no moz<9mwmm< mzh nmmmmmo mu GAHZU amam9Hmm>mm mo mHmMHJF nm¢~m4 q.m «usage oucmaumaxm mo ucooa< zoo eases: ems: d « « ono>om .III 0 o \!|\‘\0 mumumwoz ./ . . _ . es s - . mag: mfllwa . Illllllllllih mm c am.q oq.m mm.e .l....LlL..A- A-mmll adaoov on sssuSurTItm ;o IaAaq 168 «on. HH.¢ oum>om coo. mm o~.¢ «on. am. an m> Hem. mo.¢ oumuopoz Hem. mo.¢ oumuopoz moo. mm N~.m mom. mm. mm m> Ham. mw.¢ pawz H .m.o H cofiumfi>oa coo: coaumfi>mn com: 2 oHomwum> mo .me mo moam> pumosmum moconmmmwa photomum ZOmmmm momnommm QMUZMHMmme z< Qz< mnH< mmmomm ho mfimmfiufi QmmH memmmo mH mozmHmwmxm ho HZDOZ< rm DAHEU nmmm4mmm>mm < Emmoo< OH mmm=Umu m.m shaman mucoHHMme mo unsoa< sou asses: emu: QUGmumfimm< Hmaofiuaeee oz mewmxx/// . /////// ae.~ /. mmfi< Honomoe . o¢.~ «N.m .\\\\\\»\\m«.m comumm mouaomom o/ .\\\.\\\ . mofi< umsomme on m Il/ww\m\\\\\lxs\1l!11wm.m somumm mousomom 91/1/ .- . HH.¢ z/I/l/I/l/IIIHA\N\\\\\\\\\\\\\\WN.q q -LAAAA LA ndaoov on sseuSurIIrm go Ianeq 171 Figure 5.5, the results would yield similar conclusions. Thus, when offered as much assistance as possible, teachers are very willing to accept a handicapped child, regardless of the amount of experience they have had interacting with handicapped children or the severity of the child's handi- capping condition. Hypothesis 7 H7: Null hypothesis: There is no relationship among the level of knowledge about mainstreaming and handicapping conditions teachers have and the type of assistance they would be offered in mainstreaming a mildly, moder- ately or severely handicapped child with respect to their willingness to accept a handicapped child into their regular classrooms. Separate paired t-tests and means were computed for the willingness of teachers to accept a handicapped child with each type of severity of handicap by level of know- ledge and type of assistance they would be offered. There was a significant positive relationship between knowledge and willingness to accept a mildly, moderately or severely handicapped child given different types of assistance. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. These data are reviewed in Tables 5.20-5.24 at the end of each set of re- lated alternative hypotheses. H71: Alternative hypothesis: Teachers who have a superior level of knowledge and are offered no 172 additional assistance will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moder- ately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. H72: Alternative hypothesis: Teachers who have an average level of knowledge and are offered no additional assistance will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moder- ately handicapped child and more willing to ac- cept a moderately handicapped child than a se- verely handicapped child. H73: Alternative hypothesis: Teachers who have a below average level of knowledge and are offered no additional assistance will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moder- ately handicapped child and more willing to ac- cept a moderately handicapped child than a se- verely handicapped child. The level of knowledge about mainstreaming and handi- capping conditions teachers had was determined by the number of correct responses they reported on the Survey of Termi- nology: Mainstreaming and Handicapping;§onditions developed by the investigator and Dr. Nancy A. Carlson for the purpose of this study. Teachers who had a score between 24 and 36 were given a superior rating. Teachers with between 17 and 23 correct responses were labeled as having an average level 173 of knowledge, and teachers with between 0 and 16 were rated as having a below average level of knowledge. The decision rule was to reject the alternative hypothesis if the T value was significant at or above the .05 level. The means of the willingness of teachers to accept a mildly, moderately and severely handicapped child if offered no additional assistance are plotted in Figure 5.6 according to the level of knowledge the teachers had about mainstream- ing and handicapping conditions. Data from the results of the paired t-test comparisons indicated that teachers with a superior level of knowledge about mainstreaming and handi- capping conditions are significantly (at = .000) more will- ing to accept a mildly than a moderately handicapped child and are significantly (at = .000) more willing to accept a moderately than a severely handicapped child if offered no additional assistance in their classrooms. Therefore, alter- native hypothesis 1 was not rejected. A significant t value of 6.54 (:l = .000) indicated that teachers who have an average amount of knowledge and are offered no additional assistance are more willing to accept a mildly than a moderately handicapped child. A moderately handicapped child is significantly (<1 2 .000) more willingly accepted by the teachers than a severely handicapped child and thus, alternative hypothesis 2 was not rejected. The data show that teachers who are offered no addi- tional assistance and who have a below average level of 174- mozm4 rm QAHIU nmmmm4 e.m museum mwpoaaocx mo Ho>mq mwmum>< Bonm mmmuo>< Hoauwasm d d .- \‘/ mum>mm .\\\k\\\\\\\\ ¢¢.N ©©.N / Nm.N oumumpoz \\\\\\l\\\\\\\\\l:: mm.m was: .\\\:1:lxx\:x:1::x.:/;/;;/;;/z//:x;:; Hm.e m~.q . Nq.q ..Ll All; 1*LLA . ndaoov on ssauBurITrm go IaAaq 175 knowledge are significantly (°( = .01) more willing to ac- cept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and are more willing to accept a moderately than a severely handicapped child (°( = .001). Therefore, alterna- tive hypothesis 3 was not rejected. A review of the paired t-test comparisons computed for these three hypotheses is presented in Table 5.20. The method suggested by Steel and Torrie (1960, p. 198) was used to determine if main effects and a two-way inter- .action existed for these variables. The means plotted in Figure 5.6 provided the basis for such determinations. Given that there is a change in the direction of the mean willing- ness to accept a handicapped child across all types of severity of handicap, it is likely that there is a main effect for level of knowledge. The significant difference in the magnitude (degree) to which the teachers were will- ing to accept a handicapped child among the types of severity of handicap suggests a main effect for severity of handicap. Therefore, the level of knowledge teachers have about main- streaming and handicapping conditions and the severity of a child's handicapping condition have a significant impact on their willingness to accept a disabled child into their regular classrooms if offered no additional assistance. The nearly parallel nature of the lines suggest that there is probably no two-way interaction between level of knowledge and severity of handicap in this circumstance. H74: Alternative hypothesis: Teachers who have a 176 4m4 =hH3 mHH¢m>mm Lo mhmwhuh am¢Hom goo. mu oo.m com. um. o~ m> mmo.~ on.n oueuoooz mmo.~ on.m compote: do. ma no.~ oo~.~ do. o~ m> moo. _m.c o-z omww~3ocx mwoum>< 3o—o: moo.~ <¢.~ oum>mm ooo. on om.o coo. so. on m> omo. ~m.m oueumooz cmm. ~m.m machete: ooo. on on.o mam. so. on m> mmo. o~.q so“: :meodzomm owmuo>< o5“. ~o.~ ouo>om ooo. mm No.m Nos. no. «N m> cofi. n~.n monumooz com. mn.n oumuoooz ooo. mm o~.¢ dok. No. ¢~ m> own. ~¢.¢ odd: owomm3ocx Houuodsm a m.o h -20wumu>oo one: cofiuma>oo com: 2 odomuum> mo .w_m mo o3~m> oumocoum mucououuun ouoocoum moz<fim~mw< l77 superior level of knowledge and are offered the assistance of an additional teacher aide will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. H75: Alternative hypothesis: Teachers who have an average level of knowledge and are offered the assistance of an additional teacher aide will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. H76: Alternative hypothesis: Teachers who have a below average level of knowledge and are offered the assistance of an additional teacher aide will be more willing to accept a mildly handicapped child than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. In Figure 5.7 are the graphed means of the willingness of teachers to accept a mildly, moderately or severely handi- capped child by their level of knowledge when offered the assistance of an additional teacher aide in the classroom. The results of paired t-test comparisons of teachers who had a superior, average and below average level of knowledge with their willingness to accept a: l) mildly versus 178 MQH< mm:um4 >m QAHmU ommmdoHaz<= < Emmoo< OH mammomd ~.m spawns mwooa3ocx mo Ho>mq mwmuo>< Boamm mmmuo>< uofiumdom _ mum>mm . U m~.m om.m . M mumuoooz elllllilllillltlil:IIIIiIIIIIIIIIIMW m 1 mH.¢ mo q .. coax ::::;::::::;:::::: .:i::niinu:aa|11:|. I._A_A LLA - A ndeoov on sseuSurIIrm go Ianaq 179 moderately handicapped child; and 2) moderately versus se- verely handicapped child indicated that significant differ- ences existed among teachers at each level of knowledge for each of the two comparisons computed. Therefore, all three alternative hypotheses (4,5,6) were not rejected. The re— sults of these t-test comparisons are shown in Table 5.21. The change in direction of acceptance of a mildly handicapped child between teachers who had a superior level of knowledge and teachers with an average and below average level of knowledge suggests there may be a main effect for level of knowledge, particularly at the superior level. The difference in the magnitude of the mean willingness to ac- cept a handicapped child across all types of severity of handicap indicates a main effect for severity of a child's handicap. A.two-way ordinal interaction between level of knowledge and severity of handicap is possible given the non-parallel nature of the graphed lines in Figure 5.7. Therefore, it can be concluded that the decisions of teach- ers to accept or not accept a handicapped child into their regular classes are affected by the level of knowledge they have about mainstreaming and handicapping conditions and by the level of severity of the handicapping condition a child has if the teachers are offered the assistance of an addi- tional teacher aide. H77: Alternative hypothesis: Teachers with a superior level of knowledge and are offered the assistance of an experienced resource person will be more 180 occ.~ m~.m ouo>om doc. n~ em.c coo. co. o~ m> mmc. n~.¢ moouoooz moo. m_.¢ compote: no. ma nc.m coo. on. cu m> com. mc.¢ odd: owoodzozx ammuo>< zoqoo cmo.~ cm.m ouo>om coo. on ~¢.o mom. NN. on m> coo. mo.¢ ououoooz coo. mo.e ouocoooz coo. on o~.c amo. so. on m> one. -.¢ ado: omoom?o:& owmuo>< Hon. mo.m ouo>om coo. mN md.¢ com. ow. cw m> Nos. mm.¢ compose: «cm. an.c oomuoooz coo. mm co.~ mom. cm. on m> Noe. mc.¢ odd: owoodzozx noduocsm e .m.o H cauuou>oo coo: cofiooa>oc com: 2 odoouuo> mo .wqm co 03~o> oumocoum mucouoocwo oumocmom maH< xmzom4 thz mb~mm>mm mo mhmuh|P Qqumq rm QAHmQ ammmma m.m mesmfie owomdaocx co Ho>oa mwmuo>< 3oHom mwmum>< Howpoaam « d 1 y d U n m u ®Hw>mm . ./ U 2 m E . m / .. ma.o . oumuoooz - . /l cw.q qw.