. . u , IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ‘ I 1 [BRA R Y ‘I S Michigan 3mm II? University I “$15.5; $55,114 This is to certify that the thesis entitled OPINIONS OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS TOWARD MAINSTREAMING OF HANDICAPPED STUDENTS-ill. ' THE GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN, SCHOOL DISTRICT presented by RonaId P. Houle has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Administration and Higher Education )4: professor Date /2’7* 77 0-7639 ‘\ch‘ a “cum I MIN €33?va- OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: ___________________________. Place in book return to remove charge from circulation records OPINIONS OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS TOWARD MAINSTREAMING OF HANDICAPPED STUDENTS IN THE GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN, SCHOOL DISTRICT By Ronald P. Houle A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education I980 6 II I "III ABSTRACT OPINIONS OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS TOWARD MAINSTREAMING OF HANDICAPPED STUDENTS IN THE GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN, SCHOOL DISTRICT By Ronald P. Houle The primary purpose of this study was to determine the opin- ions of elementary and secondary school principals in the Green Bay, Wisconsin, School District toward mainstreaming handicapped students into the regular classroom. The study focused on the following five variables: (1) the opinion of elementary and secondary school princi- pals toward mainstreaming, (2) the opinion of elementary and secondary school principals toward the type of handicapped being mainstreamed, (3) the Opinion of elementary and secondary school principals concern- ing the level of knowledge about mainstreaming possessed by the prin- cipal, (4) the present status of mainstreaming in each principal‘s building, and (5) what additional competencies in the area of main- streaming are needed. The opinions of the principals were reported by a question- naire designed especially for this study and also from this instrument the answers to six research questions were determined. A chi-square analysis was also made to determine if any relationship existed between the opinions of the school principals Ronald P. Houle and certain demographic information associated with each principal. Finally, the principals were asked to list obstacles they saw as detrimental to mainstreaming. The conclusions drawn from this study were: l. The general opinions of the principals indicated that they were supportive of mainstreaming handicapped students into the regular classroom. 2. The category of handicapped most recommended to be main- streamed by both elementary and secondary principals was the learning disabled. The emotionally impaired and the physically impaired cate- gories ranked as second and third choice by both groups of adminis- trators but not in the same order of preference. 3. The category of handicapped least likely to be recommended for mainstreaming by the elementary principals was the hearing impaired, with the visually impaired second. The secondary principals, however, selected the visually impaired as the category least likely to be recommended, with the educable mentally impaired as their second choice. 4. The principals were uncertain about whether school prin- cipals in general have sufficient knowledge about the concept of main- streaming. They also felt that most school principals do not understand the laws and regulations governing mainstreaming. 5. At the time of this study, approximately 86 percent of the principals were implementing mainstreaming in their respective build- ings. Ronald P. Houle 6. Of the eight competencies listed, the principals indicated that all of them were needed to facilitate mainstreaming. The two highest areas of needs reported were understanding the nature of handicaps and curriculum areas for the handicapped. There was no significant relationship found between the opin- ions principals held toward mainstreaming and the demographic data associated with each principal. In their response to the open-ended question, the principals felt that the lack of teacher acceptance toward handicapped students, plus the teacher's attitude toward the concept of mainstreaming, were the most detrimental to successful mainstreaming. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to state my appreciation to the individuals who have contributed to the completion of this dissertation. Especially Dr. Billie T. Rader, who served as chairman of the dissertation and provided the major influence into the development of this thesis and research skills necessary for its completion. His support and encour- agement will be long remembered. Dr. Louis Romano, for assuming chairmanship of the committee, and for providing invaluable comments. Drs. Robert Trojanowiczand Vandel Johnson, for their comments and warm encouragement. Ted Houle, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel in the Green Bay Public Schools, who assisted me in the collection of the data which guaranteed the success of this project. Finally, I must share the honor of this degree with my loving wife, Marilou, who gave unselfishly of herself so that I could com- plete my studies. Her faith in my ability made the completion of this dissertation possible. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................ INTRODUCTION . . . . . ................ Definition of Mainstreaming . ............ Principal's Role in Mainstreaming ....... . . . Statement of the Problem . . . ........... Purpose of the Study ..... . . . ..... . Research Questions ............... Definition of Terms . . . . ...... . . . . . . . Limitations of Study ................ Overview of the Dissertation . . . ......... Summary ............ . . . .' ...... REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . .......... Mainstreaming Legislation ...... . ..... Public Law 94— I42, The Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 ........ Wisconsin Statute llS ...... Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of. l973 : : : Historical Background of Mainstreaming l500—l875 .......... . . . . . . . . . . . l875-l940 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . l940-Present . . . . ...... . . . . . . . Summary ............ . . . ..... DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... Description of Population . . . Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... Data Analysis . . . ............. Summary . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... Demographic Information ........... . . . . Age Range of Principals . . . . .......... Sex of Principals ................. iii Chapter Page Level of Education ................ 38 Experience as Administrator ............ 38 Experience as a Teacher .............. 38 Size of School .................. 39 Grade Level .................... 4O Chi-Square Analysis ................. 41 Research Questions ................. 42 Administrators' ResponseS'UJOpen-Ended Question . . . 60 Summary ....................... 62 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS .......... 63 Summary ....................... 63 Conclusions ........ . . ........... 65 Demographic Information .............. 65 Chi-Square Analysis . . . . ........... . 66 Research Questions ................ 67 Administrators' Responses to Open-Ended Question . 69 Discussion of Findings ............... 69 Demographic Information .............. 7O Chi-Square Analysis ................ 70 Research Questions ................ 7l Administrators' Responses to Open-Ended Question . 76 Implications ................ . . . . 77 Recommendations ............... . . . . 81 Reflections ................... . . 83 APPENDICES ...................... . . . . 88 A. COMPLETE TABULATION OF DATA FROM QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . 89 8. COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO SCHOOL DISTRICT ................... . . . 99 C. TABULATION OF ALL RESPONSES FROM PRINCIPALS ON OPEN-ENDED QUESTION .............. . . . 109 REFERENCES ........................ . . 112 iv Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. LIST OF TABLES Age Range of Principals . . . . ........... Sex of Principals Level of Education Attained by Principal Years of Experience as School Administrator Years of Experience as a Teacher . ..... Size of School . . Grade Level . . . . . . . ........ General Opinions of All School Principals Toward Mainstreaming . .............. General Opinions of the Elementary and Secondary School Principals Toward Mainstreaming . ..... Categories of Handicapped Students Recommended to Be Mainstreamed . . . . . . . . . . ..... Categories of Handicapped Students Least Likely to Be Recommended to Be Mainstreamed . . ...... Categories of Handicapped Students Recommended to Be Mainstreamed by Curriculum Areas . . . Opinions of All School Principals About Knowledge of Mainstreaming . . . . . . . . . . . Opinions of School Principals About Knowledge Level of Mainstreaming .............. . Number of Handicapped Students Currently Being Mainstreamed . . . ......... Selected Handicaps Represented in Wisconsin School Population and the Green Bay School District . Page 37 37 38 39 39 4O 4O 43 45 47 49 54 55 56 Table Page l7. Competencies Needed by School Principals for Mainstreaming .................... 58 18. Principals' Opinion of Major Obstacles to Successful Mainstreaming ............. . . 6l Al. General Opinions of All School Administrators Toward Mainstreaming . . . . . . . .......... 90 A2. General Opinions of the Secondary Principals Toward Mainstreaming .......... . . . ....... 92 A3. General Opinions of the Elementary Principals Toward Mainstreaming ................. . . . 94 A4. Opinions of All School Principals About Knowledge Level of Mainstreaming ................ 96 A5. Opinions of Secondary School Principals About Knowledge Level of Mainstreaming . . . . . . . . . . . 97 A6. Opinions of Elementary School Principals About Knowledge Level of Mainstreaming . . . . . ..... . 98 Cl. Principals' Opinions of Major Obstacles to Successful Mainstreaming . . . . . .............. . llO vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Mainstreaming, the placement of handicapped students into the regular classroom, has generated more public comment than any other aspect of special education. Some consider mainstreaming one of the most controversial issues in the public schools today. The emergence of mainstreaming is the result of basically two social movements: (l) the human rights movement and (2) a recognition of the substan- tial human capital resource involved with the handicapped persons (Phelps, 1977, p. 1). Through the human rights movement the legal rights of students became important issues as in the case of Mills vs. Washington, D.C., Board of Education. The court holds that the constitution requires individually appropriate public education for every child. No longer can handicapped children be rejected--thrown away--by the schools. Placing a child on a school waiting list is no longer accept- able. Every child has a right to a share of the educational pie (Mills vs. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 1972). Martin (1971) stated, ”There are considerable economic liabilities associated with overlooking the school-age handicapped population who are about to enter the work force" (p. 4). Over the next four years, 2.5 million handicapped children will be school leavers either by graduation or by drop-out route. Of that number, less than one in four will be fully employed or going on to college. Another 40%, that is one million handicapped people, will be underemployed. Another 1 25% of this population will probably require welfare assistance. If each of these youngsters is faced with institutionalization as an alternative to public school programming, the cost will be at least 4,000 dollars per year. Over a life-time of 60 years, that is approximately one-quarter million dollars per student. Because of their deviation from what is considered normal physical appearance or behavior, handicapped individuals tend to be devalued by others, and subsequently are viewed as being far less capable or competent than is really the case (Gold, 1974, p. 3). Definition of Mainstreaming Although the concept of mainstreaming seems simple enough, there is much confusion over its meaning to both regular and special educators. Simply defined, mainstreaming is high-quality special edu- cation for handicapped children while they remain in the regular classes. Handicapped in this definition refers to those who are men- tally, emotionally, or physically impaired; it includes impairments to hearing, sight, speech, and those with special learning problems (learning disabled), as well as the gifted. To further clarify what mainstreaming is, the Council for Exceptional Children, the profes- sional organization for Special educators, offers the following defi- nition: Mainstreaming is a belief which involves an educational place- ment procedure and process for exceptional children, based on the conviction that each such child should be educated in the least restrictive environment in which his educational and related needs can be satisfactorily provided. This concept recognizes that exceptional children have a wide range of special educational needs, varying greatly in intensity and duration; that there is a recognized continuum of education settings which may, at a given time, be appropriate for an individual child's needs; that to the maximum extent appropriate, exceptional chil- dren should be educated with nonexceptional children; and that special classes, separate schooling or other removal of an exceptional child from education with non-exceptional children should occur only when the intensity of the child's special education and related needs is such that they cannot be satis- fied in an environment including non-exceptional children, even with the provision of supplementary aids and services (Michigan Federated Chapters of the Council of Exceptional Children, 1976). The Council also lists four basic themes that help to explain the intent of mainstreaming: 1. Providing the most appropriate education for each child in the least restrictive setting; Looking at the educational needs of children instead of clinical and diagnostic labels such as mentally handicapped, hearing impaired, or gifted. Looking for and creating alternatives that will help general educators serve children with learning or adjustment problems in the regular setting. Some approaches being used to help achieve this are consultant teachers, methods and materials specialists, itinerant teachers and resource room teachers; Uniting the skills of general education and special education so that all children may have equal educational opportunity (Michigan Federated Chapters of the Council of Exceptional Children, 1976). They go on to clarify still further by stating that mainstream- ing is not: 1. Wholesale return of all exceptional children in special classes to regular classes. Permitting children with special needs to remain in regular classrooms without the support services that they need. Ignoring the need of some children for a more specialized program than can be provided in the general education pro- gram. Less costly than serving children in special self-contained classroom (Michigan Federated Chapters of the Council of Exceptional Children, 1976). There is, however, no one definition of mainstreaming advo- cated by all proponents of the concept. Birch (1974) presented the most comprehensive definition found. He listed 14 elements of main- streaming: 1. 10. 11. 12. Mainstreaming refers to assigning handicapped pupils to regular classes and providing special education for them. In mainstreaming, regular class teachers broaden and adapt instructional procedures and content so all children are incorporated into a regular program at levels manageable for each child and teachers. Mainstreaming may be done at any level, preschool through secondary level. In mainstreaming, the handicapped pupil reports to the regu- lar class teachers. In conventionally organized schools or in open space schools the handicapped pupils being mainstreamed spend half of more of the day in regular classes. In conventionally organized schools the special education teacher has a headquarters room to which pupils can come for periods of time from the mainstream rooms to which they are assigned. In open space schools the special education teacher may be a member of the team serving in the open space setting or may have a separate room as headquarters. Mainstreamed handicapped pupils leave the main group only for essential small group or individual instruction, educa- tional assessment, and the pick up or delivery of assignments prepared by the special education teachers. The regular class teachers and the special education teachers agree upon individual schedules and assignments as needed for children being mainstreamed. Regular class teachers are responsible for grades and report cards for the mainstreamed handicapped pupils but they may consult with special education teachers on the grading. Special education teachers help regular class teachers also by providing educational assessments and instructional con- sultation for regular class pupils who may not be eligible for special education in the usual sense. Mainstreaming implies the following Operating principle: Handicapped pupils usually begin their education in regular regular kindergarten or first grade groups with special education support, and they are removed to special classes or special schools only when the necessity to do so is shown and only for the periods required to prepare the pupils for return to regular classes. 