A STUDY OF PARENT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS’ EXPERIENCES
WITH DUE PROCESS AND THEIR
ATTITUDES TOWARD THE
EDUCATIONAL PLANNING AND
PLACEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

A Dl‘sscflaflon
Tor The Degree of DE. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Don Raymond Barbacovi

I976

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOLIIIIIIOIIIIII .._..__......,
312931041400 \TJIBPAP L1

EVEL(;I’I1E‘)’€HES)ELIIC
U cr< ty

*7

 

 

 

 

 

 

fr

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF PARENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS'
EXPERIENCES WITH DUE PROCESS AND THEIR
ATTITUDES TOWARD THE EDUCATIONAL PLANNING
AND PLACEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

By

Don Raymond Barbacovi

Purpose oi the Study

With the increase in influence the parents of handicapped
children have in determining their child's educational plan,
the time has come to determine the degree to which these
parents are involved in planning those programs. The major
purpose of this study was to reSpond to that need by gathering
information regarding the Operation of that aSpect of the
Michigan Special Education Code, which pertains to the planning
and placement process in special education programs.

In vesting this reSponsibility to parents the need for a
due process model and a formal structure to allow parents'
input into the education program has become a necessity. The
extent to which parents reported these due process procedures
as well as their attitudes regarding that process were

investigated.

Procedures

 

The target population for this study consisted of all
members of the Parent Advisory Committees (PAC's) of Michigan's
fifty-eight intermediate school districts. These districts
were divided into four strata based on the total number of
pupils within each intermediate school district. Using a samp-
ling fraction of twenty-five percent, fifteen intermediate
school districts were selected at random. From the initial
selection, four districts were not able to participate; those
districts were replaced at random from the appropriate strata.

The fifteen intermediate districts selected had a total
of 168 PAC members. 0f the 108 members, 110 responses were
received; a reSponse rate of approximately 65 percent.

A questionnaire was developed to meet the needs of the
study. In the developmental stages the questionnaire was
subjected to an extensive analysis by a panel of experts
consisting of State Department personnel, local school district
personnel, university personnel and parents of handicapped
children.

A pilot study was conducted to determine the appropriate-
ness and clarity of the items, the length, and if the attitude
statements were written in such a way that parents could respond
from a factual base. The papulation selected for the pilot

study was chosen from those Parent Advisory Committees not

selected in the initial selection procedure. As a result
of this pilot some minor changes were made in (l) the manner
the questionnaire was presented, (2) the defining of terms
and (3) the refining of a few questions.

Much of the information obtained was treated using
descriptive statistics; however, the relationship between
due process and parent attitudes were subjected to a multiple
regression analysis. A regression analysis was also used in
determining the relationship between due process and attendance.

An alpha level of .01 was selected to determine significance.

Major Findings

1. There were no significant correlations between the
mode of communication used to inform parents about
the planning process and their attitudes about that
process.

2. There were no significant relationships between due
process procedures that should occur prior to the
planning meeting and parent attendance at that
meeting.

3. Generally parents were pleased with the planning
process and perceived themselves as being a vital
part of that process.

4. Parents reported that 60 percent of the due process
items required by regulation took place. However,
they reported that only 32 percent of the due
process items that could have occurred, but are
not mandated, did actually occur.

A STUDY OF PARENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS'
EXPERIENCES WITH DUE PROCESS AND THEIR
ATTITUDES TOWARD THE EDUCATIONAL PLANNING
AND PLACEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

BY

Don Raymond Barbacovi

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Elementary and Special Education

1976

DEDICATION

T0 JOANIE, JASON, AND NIKKI-~Their understanding, support,
guidance, and love made it all possible and gave it a

meaning that we will always cherish.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Bringing a doctoral pr0gram to fruition requires the
help and guidance of so many, as I acknowlege only a few
of them, I hope the others will feel the warmth and sincerity
of my appreciation for their assistance along the way.

My heartfelt appreciation to committee members Dr. "Vince"
Farace, Dr. Richard Featherstone and Dr. Edward Keller.

A special thanks to Dr. Charles Mange who provided
encouragement and guidance to this struggling writer.

To Dr. Bill Frey, friend, confidant, and fellow student,

a sincere thanks for taking the "ic" out of statistics.

Thanks to my parents, who provided an atmosphere
conducive to educational achievement and an understanding
of the traumas of student life.

Finally, this writer would like to acknowledge Dr. Charles
Henley, who as committee chairman, provided structure, a
critical eye, and emotional support during hard times.

More importantly, Dr. Henley provided this writer with an
administrative model, a model that has, and will continue
to have, substantial impact on this writer's administrative

style.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES O O O O C O I C O C C 0
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . .

The Federal Role . . . .
Parent Role in Michigan's

Mandatory Legislation .
Statement of Problem . .
Statement of Purpose . .
Research Questions . . .
Delimitation of the Study
Overview of the Study . .

II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . .

Role of the Advisory Committee

0 O O O O 0

Due Process--Meaning and Intent

Historical Development of
Due Process . . . .

Due Process and the Handicapped

Due Process Minimums . .
Michigan's Due Process .
Summary . . . . . . . . .

III PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY .

Subject Selection . . .
Design and Development of
Measurement Instrument
The Pilot Study . . . . .

the

Presentation of the Questionnaire

Treatment of the Data . .
IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page

vi

Chapter

V' SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REFERENCES
APPENDICES

Review of the Study .
Major Findings . . .
Conclusions . . . . .
Discussion . . . . .
Recommendations . . . .
Implications for Future
Summary . . . . . . . .

oxen...
0

Appendix A - Rules 22-24 of the Special
Education Code . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix B - Rules 133, 135, and 136
of the Special Education Code . . . .
Appendix C - Pilot Study . . . . . . .
Appendix D - Perceptions of the
Educational Planning and Placement
Committee Process . . . . . . . . . .

Page

102

106
107

121

Table

OI
H

A b bbbh## m mm m
m u OMhMNH m Au N

4.10
4.1].
44.12

4.213

LIST OF TABLES

Breakdown of ISD by Student
Membership . . . . . . . . . . .
List of Intermediate School Districts
Selected . . . . . . . . . . .

PAC Membership and Response Rates . . . . .
Responses to Clarity and Appropriateness
of Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Questions and Responses to Round Table
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Age of PAC Members . . .
Schooling Completed . .
Months Served . . . . .
Type of Handicap . . . .
Children Receiving Service . .
Experiences of PAC Members with Mandated
Due Process Procedures . . . .
Experiences of PAC Members with Nonmandated
Due Process Procedures . . . . . . . . . .
Simple and Multiple Correlations of Due
Process Items with Attendance
at EPPC O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Summation Scale of Attitude Statements .
Variance Accounted for by Bach Factor .
Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix . . . . .
Simple and Multiple Correlations of Due
Process Items with the Three Attitude
Factors . . . .
Chi- -Square of the Three Attitude Factors . .

vi

Page

70
72
75
77

81
84

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

To the parents of handicapped children, the last ten
years have come to be known as the "quiet revolution"
(Dimond, 1973). This revolution's main goal is a free
appropriate public education for all handicapped children
and youth. The Bureau of Education for the Handicapped
estimates that there are seven million handicapped
children of school age, four million of whom do not re-
ceive an appropriate education and another million whom
are excluded from school entirely (P.L. 94-142 sec. 601).
This quiet revolution, to establish equal educational
rights for the handicapped, has its origins in the civil
rights movement of the Sixties, a liberal court system,
and the persistent political pressure exerted by parents
of handicapped children on state and national legislators.
A free appropriate public education for all handicapped
children is still to be accomplished, but with increased
public awareness, more state and federal legislation, and

the continuance of favorable court rulings, the goal may

be attainable.

The high visibility that handicapped children and
special education now enjoy is a relatively new phenomenon.
Historically, the handicapped population has taken a back
seat in most aspects of society, including the use of
the court system. However, in 1971, a case of historic

importance took place. A suit, Pennsylvania Association

 

for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth 9_i_’_ Pennylvania

 

 

was a suit filed on behalf of all mentally retarded
children in Pennsylvania. On October 7, 1971, the parties
consented to an agreement which stipulated that all men-
tally retarded children in Pennsylvania had a RICH}: to a
free public education. The agreement further stipulated
that all education agencies must adhere to a strict set
of procedural due process guidelines which assure parents
of handicapped children an active part in the placement of
their children in an appropriate education program. On

August 1, 1972 in Mills v. Board <_)_f_ Education o_i: the

 

District 91‘ Columbia, Judge Joseph C. Waddy carried the

 

"right to education" mandate one step further. He said:

The District of Columbia shall provide to each
child of school age a fair and suitable publicly-
supported education regardless of the degree of
the child's mental, physical, or emotional dis-
ability or impairment. Furthermore, defendents
shall not exclude any child resident in the
District of Columbia from such publicly-supported
education on the basis of a claim of insufficient

resources . (Mills).

These two decisions catipulted special education into the
national spotlight and the high visibility thus gained has

stimulated legislative developments on both the state and

national levels.

The Federal Role

 

The beginnings of special education programs in this
country occurred in the 1880's and can be traced to the
development of state residential schools for the deaf and
blind, public day school classes for the deaf, and numerous
programs for the "feeble-minded" (Weintraub, 1971). Until
recently, the federal role, as it pertains to the handi-
capped, was limited to providing monetary assistance to
state and local education agencies to meet the needs of
these specific disability groups.

The initial step was taken in 1954 with the passage

of P.L. 83-531, the Cooperative Research Act. It was

 

designed to foster a spirit of cooperation between the
federal government and institutions of higher learning.
This represented a rudimentary awareness by Congress of
the need for categorical aid for special education. In
1958, two bills were passed that helped firm the groundwork
for massive federal involvement. These bills became

P.L. 85-905, Captioned Films for the Deaf and P.L. 85-926,
Training 9}: Professional Personnel. Captioned Films

established a loan service aimed at cultural enrichment

and recreation for deaf persons while Professional
Personnel focused on the training of university level
persons in the area of mental retardation who would in
turn train teachers. These laws are perhaps the most
significant of the early legislative accomplishments for
they firmly established categorical support for the
education of the handicapped.

Legislative action remained at a low level until 1963
when P.L. 88-164 was passed. This law, considered an
administrative milestone, resulted in the establishment
of the Division of Handicapped Children and Youth within
the U.S. Office of Education. This division brought
together under one unit all the previous acts and units
set up to serve handicapped children. It was in 1965,
with the passage of P.L. 89-10, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), that the first sizeable
commitment by the federal government to support K-12
education throughout the country was undertaken. The
funds authorized, in five Titles, were designed to lend
assistance to local and state education agencies in pro-
viding programs and services to "educationally deprived
children." In 1966, P.L. 89-750, also known as the E_S_E_A_
Amendments of _l_g_§_6_, created a new Title (Title VI) which
provided support for local education agencies. More
importantly, it established the Bureau of Education for the

Handicapped to handle all federal programs designed to

meet the needs of the handicapped, and provided categorical
funds for the support of approved programs at the local
level.

The 1970's saw a dramatic increase in Congressional
attention to the handicapped. Hundreds of bills were
introduced that directly affected the handicapped. From
January of 1970 to November of 1975, sixty-one bills were
passed that directly pertained to the handicapped (Abeson,
g£_gl., 1976, p. 84). Two of the bills were of major

importance. With P.L. 93-380, the Education Amendments gf

 

1214, Congress authorized massive increases in the grants
to states' section of ESEA Title VI-Part B. More im-
portantly, the amendments included assurances of an educa-
tion in the least restrictive environment and of due
process procedures for parents and their children. A year
later, on November 29, 1975, President Ford signed into

law the Education 2: A11 Handicapped Act (P.L. 94-142).

 

This landmark legislation replaces Part B of P.L. 93-380 and
commits the federal government to a level of funding for
handicapped children that has the same goal as the "quiet
revolution"; that is, a free appropriate public education
for all handicapped children between the ages of three and
twenty-one. More importantly, P.L. 94-142 is permanent
legislation with no expiration date and commits the federal
government to a level of funding that should allow state

and local education agencies to attain the stated goal.

As federal government financial support for the
education of the handicapped increased, so, too, has state
financial support increased. In 1972, Abeson reported
that about 70% of the states had some form of mandatory
legislation. In 1975, the Council for Exceptional
Children reported that all but two states had adopted some
form of mandatory legislation (Abeson, et. al., 1976,

p. 87). It is interesting to note that the dramatic in-
crease in mandatory legislation occurred at the same time
the right to education cases were being settled in the courts.

With the passage of Public Act 198 of 1971, more

 

commonly referred to as Mandatory Special Education,
Michigan joined the parade of states in passing legis-
lation mandating a free public education for handicapped
children. The act forced local and intermediate education
agencies to provide a full continuum of special education
programs and services to all handicapped from birth to
twenty-five or until completion of a prescribed program.

Public Act 198 entrenched the intermediate school district

 

as the body with administrative responsibility to oversee

the operation of special education programs and services.

Furthermore, the intermediate district is responsible for

the development and evaluation of a comprehensive plan for
special education within its boundaries and must maintain

a record of every handicapped person up to twenty-five

years of age. However, the ultimate responsibility for

the implementation of Public Act 198 rests with the State

 

Board of Education. As such, this body was charged by
the legislature to promulgate rules and regulations to

fulfill the mandate.

Parent Role in_Michig§n's Mandatory Legislation

Public Act 198 contains no direct reference to
parents of handicapped children. Issues relating to due '
process or parent involvement in educational decisions
affecting their children have been addressed in the
Administrative Rules and Regulations developed to imple-
ment the Act. These Rules became effective in October of
1973 and contained a number of provisions pertaining to
the role of parents. The most crucial provisions of the
Rules and Regulations are those that guarantee the right
of the parents to be involved in their children's
Educational Planning and Placement Committee Meeting (EPPC),
and, if they so desire, to contest the findings and
recommendations of that committee. These Parental Rights
are delineated in Rules 22, 23 and 24, which may be found
in Appendix A. The most crucial portions of these rules
follow:

R340.l722 Educational placement.

Rule 22. (b)Request in writing, parents on a
case by case basis to participate as members of

the committee in developing a recommendation
concerning a change in the educational status of

their handicapped offspring. Prior to the
educational planning and placement committee
meeting, all school records concerning the
person suspected of being handicapped shall be
made available to the parents upon request.

R340.l723 Notice to parents.

Rule 23. (l)Before effectuation of an educational
placement, denial of placement, or a change in
educational status of a handicapped person, the
superintendent of the intermediate school district
or local school district within 10 calendar days
from the date of recommendation of the educational
planning and placement committee shall notify the
parent, personally in conference or by certified
mail, concerning the placement or change in
educational status....

(f)(iii)If dissatisified, the parent may request a
hearing in writing, on a form provided at the
conference, within 7 calendar days of the conference.
Change in educational assignment shall not be made
during this period.... (Special Education Code).

The Educational Planning and Placement Committee Meeting
has three basic functions: (1) to evaluate all infor-
mation on a given student and determine if the student can
be defined as handicapped according to the rules for
eligibility in the Special Education Code (Rules 3-14);

(2) to review all educational Options, both regular and
special, available to the student; and (3) to formulate and
record instructional goals and identify the expected out-
comes as the result of a special class placement (Michigan
Department of Education, Guidelines).

Rule 1, subrule 4 of the Special Education Code
defines the Educational Planning and Placement Committee
(EPPC) as that "...of an operating district or agency

whose members shall include as a minimum, [Emphasis added?

a representative of the administrative personnel, in-
structional personnel, diagnostic personnel, and parents

invited to participate 15mphasis added] when their children

are involved." (Special Education Code).

In reviewing the above rule, this writer identifies
The rule addresses

two key words. The first is minimum.
itself to those persons who must attend the meeting, but
in reality the EPPC "should include all persons necessary
t1) get a complete and accurate view of the childls function-

irig 1evel...." (Guidelines, Michigan Department of Education)

Idle second key word and the more important one is partici-

Herein lies the overall goal of this study--to

pate.
eXplore the extent of parent participation as well as the

extent of the parents' awareness of their right to be

inherently involved in the EPPC process.
Another important aspect of parental rights are those

provisions granted to them in Rules 133, 135 and 136 of
1311:: Special Education Code. These rules deal with the

development of the Intermediate School District Plan for
the delivery of special education programs and services.
3E3rl essence, these rules state that "...all plans or any
modification thereof shall be developed in cooperation
‘"’:ifth.a parent advisory committee..." and that the Inter-
mediate School District Plan shall be signed by "the
Chairperson of the parent advisory committee signifying

1t5*1€3 committee has been involved in the development of the

10

plan." Furthermore, "at any time...the parent advisory
committee may file objections to the plan in whole or in

part." (Special Education Code, Rules 133, 135 and 136.
Complete rules may be found in Appendix B)

Every intermediate school district in the State of

Michigan is mandated to have a Parent Advisory Committee

(PAC). This Parent Advisory Committee should "consist of
at least one parent of a handicapped person from each

llocal school district." (Special Education Code, Rule 133).
iFhe major function of the PAC is to assist the local and

ijitermediate school districts in developing a yearly plan

fkar the delivery of special education programs and

Services. As a consequence of these rules, those parents
(>11 the Parent Advisory Committee not only have the

<>prortunity to provide vital input in their children's
EPPC, but also may influence the plan for the delivery of

Special education programs and services for all handicapped

113<3rsons within the intermediate district.