¢ .IIIIIIIII. A was: . .. .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMm.o g . . m mm o mm.¢ . L adaoov on ssauBurIIIM go Ianeq 183 teachers at two levels of knowledge. Teachers who had either a superior or average level of knowledge were sig- nificantly more willing to accept a mildly than a moderately and a moderately than a severely handicapped child if of- fered the assistance of an experienced resource person. Therefore, alternative hypotheses 7 and 8 were not rejected. Results of t-test comparisons showed no difference among teachers who had a below average level of knowledge about mainstreaming and handicapping conditions willingness to accept a mildly than a moderately handicapped child. Al- though a .000 level of significance was found for the will- ingness of these teachers to accept a moderately handi- capped child over a severely handicapped child, alternative hypothesis 9 was rejected. The results of the paired t-test comparisons are shown in Table 5.22. k‘ There is very little slope to the lines graphed in Figure 5.8 therefore, the chances of a main effect existing for level of knowledge is very slight. The difference in the degree of willingness to accept a handicapped child by severity of handicap indicates a main effect for severity of handicap. The lines are very nearly parallel, therefore, the possibility of an interaction between severity of handi- cap and level of knowledge is slight if the teachers are offered the assistance of an experienced resource person. H710: Alternative hypothesis: Teachers with a superior level of knowledge and are offered the assistance of an additional teacher aide and an 184 ’.iulllv'l'¢l.'ll"".|. IO" -- I'll- coo. m~.n ouo>om ooo. mu mm.o Noc. co. o~ m> ANN. cc.¢ moouoooz Nam. c<.c moouoooz No. m- m¢.~ MNc. on. co m> Kmm mm o o~_z ilizmwwmmmmmm owcuo>< zodon . coo. c~.m ouo>om ooo. on mo.n -~.~ co. on m> NCO. ¢¢.€ Udflkgfioz Q©@. ¢¢.¢ QUQHQQCZ No. om mm.~ wow. mm. on m> sac. -.¢ vac: wwwodzocx wwouo>< mac. -.¢ ouo>om coo. mm ~¢.¢ con. cc. cm m> woe. mc.€ Guano—so: mac. mc.c ocouoooz do. mm -.~ Noe. mm. «N m> can. om.o odd: wwmmmmmmm yewuooam liliflsizlizal:eI:I:IJflIIiII!!l-ddeMMmmm. cmaz :ooomcwmm. 2mm: 2 odomuuo> co .ocm .z.o cc osdo> oucozcnm mocouoocuo ouaozoom ZOmxm; mozDmem omozm~zmoxm z< no mcz<émmmm< mzh ommmubo hm Q;H:U omLomd =F~3 o9Hx2>mm no wemmbsb cmz~m4 rm quzo Qmmmm4 ¢.m muawae owcoazocx mo Ho>mq omoum>< Sodom mwmuo>< Hoauoosm « 1 q A U n ouo>om .Illltillrl. . oo.e . . cH.q U ououoooz .\ll\l\1illI\\ll\WWWWII/IIIIIIIIIII/.cm.q w ®©.+.Vvulllll‘.l:||\||\n||l. .wwoq . no“: ... .111111. a qo.q mm.q oc.q ndaoov on ssauBurITrm go IaAaq 187 with their willingness to accept a mildly over a moderately and a moderately over a severely handicapped child revealed no significant differences among the willingness of teachers with superior knowledge to accept a mildly over a moderately handicapped child. Although significant differences did exist for the latter comparison, alternative hypothesis 10 was rejected. The data show that teachers who had an average or below average level of knowledge were more willing to accept a mildly than a moderately handicapped child and more willing to accept a moderately handicapped child than a severely handicapped child. Therefore, alternative hypotheses 11 and 12 were not rejected. The results of the paired t-test com- parisons computed on this data are presented in Table 5.23. The slope of the lines in a graph, according to Steel and Torrie (1960), may or may not indicate a main effect for the variable on the X axis of a graph. In Figure 5.9, the fact that the lines slope downward from superior to average level of knowledge and both up and down from average to below average level of knowledge indicates a main effect for level of knowledge. The degree to which the lines are separated or the difference in the willingness to accept a mildly, moderately and severely handicapped child indicates a main effect for severity of a child's handicap. The non-parallel nature of the graphed lines indicates that there is a two- way interaction between level of knowledge and severity of handicap. The fact that the direction of acceptance shifts 188 In" 1... .Il I'l'lll. coo. cc.c ouo>oo moo. ma c~.o coo. no. o~ m> omc. oo.¢ ouauocoz cmc. mo.c ououoocz cc. n~ c~.~ soc. mm. cu m> cow. co.c cod: tilimmwmm3ocw ooouo>< Begoo Nmo. o_.c muo>mo oo. on no.~ moc.~ oq. on m> coo. om.¢ oocuoooz coo. cm.c «cocoooz mo. om cc.~ moo. om. on m> Noe. mo.c o_«z :mmmwwmmmw monum>< «no. om.¢ ouw>oo moo. mN oc.m coo. om. cm m> omn. oo.¢ ooouoooz omm. oo.: ouocoooz ca. mm mc.~ Now. oo. cm m> com. cc.c odd: omoo~3o=& Hoduocso h m.o a scuuod>oc zoo: coauofi>oo :mo: 2 oacouum> co .ooo co o3~c> ocoocmoo oocouoocuc oumocoom cmekmo kw 24~=U ammmm4 =H~3 mh~¢u>mm ho mhmmkxh cmmH<3=eoo . . III/o- . ~q.~ III/xlzlzlllllzll m mm.~ . W ououmooz mo.~ U ..u::n:::::::lxrzn. . w~.m omnM/I/I/I/I/I/II/Iz n mk.m _ no“: . . .1: U mm.q o~.q mm.¢ adaoov on sseuSurtIrm go Iaaaq 192 mnH< ¢m=Oe sofi:=EEoo uumum cam: mw<3mamo .IIIIIIIII J A mo.m IIIIIIII. n mm.m . .. . oumumcoz .lillilllllllllll. co m 4 .IIIIIIIIIIII. 1 oo.« . ,::I::. . HH 4 om.e W o‘llll‘lll‘llllllu1l‘l‘lv . ” coo: . H~.q oe.q A ndaoov on ssauSurIIrm go [snag 193 zommmm MUMDOmmm cmuzmHommxm z< ho moz<3meom ‘ d‘ dl m U ouo>om . H II/ 1 SA . {/74/ U oumuoooz mo o . 1 3E .illllixllno/lf A A - LkA-ALL ndaoov on sseuSurIIrM go IaAeq 194 zommmm MUMDOmmm QMUZMHmmmNm z< 92¢ maH< Mm=Umm oafiz . A A ‘ Ag; L EA 1 A A A ndaoov on ssauSurIIrm go IaAaq 195 teachers in each type of center are willing to accept a moderately or severely handicapped child if offered no additional assistance, an additional teacher aide or an experienced resource person. The lines in each of the fig- ures are not parallel, therefore, a two—way interaction is present between the type of center in which the teachers were employed and the severity of a child's handicap with respect to the willingness of teachers to accept a handi- capped child into their regular classrooms. Again, teachers in any type of center are willing to accept any handicapped child if offered maximum assistance. Hypothesis 9 ' H9: Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the teach- ers willingness to accept a mildly, moderately or severely handicapped child into their regular class- rooms. The grand means of willingness to accept handicapped children by all of the teachers were computed by adding the mean acceptance of a handicapped child for each type of assistance offered by severity of handicap and dividing by four. For example, the grand mean for acceptance of a mildly handicapped child equals the means of acceptance of a mildly handicapped child if offered no additional assist- ance plus an additional teacher aide plus an experienced resource person plus an additional teacher aide and an ex- perienced resource person divided by four. The grand means 196 are plotted in Figure 5.14. Paired t-tests comparing the grand means of the willing- ness of teachers to accept a handicapped child by severity of handicap, presented in Table 5.24, indicated that signi- ficant differences existed among the willingness of the teachers to accept a mildly, moderately or severely handi- capped child into their regular classes. The decision rule was to reject the H9 if the T values were equal to or greater than the .05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. H91: -Alternative hypothesis: Teachers are more will- ing to accept mildly handicapped children into their classrooms than moderately handicapped children. H92: Alternative hypothesis: Teachers are more will- ing to accept moderately handicapped children into their classrooms than severely handicapped children. The data indicated that the teachers were significantly more willing to accept mildly handicapped children than mod- erately handicapped children into their regular classrooms. The teachers were also more willing to accept moderately handicapped children into their classrooms than severely handicapped children. Therefore, alternative hypotheses l and 2 were not rejected. The teachers were, on balance, more than willing to accept mildly and moderately handicapped children. Those children with severe handicapping conditions 197 QAHIU cmmm¢oHQzom oum>om ououoco: flaw: a: 1 4| l‘kLA-‘JL A L ALLA L1 1 L PL 1 A L ‘lALL‘L A - L1.1.. gdeoov on sseufiurxxgm go Isnaq 198 ooh. om.m somuo>mm ooo. on oo.oH man. no. me m> sow. o~.o soooouoooz «om. o~.o sooumuoooz ooo. o5 om.a mom. oo. on m> woo. oo.o sHoHH: .H . .m .Q .H EOHUQHPMQ fimmz COHUMH>QQ Sam: Z @HJQHHQ> mo .wwo mo moam> cnmccoum monouommwc chocoouo compo mmmm<flo MHmIH OHZH QAHEU Qmmmmm mo >Ame Yes to T0 QUESTION 6b BELOW C ) No to T0 QUESTION 7 straw If you have a teaching certificate, what kind is it? Child Development Associate Elementary Education with Early Childhood Endorsement Preschool/Kindergarten Elementary Education Secondary Education Which disability area(s)? Other (please specify) Are you a parent?; (check one) ( ) Yes GO TO QUESTION 7.b. SELQW A ) NC GO TO QUESTION 3.3. BELOW If you are a parent, are you a parent of child(ren) considered handicapped parent or nonhandicapped child(ren) parent of child(ren) in preschool parent of child(ren) not in preschool Have you had any experiences (other than teaching) interacting with handicapped children from birth to six years of age? ( ) Yes GO TO QUESTION 8.b. ON THE NEXT PAGE ( ) No GO TO QUESTION 9.3. ON NEXT PAGE 233 Please complete :he following chart. In the tirat column. "Specific child”, write in the firs: name of each handicapped child you have interacted with. In tne second column, ”Type of Handicap”, indicate the type of handicapping conditi n each child had. In the third column, ”Amount of Interaction” indicate approximately how much time, in hours and minutes, you spent with each child each week. In the fourth column, ”Length of Interaccion in Years and/or Months", indicate the total length of time you (have) interacted with each child. Specific Type of Amount of Length of Handicap Interaction Interaction 3t name (hrs., min./ (yrs. &/or week) mos.) l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 3. 9. 10. 