13. Criteria for selecting handicapped pupils for mainstreaming are in terms of matching pupils' educational needs and the capability of a mainstream program to meet those needs, rather than in terms of the severity of the pupil's physical, mental, emotional, or other handicap. l4. Mainstreaming has a place in the spectrum of plans for organizing instruction, space, and facilities to accommodate the educational needs of handicapped pupils (pp. 12-13). In 1975, Public Law 94-142, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, was passed. This law requires all school districts to provide a free public education to all handicapped children between the ages of 3 and 19, in an environment that will best meet their needs in the regular classroom with nonhandicapped children (least restric- tive environment). But many educators are expressing concern that in the rush to comply with the new law, the barriers to successful mainstreaming will be ignored. Among these barriers are the negative attitudes, fears, anxieties, and possibly overt rejection toward the handicapped, not just from their peers but also from the adults in the schools--the teachers and principals. Principal's Role in Mainstreaming A variety of studies have been reported from the educational research community on problems confronting the schools. One point on which they most agree is the principal is the key figure for change in the schools. A million-dollar study conducted on school violence reported that the role of the principal appears to be a critical fac- tor in schools that solve problems involving student violence. Other studies have found that a principal's leadership and personal commit- ment can spell the difference in whether a school and its community adjust well to desegregation, and whether a school achieves academic excellence. The school principal's role is often central in the success or failure of a mainstreaming program. Marr and Kohl (1972) stated: Many areas of education are currently undergoing rapid change, and since the administrator may well be one of the most impor- tant change agents, his concerns, opinions, and the level of information deserve special attention if he is to inform his fellow administrators, teachers and constituents about the current trends and issues. Administrative opinions and the implications for administering programs with regard to mainstreaming of handicapped students in the regular classroom are important. As a United States Office of Educa- tion official stated: Probably the most important factor to be considered ”in the mainstreaming concept” are the attitudes of the educators, parents and the community toward the handicapped as a group, since these attitudes can affect the success of any mainstream- ing effort. Fears and misconceptions need to be assuaged by current, accurate information before any positive gains in mainstreaming can be achieved. This most difficult aspect of achieving change requires a unified effort, in the most basic sense, from those who are trying to initiate mutual responsi- bility role delineating toward a mainstream effort (Mann, 1976, p. 36). In many studies across the nation, it has been pointed out that a competent school administrator is the single most important person in a school system. Without a strong administrator who stood up as an advocate for the education of the students and a buffer against those who aggressively pursued policies that gratified their own desires regardless of the boys and girls, the quality of the education would erode (Gold, 1975, p. 3). The success or failure of mainstreaming in the schools depends in large measure on the competence of the resource room teacher and the regular teacher, plus the attitude of those two pro- fessionals toward each other and toward the student. However, as equally crucial is the role of the school principal or administrator (Mitchell, 1976, p. 305). The principal, due to his position of leadership, is the crucial person in integrating a retarded child into a regular classroom (Murray & Payne, 1974, p. 124). Beery (1974) stated, ”Belief in self and others leads to creation of a democratic environment in which principal growth facilitates teacher growth which, in turn facilitates pupil growth." The point to stress is that administrative attitudes influence administrative decisions. This also implies that decisions made by administrators can affect the outcome of the educational programs within their jurisdiction. Hence, the direction of educational pro- grams plus the quality of those programs are greatly dependent upon the attitudes and leadership ability of the administrator. Statement of the Problem A review of the literature brings to light many of the fac- tors contributing to the success and failure of previous efforts to mainstream handicapped students. Much of the success of mainstreaming is dependent upon the involvement of the total educational community (Hewett, 1971, p. 76). Bertness (1976) stated that the key to success seems to be the total commitment of teachers, administrators, parents, and student to the mainstream concept. Many authors, whether approving or opposing the mainstreaming movement, advocate very strongly the adequate preparation of "educa- tional personnel,‘I teachers and administrators, to the greatest pos- sible extent (Bruiniks, Gross, & Rynders, 1974, p. 379). Factors con- tributing to the success or failure of mainstreaming include modifi- cation of curricula, physical facilities, and equipment. However, the factor that is stressed in the literature that does promote suc- cessful mainstreaming is the development of positive attitudes toward the handicapped and the mainstreaming process. A review of the literature also indicates a number of studies have been conducted dealing with teachers' attitudes toward handicapped students and mainstreaming. However, few studies have been conducted which address themselves to the attitudes of elementary and secondary school administrators toward mainstreaming of handicapped children into regular classrooms. If the building principal were to be supportive of mainstreaming of handicapped children, then as educational leader he could help insure the success of a mainstream program. On the other hand, should the building principal be reluctant to mainstream, the chances of achieving success would be severely limited. Even official mandates from the central office will not easily circumvent the effects of such a negative outlook. Dr. Cosealla, at the 1973 AASA conference, implied that if the building principal rejects mainstreaming of the handicapped child, how can we expect acceptance by the classroom teachers? Since the opinions of the school principal are an important factor contribut- ing to the success of a mainstreaming program, then identification of opinions toward mainstreaming is necessary. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine the opinions of elementary and secondary school principals in the Green Bay School District toward mainstreaming of handicapped students into the regular classroom. The following four variables were considered in the study: 1. The opinion of elementary and secondary school principals toward mainstreaming, 2. The opinion of elementary and secondary school principals toward the type of handicapped being mainstreamed, 3. The opinion of elementary and secondary school principals concerning the level of knowledge about mainstreaming possessed by the principal involved in mainstreaming, and 4. The present status of mainstreaming in each principal's building. In addition to the four variables, principals were asked to list obstacles they see as detrimental to mainstreaming. An analysis was made to determine if any relationship exists between the opinions of the school principals and certain demographic information associated with each principal. In order to examine this relationship, the following demographic information about the school principal was collected: 10 Age of the principal Years of experience as a school administrator Academic preparation Size of school Sex of administrator Research Questions As a result of this study, answers to the following questions were sought. 1. What are the opinions of the school principals toward mainstreaming? What categories of handicapped students would be recom- mended by the principal to be mainstreamed? What categories of handicapped students would be least recommended by the principals to be mainstreamed? What are the opinions about the level of knowledge about mainstreaming possessed by school principals? Is mainstreaming occurring presently in the principal's building? What competencies in mainstreaming are needed by prin- cipals? Definition of Terms Mainstreaming: Although no one definition of mainstreaming is advocated by all, there are common elements. For the purpose of this study mainstreaming is defined as the placement of handicapped pupils in regular classrooms for all or some portion of the day. It 11 is providing the most appropriate educational setting for each child in the least restrictive environment. Handicapped person: Persons identified by an educational planning and placement committee as educable mentally impaired; emo- tionally disturbed; learning disabled; physically impaired; or hearing, speech, or otherwise health impaired who, by reason of their handi- capping condition, cannot succeed in an educational program designed for persons without such handicaps and who, for that reason, require special education assistance. Elementary level: The elementary level as referred to in this study includes kindergarten through grade six. Secondary level: The secondary level as referred to in this study includes grades seven through twelve. Limitations of Study The following limitations should be considered in interpreting the results of this study: 1. The information is limited to responses on a questionnaire and it is therefore subject to the difficulties inherent in this type of an instrument. The confidence which could be placed in the Opin- ions of those principals responding to the questionnaire and the reliability of the questionnaire itself are not above question. 2. This study is concerned with one selected school district; thus the results should not be used to generalize to all school dis- tricts. 12 Overview of the Dissertation The organization of this study involves five major chapters. The first chapter serves as the basis for identification of the prob- lem and a rationale for the purpose of the study. In Chapter II the literature review provides an overview of two areas: a review of mainstreaming legislation and a historic per- spective of the development of mainstreaming. The review of main- streaming legislation describes both the state and federal legisla- tion mandating mainstreaming for the handicapped, while the historic perspective gives a brief review of the history of special education and how the mainstreaming movement came into existence. Chapter III presents the methods and procedures used in the study, as well as certain demographic information about the population of principals in the Green Bay School District. Chapter IV is an analysis of the survey data as it related to the research questions presented in Chapter 1. Chapter V presents the summary, conclusions, and implications of this study. Recommendations for future research are also presented. Summary Mainstreaming, which is simply defined as providing high- quality special education for handicapped children while they remain in the regular classroom, is considered by some to be one of the most controversial issues facing the public schools today. In 1975, Public Law 94—142, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, passed requiring all school districts to provide a free public education to 13 all handicapped children between the ages 3 to 19, in the least restrictive environment. However, in the attempt to comply with this new law, many educators feel that the barriers to successful main- streaming will be ignored. Among the barriers are the negative atti- tudes toward the handicapped that can be held by peers, teachers, and school administrators. It is the purpose of this research to study the attitudes of all the elementary and secondary principals in the Green Bay, Wisconsin, School District toward mainstreaming handicapped children into the regular classroom. It is the contention of this researcher than the success of a mainstreaming program depends in large part upon the attitudes and leadership ability of the school principal. A questionnaire was developed and administered to all the principals and assistant principals in the Green Bay School District, and the answers to six research questions were sought. Definitions of all the terms used in this study were stated, as well as the limi- tations inherent in this research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The greatest challenge in education today according to Birch and Johnstone (1975) is ensuring that all schools are as readily and fully accessible to handicapped children as to the nonhandicapped. From every standpoint, whether that of human rights, economic effi- ciency, educational effectiveness, or social desirability, the national interest is to serve handicapped children equally with all others. Putting this concept into practice means turning away from the tradi- tional segregation of the handicapped. Many of the authors reviewed stress the importance of changes in attitudes, behaviors, and socio—educational structure. Critical to the mainstream efforts is the necessity of change, not only on the part of the individual, but also in the social and cultural atmosphere which promotes helplessness on the part of the handicapped individual. Those labeled ”handicapped“ are treated differently by our society which seemingly emphasizes the disability of the individual rather than the ability which works against the individual (Birch, 1974, pp. 12-13). A Mainstreaming Legislation An analysis of literature related to the research topic has produced a category which requires an analysis so that the urgency of 14 15 mainstreaming handicapped children is better understood. This related area is the legislation, both state and federal, mandating mainstream- ing for handicapped children. Public Law 94-142, The Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 The primary factor requiring the urgent attention of school administrators toward mainstreaming is the legislation concerning the education of the handicapped. In Wisconsin, there are two legislative acts that directly affect the mainstreaming movement--one federal and one state. The federal act, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL 94-142), provides for the educational assistance of all handicapped children in the United States. It is the purpose of this act to assure that all handicapped children have available to them within the time periods speci- fied, a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs to assure that the rights of the handicapped children and their parents or guardians are protected to assist states and localities to provide for the education of all han- dicapped children, and to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate handicapped children (Public Law 94-142, 1975). Public Law 94—142 mandates publicly supported education for all handicapped children ages 3 to 18 by September 1, 1978, and ages 3 to 21 by September 1, 1980, unless it is inconsistent with current state law. Also, the law requires school officials to draw upon individualized education programs for every handicapped child. Numerous procedural safeguards such as the following are guaranteed: due process procedures, all education and training to be provided through an individual plan, all education and training to be provided 16 in the least restrictive environment to the individual, use of non- discriminatory testing and evaluation procedures, and assuring con- fidentiality of information. Wisconsin Statute 115 Statute 115, Subchapter IV, of the state of Wisconsin estab- lishes the right of each handicapped person in this state to such educational opportunities as will fully develop his maximum potential (Rules Implementing Sub-Chapter IV of Chapter 115 Wisconsin Statutes, 1975). The legislature recognized that many children and youth, 3 to 21 years of age, have not experienced appropriate educational opportunities because comprehensive services were not available through all public schools which were commensurate with their excep- tional education needs. This statute was enacted to ensure the iden- tification of such needs and the development of services for children to appropriately serve these needs. Statute 115 defines children and youth with exceptional edu- cation needs as: . . . any child who has a mental, physical, emotional or learn- ing disability which, if the full potential of the child is to be attained, requires educational services to the child to sup- plement or replace regular education. Children with the follow- ing conditions, in addition to children with such other conditions as the state superintendent determines, may require educational services to supplement or replace regular education: Physical, crippling or orthopedic disability, Mental retardation or other developmental disabilities, Hearing impairment, Visual disability, Speech or language disability, Emotional disturbance, Learning disability (Sub-Chapter IV of Chapter 115 Wisconsin Statutes, 1975). LQ—thClOD'QJ 17 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 This set of regulations prohibits discrimination on the basis of the handicap to any program or activity receiving federal funds or financial assistance. The proposed rules and regulations, which were published in 1976, contained six major sections. Subpart A outlines the purpose, intent, definitions, and specific discriminatory practices that are prohibited. The basic provision states that: No qualified handi- capped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be excluded from par- ticipation in or be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity which receives or benefits from federal financial assistance. Among the discriminatory actions which are prohibited are the following: 1. Denying handicapped individuals the opportunity to partici- pate in or benefit from aides, benefits, or services which are not equal to the opportunities afforded others; 2. Providing aides, benefits, services to handicapped indi- viduals which are not as effective as was provided to others; 3. Providing different or separate aides, benefits, or ser- vices to handicapped individuals unless such an action is necessary to insure the effectiveness of such aides, bene- fits, or services; 4. Selecting location for facilities which may have the effect of excluding handicapped persons or otherwise denying them benefits or services (Rehabilitation Act, 1973). Subsection C of this act speaks to the needs for barrier-free environments to ensure program accessibility by the handicapped. It outlines how existing facilities and new construction must have acces— sible facilities to service handicapped individuals. 18 Subpart D speaks to federally supported programs for preschool, elementary, secondary, and adult education. Many of the provisions in this section are identical or similar to the assurances provided in Public Law 94-142 and speak to providing free and appropriate educa— tional programs in the most normal setting feasible. Historical Background of Mainstreaming In order to understand how the mainstreaming movement came into existence, a brief review of the history of special education will be helpful. The history of special education in the United States can be grouped into three distinct periods. The first period begins in the 16th century and extends approximately to 1875. During this period handicapped people were institutionalized but seldom treated. The next period, from 1875 to the beginning of World War II, saw the development of special schools and special classes for the handicapped in the public school system. In the third, World War II, parents' groups and legislation changed pe0ple's attitudes toward the handi- capped and the treatment of them. 1500-1875 In the past and in some instances today, the handicapped have been relegated to a low position in our society. Many viewed the han- dicapped as possessing strange and mystical powers and linked them with the occult. As a result, they were often feared, ridiculed, or avoided. Further, there was no scientific basis upon which to realis- tically deal with the handicapped; research into these areas did not develop until after the 18005. 