Statement pf Problem

With the enactment of Public Act 198, a great deal

0 f attention has been focused on the parent in the EPPC

Prior to Mandatory, parents generally had little

D rocess.
3i—Ilput in their child's educational program and generally
El<:cepted what the local education agency proposed. Many

groups, such as the Michigan Association for Retarded

 

11

Citizens, the Michigan Association for Children With
Learning Disabilities, and interested professionals, feared
that some parents may not be able to handle the role given
to them under the new law. This concern appears justi-
fiable in that the EPPC places the parent in a position of
having a great deal of influence over their child's
placement and program as well as the goals of that program.

This concern has manifest itself in a number of
Iarograms designed to train parents or parent advocates for
Inore effective participation in the EPPC. Following are
a: few examples of these training programs.

In June of 1975, the Michigan Department of Education,
Sipecial Education Services, held two Parent Advisory
Committee Institutes in which the goal was to "cover the
Iweferral, diagnosis, planning, placement, and follow-up
‘Iirocess required under Mandatory Special Education." (PAC
illustitute, Petoskey). The Michigan Association of Retarded
(Zitizens has produced a training module designed "to be a
iguide for persons who assist parents in the Educational
'I’lanning and Placement Committee (EPPC) process...."
(CMARC--EPPC). Gregory Osmun, Director of Special Education,
(Srand Rapids Public Schools, has developed a program that

ssimulates the EPPC. His program is titled an In-Service

 

Efiraining Program for Parents Who Are Going 13 Bg_1nvolved
:in.Educational Plannipg_and Placement Committee's. In

ziddition to these "pre-packaged" programs, many school

12

districts have a formal policy to which professional

personnel adhere. This policy is usually an attempt to

assist the parent in understanding the EPPC process.
To date, there has been no study which assesses how
the parents of the handicapped are fulfilling their role
pertaining to their "new-found" rights and responsibilities
in the development of special education programs. In-
formation is not available as to how effective local and
:intermediate school districts have been in preparing

{Jarents for participation in the EPPC process, nor is

there any information available pertaining to how the

parents feel about the process.

Statement g£_PuEpose

The major purpose of this study was to gather infor-
mniation regarding the operation of that part of the Michigan
E313ecial Education Code which pertains to the planning and
IJILacement process in special education programs. This
jillformation will be gathered through a survey of persons

£3erving on Intermediate School District Parent Advisory

Committees and included: (1) the gathering of basic

‘éleamographic data concerning the composition of the PAC,
C 2) factual data relating to the individual parent ex-
perience with the EPPC process, and (3) a study of

1EL§!rental attitudes regarding the EPPC.

13

Research Qpestions

 

1. What are the demographic characteristics of the
parents who make up the Parent Advisory Committee?

2. What are the characteristics of Parent Advisory
Committee members' experiences with procedural due
process?

3. What is the relationship between those procedural due
process items that should occur prior to the Educational
Planning and Placement Committee and the parents'
attendance at that meeting?

4. What is the relationship between Parent Advisory
Committee members' attitudes toward the EPPC and
their experience with procedural due process?

55. What is the relationship between the mode of
communication used to inform the parents about the
EPPC and the parents' attitudes toward their
children's EPPC's?

Delimitation pf the Study

 

 

As stated in the Introduction, Parent Advisory
(3crmmittee members are the target population for this
Study. There are three reasons why this population was
(leosen. First, in performing their role as members of
1tlle PAC, they have had the opportunity to become acquainted

with Public Act 198, the Rules and Regulations, and the

 

Especial education programs within the intermediate school
<iiistrict. Secondly, as parents of the handicapped, they
Alliave had contact with the EPPC process, either directly
(Dir indirectly via discussions with members of the PAC.

'jFTiirdly, they represent a well-defined population which

14

is readily accessible. For these reasons, Parent Advisory
Committee members appear to be the most apprOpriate parental
group to utilize in a study of the EPPC process.

This study was not designed, nor is it intended to be,
an evaluation instrument in determining the relationship
between intermediate school districts and the PAC. Rather,
it is intended to be an information gathering effort
directed toward determining how PAC members view the EPPC
process as it currently Operates in Michigan. The results
of this study are not generalizable to all parents of
handicapped children. This study is limited to the
attitudes and experiences of those parents currently

serving on Parent Advisory Committees around the state.

Overview Qf the Study

 

Chapter II of the study focuses on the literature
that is related to this study. The major portion of the
review centers around parental involvement in their
children's educational programs as well as those rights and
responsibilities identified by recent court decisions.
Finally, a brief review centers around Parent Advisory
Committees and their role in the educational process.

Chapter III of the stuyd describes the design and
development of the survey. This chapter includes a
description of the pOpulation, question derivation, the
pilot study, and describes the procedure used in

obtaining the data.

15

Chapter IV describes the data and its relation-
ship to the research questions.

Chapter V includes a brief summary of the study,
including problems encountered, factors that may have
contributed to the findings, and recommendations for

future studies.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Included in this chapter will be a brief review of
current literature pertaining to the advisory role of
parents of handicapped children. This writer could locate
no studies that dealt specifically with due process and
its effects on parents' attitudes. Consequently, the
primary focus of the review will be on the emergence of
procedural due process guarantees for handicapped children
and their parents. The term parents as used in this
review, means the child's parent, legal guardian, advocate,
or the child himself when over the age of majority. The
section of the review which considers due process will
include a segment devoted to the discussion of the intent
and meaning of procedural due process as it pertains to
the handicapped and the historical development of pro-
cedural due process guarantees. The final segment will
describe Michigan's due process procedures as they relate
to the EPPC as presented in the Administrative Rules

and Regulations.

(1)

v1

17
Role pf the Advisory Committee

Historically, the role of the parent in education
has been limited to attending P.T.A. sessions, helping with
class parties, and, in general, fulfilling the needs of
the school. For many parents of handicapped children,
even these nominal pleasures were denied them, for their
children were excluded from the public school system.
However, the results of the so-called "right to education"
court cases, discussed later in this chapter, and the
subsequent passage of mandatory legislation in many states
has thurst the parents of handicapped children into a new
and influential role. A major part of this new role has
been the inclusion of parents in the planning and eval-
uation aspects of programs and services for their children--
a role labeled advisory.

Today, forty-eight of the fifty states have some
type of mandatory legislation (Weintraub, §£_313, 1976).
Of these forty-eight states, at least thirty-eight have
state level special education advisory committees (Trudeau,

1973). With the passage of P.L. 94-142, Education g£_All

 

the Handicapped Act, all states are mandated by January 1,
1978 to establish state level advisory committees. The
duties and responsibilities of these state level committees
differ, but generally include making recommendations to

the Superintendent of Public Instruction regarding

Pr0gramming, financing, and evaluating programs and

18

services for handicapped children. Parents of handi-
capped children are often made a part of these committees,
along with many other persons involved at the state,
regional, and local levels in planning programs and
services for handicapped children.

The establishment of state level advisory boards for
the handicapped is a relatively new phenomenon. The 1962
Report of the President's Panel on Mental Retardation,
highlighted the need for the coordination of the "generic
and specialized agencies serving the mentally retarded."
(p. 22). By the mid-sixties, many states had established
state level planning boards which included parents of
handicapped children. In 1967, Maryland advocated the
establishment of state and local advisory committees to
increase public awareness of the needs of handicapped
children and to further public recognition of the lack of
necessary programs to meet the needs of handicapped
children (Davis, e£_gl., 1967). In 1968, the First
Report of the National Advisory Committee on Handicapped
Children recommended that all states establish state and
local advisory councils "to help speed the implementation
of services to handicapped children..." and furthermore
that "these councils focus on planning and evaluating
new programs." (Kirk, 1968, p. 46). Although the establish-
ment of state advisory committees was a giant step forward

for the parents of handicapped children, the actual

19

operation of most programs for the handicapped is a function
of the local education agency. Consequently, the greatest
involvement needs to occur at the local level where

parent involvement has been slow in developing and has

just recently been looked upon as being a necessary and
vital aspect for program planning (National Advisory
Committee on the Handicapped, 1974).

In 1973, Trudeau stated that well over half of the
states had a lgggl_basis for local planning. This
planning is typically conducted by advisory committees
whose function is to assist local administrators in
developing educational services for handicapped children.
Some of the activities conducted by these committees
include presenting status reports, clarifying state and
local policies, conducting surveys to identify and locate
handicapped children and many more specialized activities.
In some states, local planning boards specify plans for
each disability group, while in other states their role
is more general.

In Ell states but one, these local planning boards or
advisory committees are typically composed of parents of
handicapped children, special education teachers, local
or intermediate directors of special education, and, at
times, members of agencies that may be involved with
special education students (Trudeau, 1973). These advisory
committees appear to have similar functions; these functions

Pertain to planning and evaluating district-wide special

20

education programs and services. Furthermore, these
advisory groups have no administrative responsibility or
authority and have little, if any, enforcement function.
Their role is strictly advisory and, as such, many of these
committees tend to be token fixtures and serve as "yes

men" for local district special education personnel
(Gettings, 1973). Michigan appears to be the only state

that has mandated an advisory committee for parents only.

 

The legal basis for the Parent Advisory Committee is found
in Rules 133, 135 and 136 of the Special Education Code
(Appendix B). Every intermediate school district in
Michigan must develop a comprehensive plan for the
delivery of special education programs and services.
Members of the Parent Advisory Committee are involved

in all phases of this plan's development. This function
allows parents of handicapped children in Michigan an
opportunity to exert a greater degree of influence over
planning and evaluation than parents in other states.

By the late 1960's, many states that did not mandate
some type of planning did have permissive legislation
allowing planning committees. For instance, North Dakota
has a statute that says, "...the county superintendent
may appoint a county board of special education" (Peterson,
1968, p. 5). A trend toward the establishment of strong
local planning and advisory bodies may be observed beginning
around 1969. This trend is particularly evident in states

that have had "right to education" cases brought against

21

them. Included as a part of the "right to education"
litigation was the question of procedural due process and

its implications for handicapped students and their parents.

Due Process-~Meaning_and Intent

There are two types of due process - procedural and
substantive. This review does not need to concern itself
with substantive due process except to suggest that it
should be thought of as a constitutional requirement
affecting the rule-making function, "...which prohibits
the authorization of illegal or improper procedures in
the passage of rules and regulations that authorize illegal
or unreasonable activities." (Fischer, 1970, p. 1). Pro-
cedural due process can be thought of as the quantity and
quality of the judicial process which through its operation
assures persons subjected to it that they will not be
deprived of "life, liberty, or property" or any other
constitutionally guaranteed right "without due process of
law" (Schofield, 1975).

Procedural due process is a constitutionally guaranteed
right Of every citizen. Since students, including handi-
capped students, are citizens, they are guaranteed this
right. Today, procedural due process is thought of not
only in terms of "rights" but also in terms of responsibility.
The Michigan Department of Education has defined respon-
sibility as referring

...mainly to the individual's obligation to others

within his society, because, in order for an indi-
vidual to preserve his/her rights, each must take

22

upon himself a sense of responsibility toward the
preservation of the rights of Others. In other
words, while an individual does have rights to
pursue his own self-fulfillment, those rights must
terminate at that point where they begin to impinge
upon the rights of others. (Recommended Guide to
Student Rights and Responsibilities, 1974, p. 9T7

 

Succinctly phrased, reSponsibility can be thought of as
the freedom to experience consequence of action.

Due process is required when a constitutional right
mgy be involved. Since the courts have mandated that a free
appropriate public education is an inherent right, then the
denial of, or placement in education programs other than the
norm may impinge upon the student's Opportunity in later life.
Consequently, due process procedures are required in the
placement of children in school programs and services
which are considered to be a deviation from the norm.

Perhaps the most important and often the most mis-
understood feature of due process is the question of its
"dueness". In other words, what degree of protection is
appropriate under a given set of circumstances. Nolte
argues that the more severe the penalty, e.g., exclusion
from school, the more likely the courts will require a
large measure of due process of law (Nolte, 1975). He
goes on to state that the present Supreme Court test of
"dueness" may be paraphrased as a fundamental concept of
fair play.

In summary, the concept of due process is formed by
the continuation of the concepts of methodology and fair-

ness. Methodology can be thought of as the plan or the

23

design, whereas fairness can be equated with honesty and
impartiality. Due process is meant to ensure what the
courts call "fundamental fairness." It is embodied in the
Sth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution which provide
that neither the United States nor any state or local
government may deprive a person of "life, liberty, or

property without due process of law."

Historical Development pf Due Process

 

 

Nolte states that the idea of due process, intended
to restrict the intrusion of the government into the life
of the individual, had its origin in English law dating
back to the year 1215 when King John was forced to re-
linquish some of his power to the citizenry (Nolte, 1974).
The purpose of due process was to guarantee essential
fairness between the individual and the state. This
concept appears in the 5th Amendment to the United States
Constitution which says, "No person shall...be deprived
of life, liberty, or prOperty, without due process of law."
As it appears there and as it applies to the states in the
14th Amendment, it seems to imply a loss to the individual
of some "inherent rights".

In 1951, the late Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter,
referring to the constitutional dimension of due process,
described its nature as.

Fairness of procedure is 'due process in the primary

sense'...'Due process' cannot be imprisoned within
the treacherous limits of any formula...Due process

24

is not a mechanical instrument. It is not a
yardstick. It is a process. It is a delicate
process of adjustment unescapably involving an
exercise of judgement. (Joint Anti-Facist
Committee v. McGrath, 1954).

 

The U.S. Supreme Court's initial application of the
"inherent right" concept in education occurred in 1954

in Brown v. Board 2: Education. The Court said:

 

In these days it is doubtful that any child may
reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he
is denied the opportunity of an education. Such
an opportunity, where the state has undertaken

to provide it, is a right which must be made
available to all on equal terms. (Brown v. Board
pf Education, 1954).

 

More than twenty years later, handicapped children have
just won the right to an education, not necessarily an
egual or apprOpriate education.

Conceptually, the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown did
not directly affect the concept of procedural due process.
However, their ruling did guarantee equal educational
opportunity for all. In 1960, the Supreme Court re-
iterated Justice Frankfurter's sentiments by stating that

due process is an almost elusive concept. Its

exact boundaries are undefinable and its context

varies according to specific factual contexts...

as a generalization, it can be said that due

process embodies the differing rules of fair play,

which through the years have become associated

with differing types of procedures. (Harmah
v. Lorche).

ZS ’

In the twenty or so years between the court's holding that
"separate but equal facilities for the races are inherently
unequal" (Brown, 1954) and the present, represent the
enlargement of the concept of equal protection of the law.
Now the emphasis is on due process of law.

A keystone in the due process bridge was the Tinker
case decided in 1969. It says, in effect, that even the
least among us is free to challenge the awesome power of
the state, which in the absence Of morality, is con-
strained from limiting individual liberties by a mere
desire. The Supreme Court said:

To avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that

always accompany an unpopular viewpoint...students

carry with them into our public schools the full
compliment of constitutional rights which the

State may limit only on proof that an overriding

public purpose is to be served by giving 'valid

reasons' why the State must act as it does.

(Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
D1str1ct, 1969).

 

Dolce states that in essence what the Supreme Court was
saying is "there is one right which is fundamental to

all human freedom, the right to due process. To deny due
process to anyone is to assume an absolute knowledge of
guilt...." (Dolce, 1971, p. 8). Ultimately, in 1972 the
Supreme Court handed down a ruling that will affect
education for many years to come. The court stated that
"...school regulations are not to be measured by the

standards which prevail for the criminal law and for

(pt

I}

26

criminal procedure...the courts should interfere only
where there is a clear case of constitutional infringe-
ment." (Hggly v. £3233, 1972). This ruling gives school
administrators a monumental task; that is, to decide
what type of due process procedure would or would not be
a "constitutional infringement."

For the past twenty years, the courts have dictated
educational policy, prescribed educational rules, and,
in general, forced educators to live up to those freedoms
guaranteed to all citizens in the Constitution. The
Supreme Court has attempted to infuse some morality into
an educational society which shirks its moral respon-
sibility. It must be remembered that court involvement did
not come about simply by reason of a shortage of judicial
restraint. "Not too long ago free public education was
still regarded as a luxury in which the individual had no
established rights." So, basic is the necessity of having
some education in today's world "...that the opportunity
to be educated easily becomes a fundamental right which
should not be denied by arbitrary and capricious action of

school authorities." (Maready, 1971, p. 4).