9. a. Are you presently teaching in a classroom with at least one handicapped child? ( ) Yes ()No b. How long have you taught in this position? years months c. Have you ever taught in a classroom with at least one handicapped child? GO TO QUESTION 9.d. ON THE NEXT PAGE /\ \J "3 W m 1" ) No 30 TO QUESTION 9.e. ON THE NEXT PAGE 234 d. How long did you teach in that classroom? years months e. If you answered ”Yes" to either a 35.3 above, please complete the follow- ing chart for each handicapped child you have taught. In the first column, ”Specific Child", write in the first name of each handicapped child you have interacted with. In the second column, "Type of Handicap", indicate the type of handicapping condition each child has (had). In the third column, ”Amount of Interaction”. indicate approximately 323 much tine, in hours and minutes, you spent with each child each wees. In the fourth column, ”Length of Interaction in Years and/or flonths”, indicate the coral length 3; time you (have) interacted with each child. Specific Type of Amount of Length of Child handicap Interaction Interaction (first name (hrs., nin./ (yrs. and/or only) week) mos.) 10. Approximately how many in-service training programs and/or workshops have you attended in the past two years related to: planning and implementing programs for children 2 to 6 years of age? normal child growth and development? meeting the needs of handicapped children? working with parents of young children? 235 Ul l_. Approximately how many college/university courses have you taken related to: planning and implementing programs for children 2 to 6 years of age? normal child growth and development? the education of and meeting the needs of handicapped children? working with parents of young children? . Given that you are asked to accept a mildly handicapped (e.g., Stutterer, partially sighted or mildly hearing impaired) child into your regular classroom, how would you feel about this request? Read each of the stated conditions and circle the number that expresses most closely how you would respond: 3. If you are provided with no additional assistance: 3 a 3 2 1 always probably undecided probably never accept accept not accept accept b. If you are provided with an additional teacher aide in your classroom: 5 h 3 2 1 always probably undecided probably never accept accept nor accept accept c. If a resource person who has had eXtensive training and experience working with young handicapped children would be available to assist you in planning for and integrating the child: S 4 3 2 1 always probably undecided probably never accept accept not accept accept d. If you are provided with the assistance of bath an additional teacher aide and a resource person: S 4 3 2 1 always probably undecided probably never accept accept not accept accept 236 0\ l3. Given that you are asked to accept a moderatelv handicapped (e.g., moderate retardation or moderately visually impaired) child into your regular class- room, how would you feel about this request? Read each of the Stated con- ditions and circle the number that expresses most closely how you would respond: a. If you are provided with no additional assistance: 3 A 3 2 1 always probably undecided probably never accept accept not accept accept b. If you are provided with an additional teacher aide in your classroom: 3 i ‘3 2 1. always probably undecided probably never accept accept not accept accept c. If a resource person who has had extensive training and experience working with young handicapped children would be available to assist you in planning for and integrating the child: o 4 3 2 1 always probably undecided probably never accept accept not accept accept d. If you are provided with the assistance of both an additional teacher aide and a resource person: S A 3 2 1 always probably undecided probably never accept accept ‘ not accept accept PLEASE CON“INUE ON REX: PA‘E 237 \‘ l4. Given that you are asked to accept a severely handicapped (e.g., deaf, blind or quadriple-ic) child into your regular classroom, how would you feel about this request? Read each of the stated conditions and circle the number that expresses most closely how you would respond: a. If you are provided wit. no additional assistance: a 3 2 l alw ys probably undecided probably never accept ccept not accept accept b. If you are provided with an additional teacher aide in your classroom: 5 4 3 2 1 always probably undecided probably never accept accept not accept accept c. If a resource person who has had extensive training and experience working with young handicapped children would be available to assist you in planning for and integrating the child: S a 3 2 1 always probably undecided probably never accept accept not accept accept d. If you are provided with the assistance or both an additional teacher aide and a resource person: 5 A 3 2 1 always probably undecided probably never accept accept not accept accept Social Security é ( \ " - \J "INTEGRATION" OPINIONAIRE The following statements reflect various opinions and beliefs that individuals hold toward ”integration” or the placement of handicapped children in educa- tional programs for typical children. When responding to these statements. note that the terms ”integratio and "mainstreaming" are used synonamOusly. Likewise, the terms "special” and "handicapped" are meant to be interchangeable and represent a variety of handi- capping or developmentally delayed conditions. Unless otherwise stated. please respond to the statements in the context of early education (birth through age six . Circle the response that best represents your opinion about the statement. Please use the response category ”undecided" only 5 you truly have no opinion about the statement.) a primary benefit of mainstreaming in early childhood is the opportunity it offers for typical children to learn how to interact with children of different skills and abilities. A handicapped child in a regular preschool program requires more adult attention than typical children require. Handicapped children disrupt the classroom and serve as undesirable models for typical children. When only one or two handicapped children are present in a regular program, they often become isolated. With supplemental services, the regular preschool program can provide the environment and modelin that stimulates a handicapped child's learning. a disadvantage of mainstreaming is that it may be frustr ting for a handicapped child to see other children doing things that (s)he may not be able to do. The attention and individualized help that special children get in segregated programs for the handicapped outweighs the value of the interaction with typical children in inte- grated settings. Ihe specialized instruction that handicapped children need cannOt effectively be provided by regular preschool and nursery school teachers. 238 Struugly Agree (I) 3. SA Disagree 0 Strongly Disagree m U SD Uuducldcd C: U C U U U ll. 1‘ .3. 19. 239 It may be an advantage for parents of handicapped children to be involved with typical children so that they can keep a balanced perspective on what to expect in children's behavior. It is reinforcing and rewarding for parents of handicapped children to feel that their child is accepted and capable o f functioning in a regular classroom. in integrated preschool experience for a handicapped chil may help stimulate social and language development, but isn't stru tured enough to provide a total educational experience. "The least restrictive environment” is one in which the handi- capped child is treated as auch like a typical child as possible. Handicapped children require almost constant one-‘n-one atten— tion from a teacher in order to achieve their individualized learning objective. Handicapped children can be best served by professionals specially trained to teach the handicapped. Most regular teachers are not able to handle a whole classroom of typical kids as well as the demands of one or two children with special needs. Regular teachers experienced in working with handicapped chil- dren are better able to recognize the needs of typical children. Mainstreaming provides an opportunity for typical children to realize that handicapped children have feelings and thoughts just like they do. Since many young, handicapped children need care during the day in addition to special educational experiences, financial and professional assistance must be made available to family and center day care providers. The public schools should provide the resources and professional services so that young handicapped children have a variety of alternative educational environments available for them. Xany young handicapped children could benefit from placement in both specialized environments and integrated environments to maximize growth.in all areas of development. Slruugly Aglcc A'rcc A Disagree U [cc Strongly Divas m U SD SD SD SD Undue Idud (.3 '0 'J U 30. 240 Only mildly and moderately handicapped children should be placed in programs with typical children. A good way to enhance people's attitudes toward the handicapped is to have children make contact with the handicapped in natural, matter-of-Eact ways while they are still young. Adult biases. stereotypes and underestimations of special children’s abilities are more likely to occur in segregated than integrated settings. Handicapped children are more likely to gr pendence and confidence in a segregated re integrated setting. ow in inde- that than Parents who wish to have their special child enrolled in regular preschool programs should receive the same services and financial support to their child's edu- cation as parents who enroll their child in programs for special children only. Most communities are doing a good job of including handicapped children in educational and recreational programs designed for typical children. Cooperation between community agencies is not necessary in order to effectively meet the needs of special children. Each handicapped child needs an individually designed program. Parents of handicapped children would rather have their children placed in special classrooms than risk potential unpleasant experiences with typical children. Efforts to mainstream handicapped children during the preschool years are at least as important as mainstreaming during the elementary school years. Strongly Agree SA SA SA U) 3, Agree Disagree 0 Strongly Disagree m U SD Experimental Instrument deve_cped at Institute for Family and C.ild Study, Michigan State University. Sept.-Oct., 1973. l'lltltitl it‘l:tl (I U Social Security * O\ a SURVEY OF TEREINOLOGY; MAINSTREAMING AND HANDICAPPING CONDITIONS Below is a set of terms and descriptive phrases. phrase below that best describes it. space provided. can mainstreaming 2.2.3. ?.L. 94-142 audiologist E.P.P.C. PHRASES written educational plan for each handicapped child detailing how special education and related services will be provided can be determined as young as age two decides educational placement and objectives for a handicapped child associated with positive rein- forcement evaluates extent of physical disability under physician's direction placement of handicapped child into the least restrictive environment term occasionally used to describe learning disabilities fits individuals with hearing aids 9. 10. 