19 In the early history of the United States, the political life and the religious life were closely related. Many times the politi- cal leaders of a community were also the religious leaders. This factor oftentimes hindered the development of positive attitudes toward the handicapped. Early religious beliefs viewed man as being created in God's own image. Since God was considered to be perfect in a physical and mental sense, man should also be physically and mentally perfect. Therefore, since the handicapped were not perfect, they were rejected not only by the religious leaders, but the politi- cal leaders as well. The first form of treatment for the handicapped in the United States was institutionalization. Before this time, the mentally ill had been kept chiefly in monasteries and prisons. San Hipolito, built by Bernardino Alvares in Mexico, in 1544, was the first such institution established in the Americas (Cruickshank, 1967, p. 69). In the United States the first such institution was the Pennsylvania Hospital established in 1756 by Benjamin Franklin (Cruickshank, 1967, p. 71). These early institutions, however, cared for patients little better than the earlier penal institutions. Mental patients were treated more like animals than human beings, and there was no attempt to classify them according to types of disability. The records of the early poorhouses, county jails, and mental hospitals abound with reports of inmates who had epilepsy, were crippled, had ”fits,“ and were chained to a stake in the yard. In sum, the early attitudes toward the handicapped were partly reflected in the terms used to 20 describe them--atypical, lunatics, deviates--and partly reflected by the lack of compassion shown them. The changes in attitudes toward handicapped people can be credited to a few outspoken people. In the early part of the 19th century, Horace Mann and Samuel Gridley Howe pleaded for more humane treatment of retarded children. As a result of these efforts, schools for the blind, the deaf, and the mentally retarded were built. The Massachusetts School for the Blind and Perkins Institution was incor- porated in 1821 (Cruickshank, 1967, p. 75). The New York Institute for the Education of the Blind was opened in New York City in 1832 (Cruickshank, 1967, p. 76). These institutions reflected a change in the attitude of society and especially the state legislatures. Society began to recognize that some people needed special care, training, or treatment. Eventually the residential school for the handicapped became a familiar American institution. The growth of the residential school was rapid from 1850 to 1920. Every territory that became a state up through 1920 either established some type of residential school for some group of handi- capped children before statehood or shortly thereafter. During the middle decade of the 19th century in America, treatment of the mentally ill took on a different form. Many educators felt that such environmental factors as adequate diets, health, train- ing, and education could help prevent or treat retardation. With this approach, institutions for the retarded tended to be educational instead of custodial. It was believed, for example, that the retarded could be restored to the general community through education. 21 1875-1940 From 1875 to the start of World War II, special education for the handicapped did not progress, and in some instances it deteriorated. Such social factors as compulsory education, the popularity of Darwin's theory, and the Great Depression had considerable impact on special education. The most significant of these was compulsory education. During the last quarter of the 19th century, special education classes were established largely as a result of compulsory education. With the advent of compulsory education, handicapped children were forced to attend school. The schools, realizing they were unable to handle this influx of handicapped students, began the establishment of special classes not for humanitarian reasons, but because these students were not wanted in the regular public school classroom. And the feelings against mainstreaming, or keeping the handicapped chil- dren in the regular classroom, were strong. To better understand why there was a strong feeling against mainstreaming during this period, a brief explanation of how compul- sory attendance laws came into being is in order. This period was characterized by large waves of immigrants from EurOpe coming to America. The new immigrants congregated in self-contained neighborhoods in the cities trying to preserve their cultural heritages and customs. Some feared that in order to preserve our language and even our government, schools needed to teach all chil- dren of immigrants about laws, order, and government. As a result, teachers were delegated the responsibility of Americanizing the immi- grants (Curti, 1971). The immigrants were perceived as a threat to 22 American society and Americanization was America's response. It took the form of compulsory school attendance. As Hoffman (1974) stated, The huge influx of foreign-speaking immigrants with their children provoked a societal effort to maintain stability, which was a primary factor in the enactment and enforcement of compulsory school attendance laws. Between 1852 and 1918, all the states passed compulsory attendance laws. Mississippi was the last to pass such laws (Cremin, 1961, p. 196). It was also around this time that special education classes for the handicapped began to be established. Compulsory school attendance led to the develOpment of special education classes. In 1909 the superintendent of Baltimore schools wrote, Under the operation of school attendance laws, instead of easily getting rid of dullards and laggards, as we too often formerly did, we are undertaking to hold them and teach them; and it is an easy problem to discover who they are, for they force themselves upon our attention. We cannot be ignorant of their presence (Gossard, 1940, p. 16). Later, Hoffman (1974) noted this same relation between compulsory school attendance and the establishment of special classes. He stated that compulsory school attendance brought an increasing number of individuals into the school which the regular classroom could not handle. Handicapped children who for various reasons had previosuly been eliminated from schools could no longer be disregarded (Cremin, 1961, p. 201). By the end of the 19th century, a growing pessimism began to overshadmw special education. Institutions founded to educate and treat the handicapped began to be more simply custodial. Katz (1968) believed that this transformation resulted from the bureaucratization 23 of these facilities. As they expanded and grew, they began to be governed by wardens and assistants who were unable to maintain the warmth and family-style atmosphere that had characterized many of these institutions when they were smaller. It was also at this time that educators came to the realization that training retarded individuals was not going to result in their normalcy (Dunn, 1963). The idea of classification of handicapping conditions was beginning to become popular in the educational circles around 1920 and 1930. The increasing use of the intelligence test developed in 1914 by Alfred Binet was important in developing the concept of individual differences. Residential school administrators, particularly in schools and hospitals for retarded children, began to see how much easier and how much more appropriately a school could be operated if homogeneous grouping was obtained. Michigan presents a good example of this development. The Michigan House of Correction for Juvenile Offenders was established in 1855. Almost immediately the superintendent indicated the difficulty of maintaining an institution for boys and girls together. Within a relatively few years, an institution for boys and another for girls were placed in Operation. The Lapeer State Home and Training School for retarded children of all classifications was initially the single facility in the state of Michigan. To this institution was later added a series of others which were geared to meet the needs of particular groups of mentally retarded children (Cruickshank, 1967, p. 69). Thus, one sees the idea of how classification and Specialization based upon individual differences affected the residential school develop- ment. Provisions for crippled children also developed around 1920. Here the policy was not to build large residential facilities as had 24 been the practice earlier, but to build decentralized hospital-school facilities and local clinics. The main purpose was to keep the crip- pled child near his home community. Such developments helped to influence local educators in rethinking their responsibilities to han- dicapped children. 1940-Present World War II caused people in the United States to accept handicapped far more readily than ever before. The number of disabled American men, discovered through physical examination and judged unfit to serve in the Armed Forces, was great; although tens of thousands of men were rejected at induction centers because of physical or men- tal impairments or both, the majority of these men were treated as normal citizens by their peers. After the war, thousands of men returned injured and disabled. Although some were not totally accepted in their communities because of their disabilities, most were. This acceptance was extended, consciously or unconsciously, to physically and mentally handicapped children. Partly as a result of this accept- ance, the period after World War II saw the greatest advances in special education for the handicapped: in the number of children served, the number of programs established, and money appropriated for funding programs, research, and teacher-training programs. It was also during this period that programs for handicapped children were really built into the schools. Although special programs for the handicapped declined during World War II, they increased steadily after 1948. Much of this 25 increase can be attributed to parents. The year 1940 marked the beginning of parental action on behalf of handicapped children. Since then, a number of powerful organizations have been created throughout the United States to represent most areas of handicapped. Parental organizations have had their greatest impact on state legislatures, local school boards, and Congress; they have been instrumental in establishing local school programs and the passing of federal and state legislation. In addition, parental organizations and parents of minority-group children have joined forces in seeking assistance to reduce the over-representation of minority children in classes for the mentally and behaviorally handicapped (Reynolds, 1975, pp. 16-17). The expansion of services during the late 19505 and 19605 can be attributed to federal legislation. The federal government intervened in the care and treatment of the handicapped, and grants were provided to state and local school districts for their education. Such legislative acts as the Mental Retardation Facilities Act, signed by President Kennedy in 1963, helped to stress the importance of federal legislation. This particular act appropriated over $50 million for the education of the handicapped, established the Division of Handicapped Children and Youth under the Office of Education, and appropriated $11 million during 1964—65 for scholarships and fellowships for people entering the field of education for the handicapped (Connor, 1964, pp. 206-209). Much of the federal legislation passed between 1957 and 1967 provided money funds for such areas as research for the mentally retarded, training of professional personnel for the handicapped, and research in physical education and recreation for the handicapped. 26 The states also began to initiate similar legislation. By 1955, 48 states had provided either advisory or financial assistance. In most of these states such assistance meant some reimbursement for expenses incurred by the local school districts in providing education programs for the handicapped. In 1955, only seven states provided educational programs in the schools for the physically handicapped, the educable mentally handicapped, the trainable, and the socially or emotionally maladjusted. But the following year, the number of states that provided these pro— grams increased to 15. This momentum for legislation continued to increase so that by 1958, 13 states had mandatory legislation requir— ing local school districts to provide educational services for the han- dicapped. Although special education experienced its greatest growth between 1955 and 1958, programs and services for the handicapped were still needed. For some the programs were not available, and for others residential institutions were the only facilities oepn to them. Pro- grams for the multiple handicapped, preschool-aged handicapped, autis- tic, and brain injured were practically nonexistent. The quality of services also needed improvements. Programs varied from school to school and state to state; and the number of programs existing in a state meant mothing in terms of quality of services. Just prior to the mid-19605, special education was enjoying a new popularity. But an article written by L. M. Dunn in 1968 started a splitting of the ranks of special educators and caused a radical 27 change in special education. Dunn stated that special education prac- tices were wrong, and as special educators we have been generally ill prepared and ineffective in edu- cation of these children. Let us stop being pressured into continuing and expanding a special education program that we know to be undesirable for many of the children we are dedi- cated to serve. ' Immediately after Dunn's challenge of special education practices, a proliferation of articles supporting him appeared in the literature: Lilly, Deno, Anderson, Trippe, and other Critics, citing research studies, stated that handicapped children in special classes did more poorly in physical, personal, and academic areas than handicapped chil- dren in regular classes (Lilly, 1970, pp. 43-49). Therefore, many called for abolition of special classes for all except the most severely impaired. As a result of that growing disenchantment, special education now emphasizes mainstreaming. This new movement, aimedat.providing quality education to exceptional children in the regular classroom, is perceived by some to be the solution to the problems of the excep- tional child. Mainstreaming has the support of the federal government in the form of Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, passed in 1975. Most states also have passed laws man- dating mainstreaming for handicapped children. Summary This chapter presented a literature overview of two areas: a review of the mainstreaming legislation and a historic perspective of the development of mainstreaming. The legislation described 28 included both state and federal laws mandating mainstreaming for the handicapped. In order to better understand how the mainstreaming movement came into being, a brief review of the history of special education was discussed. The history of special education in the United States can be grouped into three distinct periods. The first period begins in the 16th century and extends approximately to 1875. During this period handicapped individuals had been through an ordeal. The only form of treatment available to them was through institutional facili- ties that were ill prepared to handle their needs. The next period, from 1875 to the beginning of World War II, saw the advent of compulsory public education and the develOpment of special schools and special classes for the handicapped. With compul- sory school laws, handicapped children were forced to attend schools. The schools, realizing they were unable to handle the needs of these special individuals, argued for the organization of the special class. These special classes, however, floundered for years because of inade- quate funds and ill-prepared staffs. In the third period, World War II, parents' groups and legis- lation changed people's attitudes toward the handicapped and the treatment of them. During this time special classes for the handi- capped enjoyed periods of p0pularity and increased support, as well as periods of doubt and opposition. Presently, handicapped children are being placed back into the regular classroom. Mainstreaming has ladvanced very fast with the help of state and federal laws. It is 29 still questioned, however, whether mainstreaming is providing the most effective education for handicapped children. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study was to determine the Opinions of elementary and secondary school administrators in the Green Bay School District toward mainstreaing of handicapped students into the regu- lar classroom. The following five variables were considered in the study: (1) the opinion of elementary and secondary school principals toward mainstreaming, (2) the opinion of elementary and secondary school principals toward the type of handicapped being mainstreamed, (3) the opinion of elementary and secondary school principals concern- ing the level of knowledge about mainstreaming possessed by the prin- cipal involved in mainstreaming, (4) the present status of mainstream- ing in each principal's building, and (5) what additional competencies in the area of mainstreaming are needed by school principals. In addition to the four variables, the following demographic information about each principal was collected: (1) age of principal, (2) years of experience as a school administrator, (3) academic preparation, (4) size of school, (5) sex of administrator, (6) years of experience as a full-time teacher, and (7) grade level of present assignment. This study was designed to obtain the opinions of all the principals and assistant principals in one school district. The data collected, therefore, represent the opinions of the total pOpulation 3O 31 defined for this study. Because the sample included the total popu- lation, the need for a pilot study and the use of inferential sta- tistics was not necessary. Description of Population The population included in this study consists of all the elementary and secondary school principals and assistant principals in the Green Bay Public School District, Green Bay, Wisconsin. Of the 44 principals in the district, 26 are at the elementary level, 8 are at the secondary school level, and 10 are assistant principals at the secondary level. There are no assistant principals employed at the elementary level. The Green Bay Public Schools have 26 elementary schools and 8 secondary schools, 4 junior highs (grades 7 through 9), and 4 senior highs (grades 10 through 12). The Special Education Services in the district serve students in the following programs: physically han- dicapped, visually impaired, emotionally disturbed, educable and trainable mentally retarded, learning disabled, pregnant girls, and homebound plus speech therapy. For the school year 1977-1978, the total school enrollment was 20,757 with 1,197 certified and 535 non- certified staff members. The school district covers a geographic area of 92 square miles with more than half of it outside the Green Bay city limits. Financially, the 1978 operating budget was approximately $39 million with an assessed valuation of $1.6 billion. 