Due Process and the Handicapped

 

Until the past few years, the constitutionally
guaranteed right to an education has eluded the handicapped.
With the inception of the "concept of normalization"

(Allen, 1969) and with the idea that public education is

27

for all children, clearly expressed in the "zero-reject"
policy (Schofield, 1975), this right has become a reality.
Two court decisions have extended the reasoning used in

Brown v. Board pf Education and applied it to handicapped

 

students and their parents. In both Pennsylvania

 

Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth pf

 

 

Pennsylvania and Mills v. Board pf Education, "the courts

 

 

confirmed that all children, regardless of handicap, are
entitled to a regular public school education or to
adequate alternate educational service suited to their
needs." (Olfson, 1974, p. 2).

The Pennsylvania case was the first case that

 

represented a class action suit; that is, a suit that
included all mentally retarded children in the State of
Pennsylvania. The complaint was filed on January 7, 1971
and alleged that certain Pennsylvania statutes were un-
constitutional under the equal protection clause of the
14th Amendment. In June of 1971, an order and stipulation
focused on the provisions of due process rights of children
thought to be mentally retarded. The decree stated
specifically that no mentally retarded child could be
denied admission to a public school program or have his
educational status changed without first being accorded
notice and the opportunity for a due process hearing.
"Change in educational status" has been defined as
"assignment or re-assignment based on the fact that the

child is mentally retarded or thought to be mentally

28

retarded, to one of the following educational assignments:
regular education, special education, or to no assignment,
or from one type of special education to another."

(Pennsylvania). The full due process procedure, from

 

notification to parents that their children are being
considered for a change in educational status to the
completion of a formal hearing, were ordered in detail by
the June decree. It wasn't until October of 1971 that the
court, via a consent agreement, stated:
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania...having
undertaken to provide a free public education
to all of its children, including its exceptional
children, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may not
deny any mentally retarded child access to a free
public program of education and learning.
(Pennsylvania Consent Agreement, October 1971).
The Pennsylvania case established a solid foundation for
two important principles--the right of the mentally re-
tarded child to a free public education and their right
to due process of law.

In August of 1972, a second case, Mills v. Board pf

Education was decided. The suit decreed that all children,

 

regardless of handicap, have a right to a free public
education. Parents and guardians of handicapped children
in the District of Columbia said their children were
excluded for a variety of reasons including labels such
as "slightly brain damaged" and "hyperactive behavior."
Also an issue was the manner in which the children were

denied entrance to, or were excluded from, public education

29

programs. Basically, the complaint said that plaintiffs
were excluded without a formal determination of the basis
for their exclusion and without provisions for periodic
review of their status. Children merely have been labeled
as behavior problems, emotionally disturbed or hyperactive
and excluded from school. The complaint went on to point

out that

...the procedures by which the plaintiffs are
excluded or suspended from public school are
arbitrary and do not conform to the due process
requirements of the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs
are excluded and suspended without: (a) notifi-
cation as to a hearing, the nature of the offense
or status, any alternative or interim publicly
supported education; (b) opportunity for,represen-
tation, a hearing by an unpartial arbiter, the
presentation of witnesses; and (c) opportunity

for periodic review of the necessity for continued
exclusion or suspension. (Mills, 1972).

United States District of Columbia Court Judge
Joseph Waddy issued a decree that upheld all arguments

brought by the plaintiffs. Specifically, he said:

1. that no child eligible for a publicly supported
education in the District of Columbia schools
shall be excluded from a regular public school
assignment..., and (b) a constitutionally
adequate prior hearing and periodic review of
the child's status, progress, and the adequacy
of any educational alternative....

2. the District of Columbia shall provide to each
child of school age a free and suitable publicly
supported education regardless of the degree of
the child's mental, physical or emotional dis-
ability or impairment.... (Mills, Judgement and
Decree, 1972).

30

The Mill: decree established that all handicapped
students had a constitutionally protected right to an
education, and further reaffirmed the court's position that
procedural due process is a constitutionally guaranteed

right of every citizen. With the Pennsylvania and Mills

 

decisions, handicapped children and their parents have
been given the same rights and responsibilities as their

non-handicapped peers.

Due Process Minimums

 

In evaluating what the legal minimum procedural due
process requirements are, it is evident that the quantity
and quality of the procedure is left up to the local or
intermediate education agency. However, in dealing with
the handicapped child and his parent, there are a number
of procedures that must be followed to meet the minimum
due process standards in identification, evaluation and
educational placement. The following due process minimums
represent a synthesis of ideas taken from A_Primer pp 223
Process by Abeson, g£_gl. and Section 615 of P.L. 94-142,

Education g£_All the Handicapped Act, November, 1975.

 

 

1. Parents must have the Opportunity to examine
all educational records. Included in these
records are school psychological reports, teacher
comments recorded in the student's cumulative
folder, health reports, and any other information
that may be used to determine the future educational
placement of the handicapped student.

31

The local education agency must provide written
notification prior to any educational evaluation.
If English is not the native or primary language
used in the home, then the parents always have
the right to an interpreter. Prior to the actual
evaluation, the parent should be provided with
both written and oral notification of the intent
to conduct an evaluation. The notice of intent
may contain all or some of the following:

(a) reason for evaluation

(b) person initiating process

(c) evaluation procedures to be used

(d) statements indicating right to:
(l) obtain capies of tests
(2) have test data interpreted

(e) contact person within the local education
agency that parent can call for assistance

(f) separate form requesting parent permission
to conduct evaluation

The local education agency must supply written
notification to the parent prior to a change in
education placement. Included in this notice
should be:

(a) an individual educational plan

(b) why the proposed placement is appropriate

(c) appropriate alternative placements, if any

(d) statement pertaining to availability of
records

(e) describe in detail the right to a hearing--
if the parent oEjects to the proposed
placement

The local education agency must provide for a
periodic review of the child's placement. This
review should be an evaluation of the local
education agency's effectiveness in meeting the
educational needs of the child. The parent should
be invited to attend this meeting and the pro-
cedures used in the review should be specified.

The local education agency is responsible to
establish procedures to protect the rights of
children without parent or guardian. This may be
accomplished by appointing a child advocate from
the local education agency's staff to follow the
child through the placement process.

32

Michigan's Due Process

 

Michigan's due process procedures do meet the due
process minimums set forth earlier in this chapter. In
fact, Rule 22(1)(b) states the superintendent of the
operating district shall

request in writing, parents on a case by case

basis to participate as members of the committee

(EPPC) in developing a recommendation concerning

a change in the educational planning and place-

ment committee, all school records concerning the

person suspected of being handicapped shall be

made available to the parents upon request.

Rule 22 also deals with the subject of periodic review of
placement and time deadlines concerning evaluation and
placement. Rule 23 of the Code pertains to the notification
to parents about a change in educational status, educational
options available, and the parent's right to request a
hearing. Rule 23 also delineates the procedure for re-
questing a hearing. The bulk of Michigan's due process
safeguards occur in Rule 24 which deals with the hearing
process. However, the scope of this study is limited to

the Educational Planning and Placement Committee Meeting

and does not concern itself with the hearing process.
Consequently, the Rules and Regulations pertaining to the
hearing process will not be discussed. However, Rules 22

and 23 do afford handicapped children and their parents

"equal protection" as articulated in the 14th Amendment.

33
Summa

Only in the last few years has the idea of an "equal
educational opportunity" for handicapped children become
a part of society's philosophy. The courts, through the

Pennsylvania and Mills decisions, mandated a free public

 

education for all handicapped children. As an integral
part of this "right to education" mandate the right to
due process in evaluation and placement procedures was
made a part of the total "equal protection" philosophy.
With the advent of the "rights" notion for handicapped
children and their parents,came the added notion of
responsibility; that is, the idea of being free to
experience the consequences of decision making. Finally,
the philosophy of due process has come to mean parent
involvement in all phases of program planning, evaluation,
and placement decisions for the handicapped. Hopefully,
with continued attentiveness by educators and parents

to the problems of the handicapped, they will no longer
be deprived of "life, liberty, or property without due

process of law."

CHAPTER III
PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter is divided into five major sections.
These are: (1) subject selection procedures, (2) the
design and development of the measurement instrument,
(3) the pilot study, (4) presentation of the EPPC
questionnaire to the Parent Advisory Committees, and

(5) the treatment of the data.

Subject Selection

The target population for this study consisted of
all members of the Parent Advisory Committees (PAC) of
Michigan's fifty-eight intermediate school districts.*
These parent groups are mandated by Public Act 198 of 1971
and their composition is defined in Rule 133 of the
sPeCial Education Code. The rule states that the committee
should "consist of at least one parent of a handicapped

Person.from each constituent school district." This

 

 

*Warne I.S.D. has been excluded from this study for the
fonowing reasons: (1) due to its enormous size it is not
a tY‘Pical intermediate, (2) the Wayne PAC is divided into
Inore than one group, and (3) the PAC is currently con-
temPlating legal action against the intermediate.

35

writer assumes that PAC members, by virtue of their
position on that committee, are well informed about special
education in general, the problems relating to the de-
livery of special education services and those parents'
rights as delineated in the Special Education Code.

A further assumption is that parents on the PAC tend

to be more highly educated and tend to have an intense
interest in the problems of special education. Also,
because of the relative accessability of the PAC groups,
this particular parent population was selected by this
writer as the ideal group to use in obtaining the necessary
information for the study.

The fifty-seven intermediate school districts were
divided into four strata based on the total number of
pupils within each intermediate school district. These four
strata are presented on the following page in Table 3.1.
The sample population was drawn from the four strata using
a stratified random sample selection procedure. A sampling
fraction of twenty-five percent was drawn from the first
stratum and a sampling fraction of approximately twenty-
six percent was drawn from the remaining three strata.
Fifteen intermediate school districts were selected using
the above procedure; these districts are identified in
Table 3.1 by a single asterisk appearing to the left of
the district's name. From the initial selection, four
intermediate districts were not able to participate;

Genesee, Ionia, St. Joseph, and Copper Country. These

36

Sendai!" 8 3:. won a .05 no... Beflgnfl 3 3.038....
39.8 an?“ 23 5 383...

 

 

8m .2 3:53
8nd pun-$533.85
08 83 33 33am
Re .1. «58° oSJH SERRABE
.36... 033:! £80:
o3 .n 0035:»: m8 . NH 52.3058: 1303.5.
3a..“ 83... Rod; :358 owed”... 83:36
mom .0 and SON” afloaoofim..sa8 08.3 32 s8 8995
moms 3.58388 «2.9 3.5.. m8 .mm «2.38
93. Same. 0%.? ..3. £33 58.8 1.88:
“and 88H RES £82. J? 98.8 08.5 5..
Had amuse: 58.9 5.38: and has .3.
at.» E: 58.1: 3&3 Swan .2639.
«Rod aflaufimfixfln 3R? smear «2.8 8&0:
.54. Rad... Gang 3889 RR? 52:8
Had 5:95-85 «.8 .3 :36 m8 .3 poms—mi
93$ 88 333.... So .fi nomd-3..8€£.. m8 5.... .33. Susana...
man .a hafiou 3&8: 83.3 33. omoé. 8E8 Road 28:...
Rod £666.. 8:: S33... .18 .3 3.3.13: afiafi 0888..
Rod oggénouwoa SQS spasm 5; Sci 333.. omega p.68:
Roda 3088.880! $5.3 aflauadofiflui made sad-H @868 9.436
88...! 3H 88...: 5H 88:: a £82: EH
5 flaw HS 5.5m n 55.5 H 3.55

 

 

 

 

3.3 :3 no .38 45 finances. «838 um Mala. mm 56333

H6 H549

37

districts were replaced at random from the appropriate
strata. The replacements are identified in Table 3.1 by
a double asterisk appearing to the left of the district's
name. The final fifteen districts are presented in

Table 3.2 and represent the sample selected for this study.

TABLE 3.2

List of Intermediate School Districts Selected

 

 

 

Strata I Strata II Strata III Strata IV
Kent Saginaw Marquette-Alger C.0.0.R.
Kalamazoo Allegan Lewis Cass
Valley Alpena-Alcona Hillsdale
Ottowa Montmorency Branch
Bay-Arenac Livingston Mason

Gratiot-Isabella

 

This writer had intended to personally attend all
fifteen PAC meetings, present the questionnaire to the
parents, and collect it before the meetings were adjourned.
However, because of scheduling difficulties and inclement
weather, only ten PAC meetings were personally attended.
In the remaining five districts, the questionnaires were
mailed either to the chairperson of the PAC or to the

intermediate director of special education.

38

Table 3.3 presents each intermediate district, the
number of local districts within that intermediate, the
number of members on the Parent Advisory Committee and
the number of responses from that intermediate district.*
The fifteen intermediate districts in Table 3.3 represent
a total of 126 local school districts and 168 Parent
Advisory Committee members. Of the 168 members, 110
responses were received. This represents a response
rate of 65.48 percent. This is considered acceptable
(Babbi, 1973). It should be noted that the five PAC
meetings which this writer did not attend (denoted by
an asterisk) produced a response rate of only 30 percent
whereas the other ten PAC's, which were personally attended,

had a response rate of 79 percent.

_Design and Development g£_the Measurement Instrument

As previously stated, the purposes of this survey
were threefold: (l) to gather basic demographic data
pertaining to the composition of the PAC, (2) to gather
factual data concerning procedural due process in relation-
ship to the EPPC process, and (3) to study parental
attitudes relating to the EPPC process. To accomplish

these goals, the questionnaire was divided into three major

 

*The number of local districts and the PAC membership within
each intermediate was obtained from the intermediate director
Of special education.

39

9a 3. can! BaaaoaeuSF

 

 

 

an .3 oHH 8H 3H
mm NH NH «H .35me
mm o HH H. 9630
m: n N. 3 ahead:
8 3H H H wguopugfii
on m 0H m Sodas
mm a HH HH hOHH¢> couga—
OOH ON cm on was.
H H m : *OHdquHHm
o a HH w thHopuanvofifluu
on m NH m £6.06
om m 0H 3 098
S e m m 62m
mm N u a 40.30: hum
£33058:
3 o NH OH aegis—ends
8H 3 S o 5&3?
Shoo H03
3555 333$ 39898 no heel—worm finance-o: 04m 3.83 5H

 

 

 

as} an... a: AHIHBnE 9E

n.m HHS

40

sections. The first group of questions were designed to
ascertain some demographic characteristics of parents on
the PAC. To accomplish this objective, six variables of
interest were selected: age, ethnic group, education,
length of time on PAC, disability of the child, and the
number of children the parent had that were currently
receiving a special education program or service. These
six characteristics were chosen to determine: (1) the
stability of the PAC membership, (2) the degree to which
each handicap was represented, (3) the degree of minority
representation, and (4) the general educational level of
PAC members.

The second section concerns itself with parent
awareness of, and participation in, a procedural due
process scheme. This scheme is designed to insure parents
and their children of "equal protection" and "equal
educational" opportunity ”under the law." The questions in
this section are developed in such a manner that parents
are asked to recall if certain due process procedures took
place during their child's EPPC. There were three possible
responses for each question - an example follows:

12. Did you sign a form requesting special
education services (referral)?

Yes No "?"
If parents were involved in more than one EPPC meeting,

the questions were answered on the basis of the latest EPPC.

41

This procedure, as developed in the questionnaire, is more
comprehensive than that delineated in Michigan's Special
Education Code.

The initial development of this section of the
questionnaire was accomplished with the assistance of
State Department personnel and a selected group of directors
of special education. The questions in this section were
developed to adhere to the following general principles:

1. general fairness of procedure

2. parent involvement in all aspects of

program planning

3. parent permission prior to testing, labeling

or placement

4. access to records and copies of pertinent

documents

5. school as the accountable agent
Specifically, the questions were constructed in such a

manner that they pertain directly to: (l) the Michigan

Special Education Code, Rules 22-24, (2) the Pennsylvania

 

and Mills decisions regarding due process and parental
rights, and (3) some principles articulated in a recent
journal article by Abeson et a1. (1975), A Primer gn_Due

Process: Education Decisions for Handicapped Children.

 

These questions were then presented to a panel of experts
consisting of two university persons, two intermediate
directors of special education, and one person knowledgeable
in survey research. There were eighteen questions presented
to this group. As a result of their input, eight of these
due process questions were divided into two questions,

resulting in a total of twenty-six questions relating to

42

due process and the EPPC. Generally, all of the questions
were shortened and worded in such a manner as to make
them more understandable. A final review to check the
accuracy of the concepts was done by State Department
personnel. There were no changes made as a result of
this review.

Section three of the questionnaire presents a series
of statements designed to study parent attitudes toward
the EPPC process. These attitude statements are presented

using a Likert scaling format. An example follows.