13. For each term select the Enter the appropriate number in the (There are 6 extra phrases below) IQ behavior modification physical therapist minimal brain dysfunction hyperactive a handicapped child in a regular classroom mandates a free appropriate public education for handicapped children conducts screening and diagnosis of hearing problems child who constantly squirms, turns, and twists, and has about a lO - 20 second attention span helps build special equipment used for locomocion (e.g. braces, crutches, etc.) used as an indication of intel- lectual functioning Environment Planning and Pro- tection Clause mandates services to handicapped children from birth to 13 years. GO TO THE HEX? PAGE PLEASE II. 242 In the following pairs of sentences, certain teams and phrases are underlined. In each pair, one sentence reflects the better or most accurate use of the term/phrase. ?lease circle the word "better” in front of the sentence that uses the underlined term/phrase in a more appropriate or accurate way. Better: A handicapped child if placed in a least restrictive environment will be placed in a regular educational setting. Better: A handicapped child if placed in a least restrictive environment will be placed in an educational setting that will meet his/her individual needs and abilities. Better: In Michigan, the Federal and srate mandatory special education laws prohibit reimbursement of private child care centers for services provided to handicapped children unless they are placed by the special education agency. Better: In Michigan, the Federal and state mandatory special education ltws allow for some reimbursement of private child care centers for services provided to handicapped children. Better: Recent research data indicates that a handicapped child in a regular preschool classroom requires much more teacher attention than the average nonhandicapped child. Better: Recent research data indicates that a handicapped child in a regular preschool classroom requires only a little more teacher attention than the average nonhandicapped child. Better: ”David will be able to button the bottom button of his shirt within six weeks." is an example of a long term objective for an orthoped- ically handicapped child. better: "By the end of the year, David will be able to put on and button his shirt by himself.” is an example of a longiterm objective for an orthOpedically handicapped child. Better: A child who cannoc retell events in the right order may have a sequencing problem. Better: A child who reverses letters in words may have a sequencing problem. GO TO THE REE. ?AGE PLEASE III. L») I lo. 243 In each of the following sentences there are one or more words or terms missing. Write in the wordCs) or term(s) that most accurately complete the sentence. The Michigan Mandatory Special Education Act mandates appropriate educa- tional programs and services for handicapped persons from to years of age. An in development is character- ’stic of children who are mentally Empaired. P Assessments for emotional impairment must be conducted by a A five-year-old child who pronounces sounds so poorly that his/her cannot be understood by others has a serious articula- tion problem. refers to the ability to see clearly. Mentally retarded children who need help meeting all of their daily needs are usually classified as mentally retarded. According to 1978 Michigan statistics, there are more impaired children in Michigan than children with any other impairment. Many visually impaired children need training so they can learn how to move about safely and independently. Some of the behaviors which are typical of children with are impulsiveness, perseveration, inability to follow directions and distractability. A 30 decibel hearing loss is less than a decibel hearing loss. 30 TO THE NEXT ?AGE PLEASE IV. 10. ll. 244 In the following sentences are blanks that can be filled in by technical terms regarding mainstreaming and handicapping conditions. the sentence describes the condition or factor. Write in the letter of the correct term from the list below in the space provided in the sentence. as. congenital I. categorical Q. total communication assessment J. cerebral palsy R. style of learning labeling K. intelligence S. conductive loss thirst L. due process I. receptive language sign M. performance U. emotionally impaired communicate N. parental input V. muscular dystrophy normal 0. psychological W. pale, moist skin autistic P. adventitious X. sensori-neural loss amass; Determining the precise nature and extent of a child's disability so that appropriate prevention and assistance measures can be taken is the purpose of the process. The purpose of is to build an effective review and control mechanism to guard against improper labeling and classification of children. blindness results from such things as disease, injury, poisoning. and genetic or hereditary conditions which appear after birth. Learning to is the central problem a hearing impaired child faces. A problem with the inner ear or with the nerves that carry sound to the brain is referred to as a . refers to the use of manual and oral communications at the same time. DangerOusly aggressive, withdrawn, hyperactive, psychotic or anxious are terms used to describe the behavior of some children. A diagnosis of a child provides a developmental profile of the child's abilities. is the most important concept in the diagnosis of a mentally retarded child. The name given to conditions in which injury to the brain affects the control of movements is . is characteristic of a diabetic child who is having an insulin reaction. APPENDIX B Support Letters to Subjects MICHI CAN S TATE UNI'TERS IT? College of human Ecology East Lansing ' Michigan - 48824 Department of Family and Child Sciences Dear Teacher: I am a doctoral candidate conducting a research project related to teacher's know- ledge and attitudes about mainstreaming young handicapped children into day care and preschool programs. The focus of this study is to determine if early childhood education teachers agree or disagree with the idea of encouraging interactions between preschool aged handicapped and nonhandicapped children in regular preprimary classrooms. This research project is being partially supported by the PATHWAYS Project: a Human Support System Model for integrated Handicapped Children and Their Families, based at the Institute for Family and Child Study on the Michigan State University campus under the direction of Dr. Nancy A. Carlson. If you choose to participate in this study, please complete the three questionnaires which are enclosed. The first questionnaire - Background ang_3xperience Information consiSts of questions about you and your relationships with handicapped persons. The second questionnaire - the Integration Opinionaire - will be used to determine teacher's opinions about the advantages and disadvantages of integration for both handicapped and typical children; the regular preschool teacher‘s ability to meet the needs of handicapped children; the provision of special services and resources to handicapped children and their parents; and what communities are doing about mainstreaming. The final questionnaire - Survey of Terminology: Mainstreaming and Handicapping Conditions - relates to terminology typically used in the main- streaming process. I am interested in knowing whether such terminology is under- stood by regular early childhood teachers. These questionnaires should each take no more than l0 to 20 minutes of your time. You will notice that an informed consent form is enclosed with this letter. Please read and sign the consent form if you agree to participate in the study. All data collected in this study will be kept confidential. You do have the right to with- draw your participation in the study at any time. Thank you for your assistance in this research project. If you have any questions about the study please call me at one of the following telephone numbers: (517) 353-3897 or (517) 355-5827. Dr. Nancy Carlson, of PATHWAYS, may be reached at (517) 353-6617. If you have agreed to participate in this study, please complete the enclosed questionnaires and informed consent form and return them in the self- addressed envelope provided. A summary of the results of this study will be avail- able to you, upon request, during the Summer of 1979. Sincerely, Gayle Clapp Ph.D. Candidate Dr. Nancy A. Carlson Director of PATHWAYS Institute for Family and Child Study 245 INPCRMED CONSENT FORM I, the undersigned, willingly consent to participate in a study about teacher’s knowledge and attitudes about mainstreaming handicapped children into early childhood education programs usually considered to be for non-handicapped children. I do so with the understanding that my responses will contribute to the goals of the research project being conducted by Gayle Clapp and partially sup- ported by the PATHWAYS Project: A Human Support System Hodel for Integrated Handicapped Children and Their Families. The purpose of the project has been explained in an enclosed letter. Thus, I have knowledge of the aspects of this Study. I agree to complete the questionnaires as accurately and completely as I am able. I further understand that my name will in no way be linked to the answers I have given, and I reserve the right to withdraw from the study at any time. I desire to participate in this research and consent and agree. PLEASE SIG. YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAME Respondent's signature Date I, the undersigned, guarantee complete anonymity to the person whose sig- nature is above. The person's name will in no way be linked to the responses given on the questionnaires. I will be happy to answer any questions the person may have about completing the questionnaire. Please call me at (517) 353-3897 or (517) 355-3827 or call Dr. Xancy Carlson, of PATHWAYS, at (5l7) 353-6617. Gayle Clapp, Ph.D. Candidate Date Department of Family and Child Sciences Nancy A. Carlson, Ph.D. Date Direcror of PATHWAYS Institute for Family and Child Study 246 MICHIGAN 3T.TE UNIVERSITY College of human Ecology East Lansing - Michigan - £882; Department of Family and Child Sciences Dear I am writing in reference to our telephone conversation on . As you will remember I am conducting my doctoral dissertation on nursery school and day care center teachers' knowledge and attitudes toward mainstreaming handi- capped children into regular preprimary centers. In our phone conversation you mentioned that one of your teachers who has had little or no experience working with handicapped children might be willing to assisr me with my dissertation. Please find enclosed a letter explaining my study, a consent form, three question- naires and a postage paid return envelope. These are the items the teacher will need to participate in the study. Thank you very much for your assistance and cooperation. Sincerely, Gayle Clapp Ph.D. Candidate 247 APPENDIX C Codebook CODEBOOK BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE INFORMATION Column Number Variable Code Item Number of Name Range Columns l-S 5 ID 00000-99999 Subji SSN (last 5 digits) 6 1 CITY l-S City I'Lansing/E.Lansing