32 The population of the city, approximately 90,000, is mainly white, middle class with less than 1 percent racial-ethnic minority group representation in the schools (Bureau of the Census, 1972, p. 32). Instrumentation In order to obtain information necessary to answer specific questions asked in this study, a questionnaire was develOped and administered to all elementary and secondary school principals in the Green Bay Public School District. The development of the questionnaire took approximately six months, during which time an extensive national search of mainstream- ing projects was conducted. After reviewing many research projects which included, but was not limited to, studies conducted at the Universities of Michigan, Tennessee, Arkansas, Minnesota, and Wiscon- sin, a large list of specific questions was compiled that would be appropriate for this study. From this list, 20 of the most appropriate questions were selected to be included in this study. After consulta- tion with experts in the areas of tests and measurements and question- naire development, one of the experts, Dr. William Mehrens of Michigan State University, recommended designing the instrument so that it could be completed by an individual in less than 10 minutes. This design would increase the percentage of those completing and return- ing it. Upon completion of the first draft, the instrument was then given to experts in the area of mainstreaming and school administration 33 to examine it for both content and face validity. From these recommen- dations the final draft of the questionnaire was developed. It was also advised by the experts in research methodology that a pilot study of the questionnaire would not be necessary since the study included the total population of the study and since the content and face validity had been established. The design of the questionnaire included the following cate- gories: 1. Demographic: This category includes such information about school principals as years of experience as an administrator, size of principal's school, age, and sex. 2. General Opinions: This category includes general Opinions of school principals toward the mainstreaming concept, plus Opinions about the principal's knowledge level of mainstreaming. 3. Types of Handicaps Being Mainstreamed: This category includes whether or not mainstreaming is occurring and the numbers of handicapped being mainstreamed. This category also includes opin- ions regarding type of handicapped the principals feel should be main- streamed in particular curriculum areas. 4. Additional Competencies Needed by Principals: This cate- gory includes what additional competencies are needed by school principals in certain areas of mainstreaming. There was also a section included for the principals to list what they view as major obstacles to successful mainstreaming. The results of this Open-ended question are compiled and included in the Appendix. Where opinions were sought, a Likert-type scale was used 34 with five responses ranging from “strongly agree" to "strongly dis- agree.” Data Collection The data-collection process was greatly facilitated by the superintendent and assistant superintendent in the Green Bay School District. After several contacts with the central office administra- tion, the assistant superintendent in charge of personnel agreed to distribute the questionnaires to all the school principals and assis- tant principals and assist in collecting them after their completion. The total collection process took approximately four weeks, but a 100 percent return was obtained, thus representing the total popula- tion of all school principals in the district. Data Analysis The data from the questionnaire were completed and keypunched on computer cards and analyzed by the computer program--Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) at Michigan State University. The specific analysis included the subprograms of condescriptive and descriptive data, and cross-tabulation yielding the Chi-Square sta- tistic. All of the data were reported in the form of descriptive statistics-—percentages, frequencies, and mode when applicable. A Chi-Square analysis was also used to determine if any relationship existed between the opinions of the school principals and certain demographic information associated with each principal--age, years of experience as an administrator, sex, size of school, etc. 35 Summary This study was designed to obtain the opinions of all the elementary and secondary principals, as well as assistant principals, in the Green Bay School Distirct. Since the data collected repre- sented the opinions of the total population defined for this study, statements about sampling procedures and the need for a pilot study were not necessary. The population of principals for this research came from a predominantly white, middle-class city with a population of approxi- mately 90,000 with a school enrollment of 20,757. In order to obtain the data to answer the six research ques- tions, a questionnaire was developed and administered to the 44 prin- cipals in the district. The questionnaires were collected by the assistant superintendent in the personnel department of the school dis- trict, and he assisted in seeing that everyone completed and returned the questionnaires. A 100 percent return was obtained. The data were then computer analyzed and reported in the form of descriptive statistics, frequencies, percentages, means, and mode. A Chi-Square analysis was also used to determine if any relationship existed between the opinions of the principal and certain demographic characteristics. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The purpose of this chapter is to report the data collected in this study. The data are reported in three sections, the first describing the demographic characteristics about each principal, the second including testing for association of the demographic variables with the opinions of the principals, plus answering the six research questions as stated in Chapter I. The third section contains the responses to the open-ended question posed to the principals, "What do you view as major obstacles to successful mainstreaming?“ Demographic Information As previously stated, the population of this study included all of the 44 elementary and secondary principals and assistant prin- cipals in the Green Bay School District. The following demographic information was collected on each of the principals and is listed below in the following seven categories: Age Range of Principals As shown in Table 1, only 3 or 6.8 percent of the principals are in the age range of 35 years or younger, while 17 or 38.7 percent are in the range of 46 years or older: Only 5, or 11.4 percent, were older than 56 years of age. The age range of 36-45 was the mode, or 36 37 most frequent, representing 24 individuals and 54.5 percent of the population. Table l.—-Age range of principals. Age Range (Years) Number Percent 26-35 3 6.8 36-45 24 54.5 46-55 12 27.3 Over 56 5 11.4 Totals 44 99.0 Sex of Principals As can be seen from Table 2, the sex of the population is predominantly male--4O and only 4 females; this represents 91 per- cent and 9 percent, respectively. This uneven distribution of males and females among the administrative population can have a definite influence on the interpretation of the findings concerning this variable. Table 2.--Sex of principals. Sex Number Percent Male 40 90.0 Female 4 9.0 Totals 44 99.0 38 Level of Education While all the principals had Obtained degrees higher than baccalaureate, only five advanced past the masters level as shown in Table 3: three with doctorates and two with specialists. The majority, 39 or 88 percent, completed the masters degree. Table 3.--Level of education attained by principal. Degree Number Percent Masters 39 88.6 Specialist 2 4.6 Doctorate ' 3 6.8 Totals 44 100.0 Experience as Administrator Table 4 shows that one—half of the principals have 7 to 15 years' experience as a school administrator, while 13 or 39.5 percent had under 7 years of experience and 9 or 20.5 percent had over 15 years' experience. Experience as a Teacher According to Table 5, 34 percent of the principals had over 15 years of teaching experience before entering the administrators ranks, whereas 47.8 percent had 7 to 15 years of teaching experi- ence. 39 Table 4.--Years of experience as school administrator. Years of Experience Number Percent 0-3 6 13.6 4—6 7 15.9 7-10 10 22.7 11-15 12 27.3 Over 15 9 20.5 Totals 44 100.0 Table 5.--Years of experience as a teacher. EXEEFTang Number Percent 0—3 1 2.3 4-6 7 15.9 7-10 16 36.4 11-15 5 11.4 Over 15 15 34.1 Totals 44 100.1 Size of School As indicated by Table 6, 45.5 percent of the principals worked in buildings with school enrollments from 200 to 500, and 34 percent were assigned to schools with enrollments of 1,000 or more. 40 Table 6.--Size of school. Enrollment Number Percent 0-200 3 6.8 201-500 21 45.5 501-1000 5 11.4 Over 1000 15 34.1 Totals 44 97.8 Grade Level Table 7 points out that 54.5 percent of the principals are in the K—6 category, while 20.5 percent are assigned to both 7-9 and 10-12 grade levels. Two principals worked in an ungraded special education school. Table 7.--Grade level. Grade Level Number Percent K—6 24 54.5 7-9 9 20.5 10-12 9 20.5 Other 2 4.5 Totals 44 100.0 41 Chi-Square Analysis This section includes the results of the testing to determine if there was any association between the demographic variables and the opinions of the principal. A Chi-Square analysis was made to determine if any relation- ship exists between the opinions of the school principals toward mainstreaming and certain demographic information associated with each principal. With the significance level set at .05, the results of the analysis are listed below: 1. Age of the principal--No significant relationship was found between the age of the principals and their opinions toward mainstreaming. 2. Years of experience as a school administrator--A signifi- cant relationship was found between the number of years of experience as a school administrator and the opinions of whether mainstreaming can be successfully implemented at both the elementary and secondary level. The raw Chi-Square score was 22.1 with a significance level of .03. In this variable 50 percent of the principals had from 7 to 15 years' administrative experience, while only 20 percent had more and 30 per- cent had less. Of the 50 percent who had 7 to 15 years' experience, all but two agree that mainstreaming could be successfully implemented at both the elementary and secondary levels. Similarly, of those in the category with over 15 years of administrative experience, 75 per- cent support this belief. With those who had six years' experience or less, approximately one-half felt mainstreaming could occur suc- cessfully at both levels, and the other half were undecided. 42 3. Academicypreparation--Since 88.6 percent of the principals are at the master degree level, any interpretation of significance would be meaningless. 4. Size of school--No significant relationship was found between size of the school and the principals' opinion toward main- streaming. 5. Sex of administrators--Since 90 percent of the principals were male, any interpretation of significance would be meaningless. Research Questions The six research questions that were set out in Chapter I are presented below. Research Question 1: What are the opinions of school principals toward mainstreaming handicapped children? The data collected on the general Opinions of all school prin- cipals toward mainstreaming show that they are supportive of main- streaming handicapped students into the regular classroom. According to Table 8, question number 1 shows that 89.1 percent of the princi- pals agreed that handicapped students should be mainstreamed (combined “strongly agree” and "agree" classification). Question 2 shows that 90.9 percent felt that mainstreaming could improve the quality of edu- cation for the handicapped students with no one disagreeing. And question 4 points out that 86.4 percent of the principals agree that the contact between the nonhandicapped and handicapped student in a regular classroom can be beneficial to the average student. 43 .mmmmpcmocmq Cw umpgoqmg mama Hmwoz .mpcmuzpm umqamowncm: m.m m.mm m.mm N.NN _.m 40 mumm: mgp paws go: on meoogmmm_o covausz _mwumqm um:_mpcouud_mm .m .mCPppmm owamvmom cm . . . . cw mpcmnzpm cmaamuwucw: saw; pompcou o m N a FF m mm m om cw mcwmn do mocmwgmaxm mcp mvmmc pcmuzpm mmmcm>m asp was“ m>mw_mn H .q .pcmuzpm o 4._F o.mm m.oe N.NN uaaamuwucmgco: 8:8 Led cowpaasum do xww_m:c mgp m>ogaew :mo mc_smmgpm:wmz .m .pcmuzwm o o _.m m.em 4.8m umaamu_aca; 8:8 Led covpmasua Lo >OPFmsc asp m>ogasw cwu newEmmLumcwmz .N .Eoogmmmpo a m.© m.e m.om ©.wm Le_:maL me“ o“:_ magmacpmcvae on u_:o;m bemuspm umaamuwucm; asp ._ mogmmmwo mmgm< >Pmcogwm wmgmmmwo umvwowccz mmgmq >chocpm cowpmmzo .m:?Emmme:me ULmZOp mFmawocwgq _oosom __m 40 mcowcwao _mgmcmouu.m OFQmH 44 While most of the principals support the concept of main- streaming, 40.9 percent still indicate that self-contained special education classrooms meet the needs of handicapped students as shown by question 5, while 31.8 percent feel they do not. The remaining 27.3 percent are undecided. The opinions of whether mainstreaming can improve the quality of education for the handicapped students was generally supported by both elementary and secondary principals as indicated by question 1 in Table 9. In fact, no one disagreed with this statement. However, there was not complete agreement on whether mainstreaming would be as beneficial for the nonhandicapped student. Question 2 reports that while 75 percent of the elementary principals feel mainstreaming can improve the quality of education for the nonhandicapped, only 44 percent of the secondary principals feel this way. Moreover, it can be noted from question 2 that 22 percent of the secondary principals disagree with this statement while only 4.2 percent of the elementary principals disagreed. Although the principals indicate that they feel mainstreaming can occur successfully at both the elementary and secondary level, question 3 points out that the secondary principals are more uncer- tain of this since 33 percent are either undecided or disagree; whereas with the elementary principals only 16.7 percent are undecided and no one disagreed. The opinion of whether mainstreaming was supported by the general teaching staff differed between the elementary and secondary principals. Question 4 reports that only 20.9 percent of the elementary 45 .mmmmpcmOLmO :_ Ompgoamg OOOO ”mpoz .mpcmuzpm OOOOOO nwncmgco: Ocm Omgqmuwucw; ch O O OHFF OHNN O.N_ .Ommm -meOOOOP cm gmcpmmou __m3 xgoz O O N O_ O OO O _m zPOmOOLO O_:oz Locumwp Eco; -mmm_o m sea Loumosum meumam < .N . . . . .chsmogum O O O O N.NN N.NN .Ewmm lcwms Low mgmsummp mgwamgq ow O N O O O Om O OO Fm Omnmo: mgm mEmLOOLO wow>gmmucH .O . . . . . .chscmgum:_ms O.O O.Om O.mm O.NN O .Emmm OOOEOPOEP Op Omgmamga z_mpmzc m NF N «O m N_ O ON O _m -mum m_ mdmum chgummp OOH .O O N.O_ N.NN 0.0m O .omm .Odmum O:_;umwp _mgm:mm mg» O O.NO N.O_ N.O_ N.O .Em_m On Ompgoaazm m? chammgpmcwmz .O . . . . . ._m>mp mencoumm new zgmpcmsmpm O O O O.NN 0.0m O.N_ .Ewmm OOH £902 pm Ompcmempaew OPFOO O O N O_ O NO w ON .m -mmmoosm ma :mu OOPEmmLumcwmz .m . . . . . .pcwnzpm Owaamuwncmcco: O O.NN O.¢m O.mm O.__ .Ewmm mgu Low cowpmosvm do xpwpmzc O N O O ON N _O m mm _O mzp m>ogaew :mu Oswsmmgpmcwmz .N . . . . .pcmuzpm vagamowucm; O O O.N_ O.mm O.wN .Ewmm mgp Low cowumusvm we zpwpmzc O O N O N Om m PO _N wcp m>ogaew cmo chammgpmcwmz ._ mmLOmmwO mmLO< s_mcoepm mmemmmwo mandamus: mmcmq s_m:ocpm cowpmazo .chsmmgpmcmms Ogmzop m_mavocwga Foocom xgmucoomm new xgmpcmsw_m mgu do mcowcwao ngmcmOna.O OFOOH 46 administrators agreed that the general teaching staff was supportive of mainstreaming and 62.5 percent disagreed; whereas the secondary principals felt more strongly that their staffs were supportive of this view with 50 percent agreeing and 16.7 percent disagreeing. Both groups of principals viewed their staffs as not ade- quately prepared to implement mainstreaming (question 5 shows that once again the elementary administrators feel more strongly about this). However, question 6 states that both groups overwhelmingly agree that in-service programs are needed to help prepare teachers for mainstreaming. Similarly, another interesting finding and one that is con- sidered to be a major hurdle to successful mainstreaming is that of the relationship between the special educator and the classroom teacher. Review of literature has shown that many teachers and prin- cipals feel there could be some problems with the special educator and the regular classroom teacher working harmoniously together in the classroom. However, this does not seem to be the case in this study. Question 7 shows that both elementary and secondary principals feel that there would be no problems with these two types of teachers work- ing together and that they would probably work well together in inte- grating handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Research Question 2: What categories of handicapped students would be recommended by the principals to be mainstreamed? According to Table 10, approximately 87 of the elementary principals indicated that the category of handicapped most recommended 47 to be mainstreamed is the learning disabled. The emotionally impaired category ranked second with 73.3 percent, and the physically impaired third with 61.7 percent. Table lO.