SA = strongly agree

A = agree

U = undecided

D = disagree

SD = strOngly disagree

35. The professionals listened to my opinions
about my child.

SA A U D SD
The basic ideas, and in some cases the statements them-
selves, came from parents of handicapped children who had
been through the EPPC. Parents used in eliciting ideas
for this purpose were not PAC members. An initial list
of statements and ideas was obtained by attending various
local chapter meetings of the Michigan Association for
Retarded Citizens (MARC), the Michigan Association for
Children with Learning Disabilities (MACLD), as well as
numerous interviews with single parents of the handicapped.
As a result of these meetings, approximately seventy-five

attitude statements were constructed. These statements

43

were then combined to form fifteen groups representing
similar types of statements. Consequently, these fifteen
groups of statements were combined into twenty-five attitude
statements. These twenty-five attitude statements about
the EPPC were presented to the same panel of experts who
reacted to the due process items. As a result of their
input, the twenty-five attitude statements were incor-
porated into twenty statements, and in general, the
wording was refined to present as succinct a statement as
possible. The entire questionnaire was then presented

to the same panel of experts to check for clarity and
readability. As a result of this, a few minor changes

were made. The questionnaire was now ready to be piloted.

The Pilot Study

 

The population selected for the pilot study was chosen
from those Parent Advisory Committees not selected in the
initial selection procedure. The two Parent Advisory
Committees chosen from those remaining were Ingham Inter-
mediate School District and Eaton Intermediate School Dis-
trict, selected primarily for their proximity and
accessibility. These PAC's represent two different strata--
Ingham representing an urban area and Eaton a rural area.
The chairperson of each PAC was contacted and his support

elicited.

44

'The questionnaire was presented to these two groups

in the following manner:

1. An introduction was made relative to the scope
and purposes of the study.

2. Question derivation was explained.

3. The PAC role was explained and any questions
members had about the study were answered.

4. The actual questionnaire was given to the
parents.

5. The questionnaire was discussed with the parents
in terms of length, appropriateness, and
overall expression.

The basic purposes of the pilot study were to:

1. determine the parents' perceptions of the
clarity of each question,

2. determine the parents' perceptions of the
appropriateness of each question,

3. determine the parents' overall perceptions of
the questionnaire, and

4. determine the parents' perceptions pertaining

to the manner in which the questionnaire was
presented.

A total of seventeen parents responded from the two
Parent Advisory Committees, nine from Ingham Intermediate
and eight from Eaton Intermediate. The pilot questionnaire,
as presented to these parents, can be found in Appendix C.
Starting with question five, the respondents were asked to
read each question, answer it, then respond to the in-
quiries about each question. Two questions were asked
about each item. These were: (1) "Is the meaning of the
question stated clearly?" and (2) "Do you think the question

is appropriate?" An example follows.

45

Question 16

 

Did you obtain your (16) Is the meaning of Do you think
child's school records the question the question
before the EPPC? stated clearly? is appropriate?
YES NO "?" YES YES

NO NO

The responses obtained from the seventeen parents regarding
the inquiries about the questions are presented in

Table 3.4 which follows.

TABLE 3.4

Responses Eg_Clarity and Appropriateness pf Questions

 

 

 

-
I

CLEAR APPROP. CLEAR APPROP.
Qpestion YES NO YES NO Question YES NO YES NO

5 15 2 17 -- 29 17 -- 17 --
6 16 1 17 -- 30 17 -- 17 --
7 17 -- 17 -- 31 16 1 17 --
8 17 -- 17 -- 32 17 -- 17 --
9 17 -- 17 -- 33 15 1 15 1
10 17 -- 17 -- 34 17 -- 16 1
11 16 1 16 1 35 17 -- 17 --
12 16 1 16 1 36 17 -* 16 1
13 15 2 16 -- 37 17 -- 17 '-
14 17 -- 17 -- 38 17 -- 17 ~-
15 17 -- 17 -- 39 17 -- 17 --
16 17 -- 17 -- 40 17 -- 17 --
17 17 -- 16 1 41 17 -- 17 --
18 17 -- 17 -- 42 16 1 17 --
19 16 -- 15 1 43 17 -- 17 --
20 17 -- 17 -- 44 17 -- l7 --
21 16 1 17 -- 45 17 -- 17 --
22 15 -- 16 -- 46 17 -- 17 --
23 17 -- 17 -- 47 17 -- 17 --
24 16 1 17 -- 48 17 -- 17 ~-
25 17 -- 17 -- 49 17 -- 17 --
26 16 1 17 -- SO 16 1 17 ~-
27 17 -- 17 -- 51 16 1 17 --

28 17 -- 17 -- 52 17 -- 17 --

 

46

In thirty-one of the forty-eight cases, there were no
negative responses; that is, the parents agreed unanimously
that these questions were both clear and appropriate. Of
the remaining seventeen questions, eight had 923 negative
response on appropriateness, three had 93; negative response
on both clarity and appropriateness, and two had 339
negative responses on clarity. Only the questions that
had two negative responses on either clarity or appropriate—
ness, questions five and thirteen, were subjected to
further analysis.

In reviewing the pilot instrument, it was determined
that the negative response to questions five and eleven
were from persons on Eaton Intermediate's PAC. This
writer went back to that group to re-examine these two
questions. In the course of that re-examination, it was
determined that in question five, one person did not see
the category "severely mentally impaired" and one person
assumed the category "autistic" was missing. (In Michigan,
there is not a separate category for the autistic, rather
it is included within the category "emotionally" impaired.)
In both cases, the parents felt that this writer should
have explained that question prior to the distribution of
the questionnaire because of the many choices presented.

In question eleven, the two negative responses were the
result of the same phenomenon--neither parent was certain
what was meant by the word "referral". Both of these

parents suggested some clarification of the term prior to

47

the distribution of the questionnaire. The suggestions
were helpful and were used when the final questionnaire
was presented to the sample population.

After the parents had completed the pilot question-
naire, a round table discussion was held concerning their
general impressions. They were given a list of questions
to respond to and talk about (to discuss and respond
to in writing). These questions and the parents' responses

are presented in Table 3.5.

TABLE 3.5

Questions and Responses £2 Round Table Discussion

 

 

 

 

YES NO

1. Is the questionnaire too long? 0 l7
2. Could the questionnaire be expanded? 7 10
3. Did you have difficulty recalling if

the specific due process items occurred? 1 16
4. Did the attitude statements present an

accurate picture of the EPPC? 17 0
5. Were there any questions that you did

not want to answer for personal

reasons? 0 l7
6. Did the introduction give you enough

information to help you in your under-

standing of the purposes of the study? 5 12

7. Did the introduction give you enough
information to fill out the question-
naire accurately? 16 1

 

48

From perusing the results of the parents' responses
about the questionnaire, it was evident that the length
was acceptable. However, 40 percent of the parents felt
it should not be expanded. Their responses would also
seem to indicate that they had little difficulty in re-
calling if a specific item occurred and the attitude
statements did reflect an accurate picture of the EPPC.
However, approximately 30 percent of the parents felt
the introduction did not give them enough information to
understand the purposes of the study. As a result of
this feedback, the final questionnaire was not expanded,
but the introduction was expanded to facilitate a more
complete understanding of the purposes of the study.

In the initial development of the attitude scale,
this writer decided to separate the twenty statements into
two scales - one scale dealing with the parent's attitude
toward the EPPC process itself, and the other pertaining
to the parent's attitude toward the professionals involved
in the EPPC process. The responses of the seventeen
parents were subjected to a process developed by Cronbach
(1951). This process, coefficient alpha, is a measure of
internal consistency, more specifically it arranges all
the possible item combinations for a scale that is not
dichatomous. From correlation values obtained, it was
evident that the items were dependent on each other; that

in fact, the twenty statements were measuring a general

49

attitude toward the EPPC rather than two separate attitudes.
The overall coefficient alpha was .825, which was con-
sidered acceptable.

The pilot study confirmed the clarity and appropriate-
ness of the questionnaire. It appeared from the pilot
study that the twenty attitude statements were measuring
a general attitude toward the EPPC process rather than two
distinct attitudes. As a result of the pilot test, no
questions were discarded. There were some minor punctu-
ation changes, but the majority of the changes occurred
in the manner in which the questionnaire was presented

to the Parent Advisory Committee.

Presentation pf the Questionnaire

 

 

The instrument, Perceptions g£_the Educational

 

 

Planning_and Placement Committee Process, as presented to

 

the fifteen Parent Advisory Committees can be found in
Appendix D. This questionnaire was presented to the
parents as a group, they responded to it, and it was
collected. In the five PAC's that were not personally
attended, the questionnaire was presented in a similar
manner by the Intermediate Director of Special Education

in three districts,while in the other two the questionnaire
was mailed to the chairperson of the PAC who then distri-
buted the questionnaire. As mentioned previously, the
response rates for these five PAC's were poor, but the

overall response rate of 65.48 percent was acceptable.

50

The questionnaire was presented to the parents in
the following sequence:

1. A general introduction was made relative to this
writer's interest in handicapped children and
their parents.

2. The basic purposes of the questionnaire were
explained.

3. Each section of the questionnaire was explained
relative to the purposes.

4. The questionnaire was distributed and the cover
letter was read. Any questions about it were
answered.

5. The directions preceding each section were read
and any questions about them were answered.

6. Questions "5" and "11" were highlighted.
a. In question "5" all categories were read.
b. In question "11" the meaning of referral was
explained.

7. The parents then completed the questionnaire and
any questions asked during this time were answered.

Treatment 2f the Data

 

1. What are the demographic characteristics of the
parents who make up the Parent Advisory Committee?

2. What are the characteristics of Parent Advisory
Committee members' experience with procedural
due process?

Both of the above questions were analyzed using
descriptive statistics. A composite picture is presented
identifying the demographic characteristics of PAC members.
This composite picture utilizes a median score for age and

length of time on the PAC, and the modal response for race,

schooling, and the number of children currently receiving

51

special education services. The due process experiences
encompass questions "7" to "32”, and is presented using
the frequency of yes and no reSponses as well as the
percent of yes responses for each question.

3. What is the relationship between the procedural
due process items that should occur prior to the
Educational Planning and Placement Committee
Meeting and the parents' attendance at that
meeting?

Nine due process items have been identified as
occurring prior to the EPPC. These items are questions
"7, 9, ll, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 22". Attendance or
non-attendance is represented by question ”32". A
multiple regression analysis was used to analyze the data.
Multiple regression is a method of analyzing the collective
and individual contributions of two or more independent
variables to the variation of a dependent variable. In
this case, the independent variables are represented
by the nine due process items and the dependent variable
is represented by item "32", attendance or non-attendance.
The basic task is an attempt to explain the variance
of a dependent variable. It does this by estimating
the contributions to this variance of two or more
independent variables (Kerlinger and Pedhauzer, 1973).

In this case, this writer will seek to explain the
variance in attendance at the EPPC by studying the nine
due process items that occurred prior to the EPPC. Due to the

small "n" (106), an alpha level of .01 was selected to

determine significance. The probability of obtaining

52

differences is greater when using a small "n" as opposed to

a large "n". Consequently, this writer wants to make it more
difficult to obtain significance in order to be able to place
greater confidence in the results. Also, this study has
important ramifications in the field, and, as such, this
writer wants to be confident the results obtained from

the study are accurate and reflect the actual experiences

and attitudes of Parent Advisory Committee members.

4. What is the relationship between Parent Advisory
Committee members' attitudes toward the EPPC and
their experiences with procedural due process?

Analysis of this question is a multi-step procedure.

First, a factor analysis, varimax rotation (Harman, 1967),
will be computed on the twenty attitude statements; these

are represented by questions "33" and "52". The purpose

of this analysis is to determine the number of factors

present and the loadings (coefficients) within each factor.
Harman states that knowing the level of statistical
significance may not be relevant in that the sampling errors
are probably underestimated; therefore, a more stringent

level of significance should be required (1967). Consequently,
an arbitrary coefficient of .30 has been selected to determine
which factor loadings will be considered acceptable. The
reasons for using this procedure are the same as previously
mentioned. These are: (l) to allow a greater degree of
confidence to be placed in the results of the analysis, and

(2) because of the important ramifications in the field,

53

results obtained must reflect the actual attitudes of

PAC meembers. When selecting the factors that will be
accepted, only those factors that account for seventy-five
to ninety percent of the variance will be used; any
additional factor that accounts for less than five per-
cent of the variance will not be retained.

The subscales obtained using the procedure described
above will serve as the dependent variables in a multiple
regression analysis.* In this case, the independent
variables are those due process items that should have
taken place prior to, during, or after the EPPC meeting.
These questions are "7, 9, ll, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22
to 24, 28 to 31"--a total of sixteen questions. The
number of multiple regression analyses performed will be
a function of the number of factors obtained from the
factor analysis. For instance, if there were two factors,
then two regression analyses would be done; one using the
sixteen due process items to account for the variance in
parent reSponses to factor one and the other using the
same sixteen due process items to account for the variance

in parent reSponses to factor two.

 

*This writer did not use the factors themselves as dependent
variables in the regression analysis, but rather took those
questions that made up each factor and formed subscales.
These subscales then served as the dependent variable in the
regression analysis.

S4

5. What is the relationship between the mode of
communication used to inform the parents about
the Educational Planning and Placement Committee
Meeting and the parents' attitudes toward their
children's EPPC?
There are three channels of communication that could
be used to inform parents about their child's EPPC. These
are: (l) telephone, (2) mail, or (3) in person. Using
the subscales identified in question four, a Chi square will
be completed on each factor. Remember, these subscales
represent the parents' attitudes as determined by the
factor analysis, and, as such, each subscale can be thought
of as a continuous variable that can be spread over a linear
continuum. For purposes of analysis, this continuum will
be divided into three equal (or nearly equal) sections.
These sections will represent low, middle, and high attitude
scores; the higher the score, the more positive the attitude
toward that factor. Again, assuming there were two factors,

two 3 X 3 Chi squares would be completed. An example of

how the Chi square will be presented is as follows.

 

 

 

Attitude

Low Middle high
a
.3 telephone
«H
a
.3 -
r: mail
5
8 person

 

55

An alpha level of .01 has been selected for acceptance or
rejection. In this case, this writer would expect the
parents who were notified in person to have a higher

attitude score than those parents notified either by mail

or phone.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Introduction

 

This chapter focuses on the analysis of the data.
First, the research question is presented followed by
an analysis of that question. An attempt is made to
clarify possible sources of response bias, findings of
particular interest and the general significance of the

findings.

1. What are the demographic characteristics of
the Parent Advisory Committee members?

There are six demographic characteristics: (1) age,
(2) ethnic group, (3) schooling, (4) months on PAC,

(5) handicap, and (6) children receiving service.

TABLE 4:1
Age of PAC Members

 

 

 

Age Frequency Relative Frequency
(percent)
21-29 S 4.7
30-39 42 39.6
40-49 40 37.8
50-59 18 17.0
60 6 over ' l .9

TOTAL 105 1665

57

Table 4.1 presents the ages of PAC members. There
were five parents age 21-29, accounting for only 4.7
percent of that total population. However, this is not
surprising since parents in this age group probably have
fewer school age children than parents in other groups.
Over seventy-five percent of the parents were between
30 and 49 years of age, which is to be expected since
parents in this age range more typically have children of
school age.

0f the one hundred six respondents, there were two
blacks, two Spanish speaking and one hundred two white
PAC members. This represents a minority population of
3.8 percent, less than the 8.2 percent minority population
now receiving a special education program or service
throughout the state.*

Table 4.2 presents the continuum of highest grade
or level reached in school by the parents studied. It
is interesting to note that approximately 98 percent of
the parents surveyed have at least a high school degree
and that approximately 36 percent have received college
degrees. Census data indicates that approximately 60 per-
cent of Michigan's population have received high school

degrees, significantly lower than the 98 percent of

 

*The 8.2 percent figure was obtained from the Michigan
Department of Education, Division of Special Education
(taken from form SB 4350).

58

PAC parents who reported obtaining high school degrees.
Another interesting statistic is that approximately
75 percent of the parents on the PAC's have received some

college, technical, or special training after high school.

TABLE 4.2
Schooling Completed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School Frequency Relative Frequency
(percent)

finished
elementary l .9
some
hi h school 1 .9

inished—'
high_school 25 23.6
some post
high school 41 38.6
received
Bachelor's 22 20.8
received'
Master's 13 12.3
received
Doctorate 3 2.8

 

TOTAL 106 100%

 

59

TABLE 4.3
Months Served

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Months Frequency Relative Frequency
(percent)

0 to S 19 17.9

6 to 11 8 7 5
12 to 17 28 26.4
18 to 23 10 9.4

24 or more 41 38.8
TOTAL 106 100%

 

Table 4.3 presents the length of time parents have
been members of a Parent Advisory Committee. The greatest
number of parents have served for twenty-four or more
months and approximately 75 percent of the parents have
been PAC members for a minimum of twelve months. It is
interesting to note that there are fewer parents in the
six to eleven and eighteen to twenty-three month categories
than any of the other three categories. The distribution
of parents within the different categories may represent
an attempt to systematically involve new parents in the
PAC. The large number of parents who have been members for

a minimum of twelve months should lend stability to the PAC.