Z-Flint 3-Kalamazoo AuGrand Rapids S-Jackson 7 l CTR 1-3 Type of Center l-PATHWAYS Z-Head Start 3-Community 8 l -- -- BLANK 9 l TCHCS 0-9 CHILD 8 - Type of Handicap O-No Answer/Blank l-Visually Impaired 2-Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired 4=Speech &/or Lang. Impaired S-Orthopedically Impaired 6-Em0tionally Im- paired 7-Mentally Impaired (Down' 3 Syndrome) 8-Health/Otherwise Impaired (Incl. Dev. Delay,CP,LD) 9-Multiple Handicaps 248 Column Number Number of Columns Variable Name 249 Code Range Item 10-13 lh-lS 16 4 2 1 MITCHB MOTCHB TCHC9 0000-9999 00-99 0-9 Number of Minutes Interaction Per Week in Class Chi (Hrs x 60) 0000-No Answer/Blank 0001-1 minute 0030-30 minutes/k hr 0060-60 minutes/1 hr 0120-120 minutes/2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs; etc. Length Interaction wit hild in Class by Month Child 8 (Yrs x 12) 00-No Answer/Blank 01-1 month 02-2 months 12-12 months/l yr 24-24 months/2 yrs CHILD 9 - Type of HZEETEEp O-No Answer/Blank 1-Visually Impaired 2-Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired 4-Speech &/or Lang. Impaired S-Orthopedically Impaired 6-Em0tiona11y Impaired 7-Menta11y Impaired (Down ' s Syndrome) 8-Health/0therwise Impaired (Incl. Dev. Delay,CP,LD) 9-Mu1tip1e Handicaps Column Number Number of Columns Variable Name 250 Code Range Item 17-20 21-22 23 4 2 1 MITCH9 MOTCH9 TCHCIO 0000-9999 00—99 Number of Minutes Interacrion Per Week in Class with Child 9 OOOO-No Answer/Blank 0001-1 minute 0030-30 minutes/8 hr 0060-60 minutes/1 hr 0120-120 minutes/2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs; etc. Length Interaction in CIass by Months Child 9 (Yrs x 12) 00-No Answer/Blank 01-1 month 02-2 months 12-12 months/1 yr 24-24 months/2 yrs CHILD 10 - Type of an icap 0-No Answer/Blank l-Visually Impaired 2-Deaf-81ind 3-Hearing Impaired a-Speech &/or Lang. Impaired S-Orthopedically Im— paired 6-Emotiona11y Impaired 7-Menta11y Impaired (& Down's Syndrome) 8-Hea1th/0therwise Impaired (Incl. Dev. Delay,CP.LD) 9-Mu1tip1e Handicaps 251 Column Number Variable Code Item Number of Name Range Columns 24-27 a MITCHlO 0000-9999 Number of Minutes Interaction Per Week in Class C i (Hrs x 60) 0000-No Answer/Blank 0001-1 minute 0030-30 minutes/8 hr 0060-60 minutes/1 hr 0120-120 minutes/2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs; etc. 28-29 2 MOTCHIO 00-99 Len th Interaction in ass by Months Child (Yrs x 12) OO-No Answer/Blank 01-1 month 02-2 months 12-12 months/l yr 24-24 months/2 yrs 30 l -- -- BLANK Number of Inservice/ Workshops Taken in LaSt 2 Years Related to: 31 1 ISWPL 0-9 Planning & Implement- ing Programs for 2-6 Year Olds O-None(0); No/Ans.; ank 1-1 2-2 3-3 9-9 or more Column Number Number of Columns Variable Name 252 Code Range 33 34 3S 1 1 ISWGD ISWNHC ISWP CPL 0-9 0-9 0-9 Normal Child Growth 6: Devel opment O-NonegO); No Ans/ ank 1-1 2-2 3-3 9-9 or more Meeting Needs of Handicapped Child O-None(0); No Ans/ ank 1-1 2-2 3-3 9-9 or more Working with Parents of Young Children 0-0(None); No Ans/ Blank 1-1 2-2 3-3 9-9 or more Number of College/ Univ. Courses TaEen Related to: Planning & Imple- menting Programs for Young Children 0-0(none);No Ans/ Blank 1-1 2-2 3-3 9-9 or more 253 Column Number Variable Code Item Number of Name Range Columns 36 1 CGD 0-9 Normal Child Growth & Development 0-0(none); No Ans/ Blank 1-1 2-2 3-3 9-9 or more 37 1 CNHC 0-9 Meeting the Needs of Handicapped Child O-0(none); No Ans/ Blank 1-1 2-2 3-3 9-9 or more 38 1 C? 0-9 Working with Parents of Young Children 0-0(none); No Ans/ Blank 1-1 2-2 9-9 or more Acceptance of (Mildly) Handicapped Child 39 1 AMINA 0-5 With Np Additional Assistance O-No Ans/Blank l-Never accept 2-Probab1y not accept 3-Undecided A-Probably accept S-Always accept 254 Column Number Variable Code Item Number of Name Range Columns 40 1 AMITA 0-5 With An Additional Teacher Aide O-No Ans/Blank 1-Never Accept 2-Probab1y Not Accept 3-Undecided a-Probably Accept S-Always Accept Al 1 AMIRP 0-5 With Assistance of Resource Person O-No Ans/Blank 1-Never Accept 2-Probab1y not accept 3-Undecided a-Probably accept S-Always accept 42 1 AMITAR 0-5 With Additional Teacher Aide and Resource Person O-No Ans/Blank 1-Never accept 2-Probab1y not accept 3-Undecided A-Probably accept S-Always accept Acceptance of (Moderately) Handi- capped 43 l AMONA O-S Child with No Addi- tional Assistance 0-No Ans/Blank l-Never accept 255 Column Number Variable Code Item Number of Name Range Columns Z-Probably not accept 3-Undecided a-Probably accept S-Always accep t 44 1 AMOTA O-S With Additional Teacher Aide O-No Ans/Blank 1-Never accept 2-Probably not accept 3-Undecided A-Probably accept S-Always accept as 1 AMORP 0-5 With Assistance of a Resource Person O-No Ans/Blank l-Never accept 2-Probab1y not accept 3-Undecided a-Probably accept S-Always accept 46 l AMOTAR 0-5 With Teacher Aide and Resource Person O-No Ans/Blank l-Never accept 2-Probab1y not accept 3-Undecided h-Probably accept S-Always accept 256 Column Number Variable Code Item Number of Name Range Columns ‘V' ACCEPTANCE or ZEEVEREEYT‘HZNDICAPPED CHILD 47 l ASNA 0-5 With No Additional Assistance O-No Ans/Blank l-Never accept Z-Probably not accept 3-Undecided a-Probably accept ' S-Always accept 48 l ASIA 0-5 With Additional Teacher Aide O-No Ans/Blank l-Never accept Z-Probably not accept 3-Undecided a-Probably accept S-Always accept 49 l ASRP O-S With Assiscance of a Resource Person .O-No Ans/Blank l-Never accept 2-Probably not accept 3-Undecided h-Probably accept S-Always accept 257 Column Number Variable Code Itan Number of Name Range Columns 50 l ASTAR 0—5 With Teacher Aide and Resource Person O-No Ans/Blank l-Never accept 2-Probably not accept 3-Undecided a-Probably accept S-Always accept 51 1 -- -- BLANK FOR INTERVIEWS ONLY 52 l IFNAYl 0-9 Give Reasons Why You Would Not Accept a Handicapped Child o-No Ans/Blank l-Inadequate staff Z-Inadequate know- ledge of how to work with handi- capped children 3-No time to deal with handicapped child and present class too A-If other children may suffer with handicapped child in class S-If handicapped child was not ready to accept routine and being with "normal" children 6-Would have to make a different set of lesson plans for the handicapped child Column Number Number of Columns 258 Variable Code Name Range H n B 53 IFNAYZ 0-9 7-If handicapped child was extremely dis- ruptive 8-If handicapped child would be hurt by being in the class 9-Inadequate equip- ment in the class to meet a handi- capped child's needs Give Reasons Why You Would Not Accept a Handicapped Child O-No Ans/Blank l-lnadequate Staff 2-Inadequate know- ledge of how to work with handi- capped children 3-No time to deal with handicapped child and present class too a-If other children may suffer with handicapped child in class 5-lf handicapped child was not ready to accept routine and being with ”normal” children 6-Would have to make a different set of lesson plans for the handicapped child 7-If handicapped child was extremely disruptive 259 Variable Code Range Column Number Number of Name Columns 54 l IFNAY3 0-9 8-If handicapped child would be hurt by being in the class 9-Inadequate equip- ment in the class to meet a handi- capped child's needs Give Reasons Why You Would Nor Accept a Handicapped Child O-No Ans/Blank l-lnadequate staff 2-Inadequate know- ledge of how to work with handi- capped children 3-No time to deal with handicapped child and present class too h-If other children may suffer with handicapped child in class S-If handicapped child was not. ready to accept routine and being with ”normal” children 6-Would have to make a different set of lesson plans for the handi- capped child 7-If handicapped child was extremely disruptive 260 Column Number Variable Code Number of Name Range Columns Item 55 l IFNAYh 0-9 8-If handicapped child would be hurt by being in the class 9-Inadequate equip- ment in the class to meet a handi- capped child's needs Give Reasons Why You Would Not Accept a Handicapped Child O-No Ans/Blank lsInadequate staff 2-Inadequate know- ledge of how to work with handi- capped children 3-No time to deal with handicapped child and present class too ' h-If other children may suffer with handicapped child in class S-If handicapped child was noc ready to accept routine and being with ”normal" children 6-Would have to make a different set of lesson plans for the handi- capped child 7-If handicapped child was extremely disruptive Column Number 261 Number Variable Code of Name Range Columns 8-If handicapped child would be hurt by being in the class 9-Inadequate equip— ment in the class to meet a handi- capped child's needs Column Number CODEBOOK BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE INFORMATION Number Variable Code of Name Range Columns Item l-S 10 5 ID 00000-99999 Subj.SSN (last 5 1 City l-S 1 Age 0-8 262 digits) Citz l-Lansing/E.Lansing Z-Flint 3-Kalamazoo a-Grand Rapids S-Jackson 33p: of Center l-PAIHWAXS Z-Head Start 3-Community Blank Age O-No Answer/Blank l-Under 20 2-20-25 3-26-30 4-31-35 5-36-40 6-41-45 7-46-50 8-51 or older sec. O-No Answer/Blank l-Male Z-Female Column Number Number Variable of Name Columns 263 Code Range Item ll 12 13-14 15 1 Race ' 1 Education 2 Years in College 1 DEG 0-6 0-4 0-10 0-9 Racial & Ethnic Backgroundw O-No Answer/Blank l-White Z-Native American 3-Black 4-Hispanic S-Oriental 6-Other Educational Attainment O-No Answer/Blank l-Some High School Z-High School Grad 3-Jr/Commun.College (2 years) A-College/University Number Years in_CoIIége OO-No Answer/Blank/ No years in College Ol-l year 02-2 years 03-3 years. etc. lO-lO years Degree Earned? O-None/No Answer/ Blank l-Associate Degree Z-BS 3-BA a-MS 264 Column Number Variable Code Iten Number of Name Range Columns S-MA 6-Ph.D. 7-Ed.D. 8-M.D. 9-LL.D. l6-l7 2 COMAJ OO-lZ College Major OO-No Answer/Blank Ol-Child. Dev./E. Ch.Ed./Ch.Serv. OZ-Elementary Ed. O3-El.Ed & Ch.Dev. 04-Secondary Educ. OS‘Home Economics 06-Sociology 07-Psychology O8-English 09-Foreign Language lO-Social Work . ll-History lZ-Other 18 l TCER 0-2 Do You Have A Teach- ing Certificate? O-No Answer/Blank l-Yes 2-No 19 l KDCER 0-6 Kind of Teaching Certificate O-No Answer/Blank l'Child Dev. Associate 2-Elem.Ed.w/Early Ch. Endorsement 265 E Column Number Variable Code Number of Range Columns Name 3-Preschool/Kinder- garten h-Elementary Educa- tion S-Secondary Educa- tion 6-Other 20 l SECER 0-7 Disability Area of Speci i’Educ. Certificate O-No Answer/Blank l-Visually Impaired 2-Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired A-Speech & language Impaired S-Orthopedically Impaired 6-Emotionally Impaired 7-Mentally Impaired 21 l PAR ' 0-2 Are You A Parent? O-No Answer/Blank l-Yes 2-No 22 l PARCH 1 0-4 Parent of What Kind or Child? O-No Answer/Blank l-Handicapped Child 2-Nonhandicapped Child 3-Child in Preschool a-Child not in Pre- school Column Number Number of Columns Variable Name 266 Code Range Item k) 4} 25 l l PARCH