--Categories of handicapped students recommended to be mainstreamed. S d Category Elementary . econ ary Junior Sen1or Average Learning disabled 86.7 80.9 82.6 81.6 Educable mentally - impaired 57.5 69.9 52.4 61.1 Visually impaired 55.8 47.6 44.4 46.0 Hearing impaired 54.2 73.0 63.5 73.8 Emotionally impaired 73.3 65.1 82.6 73.8 Physically impaired 61.7 76.2 76.2 76.2 Note: Data reported in percentages. Similarly, at the secondary level 81.6 percent of the prin- cipals selected the learning disabled as their first choice for main- streaming, with 76.2 percent selecting the physically impaired as their second choice; the third choice included both educable mentally impaired and hearing impaired with 73.8 percent agreeing. A further breakdown of the secondary administrators found that the junior high principals also recommended the learning disabled category for main- streaming with 80.9 percent agreeing; while 76.2 percent chose the physically impaired second and 73.0 percent selected the hearing impaired third. Meanwhile, 82.6 percent of the senior high principals 48 recommended both the learning disabled and emotionally impaired as the categories of handicapped most favored to be mainstreamd, with 76.2 percent indicating their third choice as the physically impaired. When comparing the junior and senior high principals, it can be seen that both are in agreement on who should be mainstreamed and their order of priority except for the category of the emotionally impaired. Table 10 shows that the senior high principals selected both the learning disabled and emotionally impaired as their first choice to be mainstreamed, while the junior high principals placed the emotionally impaired next to last in their priority rating. As stated previously, the principals at both the elementary and secondary levels recommended the learning disabled as the category of handicapped most likely to be mainstreamed. It is also worthwhile to note that this category of handicapped presently has the largest number being mainstreamed in the Green Bay Public Schools. Research Question 3: What categories of handicapped would least likely be recommended by the principals to be main- streamed? As shown in Table 11, the categories of handicapped least likely to be recommended for mainstreaming by the elementary princi- pals are the hearing impaired with 45.8 percent concurring, followed by the visually impaired with the educable mentally impaired third with 44.2 percent and 42.5 percent agreeing, respectively. On the average, 54 percent of the secondary principals indi- cated the categories least likely to be recommended for mainstreaming into the regular classroom are the visually impaired, with the educable 49 mentally impaired second with 38.9 percent agreeing, and the hearing impaired third at 31.8 percent. It can be noted that both the elemen- tary and secondary administrators selected the same categories of handicapped but in different order of priority. Table 11 --Categories of handicapped students least likely to be recommended to be mainstreamed. S d Category Elementary econ ary Junior Senior Average Learning disabled 13.3 19.1 27.4 23.3 Educable mentally impaired 42.5 30.1 47.6 38.9 Visually impaired 44.2 52.4 55.6 54.0 Hearing impaired 45.8 27.0 36.5 31.8 Emotionally impaired 26.7 34.9 17.4 26.2 Physically impaired 38.3 23.8 23.8 23.8 Note: Data reported in percentages. In addition to answering research questions number 2 and 3, it was further attempted to determine what categories of handicapped students would be most and least recommended to be mainstreamed according to specific curriculum areas. What the data on this topic revealed was that no one curriculum area lends itself more to main- streaming than did any other. A close examination of Table 12 shows that of the handicapped students recommended to be mainstreamed, Home Economics has the highest average percentage in both the junior and senior high with 75.9 and 74.1 percent, respectively. At the 50 .88O8pcmogmq c8 umpgoamg 888O ”muoz 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 88888888 .88> 88888 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.888 8888 F888888888 8.88 8.88 8.88_ 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88_ 888888888 888: 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88_ 888888888 _8888888 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8888888 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8888888888: 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8888888 888888 888: 888888 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 88888888 .88> 88888 0.0N 0.00 N.OO m.88 8.88 O.Nm 0.00_ moweocoom 850: N.NN N.OO N.OO N.NN 8.88 0.00 0.00 mpg< megpmzucH N.NN N.OO N.OO m.88 8.88 0.00 0.0m cowpmoaum 88888858 N.OO O.88 N.OO N.OO O.mm O.mm O.NN mocmwom 8.8m O.Nm O.mm N.OO 8.88 8.88 O.mm 8888858588: ¢.O8 0.00 8.00 O.88 O.mm O.mm O.NN mmwnzpm meoom 888: 888888 m.NO 8.8m O.mN N.Om 0.00 O.mN m.mw cowumuzum Fmowmxca 0.00 N.OO 0.0N m.mm m.mm N.¢m 0.00F mmwuzum _8woom 0.00 N.OO N.O8 m.wm m.mm 0.0m m.mO mucmwum P.8O 8.00 w.O8 N.qm N.¢m m.m¢ 0.0N movumamnpmz 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 888< 88888888 xmwpcmEm_m .m> OmgwmaeH OwgwmasH OOLWOOEH OmgwmaeH ngmmmmH Om_n888O < x__8888828 >F_8covpoEm chgmmx xppmzmw> mflkmwznm chcgmmO .88888 E:_308;L:u an Omammgpmcwma ma Op Omucmeeoomg 88:8O388 OmOOOO8Oc8: 8o 88880O888O--.NP m_388 51 junior high level, Mathematics is the least recommended for main- streaming at 57.4 percent. At the senior high level, Science was the least recommended area for mainstreaming. At the elementary level, the curriculum area that had the highest average percentage recommended to be mainstreamed was Social Studies, while Mathematics was the least recommended area. To help better understand these opinions, one must keep in mind the nature of the curriculum at the secondary level. Courses such as Physical Education, Home Economics, Industrial Arts, and other vocational programs have equipment and class activities that could be dangerous to students with certain handicaps such as men- tally impaired, hearing impaired, and especially visually impaired. The data in Table 12 seem to support this view. Of the four curric- ulum areas mentioned previously, 66.7 percent of the principals felt that mainstreaming for the visually impaired should not occur in these areas . Research Question 4: What is the opinion about the level of knowledge about mainstreaming possessed by school prin- cipals? Overall, the principals surveyed are ambivalent about whether school principals in general have sufficient knowledge about the con- cept of mainstreaming, and they do not feel that most school princi- pals understand the laws and regulations governing mainstreaming. In Table 13, question 1 shows that 43.2 percent agree and an equal 43.2 percent disagree that most principals have sufficient knowledge about mainstreaming. Question 2 indicates that while 36.4 percent agree that most principals understand the laws and regulations 52 .mmmmpcmogma c8 Ompgoqm; mme ”8802 8A8888 88 888 88888888 8888888888: ¢._— O.m_ 0.0 8.88 N.OF __< 80 cowpmoznmv Ncpnvm 284 88_OOO :88; so» 888 888_858w 30: .8 NAOOPEOOmecwme chpmucmsv 0.0 N.NN m.N m.Nm O.m_ 888 mpspmpm :88coomwz 5883 so» 888 888_858m so: .8 . . . . Nuamucoo chsmmgpmcwme O N O_ m N O O8 8 ON 8;“ :88; so» 888 888_8588 go: .m 888 828 8888858888 “Mmywmmm 88888888: 88888588 8h8> 8 .chemmgumcwms O N.m¢ N.O_ ¢.Om O chcgm>om mcoprFOOwL Ocm 838_ 8:8 Ocmpmgmucs 8_8O88:888 Foogom 88oz .N .OOPEOOmecwme we pqmucoo m.N 0.00 8.88 0.0¢ m.N 8:8 “3088 mOOmpzocx #:88888828 m>8; mflmqwocwga Foogum pmoz ._ mmLO888O mmLO< 8_O:ogum mmLO888O nonwowuca 888O< zpmcogwm 8:08:88O .chammgpmc8me 80 mOOmpzocx Ozonm 8_8O88:88O —oogum FFO we mcowcwaO--.m~ OPOOH 53 governing mainstreaming a larger 43.2 percent disagree. The remain- ing 18.2 percent are undecided. Further, when asked specifically how familiar they are with the mainstreaming concept, approximately 77 percent responded that they were either familiar or very familiar; and about 66 percent claimed they were familiar with the state and federal laws regulat- ing mainstreaming. These opinions are indicated by questions 3, 4, and 5, respectively. These data, however, do point out that a dis- crepancy exists between what they feel others know about mainstream- ing and what they themselves profess to know. In short, most feel that school principals in general possess a limited amount of knowl- edge about the concept of mainstreaming as well as the rules and regu- lations governing them. But these principals feel they personally are quite familiar with the mainstreaming concept and the state and fed- eral laws governing it. A closer examination of Table 14 shows that the principals on the secondary level are more optimistic about other school princi- pals and their knowledge regarding mainstreaming, as well as the laws and regulations governing it. The data from Table 14 point out that not only are they optimistic about the knowledge level of other school principals, but they themselves understand the concept and the laws of mainstreaming. However, their counterparts, the elementary princi- pals, feel that while they understand the concept and the laws regu- lating mainstreaming, they do not feel that most of the other principals possess the same knowledge. 54 .88O88888888 88 O8880888 888O ”88oz 888888 88 888 _.__ N.NN O.m 0.0m N.NN .Omm cmgu—88O O888888OO8I F_< 808 m.N_ m.m m.O m.Om m.m .8888 cowpmozumv NOPIOO 388 88_8:8 8883 :08 888 888F8288 30: .m . . . . . . O8858888mc885 O8888O885v 88 2. . . M.w8 m.mm 888 m.mM M.W8 .888W 888 8888888 888888888 8883 808 888 88888588 30: .8 8 8.88 8 8.88 8.88 .888 88888888 8888888888888 888 O 0.0N N.8 N.88 N.O_ .5888 8883 sex 888 888—8588 38: .8 8888888888 “Whywmmm 888888888 88888888 88whwfi88 .OOPEmmgpmcwme O m.mm N.O_ 0.0m O .umm OO8888>OO 8:0888_:Omg O 0.0m w.ON O.mN O .5888 O88 8388 888 O888888O88 8888888888 808888 8882 .N .O:85888888888 8 8.88 8.88 8.88 8 .888 88 8888888 888 88888 N.8 0.0m m.N_ 0.0N N.8 .88_N 8OO8_zo:x 8888888888 8>88 8888888888 880888 88oz .8 mmgmmmwo 888O< xpmcogpm 888O888O Omuwumvca 888O< 88O8088m .O885888888885 8o Fm>8_ 8OO883088 88888 8888888888 _oogom 80 8:88:8OO11.8_ 8—888 55 Research Question 5: Is mainstreaming occurring in the principal's building? At the time of this study, 86.4 percent of the principals were mainstreaming handicapped children in their respective buildings; only 9.1 percent were not. It was not possible to determine from those data whether the reason for those not mainstreaming was due to the lack of handicapped students in their buildings or some other reasons. Table 15 indicates the types of handicaps and the number being mainstreamed into the regular classroom. Table 15.--Number of handicapped students currently being mainstreamed. Percent of School Type of Handicap Number Population (20,000) Learning disabilities 651 3.3 Educable mentally retarded 434 2.2 Emotionally handicapped 329 1.6 Hard of hearing 69 .35 Physically handicapped . 30 .15 Visually handicapped 17 .09 Totals 1530 7.65 As shown in Table 15, the tOp three categories with the great- est number of students presently being mainstreamed in the Green Bay district are the learning disabled (N = 651), the educable mentally impaired (N = 434), and the emotionally impaired (N = 329). The visually handicapped represent the smallest category with 17 students mainstreamed. 56 Similar findings have also been reported in other studies (Shotel, Iano, 8 McGettigan, 1972, pp. 677-83). For example, learning disabled is the category with the largest number mainstreamed, the educable mentally retarded second, with the visually handicapped having the smallest enrollments mainstreamed. Table 16 shows that the categories of handicapped having the highest occurrence in Wisconsin's school population are the learn- ing disabled with 1.75 percent, followed by educable mentally impaired at 1.0 percent. The visually impaired has the smallest occurrence at .05 percent. Table l6.--Selected handicaps represented in Wisconsin school popula- tion and the Green Bay School District. Type of Handicap S1252igiy figiignggn Learning disabled 3.3 1.75 Educable mentally impaired 2.2 1.00 Emotionally impaired 1.6 .73 Physically impaired .15 .21 Hearing impaired .35 .15 Visually impaired .09 .05 Note: Data reported in percentages. Research Question 6: What additional competencies in mainstreaming are needed by principals? The following eight competency areas listed in Table 17 were developed through the Dean's Project at Michigan State University, 57 with assistance of Leadership Training Institute personnel (Rader, 1978, pp. 293-304). After a thorough search of the literature, it was determined that there was no comprehensive listing of competencies available. Therefore, the staff of the Dean's Project undertook to conduct a nationwide search for mainstreaming competencies. While 13 competency areas were developed, only eight of them were selected for inclusion in this study. Generally, the principals overwhelmingly agreed that all eight competencies listed are needed by school principals either through in-service training or special classes to assist them in implementa- tion of mainstreaming. The two competencies, as reported by the principals, with the highest priority of needs as shown in Table 17 are item (2) nature of handicaps--an understanding of the character- istics and special needs of the handicapped--with 93 percent agree- ing and only 2.3 percent disagreeing; and (6) curriculum-—know1edge of specific curricular materials which enable the handicapped student to participate as an active member in the classroom. Ninety-one per- cent agreed and only 4.5 percent disagreed. The two lowest priorities of need as indicated by the princi- pals are item (5) learning environments--know1edge of the physical arrangements of classrooms and the school building to accommodate the handicapped; and item (7) assessing student needs--know1edge of assess- ment techniques in order to determine the academic and personal needs of handicapped students. For both these two areas 79.6 percent agreed, while 13.6 percent and 11.4 percent disagreed, respectively. However, it should be noted that although items 5 and 7 are the lowest in 58 O O.m_ m.N w.O w.O m.N _.O m.O O._— —.Om O.mo O.mm m.Om m.ON m.ON 0.0N N.N— O.__ .O08080 -8O888 088 088O0550008 08 O88O__:O 800888 088 O88 8800888880 80 88:0E0Oc8888 88088880 088 80 0OO082008--88:050088>00 O0808808 .O080808Oc88 O88 .888885800 .8880 -880 88 8808888808O80 80:8 O08 .8888088088 880088808000-880888801800008 .8808080800 800888 .8888O08088880 800888 .8808802 F88008 .88080808 0088808O0 F880008 .88080808 5008 100880808 .88800888080808880 ”O08O88008 .8808888 8800088 O08 08880808 88588 880888> 088 80 80888_8088800808 O88 80888O 088 80 0OO0~3008118808888 8800008 O88 00880801 .508888 800888 088 888883 88088888888EO8 O88 .88080808 .8880888 .AO080808O088 -80: O88 O080808O888O 88:0O888 80 80O88 -8888 888888X8 88 888888888--88888888< .O000808O888 088 80 8O00: 8880088 O88 888888808088880 088 80 O88O888880O08 88-180808Oc88 80 088882 .8880: 88 308 O88 88 O88E80888888E 8883 O88888880O8 --O88E80888888E 80 8800800 088 O880880O 008O888O 8_O:088m 008O888O O0O800OOO 008O< 008O< 8—O8088m 80800080080O .OOFE80888088E 808 8888800880 800808 88 O0O00: 80808080050O--.8_ 08088 59 .80888800808 88 O8880808 8888 ”0802 m.8 8.__ m.8 F.m —.m m.8 F.mm _.mm m.88 m.8m m.om o.m_ .85888088 8885808888885 80 888 -088888 80 O88 .O088808O888 088 08 8008> -808 88880>888O 808 85888088 8880088 880888> 888 80 80O083088-8E888088 8888808888885 80 808888888885O< .m .8880O888 O088808O888 80 8O008 88808 -808 O88 0850O808 088 088E8080O 08 80O80 88 8080888008 8802880888 80 0mO083088-8O008 880O888 88888088< .8 .500888880 088 88 888882 0>8808 88 88 0888 -8088888 08 880O888 O888808O888 088 888880 8088: 888888885 8888088880 08880088 80 0mO883088-E8_8088880 .8 00888888 88880888 80888888 888808888 808m< 808m< 88880888 808080888500 .O08888800-.8_ 0_88H 6O priority of the competencies, approximately 80 percent of the princi- pals indicated that these two competencies are still important toward facilitating the principal's role in mainstreaming. Administrators' Response to Open-Ended Question The last section of the questionnaire asked the principals to state what they viewed as major obstacles to successful mainstream- ing. Below is a list of those comments arranged in order from highest to lowest in frequency as determined by the principals. As indicated by Table l8, the major detriments to successful mainstreaming are the teacher attitudes toward the concept of mainstreaming and the concern about the lack of acceptance on the part of teachers toward handi- capped students. Other areas of concern expressed by the principals as obstacles to mainstreaming are the possibilities of conflicts arising with the negotiated contracts and teacher work loads, need for classroom help or aides, and student-teacher ratios. Moreover, many principals have expressed concern about the funds necessary to accommodate a proper mainstreaming program. An equal number also view the importance of communication and working together between the regular classroom teacher and the special education teacher. Fourteen of the principals also indicated that a major con- cern was the lack of knowledge by teachers and principals in handling handicapped students. Along with this concern was the need for inservice to inform staff about mainstreaming. 6l 08 m8 08888 8080888-888O888 888 80 8888808088 8080808 800888880 088 808 8088888888 80 8088 8885808888885 088O0550008 08 8O888 80 8888888888>8 088 88080888 500888880 8888808 O88 8088808O0 8880088 088 8802808 8088808885500 80 8088 8888888888885 88088 88888 E80888 08 808>80888 888880008 80 8088 8880O888 O088808O888 8888O888 88 88088888888EO8 O88 88080888 >8 88O083088 80 8088 80888800 8080808 O888880888 088 8883 880888800 8888O888 O088808O888 O88208 0088888008 8080808 80 8088 8885888888885 O88308 0O888888 8.8080888 808080888 8805808 .8882808888885 8888880088 08 808088880 80888 80 8088880 .8888808888-.m8 08888 62 Summary The purpose of this chapter is to analyze and report the data collected in this study. The data are reported in three sections: demographic information about each principal, Chi-Square testing for association of the demographic variables with the opinions of the principals plus answering the six research questions, response to the open-ended question. The demographic information characterized the principals in the following seven categories: age, sex, level of education, years of experience as an administrator, years of experience as a teacher, size of school, and grade level of school. A Chi-Square analysis was made to determine if a relationship existed between the opinions held by the principals toward mainstream- ing and the demographic data associated with each principal. The only significant relationship found was with the years of experience as an administrator and the opinion of whether mainstreaming can be success- fully implemented at both the elementary and secondary levels. Also, the six research questions that were stated in Chapter I were discussed. The last section asked the principals to state what they viewed as major obstacles to successful mainstreaming. The responses indi- cated that teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming and toward the han- dicapped themselves were the major concern. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS This final chapter contains five sections. The first section reviews the purpose of the study and the procedures used to complete this research. Section two includes the major conclusions of the study. In the third and fourth sections, discussion of the find- ings and major implications of this study are presented. The final section contains a list of recommendations for further research on the topic of mainstreaming handicapped children. Summary In this study the author sought to determine the opinions of all the elementary and secondary school principals in the Green Bay School District toward mainstreaming handicapped students into the regular classroom. The opinions of the principals were obtained by a question— naire designed specifically for this study. The questionnaire reported opinions of the school principals in the following areas: (l) general opinions toward mainstreaming, (2) Opinions about knowledge level of mainstreaming, (3) the present status of mainstreaming in each princi- pal's building, (4) the Opinions of the type of handicapped that should be mainstreamed, and (5) what additional competencies in the area of 63 64 mainstreaming are needed by school principals. In addition to these areas, the following demographic information about each principal was collected: (l) age of principal, (2) years of experience as a school administrator, (3) academic preparation, (4) size of school, (5) sex of administrator, (6) years of experience as a full-time teacher, and (7) grade level of present assignment. The data collected were evaluated by using descriptive and Chi Square statistical procedures. Results were deemed significant at the .05 level. Relevant literature was discussed in Chapter II, which included a review of the legislation pertaining to mainstreaming and a historical perspective of the development of mainstreaming. The legis- lation described includes both state and federal laws mandating main- streaming for the handicapped. Also, in order to better understand how the mainstreaming movement came into being, a brief review of the history of special education was discussed. In Chapters III and IV, a description of the principals in the Green Bay District based upon certain demographic information collected was presented. Also presented was the Chi-Square analysis between certain demographic data and the opinions of the principals toward mainstreaming, and the findings to six research questions as stated in Chapter I. The last section of Chapter IV presented the comments by the principals stating what they viewed as obstacles to successful mainstreaming. 65 Conclusions Demographic Information The following demographic information was collected from each of the principals and is reported below. The percentages have been rounded off; thus a total of lOO percent may not always occur. l. Age; Twenty-four of the principals or 54.5 percent are in the age range 36 to 45 years. While 38.7 percent are 46 or older, only 6.8 percent are younger than 36 years of age. As can be con- cluded, the overall age of the principals is relatively young. Approximately 60 percent of this group is under 45 years of age. 2. Sex: Ninety percent, or 40, of the p0pulation is male, with l0 percent, or 4, being female. Because of this uneven distri- bution in the population, caution must be exercised when interpret- ing data involving this variable. 3. Level of education: The level of education attained by 88.6 percent of the principals was the master's degree. Only ll.4 percent, or 5, attained degrees on a higher level. 4. Experience as administrator: Approximately 7l percent of the principals have seven or more years' experience as a school admin- istrator, while only 29.5 percent have six years or less experience. Although most of the staff is relatively young, they have acquired a great deal of experience as school administrators. 5. Experience as a teacher: Similar to the previous state- ment, 8l.9 percent, or 36, of the principals have seven or more years' experience as classroom teachers. 66 6. Size of school: Twenty of the principals or 45.5 percent work in schools with enrollments of 20l-500. And l5, or 34.l percent of them, work in schools where enrollments are over 1,000. 7. Grade level: Twenty-four, or 54.5 percent, of the princi- pals are in the K-6 category, while l8 or 4l.O percent are assigned to the secondary level. Chi-Square Analysis An analysis was made to determine if any relationship exists between the opinions of the school principals and certain demographic information associated with each principal. A Chi—Square analysis was performed with the significance level set at .05. The results are listed below. l. Age of theyprincipal: There was no significant relation- ship between the age of the principals and their opinions toward main- streaming. 2. Years of experience as a school administrator: There was a significant relationship between the number of years of experience as a school administrator and the opinions of whether mainstreaming can be successfully implemented at both the elementary and secondary levels. However, since there was a significance in only l of 20 variables, one can conclude that years of experience as a school admin- istrator is not a significant finding. 3. Academic preparation: Since 88.6 percent of the principals are at the master's degree level, any interpretation of significance would be meaningless. 67 4. Size of school: There was no significant relationship between size of the school and the principals' opinion toward main— streaming. l 5. Sex of administrator: Since 90 percent of the principals were male, any interpretation of significance would be meaningless. Research Questions Research Question l: What are the opinions of school prin- cipals toward handicapped children? The general opinions of the school principals in this study indicate that they are supportive of mainstreaming handicapped stu- dents into the regular classrooms. The data showed that 88.6 percent of the principals agree that handicapped students should be main- streamed. Research Question 2: What categories of handicapped students would be recommended by the principal to be mainstreamed? The elementary principals indicated that the category of handicapped most recommended to be mainstreamed is the learning dis- abled with 86.7 percent. The emotionally impaired category ranked second with 73.3 percent and the physically impaired third with 6l.7 percent. Similarly, 8l.6 percent of the secondary principals' first choice is for mainstreaming the learning disabled,lwiththe physically impaired at 76.2 percent as second choice; and both the emotionally impaired and hearing impaired were their third choice with 73.8 per- cent. 68 Research Question 3: What categories of handicapped would least likely be recommended by the principals to be main- streamed? Elementary principals indicated that the categories of handi- capped least likely to be mainstreamed are the hearing impaired with 45.8 percent agreeing, followed by the visually impaired with 44.2 percent agreeing and educable mentally impaired with 42.5 percent agreeing. Fifty-four percent of the secondary principals agree that the category least likely to be recommended for mainstreaming is the visually impaired, while 38.9 percent selected the educable mentally impaired as their second choice. Research Question 4: What is the opinion about the level of knowledge about mainstreaming possessed by school prin- Cipals? The principals are ambivalent about whether school principals in general have sufficient knowledge about the concept of mainstream- ing; 43.2 percent agree and 43.2 percent disagree, with the remainder undecided. They also feel that most school principals do not under- stand the laws and regulations governing mainstreaming. Research Question 5: Is mainstreaming occurring in the principal's building? At the time of this study, 86.4 percent of the principals were mainstreaming handicapped children in their respective buildings; only 9.l percent were not. Research Question 6: What additional competencies in main- streaming are needed by principals? 69 Of the eight competencies listed, the principals indicated that all of them were needed. However, the two highest areas of needs were reported as: (l) the nature of handicaps, 93 percent agreeing; and (2) curriculum areas, 9T percent agreeing. Administrators' Responses to Open-Ended Question The last section of the questionnaire asked the principals to state what they viewed as major obstacles to successful mainstreaming. Overall, the principals felt that lack of teacher acceptance toward handicapped students and teachers' attitudes toward the concept of mainstreaming were the most detrimental to successful mainstreaming. Other concerns listed by the principals were: conflicts with the negotiated teacher contract, student-teacher ratios, help for the regular classroom teacher, and the need for teacher aides. Principals also expressed concern about the lack of knowledge by teachers and administrators in handling handicapped students. Also stated was the need for necessary inservice to inform all staff mem- bers about mainstreaming. Discussion of Findings The main focus of this study was to determine the opinions of school principals toward the concept of mainstreaming. As indicated in Chapter I, the principals' leadership role is instrumental in insuring the success of programs, new and old. This condition implies that in order to institute effective mainstreaming in the regular classrooms, the principal has to feel that mainstreaming is needed and be willing to support this type of program. 70 In the following section, a discussion of the findings result- ing from this study is presented. Demographic Information Some important implications concerning the demograhpic data about the population of this study need to be emphasized. As reported earlier, the overall age of the principals is relatively young, with approximately 60 percent under the age of 45. Because of this, caution needs to be exercised in generalizing any findings to the other age groups. Moreover, since 90 percent of this p0pulation is male, cau- tion must also be used in any interpretation of the data with regard to this variable. As far as years of experience as a school administrator is concerned, 7l percent of the principals have ten years or more on the job. Thus this population should be representative of an experienced group. Similarly, 8l.9 percent of this population has taught ten years or more in the classroom, thus representing a group with solid, prac- tical background in education. Chi-Square Analysis As a result of the Chi-Square analysis made to determine if any relationship exists between the opinions of the school principals and certain demographic data associated with each principal, the fol- lowing findings were obtained. There was a significant relationship between the number of years of experience as a school administrator and the opinions of whether mainstreaming can be successfully implemented in the regular III Jld1|l| .l. 1411 14- h .l! I I 11 7T classroom. The analysis showed that principals with over seven years' administrative experience felt that mainstreaming could be success- fully implemented at both the elementary and secondary levels. How- ever, since there was significance in only l of the 20 variables tested, it can be concluded that years of experience as a school administrator is not a significant finding. If this were significant, it would suggest that the older principals are more supportive of the mainstreaming idea and could be used when establishing programs of this type. This conclusion, however, would need to be researched further. A review of the literature does not find any studies to confirm this result with school administrators, but the reverse was reported in a study on teacher opinions toward mainstreaming (Harasymiw & Horne, l976). In this study, younger teachers were found to have significantly more favorable opinions toward the mainstreaming of han- dicapped students than did older, more experienced teachers. Research Questions Research Question l: What are the opinions of school prin— cipals toward mainstreaming handicapped children? The data collected on the general opinions of all the princi- pals in the Green Bay School District show that 9l percent are sup- portive of mainstreaming handicapped students in the regular classroom. This support is reflected in their opinions that mainstreaming can improve the quality of education for the handicapped, as well as improve the quality of education for the nonhandicapped, with 64 per- cent agreeing. Moreover, 86 percent of the principals feel that the 72 contact between handicapped and nonhandicapped in the regular classroom can be beneficial to all. Although both the elementary and secondary principals support the concept of mainstreaming, 40.9 percent still feel that self- contained special education classrooms meet the needs of handicapped students, while 27.3 percent remain undecided. This suggests that most of the principals are either unwilling or reluctant to completely disband the traditional self-contained education classroom in favor of the new mainstreaming approach. Similar results were also reported in a study by Gickling and Theobald (l975) on regular and special educa- tion personnel in Tennessee. While most of the personnel in this study were in favor of mainstreaming, they did express a definite bias toward self—contained classes. This finding is not uncommon since there presently seems to be a controversy in the method of delivering instruction for handi- capped children. While the new movement of mainstreaming is now popu- lar, it is not without its critics, who claim that the traditional approach to special education, with its special separate classes, is still the most effective delivery system. The opinion of whether mainstreaming was supported by the general teaching staff found that the secondary principals feel their staffs are more supportive of this idea than are the elementary admin- istrators. Both groups of principals, however, viewed their staffs as not adequately prepared to implement mainstreaming and suggested that inservice programs are needed to prepare their teachers for mainstream- ing. 73 Another interesting finding and one that is considered to be a major hurdle to successful mainstreaming is that of the relation- ship between the special educator and the classroom teacher. Some teachers and principals feel there could be problems with the special educators and the regular classroom teacher working harmoniously together in the classroom. However, in this study both elementary and secondary principals feel that there would be no problems with these two types of teachers working together and that they would prob- ably work well together in integrating handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Research Question 2: What categories of handicapped students would be recommended by the principals to be mainstreamed? The category most recommended for mainstreaming by both the elementary and secondary principals is the learning disabled. This opinion does hold true with the category of handicapped actually being mainstreamed in the Green Bay district. At the time of this study, learning disabled represents the largest category being mainstreamed with 65l students. This finding is also similar to that in a study conducted by Shotel, Iano, & McGettigan (l972) to determine teachers' attitudes toward mainstreaming handicapped children. Here the teachers overwhelmingly favored the learning disabled category for mainstream- ing into the regular classroom. The other categories recommended for mainstreaming are the emotionally impaired with 73 percent and physically impaired with 62 percent, for the elementary level; and physically impaired with 76 percent and emotionally impaired and hearing impaired both at 74 74 percent at the secondary level. It is interesting to note that both the elementary and secondary principals selected the same cate— gories for mainstreaming although not in the same order. It is also interesting to note that no one curriculum area lends itself more to mainstreaming of handicapped students than does any other. Home Economics has the highest average percentage of main- streamed students in both the junior high, 75.9 percent, and senior high, 74.l percent. Research Question 3: What categories of handicapped would least likely be recommended by the principal to be main- streamed? The categories of handicapped least likely to be recommended by the elementary principals are hearing impaired, visually impaired, and the educable mentally impaired. While the secondary principals also indicated visually impaired and the educable mentally impaired, they did not occur in the same order as their elementary counterparts. It is also of interest to note that both the elementary and secondary principals list the educable mentally impaired (EMI) as a category least likely to be recommended for mainstreaming, yet this category represents the second largest (N = 434) number of students presently being mainstreamed in the district. Similarly, other studies have also questioned the feasibility of mainstreaming EMI students into the regular classroom (Shotel, Iano, & McGettigan, l972, p. 682). This could suggest the need for a better understanding of the nature of this particular handicap by principals and teachers. 75 Research Question 4: What is the opinion about the level of knowledge about mainstreaming possessed by school prin- cipals? The principals in this study seem to be uncertain whether school principals in general have sufficient knowledge about the con- cept of mainstreaming. While 43.2 percent feel school principals are knowledgeable, an equal number feel they are not, with ll.4 per- cent of them undecided. They also do not feel that most school prin— cipals understand the laws and regulations governing mainstreaming. Yet, when asked specifically how familiar they are with the main- streaming concept, 77.5 percent responded they sufficiently understand the concept. There seems to be some discrepancy between what they feel others know about mainstreaming and what they themselves profess to know. Research Question 5: Is mainstreaming occurring in the principal‘s building? As a result of this study, it was found that 86.4 percent of the principals were mainstreaming handicapped children into the regu- lar classroom. Again, it should be noted that the category of handi- caps which has the largest number mainstreamed is the learning disabled (N = 65l), with the educable mentally retarded next (N = 434). The visually handicapped represent the smallest number with only l7 students mainstreamed. These findings are similar to others reported in the literature. Research Question 6: What additional competencies in main- streaming are needed by principals? 8 76 through inservice training or special classes. Of the eight compe- tencies listed, the two with the highest priorities are (l) nature of handicaps and (2) curriculum. Similar results have also been found in the literature review (Shotel, Iano, & McGettigan, l972, pp. 682- 83). In these studies the need for special instructional materials plus appropriate suggestions for teaching techniques for the handi- capped were emphasized by both teachers and principals. The importance of the curriculum area as a needed competency becomes evident when the principal is viewed as the instructional leader of the school. Here the ability to provide leadership for the development and implementation of programs for students with different types of handicaps could depend upon his knowledge of specific curricu- lar materials which will enable the handicapped student to participate as an active member in the classroom. ' Administrators' Responses to Open-Ended Question Some of the major implications resulting from the open- ended question regarding what the principals view as obstacles to successful mainstreaming are stated below: l. The attitudes of teachers toward mainstreaming is fore- most, andin order for the mainstreaming concept to be effective, full teacher support is necessary. 