60

TABLE 4.4
Type of Handicap

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Handicap Frequency Relative Frequency
(percent)

Educable

Ment. Imp. 19 17.9

‘Trainable

Ment. Imp. 17 16.0

Severely

Ment. Imp. 4 3.8

Severely

Mult. Imp. 4 3.8

glearning

Disabled 20 18.8

Emotionally

Impaired 15 14.2

Hearing

Impaired 11 10.4

Visually

Impaired 4 3.8

Physically

Impaired 12 11.3

TOTAL 106 100%

 

Table 4.4 presents the types of handicapped children
who are represented on the Parent Advisory Committee. The
number of parents of hearing impaired and physically
impaired children is somewhat surprising considering
the relatively low number of these children receiving
special education services when compared to the educable
child. It would seem that the hearing impaired and
physically impaired parent representation would be similar
to the visually impaired, severely mentally impaired or

severely multiply impaired. In fact, there are approximately

61

three times as many parents of hearing impaired and
physically impaired children as there are in those three
categories. Parents of learning disabled children have
the greatest representation, with nearly one-fifth of the
parents being accounted for in that category. This may
be an attribute of the strong, vocal association that
the parents of learning disabled children have, and the
general increase in the national attention given to

the field of learning disabilities. A finer analysis

of the responses leads to the interesting fact that of
the seventeen parents of trainable mentally impaired
children, twelve were in the 50-59 age bracket. That
represents 70 percent of the parents of trainable
children and 67 percent of the PAC population in the 50-
59 age category. This writer can only speculate as to
the reason, but a contributing factor may be the greater
prevelance of Down's Syndrome children (Mongolism) in

women who give birth after forty years of age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 4.5
Children Receiving Service

Number of* Frequency Relative Frequency
Children Served (percent)

Zero 2 1.9

One 89 84.0

Two 11 10.4

Three 3‘ 2.8

Four or more 1 .9

 

TOTAL 106 100%

 

62

Table 4.5 presents the number of Parent Advisory
Committee member's children who are currently receiving
special education programs or services. It is readily
evident that a substantial group of parents, 84 percent,
have one child receiving special education services.
However, one cannot assume that these parents have only
one special education child; a distinction must be made
between the number of children receiving special
education services and the number of children who may
have been classified as special education students but
no longer receive special education services.

In presenting a composite picture of the demo-
graphic variables, one finds the "typical" parent would
probably be white, approximately forty-two years old,
have some post high school education, have one child
receiving a special education service and have served
on the Parent Advisory Committee for approximately
twenty months. It is not possible to give a represen-
tative picture of the type of handicap the "typical"
parent would represent because of the variability in
the number of handicaps represented and the small dif-
ferences in the number of parents representing each

handicap.

63

2. What are the characteristics of Parent
Advisory Committee members' experiences with
procedural due process?

This question encompasses section two of the question-
naire which contains questions seven to thirty-two.
Question nineteen is deleted from the present analysis
but will be used as an independent variable in the
analysis of research question five. The questions are
divided into two parts, one part containing all the due
process procedures that are mandated by Michigan's Rules
and Regulations; the other part containing the procedures
that could take place but are not mandated. This infor-
mation is presented in two tables which givetme<hw
process questions in abbreviated form, the frequency of
yes-no responses, and the percent of yes responses for
each question. The complete questions are in Appendix D,
Parents' Perceptions of the Educational Planning and
Placement Committee Process. (See Table 4.6)

Table 4.6 presents those due process procedures that
are mandated by Michigan's Rules and Regulations. The
parents studied reported that these procedures took place
approximately 60 percent of the time. Question eighteen,
which asks if parents were informed about the date of the
EPPC, was answered yes 87 percent of the time. However,
one would probably have expected this question to be
answered positively by virtually all respondents. Of the
fourteen parents who responded no to this question,
thirteen of them did not attend the EPPC; one parent who

reported not being notified did attend the EPPC.

64

TABLE 4.6
Experiences of PAC Members with
Mandated Due Process Procedures

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ques. - - Response %
No. Question (abbrev1ated) Yes No Yes
12 Did you sign form requesting
services? 71 35 67%
13 Information on referral filled
out prior to your sigmature? 64 42 60%
18 Informed of date, time and
place? 92 14 87%
22 Before EPPC, informed one of
purposes to determine eligi-
bility? 76 30 72%
23 Informed of right to contest
the EPPC decision? 60 46 57%
24 Aware more than one placement
should be considered. 47 59 44%
25 Was more than one placement
considered? 47 59 44%
26 Aware should develop some
educationalfigoals? 63 43 60%
27 Were there educational goals
developed? 68 38 64%
28 After EPPC, did you sign form
agreeimg toplacement? 87 19 82%
29 Informed that failure to sign
within 7 days signified
acceptance? 21 85 20%
30 Did you receive copy of EPPC
report? 66 40 62%
MEAN 60%

 

65

On question twenty-four, which pertains to parent aware-
ness of discussion of placement alternatives at the EPPC,
44 percent of the parents answered yes, and an identical 44
percent reSponded affirmatively on question twenty-five
that, in fact, this did take place. On question twenty-six,
which pertains to parent awareness that some educational
goals should be developed, 60 percent answered yes (they
were aware) and 64 percent said that there were educa-
tional goals developed at the EPPC. Generally, it
appears that local education agencies are discussing
placement alternatives and deve10ping educational goals
during the EPPC. The lower positive reSponse rate for
question twenty-four is probably a function of obvious
placements. For instance, a severely mentally impaired
child would probably have only one program to attend.
Consequently, the lower percent of yes responses on
question twenty-four may be somewhat misleading.

Questions 23, 28, and 29 represent procedures that
should have taken place at the EPPC. The majority of
parents, 82 percent, reported that after the EPPC they
agreed to placement. This is not to say that only
82 percent agreed to placement but rather that these
parents agreed at the EPPC. The parents who did not sign
after the EPPC agreeing to placement may still have been
given a form to sign, but chose not to sign at that moment.

0n question twenty-nine, which pertains to parent awareness

66

that failure to sign the EPPC report within seven days
signified acceptance, only 20 percent of the parents
answered yes. That means that 80 percent of the parents

were not informed of this aspect of Michigan's law and

 

may have believed that withholding their signature meant
their children would not be placed in a special education
program.

The majority of parents reported that the mandated
due process procedures did occur. However, the
variability in responses to the items suggests that
parents and local education agencies need to be more
aware of the mandated procedures.

Table 4.7 presents those due process procedures
which §£g_mg£ mandated but should be incorporated into
the overall procedure to insure "fairness of procedure."
The parents studied reported that these procedures
took place approximately 32 percent of the time. The
low percentage is not surprising since these procedures
are not mandated. Questions 7, 9, l6, l7 and 21 all
pertain to events prior to the EPPC. These procedures,
if followed by the local education agency, would provide
support for the parents in the EPPC process. However,
parents reported these procedures as occuring only
22 percent of the time. Only 46 percent of the responses
to question thirty-one, which pertains to follow-up,
were answered yes. This item is of particular importance

when considering an accountability factor; that is, who is

67

TABLE 4.7

Experiences of PAC Members With
Nonmandated Due Process Procedures

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fixes. Question (abbreviated) fizzponfig st
7 Informed someone could attend
for. you? 18 88 17%
8 Someone attend for,you? 1 105 .9%
9 Informed someone could attend
uith_you? 24 82 23%
10 Someone attend ¥i&h_you? 19 87 18%
ll Informed referral needed
your signature? 57 49 54%
14 Aware psychological tests may
be used? 88 18 83%
15 Informed of right to have all
school records? 33 73 31%
16 Did you obtain school records? 12 94 11%
17 Was test information explained
gprior to EPPC? 38 68 36%
20 Before EPPC, aware of persons
or organizations who could
assist? 20 85 19%
21 School give you list of persons
or organizations? 8 98 7%
31 After EPPC was professional
assigned to follow child's
_progress? 49 57 46%
32 Did you attend EPPC? 80 26 75%
MEAN 32%

 

68

responsible to see that the EPPC recommendations are
actually carried out. Question seven, which informed
parents that someone could attend fgr_them, had 17 percent
yes responses. Yet, only one parent, 0.9 percent, had
someone actually attend the EPPC for him. It is
interesting to note that mgng_of the parents who did not
attend the EPPC were informed that someone could attend
for them. Questions nine and ten, which pertain to
someone attending the EPPC with the parent, present the
same response pattern as questions seven and eight.

That is, more people answered yes regarding being informed,
23 percent, than those who actually had someone attend
with them, 18 percent. Another interesting relationship
occurs between questions thirty-two and seventeen-~of the
twenty-six parents who did not attend the EPPC, twenty-
two, 76 percent, did not have test results explained to
them prior to the EPPC. (See Table 4.7)

Generally, these due process procedures were not
followed by local education agencies and parents were not
aware that they could be. However, the inclusion of
these procedures into an overall due process scheme would
virtually assure "fairness" and make available to parents
assistance that could be utilized to help the parent in

the EPPC process.

69

3. What is the relationship between the
procedural due process items that occur
prior to the EPPC meeting and the parents'
attendance at that meeting?
The statistical method of analysis used was multiple
regression. The basic task of this method of analysis
is an attempt to explain the variance of a dependent
variable, in this case attendnace or nonattendance
at the EPPC. This is accomplished by estimating the
contributions to this variance of two or more independent
variables, in this case the nine due process items that
should have taken place prior to the EPPC.
It is evident from an inspection of the simple r's
in Table 4.8 that only two items,questions eighteen
and seventeen,were significant. These two items account
for 35 percent of the variance in determining attendance
at the EPPC. The remaining five items account for very
little of the variance, in fact, after item seventeen,
the variance remains fixed. Two items, fourteen and
twenty-two, had such small r's they are not included in
the table. Item eighteen, notification of date, time,
and place, was the best predictor of attendance; of course,
it is readily evident that it should be. If one were to
perform an analysis with item eighteen removed, it would
appear that the due process items that should have occurred
prior to the EPPC are almost unrelated to attendance. In

fact, an analysis using the same due process items without

item eighteen resulted in item seventeen being the only

70

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mz cm. oo. mo. ~30» new ecouum
canoe oaooaom cospomcH .5

m2 on. co. NH. wumwmmm canoe 0:3 meoHpmN
-Hcmmuo no mcomuom mo oum3< .om

mz om. co. mo. woo».zufl3 vacuum
vasou ozooEOm poshomcH .m

mz on. co. oH. wmvuouou HoozUm Ham
o>mn ou unwwu mo woahomca .mH

mz on. co. ma. ~0H5u¢dMWm usoN‘
wouoo: Hauuomou poshowem .HH

Ho. mm. mm. mm. woman on wound
vocwmamxo nowumahomcfi umow .nH

Ho. Hm. --- mm. woumam,w:w
mafia .oumv mo cospomsH .wH

h mo 5 My H n
oucmomecmwm mummMnm> mamwuaaz oaaamm awoumfi>onnn<v EouH

 

 

ummm um oucmvcouu< an“: maouH mmououm man
we meowuwfioppou manages: cam oamefim

m.¢ mqm<H

71

significant variable and accounting for only 11 percent
of the variance. So, in fact, it would appear that the
due process items have little relationship to attendance
at the EPPC. (See Table 4.8)
4. What is the relationship between Parent
Advisory Committee members' attitude toward
the EPPC and their experience with procedural
due process?
Prior to describing the statistical analysis of
this question, a descriptive summary of the twenty attitude
statements is presented. Table 4.9 presents the attitude

statements and the frequency of responses and mean score

for each statement.

72

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNN mo.m m NN N we 4N “emu .eouamonmm
HHozhonoom deeommmomonm .HH
Nee mo.m e o mN mm NH nm¢% .oeosea mm :onNuoe
may cw ouaopHmcw.mo:a we cm: H .OH
NNN mN.m N M NH on NN Nomv .eammoum,
Hmcofiumuzwo meanwEuouov
cw mmouohm onm:am> whom .a
NmN on.» m 0 NH me mN N U .smou a mo pammlogmN pNom H .N
Na» mmrm” N c NH, (m4 AH _mww .oemenm0568 amuse: was ammo we»
Noe, hemam N m, NH Ne Hm, many .Heswo ea mm amuse» .m
New mo.e N a N Na 0N NNng .eNNgu we tom mNmo
SE HHou on oucmnu m :o>wu pm
NNN NN.4 N m c we mN mwnv .mcofleNgo as
. ou venoumwfllmawcowmmomoum, mwx
wa 4N.e N N N am mN “may .ommm on»
meansw cowuamfinpzoo m owes H mm!
New NN.¢ o N a N4 NN flame .noNuaaaomeN Hosea mm
acmuuoaam mm compaawmmcm A: «N
Nvm mN.e o N n ma ON away .maoNeNdo as mmounxo op oopm .N
Nm+ev x N N m 4 m aoNumoao euuaNsopna<
u:ouuom
.ww m m m m .w m.
11 B l S D. r. 1
93 u 0 B a a O
83 u on 3 9 u
mu 3 1 I. an
9.4 T. 9 D. T.
u A a a A
1.0 D. V
1. m s
S 1
B a
on 9
l
8
9

mucoaouaum ovsuwuu< mo onuw coauwsazm

m.e mqm<h

73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HO mumH Nm NM mm. H O HwOO.Hmw=O “Ham H .mmmm .mum« .ON
Hm Hm.H ON HO m o H OH q,.:o Ha.
Hmeowvmoswoxmemamuowcs no: ewe .mH
HOH OH.~ om Hm NH HH c ANVV .vowoo: no:
mm3 oocomoha >5 “Hem H .mH
HHm Om. ON lwmw H. OH. O HOOO .OOOOUHHOHOO OOH uamm .OH
New om.~ NH mm m «H O menu .meconmomoum ecu
szmoumcwsow :ofiummuo>cou .OH
HOO OO.m mH ON O ON OH HOOO .ou:m>em
:tho::MHm osouunb MMH
NOO OH.H NH ON O ON NH HOOO .OOOm one O. uoHam
maowmwuo meme mHmconmoMOHH nHH
HOm Oman). H. HN .m. cm HthwwwO.uHOmHHa OH One OHHHMmOOHmsm “Mm
NOO mO.m H OH NH OO OH ONmO .mmououm muHueo
new: commofin Ham: xHHmHocou .NH
fim+<v _k H N m e m cowumoad woumH>oHnn<
unmouon
CH nu nu {941, CH
008 9 1 T. ..u on 1.
1.1 m 1 s D. i 1
93 O B 8 8 O
a.O u On a a u
muu R. 1 I. an
9.4 T. a D. T.
u .A a a .A
1.0 p.
I. .u wv
I. 3
s i
a a
On a
1
9
9

HOoaeHuaouO O.O oHan

74

Generally, it appears that PAC parents perceive the
EPPC as being a valuable and useful process in determining
an educational program for their children. The parents
also reported that the EPPC process was basically not
too complicated and that they did not feel the educational
jargon impeded their understanding during the EPPC.
Questions forty and forty-six, which both pertain to a
decision being made prior to the EPPC, had similar
answers; that is, responses on both questions were bi-
modal, with most parents either agreeing or disagreeing
with the statement, and few actually responding that
they were undecided. In essence then, the mean score is
somewhat misleading, for approximately 50 percent of
the parents did agree that the decision had been made
prior to the EPPC.

The parents' attitude toward the professionals can
be characterized as positive (items 35 to 37, 39, 41,
44, 45, 48, and 50 to 52). They perceive the professionals
as being well prepared for the EPPC and not dominating
the conversation at the EPPC. The majority of parents
perceive the EPPC as being open and honest, a response
that is probably a reflection of the parents' attitude
about the professional in the process. Over 80 percent
of the parents responding disagreed with question forty-
eight, which asks parents if they felt angry after the
EPPC. Parents probably answered this question reflecting

about the professionals' demeanor during the EPPC.

 

75

The large majority of parents felt as though their
presence was needed, that they had important information,
that they were treated as an equal and that they did
make a contribution during the EPPC process. Over 50 per-
cent of the parents agreed with question forty-seven,
which asks if the EPPC was businesslike and legalistic.

In responding to this question, parents probably were
reflecting on their uneasiness with due process pro- 1
cedures. This uneasiness could probably be alleviated

if the parents knew what to expect. Some preparation

 

by the parents for the EPPC would probably result in
a more positive response to this question.

Generally, the PAC parents are very positive about
the EPPC process. They have a positive attitude toward
the professionals and expresses favorable attitudes

about their role in the EPPC process.

TABLE 4.10
Variance Accounted for by Bach Factor

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factor Percent of Cumulative
Variance Percent
1 67.3 67.3
2‘ 11.6 78.9
3 9.1 ’8811
4 7.4 95.5
5' 475' 100.0

 

76

The initial step in the analysis of research question
four was a factor analysis of the twenty attitude state-
ments, questions 33 to 52. The basic reason for performing
a factor analysis was to determine whether the attitude
statements were measuring more than one attitude. Five
factors were obtained in the analysis. These are
presented in Table 4.10.