EXOT OETHC ') 1 0-2 0-9 Parent of What Kind cf’Child? O-No Answer/Blank l-Handicapped Child 2-Nonhandicapped Child 3-Child in Preschool A-Child not in Pre- school Have You Had Exper- iences Interacting With Handicappedi Children Other Than Teaching? O-No Answer/Blank l-Yes 2-No EXPERIENCES OTHER ‘3 . LL T CHILD l - Type of Handicap O-No Answer/Blank l-Visually Impaired 2-Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired a-Speech &/or Lang. Impaired S-Orthopedically Impaired 6-Emotionally Impaired (Downs Syndrome) 7-Mentally Impaired 8-Health or other- wise (Dev. Delayed, LD, etc.) 9-Multiple Handicaps Column Number Variable Code Item Number of Name Range Columns 26-29 A OMICH 1 0000-9999 Number of MINUTES Interaction er Week Child I_-0ther Than Teaching. (Hrs x 60) OOOO-No Answer/Blank OOOl-l minute 0030-30 minutes/k hr 0060-60 minutes/l hr 0120-120 minutes/ 2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hours. etc. 30-31 2 OLIMO 1 00-99 Length of Interaction Other Than Teaching in MONTHS Child 1 (Yrs x 12) OO-No Answer/Blank Ol-l month 02-2 months 12-12 months/1 yr 24-24 months/2 yrs; etc. 32 l OETHC 2 0-0 CHILD 2 - Type of Handicap 0-No Answer/Blank l-Visually Impaired 2=Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired a=Speech &/or Lang. Impaired S-Orthopedically Impaired 6-Emotionally Impaired Column Number Number of Columns Variable Name 268 Code Range [é 33-36 37-38 39 4 2 1 OMIHCZ OLIMOZ OETHC3 0000-9999 00-99 0-9 7-Mentally Impaired (and Downs Syndrome) 8-Health or Otherwise Impaired (Dev. Delay/LD, CP) 9'Multiple Handi- capped # Minutes Interaction Per-WEEE—Other Than TEEEHEEE Child 2 (Hrs x 60) OOOO-No Answer/Blank 0001-1 minute 0030.30 minutes/8 hr 0060-60 minutes/1 hr 0120-120 minutes/ 2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs; etc. Length of Interaction by MONTHS Other Than Tea‘F—c ms 9.1.11.2. (Yrs x 12) OO-No Answer/Blank 01.1 month 12-12 months/l yr 24-24 months/2 yrs: etc. CHILD 3 - Type of 3353133: O-No Answer/Blank 1-Visually Impaired Z'Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired h-Speech &/or Lang. Impaired 269 Column Number Variable Code Item Number of Name Range Columns S-Orthopedically Impaired 6-Emotionally Impaired 7-Mentally Impaired (and Downs Syndrome) 8-Health or Otherwise Impaired (Dev. Delay/ID, CP) 9-Mu1tiple Handicapped 40-43 a OMIHC3 0000-9999 # Minutes Interaction Other Than Teaching Per Week Child 3 (Hrs x 60) OOOO-No Answer/Blank 0001-1 minute 0030-30 minutes/k hr 0060=60 minutes/l hr 0l20-120 minutes/2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs, etc. 44-45 2 OLIM03 00-99 Len th Interaction by Months Other Than Teaching Child 3 (Yrs x 12) OO-No Answer/Blank Ol-l Month 02-2 months 12-12 months/1 yr 24-24 months/2 yrs; etc. Column Number Number 270 Variable Code of Name Range Columns Item 46 47-50 51-52 1 OETHCA 0-9 4 OMIHC4 0000-9999 2 OLIMO4 00-99 Child 4 - Type of Handicap O-No Answer/Blank l-Visually Impaired 2-Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired h-Speech &/or Lang. Impaired 5-Orthopedically Impaired 6-Emotiona11y Impaired and Downs Syndrome 7-Mentally Impaired 8-Health or Other- wise(Dev. Delayed, LD, etc.) 9-Mu1tiple Handi- capped # Minutes Interaction Per WeeE Other Than Teaching Child 4 (Hrs x 60) OOOO-No Answer/Blank 0001-1 minute 0030-30 minutes/% hr 0060-60 minutes/1 hr 0120-120 minutes/2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs, etc. $45-$35? 532.58%? by TEEEHing Child 4 (Yrs x 12) OO-No Answer/Blank 01-1 month 02-2 months 12-12 months/l yr 24-24 months/2 yrs; etc. 271 Column Number Variable Code Number of Name Range Columns Item 53 1 OETHCS 0-9 54-57 a OMIHCS 0000-9999 58-59 2 OLIMOS 00-99 Child 5 - Type of Handicap O-No Answer/Blank 1-Visually Impaired 2-Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired 4-Speech &/or Lang. Impaired 5-Orthopedically Impaired 6-Em0tionally Im- paired 7-Mentally Impaired (and Down' 5 Syn- drome) S-Health or Otherwise Im aired (Dev. De ay/LD, CP) 9-Multiple Handicapped # Minutes Interaction Per WeeE Other Than Teaching Child 5 (Hrs x 60) OOOO-No Answer/Blank 0001-1 minute 0030-30 minutes/% hr 0060-60 minutes/l hr 0120-120 minutes/2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs, etc.' Len th Interaction by Months Other Than ‘- Teaching Child 5 (Yrs x 12) OO-No Answer/Blank Ol-l month 0232 months 2 ‘J 2 Column Number Variable Code Number of Name Range Columns #4 f1 60 l OETHC6 0-9 61-64 4 OMIHC6 0000-9999 12-12 months/l yr 24824 months/2 yrs; etc. Child 6 - Type of HEEEIEEp O-No Answer/Blank l-Visually Impaired 2-Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired a-Speech &/or Lang. Impaired 5-Orthopedically Im- paired 6-Emotionally Impaired 7-Mentally Impaired (& Down' 3 Syndrome) 8-Health or Otherwise Impaired (Dev. Delay/LD, CP) 9-Multiple Handi- capped # Minutes InteraCtion Per Week Other Than Teaching Child 6 (Hrs x 60) 0000-No Answer/Blank OOOl-l minute 0030-30 minutes/% hr 0060-60 minutes/1 hr 0120-120 minutes/ 2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs; etc. Column Number Number of Columns Variable Name 273 Code Range 67 68-71 2 1 A OLIMO6 OETHC7 OMIHC7 00-99 0-9 0000-9999 Length Interaction Wths Other Than eac ing Child 6 (Yrs x 12) OO-No Answer/Blank 01-1 month 02-2 months 12-12 months/l yr 24-24 months/2 yrs; etc . ' Child 7 - Type of an icap O-No Answer/Blank l-Visually Impaired 2-Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired a-Speech &/or Lang. Impaired S-Orthopedically Impaired 6-Em0tionally Impaired 7-Mentally Impaired (& Down's Syndrome) B-Health or Otherwise Impaired (Dev. Delay/LD,CP) 9-Multiple Handicapped # Minutes Interaction Per Week Other Than Teaching Child 7 (Hrs x 60) OOOO-No Answer/Blank 0001-1 minute 0030-30 minutes/k hr Variable Name Co lumn Number Number of Columns 72-73 2 OLIMO7 74 1 OETHCS 274 Code Range 00-99 0-9 Iten 0060-60 minutes/l hr 0120-120 minutes/ 2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs. etc. Length Interaction by Months Other Than Teaching Child 7 (Yrs x 12) OO-No Answer/Blank Ol-l month 02-2 months 12-12 months/l yr 24-24 months/2 yrs; etc. Child 8 - Type of an icap O-No Answer/Blank l-Visually Impaired 2-Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired é-Speech &/or Lang. Impaired S-Orthopedically Im- paired 6-Emotionally Impaired 7-Mentally Impaired (& Down's Syndrome) 8-Health or Otherwise Impaired (Dev. Delay/LD,CP) 9-Multiple Handicapped Column Number Number of Columns Variable Name 275 Code Range Item 75-78 4 OMIHC8 79-80 2 OLIMOS 0000-9999 00-99 # Minutes Interaction Per Week Other Than TEEEHIHE Child 8 (Hrs x 60) OOOO-No Answer/Blank 0001-1 minute 0030-30 minutes/8 hr 0060-60 minutes/1 hr 0120-120 minutes/2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs, etc. Len th Interaction Ev Eonths Other Than Teaching Child 8 (Yrs x 12) 00-No Answer/Blank 01-1 month 02-2 months 12-12 months/1 yr 24-2h months/2 yrs; etc. CODEBOOK INTEGRATION OPINIONAIRE AND SCORES ON SURVEY OF TERMINOLOGY Column Number Variable Code Item Number of Name Range Columns 1-5 5 ID 00000-99999 Subj. SSN (last 5 digits) 6 1 CITY 1-5 City l-Lansing/E. Lansing 2-Flint 3-Ka1amazoo a-Grand Rapids S-Jackson 7 1 CTR 1-3 l-PATHWAYS 2-Head Start 3-Community 8 1 -- -- BLANK 9-38 30 I001 thru 0-5 Opinionaire Responses IOQ30 O-No Answer/Blank 1-SA-Strong1y agree 2-A-Agree 3-D-Disagree a-SD-Strongly dis- agree S-U-Undecided 39-44 6 -- -- BLANK 45-46 2 STSC 00-36 Total Score Correct 276 On Survey of Termin- ology OO-No Test (missing data); Blank Ol-Score of 1 point correct Column Number Variable Code Item Number of Name Range Columns 45-46 2 STSC 00-36 15-Score of 15 points correct 36-Score of 36 points correct CODEBOOK BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE INFORMATION Column Number Variable Code Item Number of Name Range Columns 1-5 5 ID 00000-99999 Subj. SSN (last 5 digits) 6 1 CITY 1-5 City l-Lansing,E. Lansing Z-Flint 3-Kalamazoo h-Grand Rapids S-Jackson 7 l CTR 1-3 Type of Center l-PATHWAYS Z-Head Start 3-Community 8 1 -- . -- Blank 9 l OETHC9 0-9 Child 9 - Type of Handicap O-No Answer/Blank l-Visually Impaired Z-Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired A-Speech &/or Lang. Impaired S-Orthopedically Impaired 6-Emotionally Impaired 7-Menta11y Impaired (& Down's Syndrome) 8-Health/Otherwise (Dev. Delay. LD) 9-Mu1tip1e Handi- capped [\J \J m Column Number Number of Columns Variable Name 279 Code Range 14-15 16 4 OMIHC9 OLIMO9 OETHCID 0000-9999 00-99 0-9 # Minutes Interaction Per WeeE Other Than Teacning ChiIQJE (Hrs x 60) 0000-No Answer/Blank 0001-1 minute 0030-30 minutes/8 hr 0060-60 minutes/l hr 0120-120 minutes/ 2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs; etc. Length Interaction by Mont.s Other Than TEEEhing Child 9 (Yrs x 12) OO-No Answer/Blank Ol-l month 02-2 months 12-12 months/l yr 24-24 months/2 yrs; etc. Child 10 - Type of m O-No Answer/Blank l-Visually Impaired 2-Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired A-Speech &/or Lang. Impaired S-Orthopedically Impaired 6-Em0tionally Impaired 280 Column Number Variable Code Item Number of Name Range Columns 7-Mentally Impaired (& Down's Syndrome) 8-Health or Otherwise Impaired (Dev. Delay/LD,CP) 9-Mu1tiple Handicapped 17-20 A OMIHClO 0000-9999 # Minutes Interaction Per Week Other Than Teaching Child 10 (Hrs x 60) OOOO-No Answer/Blank OOOl-l minute 0030-30 minutes/k hr 0060-60 minutes/1 hr 0120-120 minutes/2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs; etc. 21-22 2 OLIMO 10 00-99 Length Interaction by - ontns Other Than Ieacning Child 10 (Yrs x 12) OO-No Answer/Blank Ol-l month 02-2 months 12- 2 months/1 yr 2a-24 months/2 yrs; etc. 23 l -- -- BLANK 24 l PTCHC 0-2 Presently Teaching in Class with at Leas: One Handicapped Child? O-No Answer/Blank 1-Yes Z-No Column Number IO 00 ..J Number Variable Code of Name Range Columns Item 25-26 27 28-29 30 2 MOTPP 00-99 1 EVTHC . 0-2 2 MOTOC 00-99 Length of Time Have Taught in Present Position bv Months (Yrs x 12) OO-No Answer/Blank Ol-l month 12-12 months/1 yr 24-24 months/2 yrs; etc. to 96-96 months/8 yrs 95 more Ever Taught in a Class with at Least One Handicapped Child? O-No Answer/Blank l-Yes 2-No Amount of Time Taught in Other Classrooms with Handicapped Chi1d(ren) by Months? (Yrs x 12) OO-No Answer/Blank Ol-l month 12-12 months/1 yr 24-24 months/2 yrs 96-96 months/8 yrs or more BLANK Column Number Number of Columns Variable Name Code Range 31 32-35 1 [I TCHCI MITCHI 0-9 0000-9999 EXPERIENCE TEACHING CHART 5“ N) CHILD 1 - Type of fiEfiHIEEp O-No Answer/Blank l-Visually Impaired 2-Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired A-Speech &/or Lang. Impaired S-Orthopedically Impaired 6-Em0tiona11y Im- paired 7-Menta11y Impaired (6: Down's Syndrome) 8-Health/Otherwise Impaired (& Dev. Delay; LD;CP etc.) 9-Multip1e Handicaps Number Minutes Inter- aCting with Handi- capped Child Per Week in Classroom .i (Hrs x 60) OOOO-No Answer/Blank 0001-1 minute 0030-30 minutes/k hr 0060-60 minutes/1 hr 0120-120 minutes/2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs; etc. Variable Name Column Number Number of Columns 283 Code Range #4 U 36-37 2 MOTCHl 38 l TCHCZ 39-42 4 MITCHZ 00-99 0-9 0000-9999 Len th of Interaction WISE Handicapped Child in Classroom bv Months Child I (Yrs x 12) OO-No Answer/Blank 01-1 month 02-2 months 12-12 months/l yr 24-24 months/2 yrs; etc . Child 2 - an icap O-No Answer/Blank l-Visually Impaired Z-Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired a-Speech &/or Lang. Impaired 5-Orthopedically Im- paired Type of 6-Emotionally Im- paired 7-Mentally Impaired (& Down's Syndrome) 8-Health or Otherwise Impaired (Dev. Delay/LD,CP) 9-Multip1e Handi- capped # Minutes Interacting PE?