2. Similar to teacher attitudes is the concern for teacher acceptance especially toward the handicapped students. If this is not obtained, mainstreaming will not work. 77 3. Another area of concern is the understanding and knowl- edge possessed by teacher and administrator in working with handi- capped students. Related to this topic is the need for effective inservice to inform all staff members about the needs of the handi- capped and how they can be met. Other areas of concern stated by the principals are the con— flicts that may arise as a result of the negotiated teacher's con- tract. Many felt this could place certain restrictions on the administering of a mainstreaming program (i.e., unnecessary limits on class size and overall workloads, requirements for teacher aides, etc.). These restrictions were viewed as possibly making this type of program too expensive for most school districts to afford. Last, the need for good communication between the special education and regular classroom teachers in working together. The principals' comments indicated that without the proper interchange of necessary information, and without total cooperation, the handicapped would suffer, thus rendering this type of program ineffective. Implications l. A significant relationship was found between the number of years of experience as a school administrator and the opinion of whether mainstreaming can be successfully implemented at both the ele— mentary and secondary levels. Approximately 6l percent who had seven or more years' experience were supportive of mainstreaming at both levels, whereas less than half of those with six or fewer years' experience approved. This could signify that the more experienced 78 administrators would give more support to a mainstreaming program, and that the less experienced principals could use some form of inservice training to help improve their attitudes toward this issue. 2. It was noted that while most of the principals support the concept of mainstreaming, approximately 4l percent believed that self— contained special education classrooms still met the needs of handi- capped students, with a large 27 percent remaining undecided. This implies that a large proportion of principals still are not sure that mainstreaming is the way to provide instructional services for the handicapped. This further implies that the issue of mainstreaming versus self-contained special education classrooms still needs to be resolved. Further research in this area is definitely needed. 3. There was a definite disparity between the elementary and secondary principals as to whether their general teaching staffs sup- port mainstreaming. According to the data, the secondary principals view their staffs as more supportive than do the elementary princi- pals. In fact, 63 percent of the elementary administrators view their staffs as not supportive of the concept. These data would certainly suggest taking a closer look at why the elementary staffs are so dis- approving. Perhaps more time trying to improve teacher attitudes through inservice training is in order for all elementary teachers. Or this could imply that just the principals at this level are skep- tical and the inservice should be directed at them. 4. Since both groups of principals viewed their staffs as not adequately prepared to implement mainstreaming, the implication would be that more inservice programs are needed to better prepare all 79 staff members for mainstreaming. If a district makes the commitment to the implementation of mainstreaming programs, then well-planned training sessions are needed to insure the success of such plans. 5. As indicated in this study, both the elementary and secondary principals selected the same categories of handicapped least likely to be mainstreamed, namely, visually impaired, hearing impaired, and the educable mentally impaired. This could imply that the needs of these three handicaps need special attention in that they are least recommended. If they are to be successfully mainstreamed, special attention would be necessary (i.e., tutors for visual and hearing impaired and modification in the curriculum for educable men- tally impaired). A cost factor could be the underlying cause for the selection of these categories as least likely to be recommended for mainstreaming. 6. The data in this study indicate that a discrepancy exists between what the principals feel their knowledge level is about main- streaming and what they feel other principals know about the concept. The participants in this study feel that school principals in general have a limited understanding of mainstreaming and the rules and regu- lations governing it. However, these individual principals feel they are quite familiar with the concept and the state and federal laws mandating it. The obvious implication here is that some form of inservice session would be appr0priate in developing a better understanding for school principals. Another implication, however, could be that if principals are reluctant to admit they are not familiar with the 80 new mandate, or are threatened by this movement, for whatever reasons, then any inservice sessions aimed at improving their knowledge would have Uncome from outside their own ranks, central office administration for example. 7. According to the administrators' responses to the open- ended question regarding what they viewed as major obstacles to suc- cessful mainstreaming, the major detriments are the teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming and the concern about the lack of acceptance on the part of the teachers toward the handicapped. This implies that the principals may view teacher attitudes as major obstacles to successful mainstreaming, thereby discounting the effect of their own attitudes. This further could imply that inservice programs will be directed at teachers alone and not at admin- istrators. Thus any failure for a program of this type could be placed only with the teachers. 8. As reflected in the results of research questions 3 and 5, the data indicated that the nature of the emotionally mentally impaired (EMI) handicap is not fully understood, but needs to be. Question 3 points out that the EMI category is one that is least recommended for mainstreaming; but question 5 indicates that the number of students in this category is the second highest in the district. Here the impli- cation is that the principals can not fail to recognize the need of a handicap that has such a high occurrence, and yet feel they are suf- ficiently meeting the needs of all the students in their schools. Therefore, in order to meet the needs of these students, the principals, 81 and ultimately the teachers, must have a better understanding of the nature of this particular handicap. Recommendations In addition to the recommendations mentioned throughout this chapter, a number of suggestions are offered to future researchers of this t0pic. l. In the review of the literature there was only one other study that addressed itself to the area of school principals' opinions toward mainstreaming (Payne & Murray, l974), thus indicating the need for substantive research into this area. While the scope of this study was limited to a large city school district, a larger view of princi- pals' opinions, both elementary and secondary, rural and urban, would lend more insight into this area. 2. The efficacy of mainstreaming needs to be clearly estab- lished. Thus, more research dealing with the merits of mainstreaming as a method of delivering instruction for the handicapped versus the self-contained special education classroom needs to be done. 3. A glaring need which seemed to surface in this study is a way to prepare principals and teachers for mainstreaming. Areas which need special attention are (l) nature of handicaps--an understanding of the characteristics and special needs of the handicapped, and (2) curriculum--knowledge of specific curricular materials which enable the handicapped student to participate as an active member in the classroom. 82 4. Another need for inservice is in the area of laws and regulations governing mainstreaming. Again, this should be given to both principals and teachers in order to communicate the need for com- pliance to mainstreaming. The transition from self-contained special education to mainstreaming can occur more smoothly if the knowledge of this requirement is made available. 5. In order for successful mainstreaming to occur, it has to happen in the classroom; the principal, the regular classroom teacher, and the special education teacher will make it happen. Therefore, it is necessary to study this triadic relationship in order to better understand the role that each will play in the total process. 6. Since the educable mentally impaired has a high occurrence in the school population, and since the principals and teachers both view this category of handicapped as the least recommended to be main- streamed, a better understanding of the nature of this particular handicap as well as how to deal effectively with them in the classroom needs to be learned. This, too, could be accomplished through inser- vice sessions or special classes; nevertheless, it is needed. 7. In order for mainstreaming to be effective, support of the total staff is necessary. Therefore, methods to improve upon the atti- tudes of the staff, especially those of teachers and principals, are needed. When this is accomplished, methods to improve upon the deliv- ery of instruction to the handicapped can be developed. 83 Reflections I would like to use this section to express some views I have toward this thesis. It has been approximately one and one-half years since I collected the data for this study, and I have since taken an administrative position in a public school system. Since my departure from the university as a graduate student, I have had the opportunity to talk with other educators, principals, superin- tendents, and teachers about their opinions on mainstreaming and the implications it has for them and their districts. During my many conversations, one element seemed to always be present when eliciting opinions from these different groups of people. Most gave opinions which reflected a guarded theoretical view toward mainstreaming, but they also presented a pragmatic approach that they felt should be considered. It is, therefore, my intention here to discuss some of these common theoretical views along with the practical views held by these educators. The concerns discussed below not only represent major concerns others have about PL 94-l42, but also items I feel are very important. Most principals and teachers agreed that the mainstreaming concept is good and has value for all students. However, the impres- sion that I got when talking to educators was that mainstreaming is a sensitive issue and that most educators do not want to be against programs for the handicapped; there seems to be a sense of obligation to them. Therefore, these guarded feelings tend to show that there is a much greater support for mainstreaming than actually exists. This 84 was especially true when these types of opinions were elicited through a questionnaire rather than in direct personal questioning. One advantage of the direct personal contact was that after I became better acquainted with the other educators truer and very legitimate feelings did surface. Some of these feelings revealed that many administrators are subject to additional pressures and in many cases are ill-prepared to respond effectively. This new requirement for mainstreaming has caught many principals unprepared, confused, and in some cases has made them angry. What has resulted is that most principals lack the necessary special education training or experience to deal with main- streaming programs. In the past, most special education programs and services were implemented with little direct input from the building principal. This lack of involvement on the part of the principal makes it very difficult to measure the success of programs and to evaluate the staff involved. Nevertheless, mainstreaming is expected to be implemented and the building principal is responsible to see that it is. Another major concern is that of mainstreaming the severely handicapped as opposed to the mildly handicapped students. Most prin- cipals stated that integrating the mildly handicapped would be diffi- cult enough, but mainstreaming of the severely handicapped would be another thing. Problems inherent in this type of placement would be the high costs of programs and the inability of staff to deal with the needs of this type of student. One administrator related the story where a totally deaf girl was mainstreamed into a regular classroom. 85 In order for this student to participate in the classroom, a full- time tutor was assigned for the purpose of interpreting what the classroom teacher was saying. Although this example may not repre- sent the norm, it does illustrate that tutors and other resource people will be needed, thus lowering the student-teacher ratio and thereby increasing the cost of instruction which many school districts can not afford. Another cost-related concern deals with the removal or archi- tectural barriers in order to make buildings accessible for all people. This requirement is contained in Section 504 of the Voca- tional Rehabilitation Act of l973. Most administrators agree with this requirement for any new construction but feel that the cost of making their old buildings and programs accessible is too costly. An example of this case came from a principal of a school district which had an old building with three floors. According to the regulations stated in Section 504, the school would be required to install an elevator in order to make the building accessible. This still holds true, even though there are no handicapped students enrolled in this district. What many of the administrators are saying is that there have to be exceptions to the law, provided that the welfare of the student is not jeopardized. In fact, compliance with these laws could financially harm a district by spending their funds in areas where they are not needed, thereby financially limiting programs for all students. Also in my conversations with administrators and teachers the topic of inservice training and college preparatory courses to help 86 educators better implement the mainstreaming mandate always came up. At the present time there is an absence of training to prepare teach- ers and administrators to implement PL 94-l42 although there is evi- dence that these skills are badly needed. What seems to be lacking are centrally unified training programs to provide educators with the right kind of assistance. It seems that too many of the inservice sessions aim at the not-so-important aspects of how to fill out forms and the like, rather than the hands-on or "how to" sessions wanted by the practitioner. As a result, many teachers and administrators do not have the skills to work with the handicapped and are frustrated and threatened by this type of student as well as any programs involv- ing them. This condition, I feel, can be very detrimental to the intention of PL 94-l42, since the teachers and administrators are instrumental in the success or failure of these programs. Along with the need for inservice training for teachers cur- rently in the field, colleges with teacher preparatory programs need to provide the opportunity for all aspiring teachers to acquire skills or teaching techniques for handicapped students. This situation is similar to the proposed requirement by some state departments of education requiring that all teachers have a mini- mum number of academic credits in the instruction of reading. This would apply for both elementary and secondary teachers. Perhaps a similar requirement for teachers to have a minimum amount of course- work dealing with techniques for teaching the handicapped is needed. In providing training for educators it should be emphasized that the competencies needed by regular and special education teachers 87 are not that different. Rader (l978) conducted a survey to determine what competencies were important for “mainstreaming" teachers and found that most skills were identical to those already required for ”regular“ teachers. Thus the dichotomy between regular and special education should be minimized, and this could be accomplished by restructuring teacher education programs and redefining teachers' roles. APPENDICES 88 APPENDIX A COMPLETE TABULATION OF DATA FROM QUESTIONNAIRE 89 90 .8885808888885 808 88080808 0888888 0 m.m 8.8 8.88 8.88 08 O0O008 088 85888088 008>80888 .8 . . . . .8885888888888 880588858 08 O0888088 8 m 8 88 8 om 8 mm 0 88088800O8 88 88888 88880808 088 .8 . . . . .88888 88880888 8888808 0 N m8 8 om 8 _m m N 088 88 O08808888 88 8885808888882 .8 .8880O888 O888808O888 80 m.m 8.8m m.8m 8.88 8.8 8O008 088 8008 808 0O 8500888880 8088808O0 8880888 O08888800-880m .8 .880O888 8 8.88 0.88 8.08 8.88 8888808888888: 888 808 888880888 80 8888880 088 0>088E8 880 888880888888: .m .880O888 o o 8.8 8.88 8.8m O088808O888 088 808 8088808O8 80 8888888 888 8>088E8 880 888588888888: .8 .8008888—0 o 8.8 8.8 8.08 8.8m 8888888 088 0888 O0E80888888E 08 O88088 880O888 O888808O888 088 .8 08888888 00888888 O0O800 8: 888m< 808m< 88880888 . . O 88880888 .8885808888885 O88308 88088888888EO8 800808 888 80 88088880 8888808-._< 88888 .80888800808 88 O8880808 8888 ”0802 m.N 9] o m.m m.m m.mN m.m m.m 8.8m 8.0m m.m N.88 8.8m 8.m_ 8.88 8.8m 8.8m 8.8 8.8m _.mm m.m8 8.88 o.mm m.mm o.m8 N.w— 8.8 m.om 8.8 8.m_ m.88 .8880O888 O888808O888808 O88 O088808O888 808 8088880 08888 -808 0>88 08 80O8 O008 8 808 88 88 ._0>08 x88O80008 O88 8888805080 088 8808 88 O8880E0_8E8 888888880088 08 880 888588888888: .8880O888 O088808O888808 O88 O088808O888 88888880888 88 80888808 8883 8803 88888088 O8803 8080888 500888880 8 O88 808808O0 8880088 < .8888888 08E8O808 88 88 8880O888 O888808O888 8883 8088800 88 88808 80 00808808x0 088 80008 880O888 88880>8 888 8888 8>08808 8 .88>0_ 800808 888080008 088 88 O08888850008 08 8808 880 8885808888882 ._0>08 800808 8888808080 088 88 O08888850008 88 8888 880 8888888888882 .888588888 -888E 888880508858 80 0>88808888 88 80888888888EO8 008880 8888800 888 .88 .m_ .m_ .88 .08 00888888 88880888 88888888 O0O800O8: 808m< 008m< 88880888 .888888880--._< 88888 92 .8888808888888 808 88080808 0888088 o o 0.8 N.NN N.NN 08 080008 088 88888088 008>80888 .8 . . . .8888808888888 880808888 08 00888088 0.8 8 mm 8 mm 8 mm 8 8808880008 88 88888 88880808 088 .8 . . . .88888 88880808 8880808 8 N 88 8 RN 8 88 o 088 88 008808838 88 8888808888882 .8 .88800888 00888080888 80 o 0.88 N.NN 8.88 N.8_ 80008 088 8008 808 00 8800888880 808880800 8880088 008888800I880m .8 .8800888 8 o.mm 8.8m o.mm 8.88 00888080888808 088 808 808880800 80 888—880 088 0>088E8 880 8888808888882 .m .8800888 8 o 8.88 8.88 8.8N 00888080888 088 808 808880800 80 8888880 088 0>088E8 880 8888808888882 .N .800888880 8 o.m8 o 8.88 8.8m 8888808 088 0888 008808888888 08 088088 8800888 00888080888 08H .