It is evident that approximately 90 percent of the
variance is accounted for in the first three factors.
Furthermore, factor one accounted for 67 percent of the
variance, a fact that may lead one to believe the attitude
statements are univariate; that is, measuring the same
phenomenon. Since the first three factors account for
approximately 90 percent of the variance, these are the

factors used in the regression analysis.

77

HOfiHO Oiflm Gun fiflflhOUOk 0k03¢¢

:onaHu:H How wouooHom om.A munHvaoqc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«mm. No.- «co. .vovoo: we: we: venomoun,xw uHom H .Nv
OH. avv.- «mm. .aaou a mo uuumloxHH uHow H .Hv
«mm. NN. «No. .ou:u>vu :H vogue a oiouuso .oe
No.- «mu. «ow. .ouosnmoaua anode: can eoao .mn
.eowuaauomaw
HH. NH. NH. Hague ma «enuuomaH ma :owuaauowew x: .an
NH. «mm. NN. x3 mom mHuou Ha HHou ou oueunu n.wwwmw .Nm
«N». «on. HN. .Heauo an no nouaoua .on
No.- «as. vH. .meowcwmo us on venoumHH mHaaonmomoum .mn
.mHueonmomoum
«we. oH. wN. Hp causewaov ummm uaHuav :oHuamuo>aou .cm
No. nH. «me. .ummm onumwawunv nowuaawuueou a opus H .mn

 

m OHmumnam N onumnam H oHeumnam

:oHumosa vouum>ouan<

 

«axwuuaz uouuem vouauom XdaHue>
HH.¢ mHm<s

78

 

:onnHueH new vouuoHom om.A muchuoHa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mmououa
ON. .Hm. .OO. ouHuao HOHz OomaoHO HHo: NHHauoeoo .Nm
gov. «mm. «H. .couuun Hm:0Huau:vo veuumuovas no: an .Hm
ON. «on.- «an. (mnHeHauouov :H mmououn oHnmoHu> ummm .om
«ON. mo. NH. .uouauHanou 00» ommm .mv
NH. «Om. .HO. wauea OHOH H .ummm uoam< .OO
NO. OO. OO. .uHumHHmumH use «HHHmmoeHmam .NO
«Hm. HN. «mm. on uoHum mconHoov owns mHucwwmmwwwuw .ov
cc. «me.- ma. .meoHeHmo NI amounwo on ovum .mv
NH. «co. vH. .vouummum HHoz voaoom mHueonmomoum .vv
.oaohdo no
No. ON. «No. conHuou on» =H oueonHweH :03: me on: H .mv

 

n onumnsm N onomnsm H oHuomnsm

:oHumoso wounw>ounn<

 

HeoaeHueooO HH.O «HOOH

79

Table 4.11 presents the factor loadings for all
attitude statements. Those loadings with a coefficient of
greater than .30 were selected for inclusion in each
subscale. Subscale one, which contains questions 33, 39 to
43, 46, 48, 50, and 52 appears to be measuring a general
attitude of the parent toward the EPPC. The questions
which make up this subscale concern themselves with general
impressions about the EPPC. The loading in subscale one
with the highest coefficient is item fifty (.78) which
asked the parents if the EPPC was a valuable process in

determining an educational program. This question, along

 

with the others in this subscale, ask the parents to respond
generally to the EPPC process. however, there is one

item, forty-six, that does not appear to be asking about
general impressions. This item asks parents to reSpond to
the statement, "It seemed as if the professionals had made
the decision about my child before the EPPC even started."
What may have occurred is that in answering item forty-
six, parents referred to item forty which asks if it
seemed like the outcome of the EPPC was planned in advance.
This writer had intended that parents answer item forty
from a self-perception viewpoint and item forty-six

from their perceptions of the professionals. It appears
that this was not the case; in fact, the parents answered
both questions from a general, self-reflective position.
Further evidence of this is seen in subscale two where the

loading for item forty-six is only .21.

80

Subscale two, which contains questions 35 to 37, 39,
41, 44, 45, 48, and 50 to 52, appears to be measuring
the parents' attitudes about the professional in the
EPPC process. Of the eleven questions in subscale two, six
items (35, 36, 37, 41, 44, and 51) contain direct refer-
ences to the professional and three items (39, 45, and 48)
contain indirect references to professionals. Two items,
'fifty and fifty-two are also contained in subscale one,
and have appreciably higher factor loadings in subscale
one (which is measuring the general attitude) than in

subscale two. This may be a function of the parents'

 

general attitudes about the EPPC process that is reflected
in their attitudes about the professional. however,
the eleven items contained in subscale two all have loadings
greater than .30 and can be said to be measuring the
parents' attitudes about the professionals in the EPPC
process.

Subscale three, which contains questions 34, 36, 40,
42, 46, 49, and 51, appears to be measuring how the
parents perceive themselves in the EPPC process. Of the
seven attitude statements contained in this subscale,
four (36, 42, 49, and 51) contain direct references to
either "me" or "I", while item 34, although referring to
domination of the conversation by the professional,
actually was answered by the parents as though the state-

ment referred to the parents' conversation traits during

81

the EPPC. Two items, forty and forty-six are also
contained in subscale one and have appreciably higher
factor laodings in subscale one than in subscale three.
This may be a function of the parents' perceptions of
some preconceived ideas that they hold relative to
placement as well as their perceptions of a decision
having been made prior to the EPPC. however, the seven
attitude statements contained in subscale three all have
loadings greater than .30 and can be said to be measuring
the parents' self-perceptions in the EPPC process.
The three subscales are:
Subscale One: General Attitude About the EPPC
Process
Subscale Two: Attitude About Professionals in
the EPPC Process
Subscale Three: Attitude About Self Within the
EPPC Process
After the three subscales were identified, they
served as the dependent variables in a regression
analysis. The independent variables were the due process
items that should have occurred prior to, during, or
after the EPPC. Consequently, there were three multiple
regression analyses performed using due process questions
7, 9, ll, 14, 15, l7, 18, 20, 22 to 24, 26, and 28 to 31,
as the independent variables, and each subscale as the

dependent variable. Results are presented in Table 4.12.

 

82

 

mz me. we.
m2 ev. no.
Hc.V He. we.
Ho.:\ 5N. ..-u
mqmm Hbom< mQDHHHH<
mz on. no.
m2 mm. Ho.
Ho.V om. co.
Ho.V 0N. u..-

H<onmmmmomm haom< mGDHHHH<.

mz Ne. mo.
mz He. #0.
Ho.V um. Ho.
Ho.V mN. :.

mQDHHHH< H<dmzmo

NH. meHm ou othHem coauomnH
we. Nuuomoh ummm mo knee e o>Houom

"mmmmk mOHU<m

OO. Nessa OH HOHHO
vochHaxo :oHumsuomcH amok

NO. NouaHO One
oEHu .oumv mo weapomcH

oH. NemHm on ousHHmm uoauomcH
oe. Nphomou ummm mo xmou o>Houom
NO. NOOOm on HOHHO
wochHHXo :oHpmehomcH umoh

Hm. NouOHs One

05H» .oumv we coauomcH

“035 mo&u<m

mH. NcmHm op ousHHmm woahomnH
me. Napomop ummm mo knee o>Houoa
OO. Nusmm on .oHHO

vocHaano :oHuwauom:H umoh
cm. NoueHn van

oaHu .ouuv mo poshomcH

umzo «Ohu<m

.mN
.cm

.NH
.wH

.mN
.om

.NH
.wH

.mN
.om

.NH
.mH

 

HNHV

[HOOOOHsouOO<HxaooH

my we .mHm oueaHhm>Llw,oHnHquz H owgawm Ln

 

monomnsm owapHuu< pouch esp :qu maopH mmououm can
we mcoHuoHoHHou oHanHaz wee onaHm

NH.¢ MHH<H

83

Table 4.12 includes only those questions that had a
sample r of .10 or greater. It is evident that four
questions, l8, 17, 30, and 29, are the questions (indepen-
dent variables) that have the highest simple r's for all
three factors. In fact, the rank order for the four
questions is the same for all three factors. None of the
other questions, for any of the factors, contributed
enough to increase the variance (r2) by more than 1 per-
cent. Consequently, they are not included in Table 4.12.
In all three subscales, only two items, numbers eighteen
and seventeen, were significant. In all three subscales,
item eighteen accounts for approximately 25 percent of
the variance. Although the variance accounted for by
item eighteen is significant, the question itself is
not; for in order for parents to have attitudes about
the EPPC, they must attend the EPPC. Consequently, noti-
fication becomes a critical factor and its affect on
parents' attitudes becomes obvious.

From Table 4.12, it is evident that item seventeen,
explanation prior to the EPPC, is also significant.

It accounts for an average increase in r2 of 12 percent.
It appears that this item does have some affect on the
parents' general attitudes (subscale one), attitudes about
the professional (subscale two), and their attitudes about
themselves in the EPPC process (subscale three). The

significance of this item may be a function of the

84

personal contact involved in the interpretation of
test data rather than a function of the due process
continuum itself. No other due process items accounted
for a significant increase in the variance.
5. What is the relationship between the mode

of communication used to inform the parents

about the EPPC and the parents' attitudes

of their children's EPPC?

There are three channels of communication that are

used to inform parents about the EPPC. These are:
(1) phone, (2) mail, or (3) in person.* These channels
represent the independent variables. The dependent
variables are the three subscales obtained in the factor
analyses. These are: (subscale one) general attitude,
(subscale two) attitude about professional, and (subscale
three) attitude about self. Three 3 X 3 Chi-squares
were computed. The three attitude factors were divided
into three equal sections representing low, middle, and
high scores for each subscale. These sections were obtained
by having the lowest and highest total scores for each
section serve as the range to be divided into the three

equal sections.

*Thirty-one peOple were notified by phone,
twenty-four by mail and twenty-three in person.

 

85

TABLE 4.13

 

 

 

 

Subscale Chi-Square df Sigm__
1. general attitude 2.66 4 NS
2. attitude about professional 2.09 4 NS
3. attitude about self 10.29 4 NS

 

It is evident from Table 4.13 that there were no
significant results. As measured by the three factors,
the channel of communication appears to have little

affect on the parents' attitudes about the EPPC.

Summa

The typical Parent Advisory Committee member is
white, approximately forty-two years of age, has had some
formal education after high school, has one child re-
ceiving special education services, and has served on
the PAC for approximately twenty months. Generally,
parent awareness of what due process procedures should
take place is lower than what actually takes place.

The due process procedures that are required by Michigan's
Rules and Regulations took place approximately 60 percent

of the time and about 75 percent of the parents did attend

86

their child's EPPC meeting. Furthermore, there appears
to be little relationship between the due process items
that should occur prior to the EPPC and the attendance
at the EPPC. Only item seventeen, which asks if test
information was explained prior to the EPPC, appears to
have had a significant affect on attendance. Generally,
the attitudes parents hold about the EPPC have little
relationship to due process. After notification (item
eighteen) is eliminated, item seventeen again appears

to be the critical factor. The significance of item

 

seventeen may be a function of the personal contact E
between the parent and professional rather than the

actual interpretation itself. Finally, there were no

significant findings between the channel of communication

used to inform parents about the EPPC and their attitudes

about the EPPC.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter consists of six parts: (1) a brief
review of the study, (2) major findings, (3) discussion,
(4) recommendations, (5) implications for future research,

and (6) conclusion.

Review 2f_the Study

 

Recent court litigation, changes in the philosophy
of programming in special education, and Michigan's

Mandatory Special Education Act (Public Act 198) have

 

all contributed to an expanded role for parents of handi-
capped children. This new role's main focus has been

the active involvement of parents in their children's
educational programs. Parents of special education
children in Michigan have a unique opportunity to partici-
pate in, and have an influence on, the educational programs
for their children. This opportunity takes place at the
Educational Planning and Placement Committee Meeting

(EPPC) which is mandated to: (1) evaluate all information
on a given student and determine if the student is

eligible to receive special education services, (2) to

88

review all educational options, and (3) to formulate and
record instructional goals. Furthermore, prior to the
EPPC, a series of procedural due process safeguards should
be followed by the local education agency to assure

parents of their rights to be informed of, and involved in,
the EPPC process. Consequently, this study's fundamental
purpose was to investigate how the EPPC process is
currently operating in Michigan.

The target population used for this study was the
Parent Advisory Committee members (PAC's) from the
fifty-eight intermediate school districts. These com-
mittees, mandated by Public Act 198, are composed of
parents of handicapped children from within the inter-
mediate school district. A stratified random sample con-
sisting of fifteen intermediate school districts was
drawn from the target population. The PAC's selected
for participation in the study had a committee membership
of 168 parents. Data was collected from 106 parents
which represented a response rate of approximately 66 per-
cent. To obtain the necessary information, a questionnaire
was developed to: (l) gather some basic demographic data
concerning the composition of the PAC, (2) gather-factual
data pertaining to individual parent experiences with

the EPPC process, and (3) study parental attitudes
regarding the EPPC.

89

Descriptive statistics were used in analyzing both
the demographic characteristics of PAC members and
their experiences with due process. A multiple re-
gression analysis was used to: (1) determine if there
.was a relationship between any of the due process pro-
cedures that should occur prior to the EPPC and attendance
at that meeting, and (2) what the relative contributions
of these due process items were to attendance. The'
attitude of the parents concerning the EPPC, which is
represented by the twenty attitude statements, was
subjected to a factor analysis to determine whether there
was more than one attitude that was being measured. A
regression analysis was then performed on these attitude
factors to determine if there was a relationship between
the occurance of due process and the attitudes the parents
held concerning the EPPC. A Chi-Square was used to test
the relationship between the mode of communication used
to inform parents of the EPPC and their attitudes about

the EPPC.

Major Findings

1. Over 75 percent of the parents on the PAC's
were between thirty and forty-nine years of
age.

2. Approximately 96 percent of the parents were
white

10.

11.

90

Ninety-eight percent of the parents reported
having high school degrees and 36 percent
reported having college degrees.

Most of the PAC parents (87 percent) said they
were informed of the date, time, and place of
the EPPC. Approximately 75 percent of the
parents surveyed did attend their child's EPPC
and 82 percent said they did sign a form
agreeing to the placement-3f their child in a
Special education program.

Only 20 percent of the parents said they

were informed that their failure to sign the
EPPC report within seven days signified their
acceptance of the recommended placement and only
62 percent said they received capies of the

EPPC report.

Parents reported that 60 percent of the due
process items required by Michigan's Rules and
Regulations actually took place; whereas, they
reported that 32 percent of the due process items
that could have occurred, but are not mandated,
occurred.

The vast majority of parents, 85 percent,
perceived that they made a contribution to the
EPPC process, 84 percent said they were given
a chance to tell their goals, and 94 percent
said that they were generally free to express
their opinions during the EPPC.

Fifty-nine percent of the parents perceived the
professionals as being well-prepared, 74 percent
said they listened rather than dominated the EPPC
conversation, and 79 percent reported being treated
as equals.

Regarding the preplanning of the EPPC, parent
responses were almost equally split between the
extremes, with few parents actually responding
"undecided".

Ninty-one percent of the parents felt that the
educational jargon used during the EPPC was not
too complex for them to understand.

Seventy-seven percent of the parents felt as if
they were needed at the EPPC.

12.

13.

14.

15.

It

91

Seventy-three percent of the parents reported
that the EPPC was valuable and that they were
generally pleased with the entire process.

There were no significant relationships between
the due process procedures that should occur
prior to the EPPC and the parents' attendance
at that meeting.

There were no significant relationships between
the due process procedures and the parents'
attitudes about the EPPC.

There was no significant difference between the
mode of communication used to inform parents
about the EPPC and their attitudes about the EPPC.

Conclusions

Generally, school districts tend to adhere
to those portions of due process which are
mandated by law.

Generally, school districts do not carry out
due process procedures which are not mandated
by law.

Parents have positive attitudes regarding the
EPPC process.

Parents have positive attitudes regarding their
role in the EPPC.

Generally, parents have positive attitudes
regarding t e professionals in the EPPC process.

Discussion

is important to realize that the parents surveyed

111 ‘this study are probably not representative of parents

‘tf' Special education children from around the state.

F‘1lrthermore, it is important to realize that these parents

92

are probably more articulate, represent a higher socio-
economic status, and in general, become more involved in
school affairs than most parents of special education
children. These factors were considered of vital im-
portance because they permitted a greater degree of
sophistication in the questionnaire and probably resulted
in a greater degree of accuracy in the responses to the
questionnaire. Thus, the unique aspects about the pop-
ulation should be kept in mind when analyzing the results
of this study.