_WEEE—in Class i (Hrs x 60) OOOO-No Answer/Blank 0001-1 minute Variable Name Column Number Number of Columns 234 Code Range Item 43-44 2 MOTCHZ 45 1 TCHC3 00-99 0-9 0030-30 minutes/% hr 0060-60 minutes/1 hr 0120-120 minutes/2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs, etc. Len th Interaction in ass by Months 211.129.. (Yrs x 12) OO-No Answer/Blank Ol-l month 02-2 months 12-12 months/l yr 24-24 months/2 yrs, etc . Child 3 - Type of m O-No Answer/Blank 1-Visually Impaired 2-Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired 4-Speech &/or Lang. Impaired S-Orthopedically Impaired 6-Emotiona11y Im- paired 7-Mentally Impaired (& Down's Syndrome) 8-Health or Otherwise Impaired (Dev. Delay/LD,CP) 9-Mu1tiple Handi- capped 285 Column Number Variable Code Item Number of Name Range Columns 46-49 4 MITCH3 0000-9999 Number of Minutes Ifiteracting Per Week in Class Chi (Hrs x 60) OOOO-No Answer/Blank 0001-1 minute 0030-30 minutes/k hr 0060-60 minutes/1 hr 0120-120 minutes/ 2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs. etc. 50-51 2 MOTCH3 00-99 Len th Interaction in CIass by Months Child 3 "‘"‘"""" (Yrs x 12) OO-No Answer/Blank Ol-l month 02-2 months 12-12 months/1 yr 24-24 months/2 yrs; etc. 52 l -- -- BLANK 53 1 TCHC4 0-9 CHILD 4 - Type of an icap O-No Answer/Blank l-Visually Impaired Z-Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired 4-Speech S/or Lang. Impaired S-Orthopedically Impaired Column Number Number of Columns Variable Name Code Range 54-57 58-59 60 1 MITCH4 MOTCH4 TCHCS 0000-9999 00-99 0-9 6-Emotionally Impaired 7-Mentally Impaired (& Down's Syndrome) 8-Health or Other- wise Impaired (Dev. Delay/LD,CP) 9-Multip1e Handicapped Number of Minutes Interesting’Per Week in Class Chi-d (Hrs x 60) OOOO-No Answer/Blank 0001-1 minute 0030-30 minutes/8 hr 0060-60 minutes/l hr 0120-120 minutes/ 2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs, etc. Length Interaction in Class by Months Child 4 (Yrs x 12) OO-No Answer/Blank 01-1 month 02-2 months 12-12 months/l yr 24-24 months/2 yrs, etc. CHILD 5 - Type of Handicap O-No Answer/Blank l-Visually Impaired 2-Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired Column Number Number of Columns Variable Name 287 Code Range 61-64 2 MITCHS MOTCHS 0000-9999 00-99 4-Speech &/or Lang. Impaired 5-Orthopedically Im- paired 6-Emotionally Im- paired 7-Menta11y Impaired (& Down's Syndrome) 8-Health or Other- wise Impaired (Dev. Delay/LD,CP) 9-Mu1tip1e Handi- capped Number of Minutes InteraCting Per Week in Class Chi (Hrs x 60) OOOO-No Answer/Blank 0001-1 minute 0030-30 minutes/k hr 0060-60 minutes/1 hr 0120-120 minutes/ 2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs, etc. Len th Interestion in CIass beronths Child 5 (Yrs x 12) 00-No Answer/Blank Ol-l month 02-2 months 12-12 months/1 yr 24-24 months/2 yrs, etc. Column Number Number 288 Code Range Variable of Name Columns Item 67 68-71 1 TCHCE 0-9 4 MITCH6 0000-9999 CHILD 6 - Type of Handicap O-No Answer/Blank 1-Visually Impaired 2-Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired 4-Speech &/or Lang. Impaired 5-Orthopedically Im- paired 6-Emotionally Im- paired 7-Mentally Impaired (& Down's Syn- drome) 8-Hea1th or Other— wise Impaired (Dev. Delay/LB, CP) 9-Multiple Handi- capped Number of Minutes IfiteraCting Per Week in Class Chi o (Hrs x 60) OOOO-No Answer/Blank 0001-1 minute 0030-30 minutes/k hr 0060-60 minutes/1 hr 0120-120 minutes/ 2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs, etc. Column Number Number of Columns Variable Name 289 Code Range '5’ 72-73 74 75-78 2 1 4 MOTCHG TCHC7 MITCH7 00-99 0000-9999 Length Interaction in ass by Months Child 6 (Yrs x 12) 00-No Answer/Blank Ol-l month 02-2 months 12-12 months/1 yr 24-24 months/2 yrs, etc. CHILD 7 - Type of Handicap O-No Answer/Blank l-Visually Impaired 2-Deaf-Blind 3-Hearing Impaired 4-Speech &/or Lang. Impaired 5-Orthopedica11y Im- paired 6-Emotionally Im- paired 7-Mentally Impaired (& Down's Syndrome) 8-Health or Other- wise Impaired (Dev. Delay/LD,CP) 9-Multip1e Handi- capped Number of Minutes IEEeracting Per Week in Class Chi (Hrs x 60) OOOO-No Answer/Blank 0001-1 minute 0030-30 minutes/b hr 290 Column Number Variable Code Item Number of Name Range Columns 0060-60 minutes/1 hr 0120-120 minutes/ 2 hrs 1800-1800 minutes/ 30 hrs, etc. 79-80 2 MOTCH7 00-99 Lars-WES? 3“§§§§§§‘°“ m Child 7""— (Yrs x 12) OO-No Answer/Blank Ol-l month 02-2 months 12-12 months/1 yr 24-24 months/2 yrs, etc. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Abelson, A. G. Measuring preschools' readiness to main- stream handicapped Children. Child Welfare, 1976, 55 (3), 216-220. Abeson, A. Movement and momentum: Government and the edu- cation of handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 1972, 32, 63-66. Abeson, A., Bolick, N., & Hass, K. A primer on due process: Education decisions for handicapped children. Excep- tional Children, 1975, 42, 68-76. Abeson, A. & Zetel, J. The end of the quiet revolution: The education for all handicapped act of 1975. Excep- tional Children, October, 1976, 114-128. Ackerman, P. R., & Moore, M. G. Delivery of educational ser- vices to preschool handicapped children. In T. D. Tjossem (Ed.), Intervention strategies for high risk infants and young children. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1976, 669-688. Allport, G. W. Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A hand- book of social_psychology. New York: Russell and Russell, 1935, 798-8441 - Anderson, L. R, & Fishbein, M. Prediction of attitude from the number, strength, and evaluative aspect of beliefs about the attitude object: A comparison of summation and congruity theories. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967. Apolloni, T., & Cooke, T. P. Integrated programming at the infant, toddler, and preschool levels. In M. J. Gural- nick (Ed.), Early intervention and the integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Baltimore: University Pafk Press, 1978, 150-151. Bertness, H. J. Progressive inclusion: One approach to mainstreaming. In J. B. Jordan (Ed.), Teacher please don't close the door: The exceptional Child’in the main- stream. Council for Exceptional Children, Bureau offii Eaucation for the Handicapped, Department of Health, 291 292 Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Washington, D. C., 1976, 35, 38. Bloom, B. 3. (Ed.). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals handbook I: Cognitive domain. New Yofk: Longmans, Green and Co., 1956. Bricker, D. D. A rationale for the integration of handi- capped and nonhandicapped preschool children. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), Early intervention and the integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978, 3-25. Bricker, W. A., & Bricker, D. D. The infant, toddler, and preschool research and intervention project. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), Early intervention and the integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978. Bricker, W. A., & Bricker, D. D. The infant, toddler, and preschool research and intervention project. In T. D. Tjossem (Ed.), Intervention strategies for high risk infants and younnghildren. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1976, 557-559. Caldwell, B. M. The importance of beginning early. In J. B. Jordan & R. F. Dailey (Eds.), Not all little wagons are red: The exceptional child's early years. Reston; Va.: COuncil for Exceptional Children, 1973, 2—9. Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi- experimental designs for research. *Chicago: Rand Mc- Nally College Publishing Company, 1963, 20. Carlson, N. A. A proposal to the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped. A human support system model for inte- gpated handicappedehildren and their families. East Lansing, Mi.: Michigan State University, Institute for Family and Child Study, 1975. Carlson, N. A. Program.narrativeL PATHWAYS ppoject: A human support system model fOr integrated handicapped children and their families. East Lansing, Mi.: Michigan State University, Institute for Family and Child Study, College of Human Ecology, October, 1978, 1-89. Carlson, N. A. A personnel preparation proposal. PATHWAYS II: A human support system model for_integrated Handi- capped childien and their families. East Lansing, Mi.: Michigan State University, Institute for Family and Child Study, College of Human Ecology, 1978. Carlson, N. A., & Wilson, F. R. Evaluation: Integration of special children. A human support syptem model for 293 integrated handicapped children and their families. East Lansing, Mi.: Midhigan State University, Insti- tute for Family and Child Study, 1977. (Proposal/ Progress Summary). Carlson, N. A. Integrating young handicapped children. In (Ed.) Advances in early education and day care, vol. III. Champaign, Ill.: University of Illinois at Urbana, in press. Condell, J. F. & Tonn, M. H. A comparison of MTAI scores. Mental Retardation, 1965, 3, 23-24. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Responding to individual needs in Head Start: A Head Start series on needs assessment, Part I, Working with the individual Childi Washington, D. C., 1975. (Publication No. (OHD) 73:1575. Department of Social Services. Act No. 116 of the public acts of 1973 pertaining to the regulation of child care organizations. Lansing, Mi.: State of Michigan, Depart- ment of Socidl Services, 1974, 3-10. Department of Social Services. Proposed rules governing child care center licensing. Lansing, Mi.: State ofMichigan, Department of Social Services, Division of Child Care Licensing, January 2, 1979. 7 ' Department of Social Services. Directory of child care centers. Lansing, Mi.: State of Michigan, Department of Social Services, April, 1979. Ensher, G. L., Blatt, B., & Winschel, J. F. Head start for the handicapped: Congressional mandate audit. Excep- tional Children, January, 1977, 202-210. Federal Register, Education of handicapped children: Imple- mentation of_part B of the education of the handicapped act. Washington, D. C}: Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare, August 23, 1977, 1-5. Fishbein, M. Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and mea- surement. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967, Gallagher, James J. The application of child development research to exceptional children. Reston, Va.: Council fCr Exceptional Children,ll978. Galloway, C., & Chandler, P. The marriage of special and generic early education services. In M. J. Guralnick 294 (Ed.), Early intervention and the integration of handi- capped and nonhandicapped Children. Baltimore: Uni- versity Park Press, 1978, 266-287. Gearheart, B. R., & Weishahn, M. W. The handicapped Child in the regular classroom. St. Lofiis: AThe C. V. Mosby Company, 1976, 14-15. Gickling, E. B., & Theobald, J. T. Mainstreaming: Affect or effect? Journal of Special Education, Fall, 1975, 2(3), 317-328. Gillung, T. B. and Rucker, C. N. Labels and teacher expecta- tions. Exceptional Children, 1975, 42, 464-465. Good, C. V. (Ed.). Dictionaryof Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, I959. Gorelick, M. C. Are preschools willing to integrate chil- dren with handicaps? In Careers in integrated early childhood programs. Washington, D. C.: Social and Rehabilitation Service, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1973, 1-7. Guralnick, M. J. (Ed.) Early intervention and the integra- tion of handicapped and nonhandicappedlchildren. Balti- more: University Park Press, 1978, pp. l32, 138. Guralnick, M. J. Integrated preschools as educational and therapeutic environments: Concepts, design, and analy- sis. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), Early_intervention and the integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped Chil— dfen. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978, 1l5-l45. Guralnick, M. J. The value of integrating handicapped and nonhandicapped preschool children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1976, 46, 236-245. Guerin, G. R., & Szatlocky, K. Integration programs for the mildly retarded. In Readings in mainstreaming 78-79. Guilford, Conn.: SpeEial Learning Corporation, Head Start Services to Handicapped Children. Second annual report of the U. S. department of health, education, and welfare to theiCongress of the United States on services provided to handicapped Children in project head start. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Child Develop- ment, 1974, 1-24. Heiny, R. W. Special education: History. In The encyclo- pedia of education (Vol. 8), New York: Macmillan, 1971. 295 Johnston, W. A study to determine teacher attitude toward‘ teaching spedial children with regular children. Detroit, Mi.: Wayne State Unidersity, 1972. _(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 065 950). Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of Michiganygl97l, Regular Sessiong(Vol. I). Lansing, Mi.: Speaker-Hines,-& Thomas, Inc., 1971, 1414-1415. Karnes, M. B. and Lee, R. C. Mainstreaming in the preschool. In Lillian Katz (Ed.) Current tgpics in early child- hood education, Volume II. Norwood, N. J.: Ablevaub- lishing Company, 19792 Karnes, M. B. and Teska, J. A. Children's response to inte- gration programs. In James J. Gallagher (Ed.). The application of child development research to exceptional children. ‘Reston, Va.: Councilifor ExceptionallChil- dren, I975, 198-243. Kennedy, P. and Bruininks, R. H. Social status of hearing impaired children in regular classrooms. Exceptional Children, 1974, 43, 336-342. Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of social research, 2nd ed., New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, l973. Klein, J. W. Mainstreaming the preschooler. Young Chil- dren, July, 1975, 317-327. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. B., and Masia, B. B. Taxonomy of educational objectives: 1. Affective domain. New York: David M6Kay,wl956. Lance, W. D. Who are all the children? Exceptional Chil- dren, October, 1976, 43(2), 66-77. Lapides, J. Exceptional children in head start: Character- istics of preschool handicapped children. College'Park, Md.: Maryland University, Head Start Regional Resource and Training Center, 1973, 1-14. Lewis, E. G. The case for "special" children. Young Children, 1973, 33, 369-374. Likert, R. The method of constructing an attitude scale. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurementy New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967, 90-95. Lilly, M. 8. Special education - A cooperative effort. Educational Digest, 1975, 43(3), 168-169. 296 MacMillan, D. L., Jones, R. L., & Aloia, O. F. The men- tally retarded label: A theoretical analysis and review of research. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1974, 13(3), 24l-261. MacMillan, D. L., Jones, R. L., & Meyers, C. E. Mainstream- ing the mildly retarded: Some questions, cautions and guidelines. In Readings in Mainstreaming 78-79, Guil- ford, Conn.: Special Learning Corporation, 1978, 151— 5 . Martens, E. H. Needs of exceptional Children. 1944. Cited in W. D. Lance, Who are all the children. Exceptional Children, 1976, 43(2), 1, l3. Martin, E. W. Some thoughts on mainstreaming. In Readin s in Mainstreaming 78-79, Guilford, Conn.: Special Learn- ing Corporation, 1978, 68-71. McCall, R. B., Hogarty, P. S., & Hurlburt, N. Transitions in infant sensorimotor development and the prediction of childhood IQ. American Psychologist, 1972, 31, 728-748. Meisels, S. J. First steps in mainstreaming: Some ques- tions and answers. In Readings in Mainstreaming 78-79, Guilford, Conn.: Special Learning Corporation, 1978, 4-13. Milbauer, B. The mainstreaming puzzle. In Readings in Mainstreaming. Guilford, Conn.: SpecialLearning Cor- poration, 1978, 4-6. Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, (1972). Cited in M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), Early inter- vention and the integration of handigapped and nonhandi- cappedléhildren. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978, 4. Panda, K. C. & Bartel, N. R. Teacher perception of excep- tional Children. The Journal of Special Education, 1972, 3(2), 261-266. Planning Staff, ODC, Bureau of Education for the Handi- capped. A summary of the evaluation of the handicapped Children's early education program (HCEEP). Washington, D. C., August 16, 1976. Public and local acts of the legislature of the State of Michigan Passed in Regular session of l97l. Lansing, Mi., 1971, 637. Readings in Mainstreaming_78-79. Guilford, Conn.: Special Learning Corporation, 1978. 297 Reger, R. ‘What does mainstreaming mean? Journal of Learn- ing Disabilities, 1974, 3, 513-515. Rokeach, M. A theory of organization and change within value-attitude systems. Journal of Social Issues, 1968, 34(1), 13-33. Rokeach, M. The gpen and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Rokeach, M. Political and religious dogmatism: An alterna- tive to the authoritarian_personality. Washington: American'Psychdlogical AssoCiation, I956. Rosenberg, M. J., Hovland, C. I., McGuire, W. J., Abelson, R. P., & Brehm, J. W. Attitude organization and change. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960, 10. Scholl, G. T. Selected issues relative to mandatory special education in Michigan. Ann Arbor, Mi.: University of' Michigan, School of Education, 1973. Shaw, M. E., & Wright, J. M. Scales for the measurement of attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967, l-l4, 24-25. Sheare, J. B. Social acceptance of EMR adolescents in inte- grated programs. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1974, 13, 678-682. Scheerer, M. Cognitive theory. Handbook of social psyghol- ogy, Volume 1. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, l954. Siegel, E. Special education in the regular classroom. New York: The thn Day Company, Inc., 1969. Soderman, A. K. Interaction within a typical and hearing- impaired preprimary setting: An intensive study. 'East Lansing, Mi.: Michigan State University, unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1979. Spollen, J. & Ballif, B. L. Effects of individualized instruction for kindergarten children with develop- mental lag. Exceptional Children, 1971, 33(3), 205- 209. Steel, R.G.D. & Torrie, J. H. Principles and procedures of statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960,7198. Stevens, G. D. Early intervention with high risk infants and young children: Implications for education. In T. D. Tjossem (Ed.), Intervention strategies for high risk 298 infants and oun Children. Baltimore: University Park Press, I976, 727-730. Syracuse University. Interim report on assessment of the handicapped effort in experimental and selected other Esad startgprograms serving the handicapped. Lansing, Mi.: Policy Researdh, Inc., 1974, 1-275. Syracuse University, Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation. A statement on policy recommendations of the handicapped effort in head start. Washington, D. C}: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Child Development, 1974, 1-16. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 108 444). Thurstone, L. L. Attitudes can be measured. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967a, 77-89. Thurstone, L. L. The measurement of social attitudes. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and mea- surement. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967b, U. S. Code Congressional and Administrative News: 94th Congress - First Session (Vol. I). St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Company, 1975, 1432-1433. Valletutti, P. Integration vs. segregation. Journal of Special Education, 1969, 3(4), 405-409. Verway, D. (Ed.). Michigan Statistical Abstract. East Lansing, Mi.: Midhigan State University, Graduate School of Business Administration, Division of Research, 1978. Warnock, N. J. Making general education special. In Read- ings in.Mainstreaming, 78-79. Guilford, Conn.: Special Learning Corporation, 1978, 56-59. Weininger, O. Integrate or isolate: A perspective on the whole child. Education, 1973, 34(2), 139-147. Weintraub, F. J. Recent influences of law regarding the identification and educational placement of children. Focus on Exceptional Children, 1972, 4(2), l-1l. Wolfensberger, W. The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retar- dation, 1972. Wynne, S.; Brown, J. K.; Dakof, G.; & Ulfelder, L. S. Main- streaming and early childhood education for handicapped dhildren: A guide for teaChers and parents. Wadhington, 299 D. C.: Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, (DHEW/OE), Division of Innovation and Development, 1975, 3-66. (Final Report) (ERIC Document Reproduction Ser- vice No. ED 119 445). Yaffe, E. Experienced mainstreamers speak out. Teacher, February, 1979, 61-63. Yuker, H. E. Attitudes as determinants of behavior. Journal of Rehabilitation, 1965, 33, 15-16. Zigler, S., & Hambleton, G. Integration of young TMR chil- dren into a regular elementary school. Exceptional Children, 1976, 43.