— 00888888 008m< 88880888 00888888 000800088 008m< 88880888 .8888808888888 088308 8888808888 888080008 088 80 88088880 8880888--.m< 08888 93 .80088800808 88 00880808 8880 ”0802 0.88 0.8 0.8 0.88 0.88 0.8 0.88 0.8m 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.8 0.88 0.08 0.N8 0.88 0.08 0.NN 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.8m 0.8 0.8 0.NN .88800088 00888080888808 088 00888080888 808 8088880 08888 -808 0>88 08 8008 0008 8 808 88 88 .80>08 888080008 088 8888808080 088 8808 88 00880808888 888888800008 08 880 888880888888: .88800888 00888080888808 088 00888080888 88888880888 88 80880008 8803 8803 88888088 08:02 8080808 800888880 8 088 80880000 8880088 < .8888808 08800808 88 88 88800088 00888080888 8883 8088800 88 88808 80 00808808x0 088 80008 8880888 08880>8 088 8888 0>08808 8 .80>08 800808 888080008 088 88 008888 -880008 08 8808 880 8888808888882 .80>08 800808 8888808080 088 88 008888 -880008 08 8808 880 8888808888882 .0888808888888 088880808888 80 0>888088=8 88 80888888888808 008880 8888800 088 .88 .88 .N8 .88 .08 00888888 88080888 00888888 000800080 0080< 008m< 88880888 .803888800--.N< 08888 94 .0888808888885 808 88080808 0888088 0 8.8 0 0.08 8.88 08 000008 088 88880088 008>80888 .8 . . . . .0888808888888 880808858 08 00888888 8 88 N 88 8 N8 8 08 0 8808880008 88 88888 08880808 088 .8 . . . . .88888 08880808 8880800 0 8 N8 8 88 8 88 N 8 088 88 008808888 88 0888808888888 .8 .88880888 00888080888 80 8.8 8.88 8.08 8.08 8.8 80008 088 8008 808 00 8800888880 808880800 8880088 008888800n8808 .8 .8800888 0 8.8 8.08 8.88 8.88 00888080888808 088 808 808880800 80 8888880 088 0>088E8 880 088880888888: .8 .8800888 0 0 8.8 8.88 8.88 80888088888 088 808 888880880 80 8888880 088 0>088E8 880 0888808888882 .8 .800888880 0 8.8 8.8 8.88 8.88 8888088 088 0888 00880888888E 08 088088 8800888 00888080888 088 .8 00808880 0080< 88080888 00808880 000800088 00808 88080888 .0888808888888 088208 8888808888 8888808080 088 80 88088880 8880808--.m< 08888 95 .80088800808 88 00880808 8880 ”0802 8.8 8.8 8.8 0.88 8.88 8.08 8.08 8.88 8.88 8.8 8.88 8.88 8.8 8.88 8.88 8.08 8.8 8.88 8.08 8.8 8.08 8.88 8.8 8.08 8.88 .88800888 00888080888808 088 00888080888 808 8088880 08888 -808 0>88 08 8008 0000 8 808 88 88 .80>08 888080008 088 8888808080 088 8808 88 00880888888 888888800088 08 880 0888808888882 .88880888 00888080888808 088 00888080888 08888800888 88 80880008 8803 8803 88888088 08803 8080808 80088880 8 088 80880800 8880088 < .0888808 08800808 88 88 88800888 00888080888 8883 8088800 88 08808 80 00808808x0 088 80008 8800888 00880>8 088 8888 0>08808 8 .80>08 800808 888080008 088 88 008888 -880008 08 8808 880 0888808888882 .80>08 800808 8888808080 088 88 088888 -880008 08 8808 880 0888888888888 .088580888 -8888 088880808888 80 0>88808888 88 80888888888808 008880 8888800 088 .88 .88 .88 .88 .08 00808880 88080888 00808880 808800888 00808 0080< 88080888 .808888800--.8< 08888 96 .80088800808 88 00880808 8880 ”0802 880888888808 8880008 308 088 88 8800800 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 =0>888880888 0>880888808 88808: 088 88.83 808 088 88888888 30: .8 28888.5 808 8082.20 808888888: 8.88 8.88 8.8 8.88 8.88 888 80 8088808080 888-80 388 088888 8883 808 088 88888888 30: .8 880888808888888 0888808888 8.8 8.88 8.8 8.88 8.88 888 0888888 888800882 8883 808 088 88888888 208 .8 . . . . 88800800 0888808888888 0 N 88 8 N 8 88 8 08 088 8883 808 088 88888888 308 .8 88888888 88888888 8888888888 88830808 000800088 88888888 880> .0888808888888 088880>00 0 8.88 8.88 8.88 0 88088888008 088 8288 088 08888 -80088 8888808888 800808 880: .8 .0888808888888 80 8800800 8.8 0.08 8.88 0.08 8.8 088 88088 000083088 8808088888 0>88 8888808888 800808 8802 .8 00808880 08808 88080888 00808880 000800088 00808 88080888 .0888808888888 80 80>08 000083088 88088 8888808888 800808 888 80 88088880-.8< 08888 97 .80888800808 88 00880808 8888 "0802 8808888m8808 . . . . . 8880008 308 088 88 8800800 8 mm 8 88 8 mm 8 88 8 88 =0>888880888 0>880888m08 88808= 088 8882 :08 088 88888588 30: .8 888888 80 808 80888880 8088808888: 8.88 8.88 8.8 8.88 8.88 88< 80 8088808088 808-88 388 088808 8882 :08 088 88888588 30: .8 880885808888882 0888808858 8.88 8.88 0 0.08 8.88 888 0808888 880800883 8882 :0» 088 88888588 30: .8 . . . 88800800 8882808888885 0 8 88 0 8 88 8 88 088 8883 :08 088 88888588 30: .m 88 858 888888888: “Whywmmm 80880088: 88888888 8 8W8> 8 .8885808888885 0 8.88 8.88 0.08 0 888880>08 88088880808 088 8388 088 0888880088 0888808888 800808 8802 .N .88858088m888s 80 8800800 0 8.88 8.88 8.88 0 088 80088 080082088 8808088808 0>88 8888808888 800808 8802 .8 00888888 008m< 88880888 00888888 00080008: 008m< 88880888 .8885808888885 80 80>08 000083088 88088 8888808888 800808 888080000 80 8808888ouu.8< 08888 98 .80088800808 88 00880808 8880 ”0802 8808888m8808 8880008 308 088 88 8800800 8.88 8.08 8.8 0.08 8.8 =0>888880888 0>880888808 88808: 088 8883 :08 088 88888588 :0: .8 888888 80 808 80888880 8088808888: 8.88 8.8 8.8 8.88 8.8 888 80 8088800088 888-80 380 088008 8883 :08 088 88888588 20: .8 880885808888885 0888808858 8.8 0.88 8.8 8.88 8.8 888 0808888 888800883 8883 :08 088 88888588 30: .8 . . . . 88800800 0885808888885 0 8 08 8 8 8 88 8 88 088 8883 808 088 88888588 30: .8 88888588 88888588 8888858880 88830208 000800080 88888288 880> .0885808888882 0 0.08 8.08 0.88 0 088880>00 88088880008 088 8388 088 0888880088 8888808888 800808 8802 .8 .0885808888882 80 8800800 8.8 0.08 8.88 0.88 8.8 088 80008 000083088 8808088808 0>88 8888808888 800808 8802 .8 00808880 00808 88080888 00808880 000800080 00808 88080888 .0885808888885 80 80>08 000082088 80008 8888808888 800808 8888805080 80 88088880--.88 08088 APPENDIX B COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO SCHOOL DISTRICT 99 TOO l204—C University Village East Lansing, Michigan October 3, l977 Dr. E. S. Grant Superintendent-—Green Bay Public Schools Green Bay, Wisconsin 5430l Dear Dr. Grant, I am in the process of completing a doctoral dissertation dealing with opinions of school principals towards mainstreaming handicapped students into the regular classroom. My intention is to conduct a study within a large school district by having all of the elementary and secondary principals and assistant principals complete a question— naire regarding their opinions toward mainstreaming. Therefore, at this time I am requesting your permission to allow me to conduct this study in the Green Bay School District. I will be in Green Bay on October l7 and would like to make an appointment to dis— cuss this matter with you. Sincerely, Ronald P. Houle TOT MAINSTREAMING QUESTIONNAIRE Directions: This questionnaire is designed to obtain the opinions and feelings of all elementary and secondary school principals and assistant principals in the Green Bay Public School System about mainstreaming. What is wanted in this questionnaire is your own feeling or point of view about each of the statements. Your answers will be kept strictly confidential and at no time will individuals or schools be identified. Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. 102 Questionnaire Questions one through seven are requested for demographic information. Please check the appropriate response. l. Age: ( ) 25 or under ( ) 26- 35 ( ) 36- 45 ( ) 46- 55 ( ) 56 or older 2. Sex: ( ) Male ( ) Female 3. Level of education (check highest degree held): ( ) Baccalaureate ) Masters ( ) Specialist ( ) Doctorate 4. Number of years of full-time school administrator: ()0-3 ()4-6 ( ) 7-10 ( ) l 15 () umber of students enrolled in your building: ) 200 or less ) 20l-500 ) 50l-l000 ) lOOO or more N ( ( ( ( ndicate the category which best describes your school: )K )7 ) lO- l2 ) I ( ( ( ( Other Explain: TO3 08 0 0 8 88 08 0 0 8 88 08 0 0 8 88 08 0 0 8 88 08 0 0 8 88 08 0 0 8 88 08 0 0 8 88 08 0 0 8 88 08 0 0 8 88 08 0 0 8 88 08 0 0 8 88 00808880 00888 88080888 00808880 000800080 00808 88080888 .0888808 08500808 88 88 88800088 00888080888 8883 8088800 88 08800 80 00808808x0 088 80008 8800088 00880>8 088 8888 0>08800 8 .80>08 800808 888080008 088 88 008888850008 00 8800 880 0885808888882 .80>08 800808 8888805080 088 88 008888850008 08 8808 880 088580888888: .0885808888888 088880508858 80 0>88808 -808 88 80888888888508 008880 8888800 088 .0885808888885 808 88080808 0888 -088 08 000008 088 85880088 008>808-88 .0885808888885 880208858 08 00888 -088 8808800008 88 88888 08880808 088 .88888 08880808 8880 -800 088 80 008808808 88 0885808888882 .88800088 008880 -80888 80 80008 088 8002 808 00 85008 -88880 808880000 8880088 008888800-8808 .8800088 00888080888808 088 808 808880000 80 8888800 088 0>088E8 880 088580888888: .8800088 00888080888 088 808 808880000 80 8888800 088 0>088E8 880 088280888888: .500888880 8880008 088 0888 00580888 -888E 08 080088 8800088 00888080888 088 .88 .08 .8 ”0885808888885 088308 88088080 8880800 104 80 88 0 8 8> 880882808888882 08888088Ev 888 0808888 888800883 88.83 0088 08888888888 30: .8 80 88 0 8 8> 88800800 088580888 -888E 088 8883 008 088 88888588 20: .8 888 858 888 858 8888888880 8888880“ 80880088: 88888888 8W8> 0 88 8 0 8 88 .088880888 -888E 088880>00 88088880008 088 8388 088 0888880080 8888808888 800808 8802 .8 88 8 0 8 88 .088880888 -8882 80 8800800 088 80008 000083088 8808088808 0>88 8888808888 800808 8802 .8 ”0885808888885 80 80>08 @80082088 80088 88088880 88 8 0 8 88 .88808388 808880 -80888808 088 00888080888 808 8088880 08888808 0>88 08 8008 0000 8 808 88 88 .88 08 0 0 8 88 .80>08 888080008 088 8888802080 088 8800 88 00880508858 888088800008 00 880 088580888888: .88 08 0 0 8 88 .88800088 00888080888808 088 00888080888 08888800888 88 80880008 8802 8803 88080088 08003 8080808 200888880 8 088 80880000 8880088 8 .88 00808880 00808 ”8885808888888 088308 88088880 8880800 88080888 00808880 000800080 00808 88080888 I}. .. .. “(THE-LN. I‘ll ’ ‘ 105 8: 8: 088880: 80 0888 0088808088: 8888088> 0088808088: 8888088888 00088808 8888880: 08880008 808888808888 88888808 0088808088: 88888088028 .00E80888888E 88800 00888080888 80 8808508 088E8x08888 0>88 088088 .808 88 02 80> 888808808 8008 88 888880000 80808880 00888080888 80 8885808888885 888 08088 88 .8 :O wmeLoquW cho wp Cut/8 88 0 8 8> 880888888808 8880008 308 088 88 8800800 =0>888880888 0>880888808 88808: 088 8882 00» 088 88888888 20: .8 88 8 8 8> 888888 88 808 80888888 0088808888: 888 88 8888808088 888-88 388 0.88008 88.83 0088 088 88.88.8588 30: .8 888885888: 88888588 88888588 ”8885808888885 80 88830508 00080008: 88888588 >80> 80>08 080083088 80088 88088880 106 85888088..00> 8088c 8888 8888880088 808508008 050: 808880008 88088xmm 0080808 80888808888 8080888 888008 8888 888288 8888808ml.00> 8088c 808508008 080: 8888 8888880088 808880008 88088888 0080808 mu 8.89:0:me 8080088 888088 8088 808200 808880008 88088888 8088888 888008 0080808 8088850888: 00888888 8888088888 00888858 88888088058 00888858 888880: 00888828 8888088> 00888858 88888802 08880008 00888888 88888808 8888 08808888 8888282808 .88888888808808 80 8088 8008 8880808808 8888 8888: 808808 .888: 808800 .8888802088v 80>08 00888 08888808888 088 88 x08 8080 88 x 88 8885 088088 .88088 8080088800 088 80 8080 88 005808888885 08 080088 8808088888088080880 8080 88 88800088 808 80 8088083 888088008 8088880 8008 88008 80888000 8888 107 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCIES Please indicate whether you fee1 additiona1 competencies are needed for schoo1 principais either through inservice training or specia1 c1asses in the foi1owing areas of mainstreaming. 1. Defining the concept of mainstreamingg-identitying what mainstream- ing is and how it works. SA A U 0 SD 2. Nature of handicaps--an understanding of the characteristics and specia1 needs of the handicapped. SA A U 0 SD 3. Attitudes--know1edge of existing attitudes of students (handicapped and nonhandicapped), parents, teachers, and administrators within the schoo1 system. SA A U 0 SD 4. Resource and support systems--know1edge of the duties and respon- sibi1ities of the various human resource and support systems, inciuding: paraprofessionais, resource-room teachers, specia1 education teachers, socia1 workers, schoo1 psychoiogists, schooi counse1ors, speech-physica1-occupationa1 therapists, and such organizations as parents, community, and handicapped. SA A U 0 SD 5. Learning environments--know1edge of the physica1 arrangements of c1assrooms and the schoo1 bui1ding to accommodate the handicapped. SA A U 0 SD Curricu1um--know1edge of specific curricu1ar materiais which enab1e the handicapped student to participate as an active member in the c1assroom. O} SA A U D SD 108 Assessing student needs--know1edge of assessment techniques in order to determine the academic and persona1 needs of handicapped students. SA A U 0 SD Administration of mainstreaming programs--know1edge of the various specia1 programs for delivering services to the handicapped, and on the financing of mainstreaming programs. SA A U 0 SD APPENDIX C TABULATION OF ALL RESPONSES FROM PRINCIPALS ON OPEN-ENDED QUESTION 109 110 08 m8 00888080888 088 088308 88800088 80880 88 0088880008 80 8088 88800088 00888080888 80 80008 8880088 088 80 8880888880080 80 8088 00888080888 088 808 888880885 088 5080088800 808088 80 8088 08888 8080808u8800088 088 80 8888808088 8080808 800888880 088 808 0088888888 80 8088 8885808888885 08800550008 08 80808 80 8888888888>8 088 88080808 500888880 8880808 088 808880000 8880088 088 8003808 8088808805500 80 8088 8885808888885 80088 88888 E80888 08 008>80888 888880008 80 8088 88800088 00888080888 88880888 88 88088888888808 088 88080808 88 080082088 80 8088 80888800 8080808 0088880008 088 8883 880888808 88800088 00888080888 088308 0088880008 8080808 80 8088 0888808888885 088308 00088888 8.8080808 .N8 808000088 8805508 .8885808888885 8088800008 08 808088880 80888 80 88088880 .8888808888--.8u 08888 111 8 88888088 8885808888888 088088>0 088 880508858 08 0588 88888888 80 8088 .08 8 8800800 8885808888888 088 08 888800880 8880888 .88 8 500888880 808880000 8880088 008888800-8808 088 80 808880888 088 080080>0 08 888888 .88 8 88808880888 0080808 .88088 8888 8888880088 ..0.8v 88088 5080088800 8888800 80 080888 088 08 000 880888 80088 8800808 .88 8 88800088 00888080888 80 8805888888 088 880500888 80808858 .88 N 0588 80888888088 8080808 880080 802 .88 N 880588000 088 88808808 088 88 00888080888 088 80 000888 880880888808 .08 N 8885808888885 088208 800088888 8.8088888888508 .88 808000088 8805208 .000888808uu.8u 08888 REFERENCES 112 REFERENCES Beery, K. F. 1974. "Mainstreaming: A Probiem and an Opportunity for Genera1 Education.” Focus on Exceptiona1 Chi1dren, No. 6. Bertness, H. J. Spring 1976. "Progressive Inc1usion: The Mainstream Movement in Tacoma." Mainstreaming; Origins and Imp1ications, 2:57—60. Co11ege of Education, University of Minnesota. Birch, Jack w. 1975. "Mainstreaming: Definition, Deve10pment, and Characteristics." Making It Work--Practica1 Ideas for Integrat- ing Exceptiona1 Chi1dren Into Regu1ar C1assrooms. Edited by Barbara Aie11o. Pub1ished by the Counci1 for Exceptiona1 Children. Birch, Jack w. 1974. Mainstreaming: Educab1e Menta11y Retarded Chi1- dren in Regu1ar C1asses. Leadership Training Institute/Specia1 Education, University of Minnesota. Birch, Jack w. 1971. ”Specia1 Education for Exceptiona1 Chi1dren Through Regu1ar Schoo1 Personne1 and Programs.” In Exceptiona1 Chi1dren in Regu1ar C1assrooms. Edited by Maynard C. Reyno1ds and Ma1c01m D. Davis. Birch, Jack w., and B. K. Johnstone. 1975. ”Mainstreaming--A New Pub1ic Po1icy in Education.“ Paper presented at the Annua1 Con- vention of the American Association of Schoo1 Administrators, Da11as, Texas. Bradfie1d, R., and others. February 1973. “The Specia1 Chi1d in the Regu1ar C1assroom.” Exceptiona1 Chi1dren, 39:384-90. Bruininks, R. H., J. C. Gross, and J. E. Rynders. 1974. ”Socia1 Acceptance of Mi1d1y Retarded Pupi1s in Resource Rooms and Regu1ar C1asses." American Journa1 of Menta1 Deficiency, 78:377-83. Dunn, L. M. 1968. ”Specia1 Education for the Mi1d1y Retarded--Is Much of It Justifiab1e?” Exceptiona1 Chi1dren, 35:5-22. Go1d, M. w. October 1975. "Meeting the Needs of the Handicapped.“ Paper presented to the Nationa1 Bicentennia1 Conference on Voca- tiona1 Education, MinneapoTis, Minnesota. Goodwin, L. A. 1975. ”Mainstreaming--A Negative Approach.“ Paper presented at the Annua1 Meeting of the American A11iance for the Hea1thy Physica] Education and Recreation. At1antic City, New Jersey. 113 114 Harasymiw, S. L., and M. D. Horne. 1974. ”Teacher Attitudes Toward Handicapped Chi1dren and Regu1ar C1ass Integration." In Journa1 of Specia1 Education, 10:393-400, Winter 1976. Haring, N. G. 1975. "A Study of C1assroom Teachers' Attitudes Toward Exceptiona1 Chi1dren.” Dissertation Abstracts, 17:103-104. Haring, N. G., and others. 1958. ”Attitudes of Educators Toward Exceptiona1 Chi1dren." Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press. Hewett, F. M. 1971. "Handicapped Chi1dren and the Regu1ar C1assroom.” Exceptiona1 Chi1dren in Regu1ar C1assrooms. Edited by M. C. Reyno1ds and M. C. Davis. Ko1stoe, O. P. 1972. "Programs for the Mi1d1y Retarded.” Excep- tiona1 Chi1dren, 39:51-56. Mann, Phi1ip H. 1976. Mainstreaming; An Eva1uationary_Concept of Mutua1 ResponsibiTity. Cora1 GabTes, F1orida: University of Miami Training and Technica1 Assistance Center. Marro, Thomas David, and John w. Koh1. September 1972. "Normative Study of the Administrative Position in Specia1 Education." Exceptiona1 Chi1dren, 39:5-13. Martin, E. August 1971. ”New Pub1ic Priorities: Education of Handi- capped Chi1dren.” Compact, pp. 4-7. Martin, Edwin. Spring 1976. ”Integration of the Handicapped Chi1d Into Regu1ar Schoo1s." Mainstreaming: Origins and Imp1ications, 2:5-7. C011ege of Education, University of Minnesota. Meyerowitz, J. H. 1962. ”Se1f Derogation in Young Retardates and Specia1 C1ass P1acements.” Chi1d Deve10pment, 33:443-51. Mi11s v. Board of Education of District of Co1umbia. 1972. 384 F. Supp. 866, D. D.C. Mitche11, M. M. 1976. ”Teacher Attitudes.“ High Schoo1 Journa1, 59:302-11. Payne, Reed, and C. J. Murray. October 1974. ”Principa15' Attitudes Toward Integration of the Handicapped.” Exceptiona1 Chi1dren, pp. 123-25. Phe1ps, L. A11en. 1977. An Overview of the Expanding Federa1 Com- mitments to Vocationa1 Education and Emp1oyment of Handicapped Individua1s. 115 Pub1ic Law 94-142, "Education for A11 Handicapped Chi1dren Act of 1975.” The Congress of the United States, November 29, 1975. Reyno1ds, M. C., and B. Ba1ow. 1972. ”Categories and Variab1es in Specia1 Education.” Exceptiona1 Chi1dren, 38:357-66. Sawisch, L. P., and H. E. Fitzgera1d. 1975. “A Response to Sheridan's Position on the Spontaneous P1ay of Handicapped Chi1dren." East Lansing: Michigan State University. Shote1, J. R., R. P. Iano, and M. F. McGettigan. May 1972. ”Teacher Attitudes Associated With the Integration of Handicapped Chi1dren." Exceptiona1 Chi1dren, 38:677-83. Stashower, G. 1976. ”Mainstreaming in the Work Wor1d.” American Education, June 1976. Wisconsin Department of Pub1ic Instruction. December 1975. No. 240. Ru1es Imp1ementing Sub-Chapter IV of Chapter 115 Wisconsin Statutes. Zito, R. J., and J. I. Bardon. 1969. "Achievement Motivation Among Negro Ado1escents in Regu1ar and Specia1 Education Programs.” American Journa1 of Menta1 Deficiency, 74:20-26. "I11.1111111111111711111115