One of the initial assumptions about the PAC groups
was that they would be more highly educated than the
general special education parent population. This did
prove to be true when compared to the general population
of Michigan - both of these percentages are relatively
high. The sample contained a smaller percentage of
minority parents than one would expect when one con-
siders the number of minority children being served. This
may be accounted for by the lack of large urban PAC's in

the sample. If Macomb, Oakland, Wayne, or other large
urban centers had been selected for the study, the
minority population would probably have been greater.
Generally, most parents remain on the PAC for two years.
This lends some stability to the PAC and probably gives new
members an opportunity to become assimilated into the

grOUp and time to sort out role definitions for themselves

93

in relation to their duties and responsibilities as PAC
members. Generally, one could say that the Parent
Advisory Committees are stable bodies, populated with
highly educated parents.

The majority of parents, 60 percent, reported that
those due process procedures that were mandated did take
place. However, one might expect that those procedures
would have taken place with much higher frequency.
Assuming the procedures did occur with greater frequency,
and the parents did not recall the specific event, it
should be the local education agency's responsibility to
impress upon the parents the vital nature of the EPPC
process. For instance, only 20 percent of the parents
reported being told that failure to signify their accep—
tance of the EPPC decision within seven days of the date
of receipt of the EPPC report results in automatic place-
ment. This writer would suspect that many more than
20 percent of the parents were informed about this, but
did not realize what it meant. It then becomes the local
education agency's responsibility to help parents through
the process.

Of particular significance was the fact that nearly
90 percent of the parents reported being notified of the
EPPC and that 75 percent of the parents actually attended
their children's EPPC's. Although there appears to be

little relationship between the occurance of due process

94

and attendance at the EPPC, it is not to be inferred from
this that those due process procedures should not be
carried out, for they are an integral part of the entire
EPPC process.

Those items that were identified by this writer as
being a part of "fairness of procedure" but not mandated
took place approximately 32 percent of the time. It is
extremely important to realize that some of those items,
such as access to educational records and parent consent
before testing, will probably be required by rules and
regulations put forth by the U.S. Office of Education,
which will need to be incorporated into Michigan's
procedures. The low percentage of parents who responded
positively to these due process items obviously related
to the fact that these procedures are not mandated.
However, these items become very important when con—
sidering that fairness of procedure is probably the key
t<> a just, equitable EPPC process.

Generally, the parents perceived the EPPC as being a
Valuable process as well as one that was open and honest.
They also perceived the professionals in a positive manner;
tillat is, they felt that the professionals were well-
Prepared, that they listened to what the parents had to
sa)’, and that they were treated as equals in the EPPC pro-
CeSS. Furthermore, the parents felt that neither the EPPC

pro(less nor the educational jargon used was too complex.

95

Generally, the parents perceived the EPPC as.a positive,
worthwhile experience. It would appear that the EPPC is
a viable, workable tool and that parents do perceive it
as being an integral part in the educational development
of their children. Probably one of the more significant
reasons for this positive attitude is the lggk_of
specificity within the rules and regulations concerning
the EPPC itself. As a result of this absence of rules,
local education agencies probably individualize the
EPPC's to fit the needs of the parent population whom
they are serving.

There appears to be little relationship between the
occurance of due process and the parents' attitudes about
the EPPC as well as little relationship to the mode of
communication used to inform parents and their attitudes
about the EPPC. These findings are not surprising. It
appears that the EPPC tends to be such a dynamic, self-
centered process that whatever takes place or fails to
take place prior to the EPPC has little affect on the EPPC
.itself. In fact, the parents' attitudes about the EPPC
are probably directly related to the professionals'
zattitudes,for it is the professional's responsibility to

create an atmosphere free of hostility and tension.

96

Recommendations

Based upon the information reported in this study,

current national trends, and recent court litigation,

the following recommendations are suggested:

1.

That the State Department of Education should
establish a series of due process forms that
would meet the requirements of Michigan's Rules
and Regulations and the regulations deve10ped

by the 0.8. Office of Education. These forms
should encompass the "fairness of procedures"
doctrine and establish a sequential procedure
that would involve parents in all steps leading
to the EPPC. Furthermore, these forms should be
made mandatory, thus providing an accountable
measure fer both the parents and local education
a encies. However, the local education agencies
5 ould retain the 0 tion to add other forms of
their choice, but t e information on the man-
dated forms should not be altered in any manner.

That the State Department of Education develOp a
pamphlet that would explain the role of the
state, intermediate, and local education agency
as well as parents' rights and responsibilities
in the EPPC process. Furthermore, this pamphlet
should describe the due process procedures ‘
that the local education agency is responsible
for carrying out. This pamphlet should be dis-
tributed to all local education agencies and
given to parents prior to the EPPC.

That in-service workshOps for directors and super-
visors of Special education be held around the state
prior to any use of state-wide forms described above.

That the State Department of Education clarify:
(a) the role and function of the various per-
sonnel present at the EPPC, and (b) what should
occur at the EPPC.

That four new rules be added to the existing
rules and regulations. These are:

an Parents should be given test information
prior to the EPPC with the understanding that
if they so desire, the test information would
be explained to them by personnel from the
local eduation agency.

97

b. Parents should be informed that someone
could attend the EPPC for them or with them.

c. Prior to the EPPC, parents should be provided
with a list of persons or organizations within
the intermediate school district who could
be of assistance to them.

d. A person from the local education agency
should be made reSponsible for overseeing
that the recommendations made during the
EPPC are carried out.

Implications for Future Research

Additional research appears to be necessary in

the following areas:

1.

3.

4.

A study is needed to determine the degree of
accuracy and agreement between administrators
and parents over adherence to due process.

A study is needed to determine the degree of
expertise that Special education directors and
supervisors have concerning Michigan's due
process procedures.

A study is needed to determine the communication
patterns in the EPPC.

A study similar to this one, but using a more
heterogeneous population, is needed to determine
if similar results would be attained.

REFERENCES

 

REFERENCES

 

Abeson, Alan and Weintraub, Fred. Appropriate Education
for All Handicapped Children. CounCil fer
Exceptional Children,’January, 1976.

 

Abeson, Alan; Bolick, Nancy and Hass, Jayne. A Primer
on Due Process: Education Decisions for Handicapped
Children. Exceptional Children. October, 1975.

 

Abeson, Alan and Weinbraub, Fred. Public Policy and
the Education of Exceptional Children. Council for
Exceptional Children. January, 1976.

 

 

Allen, Richard C. Legal Rights of the Disabled and
Disadvantaged. National Citizens Conference on
Rehabilitation of the Disabled and Disadvantaged.
1969.

 

 

Babbi, Earl R. Survey Research Methods. Belmont,
Calif: Wadsworth Publising Company, 1973.

 

Brown v. the Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas,
347 U.S., 483, 1954.

Calovini, Gloria E. Guidelines for Special Education
Advisory Committees. Springfield: Illinois Super-
ifitendent of Pfiblic Instruction, Report 170.365,
1965.

 

 

Cronback, Lee J. "Coefficient Alpha and the Internal
Structure of Tests." ngchometrika, Vol. 16 (1951),
297-334.

 

Davis, Jerome. Report of the Governor's Commission to
Study the Educational Needs oleandicapped Children.
Maryland Governors Commission, 1967.

 

 

IJimond, Paul R. "The Constitutional Right to Education:
The Quiet Revolution." Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 24
(1973), 1087-1127.

 

Lhalce, Carl J. A Sensible Assessment of Student Rights
and Responsibilities. Paper Presented at the
103rd American Association of School Administrators,
Atlantic City, 1971.

 

 

Education of All the Handicapped Act, Public Law 94-142.
Amendments to Title VI, Part B, ESEA, November, 1975.

 

FiSCher, Thomas C. Due Process in the Student-Institutional
Relationship. Washington, D.C., Association of’
State Colleges and Universities, 1970.

 

98

99

Gettings, Robert M. ed., Synergism for the Seventies -
Conference Proceeding§_oflfhe National Conference for
State Planning_AdVisory Councils on Services and‘
Facilities for the Developmentally Disabled.

CdunCil for Exceptional Children, 1973.

 

 

 

 

Harmah v. Lorche, U.S. Supreme Court, 362U.S.; 442, 1960.

Harman, Harry H. Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1967.

 

Healy v. James, U.S. Supreme Court, 408U.S.; 1969 (1972).

Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, U.S. Supreme
Court, 341U.S.; 1923, 1951.

Kerlinger, Fred and Pedhauzer, Elazar. Multiple Re-
gression in Behavioral Research. New York:
Holt, Rihehart and Winston, Inc., 1973.

 

 

Kirk, Sammuel A., Special Education for Handicapped
Children. FirstlAnnual Report of the National
AdVisory Committee on Handicapped Children, 1968.

Maready, William F. The Courts as Educational Policy
Makers. Philadelphia: Speech Presented at
National School Boards Association Annual Convention,
1971.

Michigan Association of Retarded Citizens, The EPPC
and the role of the Parent Representative - A
Tiaining Module. Lansing, Michigan, 1974.

 

 

Michigan Department of Education. Bulletin on Educational
Statistics. Lansing, Michigan, July, 1975.

 

lWichigan Department of Education. Guidelines for Special
Education Pro rams and Services in Michigan. Lansing,
Michigan, 197%.

Adichigan Department of Education. Michigan Special
Education Code: Developed Under the Provisions of
Pfiblic Act 198 of 1971. Lansing, Michigan,
October, 1973.

 

 

 

Michigan Department of Education. A Recommended Guide to
Students' Ri hts and Responsibilities. Lansing,
Michigan, 1974.

 

Mithigan Department of Education. State Plan for the
Delivery of Special Education Programs and SerVices.
Lansing, Michigan, 1971.

 

 

100

Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia.
384E. Supp.866, D.D.C., 1972.

National Advisory Committee on the Handicapped. Annual
Report, 1974: First Class Citizenship for Handi-
capped People. DHEW Report no., OE-74-24002, 1974.

Nolte, Chester M. Due Process and Its Historical Develop;
ment in Education. Paper Presented at National
Academy of School Administrators, Denver, 1974.

 

Nolte, Chester M. "The Supreme Courts New Rules for Due
Process and How (Somehow) Schools Must Make Them
Work," The American School Board Journal, Vol. 162,
3 (March: 1975), 47-49.

Olfson, Lewy. "Today's Mandate: Policies that Fling
Open the Doors of Learning to Handicapped Pupils,"
Updating School Board Policies. Vol. 5, 5 (May, 1974),
1-4.

Osmun, Greg. In-Service TrainingProgram for Parents
Who Are GoingTo Be Involve Th Educational Planning
and Placement Committees. Crand’Rapids, Mithigan.

Parent Advisory Committee Institute. Petoskey, Michigan,
June 19 and 20, 1975.

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children,
Nancy Beth Bowman, et al. v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, David H. Krutzman, et al., Civil
Action no. 74-42, 1971.

Peterson, M. F. Plannin County Wide Special Education
Pro rams. Bismarc , North Dakota: *Department of
Pufiiic Instruction, 1968.

ESChofield, Dee. "Student Rights and Student Discipline,"

School Leadership Digest Series #13, Research Analysis
Series #15, 1975.

 

EState of Michigan, 76th Legislature. Public Act 198 of
1971.

 

 

TFiJiker v. Des Moines Independent Common School District,
393U.S., 503, 1969.

frrtuieau, Elaine ed., Legal Provisions for State and Local
Planning for the Delivery of Educational Services to
Handicapped Children. State-Federal Infbrmatibn
Cleaiinghouse fdr Exceptional Children, Arlington,
VA., June, 1973.

 

101

U.S. Constitution. 5th and 14th Amendments.

 

Weintraub, Fred J. "Special Education and the
Government," in The Encyclopedia of Education,
Vol. 8 (New York; Macmillan Co. and Free Press),
1971.

 

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A

Rules 22-24 of the Special Education Code

R 3150. 1722. Educational placement.

Rule 22. ‘ (1) The superintendent of the operating school district is
responsible for uking a change in the educational status of a handi-
capped person except where section 340.298c or 340.613 of the Michigan
Compiled laws are applicable in which case the superintendent of the
intermediate district is responsible. Notwithstanding any additional
proceedings set forth in the intermediate school district plan for
special education program and services. as defined in part 7. the
su rintsndent. as a minimum. shall:

3: Appoint an educatioml planning and placement committee.

b lqust. in writing. parents on a case by case basis to parti-
cipate as members of the camittse in developing a recommendation con-
cerning a change in the educational status of their handicapped
offspring. Prior to the educational planning and placement committee
meeting. all school records concerning the person suspected of being
handicapped shall be nde available to the parents upon request.

(c) Direct the committee to convene and recommend not later than 25
school days after receipt of the referral for possible special education
services, regular and special education programs and services, accord-
ing to the educational. social and physical needs of the individual
handicapped persons. based on all diagnostic and other evaluative infor-
mation requested by the committee or provided by the parent or handi-
capped persons. The time limits in this rule may be extended by the
state board of education upon demonstration of just cause in writing.

(d) Direct a review at least annually of the programs and services
provided each handicapped person and advise the superintendent of the
district of residence and the parents of the handicapped person of
the findings of that review.

(e) Place immediately. upon written consent of the parents. a handi-
capped person in an apprOpriate special education program or service
for a period not to exceed 25 school days during which tin an evalua-
tion shall be ads and an educational planning and placement committee
convened to nine recommendations. if the person has been enrolled in a
special education program in another school district. institutional
program, or other appropriate program for handicapped persons. and evi-
dence is presented that demonstrates reasonable cause to believe the
person is eligible for a special education program or service. If
parental consent is not obtained. an educational planning and place-
ment committee shall be convened and its development of a recommenda-
tim shall be expedited. giving the case precedence over all other
cases except previous cases also being expedited under this provision.

(f) Initiate special education programs and services. as recommended
by the educational planning and placement committee or based on the
decision of the hearing officer. in not less than 5 or more than 15
school days after the parents have been notified.

(2) Any time limitation in this rule shall be construed and applied
so as to do substantial Justice and my be varied upon approval of the
state board of education for good cause shown.

102

103

R 3h0.l723. Notice to parents.

Rule 23. (1) Before effectuation of an educational placement. denial
of placement or'a change in educational status of’a handicapped person.
the superintendent of the intermediate school district or local school
district within 10 calendar>days from the date of recommendation of the
educational planning and placement committee shall notify the parent
personally'in conference or'by certified mail. concerning the placement
or*change in educational status. Notification shall:

(a) Describe the preposed action. including specification of the
statute or rule under'which action is proposed and a statement of'the
reasons therefor. including specification of any tests or reports upon
which the action is based.

(b) Advise the parent of all options of education opportunities
available to the handicapped person.

(c) Inform the parent of his rigit to contest the proposed action at
a hearing. as described in rule 2“. before the superintendent of'the
intermediate school district or local district.

(d) Inform the parent that. after the interladiate school district
or local district hearing and lacking a decision satisfactory to the
parent. he may be heard by the state board of education. or its desig-
nee. at a time and place specified by the state board of education. or
its designee. and reasonably convenient to the parent.

(e) Inform the parent of the availability of organisations. their'
addresses. and telephone numbers. to assist the parent at the hearing.

Ef Specify the following procedures for’requesting a hearing:

1 If notice is given at a conference with the parent. the parent
may indicate satisfaction with the recommendation. and. in writing.
my waive the opportunity for a hearing.

(ii) If notice is given by the superintendent by certified mail.
the parent desiring a hearing shall complete the form provided at the
conference and mail it to the superintendent within 7 calendar'days of
the date of receipt of notice. Change in education assignment shall
not be made during this period.

(iii) If dissatisfied. the parent my request a hearing in writing.
on a form provided at the conference. within 7 calendar'days of the
conference. Change in educational assignment shall not be made during
this period.

(2) The appeal procedure may be terminated at any point upon receipt
of a written statement from the parent that the concerns have been
resolved and that continuation of the appeal procedure serves no furs
ther'purpose.

(3) Any time limitation in this rule shall he construed and applied
so as to do substantial justice and may be varied upon approval of the
state board of education for good cause shown.

B M.l72'+. Hearing.

Rule 2h. (1) A hearing concerning a contested case by a parent of
a proposed educational placement or change in the educational status of
a handicapped person shall be conducted as follows:

104

(a) A hearing shall be scheduled not less than 15 or more than 30
calendar days following receipt of the request from a parent. However.
upon good cause shown. reasonable extensions of tile shall be granted
by the state board of education. or its designee. upon request of the
parent or school official.

(b) 'lhe hearing shall be held in the local district at a place and
time mutually convenient for the parent of the handicapped person or
his representative and appropriate school officials.

(c) me superintendent of the internediate school district or the
constituent district shall designate the hearing officer. 'lhe hearing
officer shall not be an employee of the involved local school district.
of another local district within the same intermediate school district.
or of the intermediate school district of which the involved local
district is a part.

(d) 'lhe hearing. upon request of the parent. shall be closed to the
public.

(e) A stenographic or other transcribed record of the hearing shall
be made and 1 copy shall be given to the parent or his representative.
Any cost beyond the original transcription cost may be borne by the
re nesting parties. ’lhe record my be discarded after 3 years.

?f) 'lhe parent of a handicapped person may be represented at the
hearing by any person of his choosing. 'lhe parent or his representa-
tive shall:

(1) Have access. prior to the hearing. to all records of the inter-
mediate school district or local district concerning the handicapped
person.

(ii) Have the right to conpel the attendance of. and to question.
any witness testin for the intermediate school district or local
district and any official. employee or agent of the intermediate
school district or local district who may have evidence upon which
the proposed action may be based.

(iii) Have the right to present evidence and expert medical.
psychological or educational testimony and other pertinent information.
(g) The decision of the hearing officer shall be based solely upon

evidence presented at the hearing. Not later than 20 calendar days
after the hearing. the hearing officer shall render a decision deter-
mining the educational placement or educational status of the handi-
capped person. The decision shall be in writing and shall be accompan-
ied by written findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall be

sent by certified mail to the parent. his representative. and the school
district superintendent.

(2) A temporary change in educational status of the handicapped
person my be made for the period prior to the decision of the hearing
officer upon written consent of the parent. If consent is not obtained.
written reqtest for a temporary change may be made to the state board
of education by the superintendent of the intermediate school district
or local district. 'lhe state board of education shall take action in
writing within 10 calendar days of receipt of the request setting forth
the reasons therefor and upon notice to the parent. If a request is
granted by the state board of education. the hearing as set forth in
subrule (1) shall be held within the time limits stated therein.

105

(3) Any time linitation in this rule shall be construed and applied
so as to do substantial Justice and my be varied upon approval of the
state board of education for good cause shown.

‘i

APPENDIX B

Rules 133, 135, and 136 of the Special Education Code

R $0.18”. Cooperative development.

Rule 133. Intermediate school district plans. or anymmodification
thereof. shall be developed in cooperation with local school districts.
Further. all plans or any modification thereof shall be developed in
cooperation with a parent advisory committee consisting of at least 1
parent of a handicapped person from each local school district. 'lhe
parent mmbers shall be nominated by their local boards of education
and shall serve terms as specified in the intermediate school district
plan. he intermediate board of eduation shall males every attempt to
assure that all types of handicaps and disabilities are represented
on the parent advisory committee and shall recommend operational pro-
cedures for committee review and adoption. All plans will be reviewed
in whole or in part at least quarterly each fiscal year with the repre-
sentatives of each local school district and the parent advisory
committee.

R BhOJBBS. Plan signature.

Rule 135. Each intermediate school district plan or joint plan shall
be signed by all of the following:

(a) The intermediate school district superintendent signifying
a roval by the intermdiate school district board.

b) 'Ihe superintendent of each constituent school district signify-
ing that his school district has been involved in the development of

th lan.
(cg The chairperson of the parent advisory committee signifying the
col-ittee has been involved in the developnnt of the plan.

R $04836. Objections to plan.

Rule 136. At the tin the intermediate school district plan. or
modification thereof. is submitted to the department. aw constituent
school district or the parent advisory committee may file objections to
the plan in whole or in part. Copies of the objections to the plan
shall be directed to the intermediate board of education. all consti-
uent school districts and the parent advisory committee. Objections
filed shall note the specific portions of the plan objected to. contain
a specific statement of the reasons for objection and may propose alter-
native provisions.

106

 

APPENDIX C

Pilot Study

Dear PAC member.

‘lhe following questionnaire is an attempt to find out how the
Educational Planning and Placement Committee (EPPC) process is
currently operating in Hichigan. ‘lhe qmstions are divided into
three sections. Section One has questions designed to find out
son information about you. Section 'Itto concerns your awareness
of "due process”. Not all of the questions in this section are
undated by the Rules and Regulations. but rather they are inter-
pretations of what due process procedure could be. Section Three
is a series of statements designed to see how you feel about the
EPPC.

'lhe results of the survey will be completely anonymous. All results
will be scored with 19 reference to any particular intermediate
school district. rather they will reflect the attitudes and experi-
ences of PAC members from around the State.

This infornation will be lmde available to the State Department
of Education. and. if warranted. it is hoped that some changes can
be made that will benefit parents in meeting the needs of their
handicapped children.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:

Please follow the instructions preceding each section in the
questionnaire. Those of you who have attended more than one
EPPC are asked to respond on the basis of the last EPPC you
attended for your child.

'lhank you veg much for your time and effort.

Sincerely.

Don R. Barbacovi

Doctoral Candidate

Special Education Department
Michigan State University

107

 

108

 

ones no 23.8... :m adv whence MN o... ma A3

.3

333560 .6333). «sauna 05. mo Henson e soon so» use: weed. sex

scenes 2 3 NHIIIAoV ufisos S 8. c A5 ufiaos m oo o A

scores and. poems reassess
awesome so £32203 .0333 uses A3

 

 

$3888 8582, A3 Acacias confluent access can. coeumfie 3

 

 

 

cameo shovel. essences CV Hoonon ewes mace QC

seamen c.9303 voodoo...» on hnoucosoao oosnamam no baseman: «soc Any

and access 5 concern use: H aged no eomum “racemes on?

.345 A3 32: 3 masseuse inseam E soda Adv

2?on 3:50 use» 3333

.36 so cc 3 omen A3 3.3 3 omen 3V Sufi “ea
.3 one in:

3

RV

3

AC

.cnsoamon .olsd ads goose .wfiuosne‘
=25 codeword Managua c across on. so: oaooso as. so» acumen: accesses a no one usages". one—n.
.noopfiamoo anon—«>3 vegan“ scone convenience canoe seen one can.“ 3 eocmaooo one can 3 one osoapnosa

 

 

.leo. 22.8% mos measure—92H

mmfluam age BEBE g 05”sz A<20H9§3
HE. ho mzogflm

 

109

oz
mm»

wovoanmonmae a.“
seasoned 05 :55 so» on

02
max

vengeance a.“
codeword one. 35 so» on

 

oz
may

«39er o33n codeword
05 no wisdom 05 3 Ag

02
we

«innuendo cease codename
05 no M55. 05 3 C3

 

ones so noon A3
035. A3
osIIIE
.813

«searches no son—moan scavenge Heaooan o
mcgaooon so: use: so» on courage and: com

condone—H owns—mesa one seesaw A3

oases-H

51o: enhances no announcers A3

 

eases: niece: A5
3
chase-H 236395 3

 

cesarean menus:

oneness mfifisSIIIA ea

cases: 333:: aHaBomIIIE
unseen: had-pen: general-[Nev
cases: sadness Seashells
canes-H sadness: oaseososlAsv
Tears

anon—“o use» we 3:333 05 score .3998
tapes: 3 concise use» no one 55. one: .«Hv

1:

cases odes neon nooc assessor so one. see. A3

 

110

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H1... is.
oz oz
1.... oz mm»
may mm»
83 «so» EH: some 23 sateen 9828 can 85
1.... oz mm»
oz oz «so» :3: case
05 coupon oases ..30 £2233 #335:
mm» mm» encased econ—m e :5 Hommoouon Hoes—on
A3 .3 oosuomfi so» 28.. SE o5 8. scene as
oz oz
as: oz mm»
man may I
So sac» mom sea or» 88.5 oeoseou c3 :3
oz oz as... oz mm»
mm» mm» ...soa a some
so 1.3% 3:8 ..ooo soprano: .9335...
«seasons: ca chansons coeds.» sedans—3 Robin recs—hm e :5. Hanging deacon
convened 05 «55 so» on 05 no $358. on... 3 As he commons.“ so» Duos GE 05. 3 serum A3

...a.... 05 ensues 6323!. use: .383 ace :3 so» .3 69899» evapoaoae 05 guanine .veomovdan :5 on.
couch use 288d: coco case .8QO us 8. canoes" u3c¢8o5 gees. oceans-co possesses one assesses
153353 3330 use» «none can: chansons aloe Hanson ca so» mad—nu one 5303 35 5 28.3023 05.

 

 

Home. mosses—m r2 mzofloafimfi

111

 

 

 

 

 

oz oz

may mm»
zmflv

oz oz

way mm»
33

oz oz

mm» mm»
zmflv

9. oz

an» mm»
Away

oz oz

may mm»

«35.5%.. 3
.8381. «5 x55 8» 8

 

5.830 v.33... 833.3
05 mo wad—don c5 3 :5

..w: oz mm»

2% 3 3.338

v.35 H90» $55850 2533 Hooson

.Hnald 9d: 3 ”Ewan use» no H8553.” season
3 @0585 so» v.3: GE 93 op Hovum

..w: oz mm»

83% as» no 323.
adouwoaonozon min: on has Hugomnon Hoofim

p.93 one... so» one. 65 o5 3 you."
:9. oz mm»
...3 8.3”

:oz Daemon 4.863qu deacon 3 £6 cod—Hm
350.33 flow :5. co codeine”: 05 a:

..w: oz mm»

wAHEoMpuv wagon :oavdoavo
300nm magma—adv» Fuou a swan so.» 39

:w: oz mm»

won—3.3%.? .30» cocoon

“agony uoofruoo 5.3333 33%
$393.89." Inch d 0.53. 4.08.8309 Hoosou
he. van—Homo“ so.» v.3: .05 05 3 madam

AmHV

33

3C

35

33

 

112

 

 

 

 

 

 

oz oz
mm» mm»

homo
oz oz
mm» mm»

“adv
oz oz
mm» mm»

Aoav
oz oz
mm» mm»

fizzy
oz oz
mm» on»

«saoaoou 3
83:3. 05 «55 so» on

 

2653.3 «.33.. 5.3233
05. no 9558 05. aH 3C

1.... oz may
$532. $5
a.» .6» 3.33 3:00 on: goaadaacdmuo no

gamma mo an: a so» 25w 3.62m Hoonom 05
.55 2.83 :2" who: .oE m5 0» noun

..w: oz mm»
“.3592“ vofioo
05 3953 woo-Fauna no» 092. so:
...ma: 838.3 3. no» conesns :0» MH
..w: oz may
«upon m.oa«zu usoz no ooaao can .maz» .opao
05 no no» .335 Hosp—033 H0023 So
i“... oz mm»
woman 2.2. 3 you.”

Hanson—on H85» 3 :0.» on vagina 0E
o5 an 2.2393 831585 was 23 ed:

..M. .. oz mu»

8% 05. 8.83
@2309» Hoonoa m .oflfi .30» 53.90 so» 39

Aomv

Aoav

“may

fizzy

zozo

113

 

 

 

 

 

 

oz oz

max mm»
Amov

oz oz

mm» mm»
“zoo

oz oz

mm» mm»
Ammo

oz oz

mm» mm».
ANNV

oz oz

mm» mm»

woaaauoouooa oz
.53023 05 x55 ooh on

 

«3.530 33» 3.33.3
05 no 9359. 05 3

Aamv

:9. oz mm»

woman on» moauao ozzzu use» you oommsomzo
gavofiofio .3850de coo 55 Eon 935 3:

:M. : 02 mg

$.35 .30» Mom 3903280
on 3505 93553? 9:83.39 26 55.
once :5 3.85 :oz 3o: 69me 05 moans

.. 5.. .. oz mm»

...ommm
o5 mo 53.33 05 $3.80 3 2..th So»
no ~853qu Hooaoo an ogoufi so» 303

pop = oz mg

wooEom no 3593

oouvooooo ~30vo u now 0.3.330 no: 320
Moo» 3 coda—H33 op on: wagon: :5. mo
mononuon 05 mo 8o :5 Hocoonnon Hoogom
zp oo-nooaa no» one: .oomm any o» uoaum

:8.‘ 3 oz mg

89mm 2:. 3 Nova nooaaouasowuo no
gonna no 93..” a so» 25m Hoonoo 05 3o

Amwv

homo

Ahoy

Ammo

“Hwy

114

 

 

 

 

 

 

oz oz
mm» mm»

zomV
oz oz
mm» mm»

Aouv
oz oz
mm» mm»

Ammo
oz oz
mMz on»

zomv
oz oz
mm» mm»

ooauaumounnd ad
ooaooosu ecu gods» so» on

 

«handoao ooaapu oodanosu
one no madndoz on» uH Aomv

:9: oz mm»

«phonon
Oman map «0 zaoo a m>aooou so» can

a.“ .- 02 mg

«coauaooo man no ooadanoOOd_u=oz ooaMdcwdu
.woaaoa: as» spam whoa nozoo canvas

amazon coma one omen o» onoazoo nooz «ago
.Hocconuon Hoosoo hp connomoa no» pun:

puoapuoa no usumonn noaaooaoo
Huaoono u :« oaano Hob» mo pouncedan
on» o» wcaoonmd “phonon ommm one uov
show a ow«u_:oh mac .ommnvonu.uopm<

on“ .0 02 mg

«ozone u:oz.uom macaw aoooouooooo one»
ozoo moans o:u.oozo»oo oooponaoo on» ozo

zw: oz mow

ooH«50.usoh.nom «Adam Huooavoosoo noon
ozoo ovdux.u=¢ nonopoo wagon» oovvaauoo
on» wasp cause no» one: .ommu onv wcouon

zomv

zouv

Amwv

Ammo

«may

115

 

 

oz oz
on G D < <m

 

mm» mm»
00000.3
«30.309390 0« «3.0030 0330 0030000 00.300 00000000 05. :0 00309415000 0
83080 05 0.55 ooz on 05 0o 0005.8 05 0H 23 00! H 00:05. 00 «000 H .0000 05 05.08 23

00009000 .0I0M :00

0.3.30 0000.3 0000003 300000..” 0 mm 30000009 n 9 30000000: u a .0300 u < .00Rm< 3.00003 n <m
.000 .35. 300300.000 0000 8. 00000008 003 no 03000 0 300 no» .05 0.0.300 H00» 000000 000.300.“

.000» 00000098 30030 0.000 0300 00000000 05 003050 0.0003000 0000 0.... 00000 000 000: 00.300: 0330000
00000003 000 3403a 0000300000 05. 00000» 0000330 .000» 000000 0... 000003.30 no 000000 0 000 0500900

 

 

 

.EE. onBomm ma monzbEmZH

II |.. .l 0000000000 000
003 .000» no.“ 00» 000E. 00030000 00050000 05 003000 000 00 ...NM: 003.0000 3 oz 00003000 00» «H .Hoz

 

 

 

oz oz
.0“: oz mg
mm» mm»
ANS 0.002.000 E 0.0300 .000» 00300 no.» 03 Ammo
oz oz
:50... oz mg
mm» mm» .
«0000093 0.0500 .90» 0038
«300390.50 3 050000.? 03.30 0030000 0.... 00000000 H8000 05 00.0.“ 000040000090
83080 20. 035 .5» on 05 mo 05:08 05 0H :3 0 0!. .0000 05 .«o 8003080 05 3 33

116

 

 

 

 

 

 

oz oz
.000 00»
Ammo
oz oz
00» mm»
Annv
oz 02
00» 00»
Away
00 oz
00» 00»
Ammo
oz oz
00» mm»

«00000000000 00
0030000 05. 0005 00» 09

 

whauuuao 000000 godpuosu
05. no 050000 05. 0H 33

0000039 0300250 u 90 3900039 0 9

9m 9 a < <0
.00050 99
0930 00305095 05. 00 00.50095 00 000
0990 05 v0 0>00 H 0030000009 05 H000 H
90 9 a 0 <0
.0H000 0: Hum 0000» as 0000 a»
000000 05. 0050 00.. H .0990 05 000009
90 9 a < <0
#0000 00 00 00 000090.... Hon—000009 H0050
05 00005 00 0H0.» H .0999 05 00.309
90 9 o < <0

.0300 P. 00000
0030990 F 3 00030: 000030009099 009.

am 9 a < <0

600030000099 05. 3 00005000
000 0999 05 00.0000 00300005000 05.

Ammo

Aumo

a0nv

Ammo

A0mv

00090000: .0 o .09n0< n 4 .09u0< 04.000000 n <0

I19

.ooqdpmdmud cad mafia use» you so» xzdne .ouadcnoavousu on» cuvoanaoo so: 05o: so»

 

 

 

 

oz oz
mm» mm»

Ava
oz oz
mm» mm»

Aamv
oz oz
mm» mm»

“omv
oz oz
mm» mow

wouddunounmo ma
ceaumosu ms» xcanv no» on

ownMdmdn aawcouvm H mm

 

«handoao oopuvw codvmosd
onu.mo wcagdoe on» mH Amov

.mmnmdman n a

am a a < <m
.onooonn ommm aways»
on» sea: comuoan Ham: an: H .hHHnnocoo
am a a < <m
.uflagoaommmoun on» an con: cannon
Hucoaauonco can ucdanuocas v0: vac H

Rm 9 D < <m

.enhmonn Hdgoavdoscm m.unano 5E madcaeuoaoo

ca mmoooua manusan> a nu: ummm 059

gm G D < <m

.ucdvmnocsn a» me
you ompdoaanaoo 00» ad: uwoooun ommm one

Ammo

Azmv

Aomv

hoov

.ooonouocn n : .oonw< n < .oonw< zfiwnonvm u <m

(1) Do you think the questionnaire is too long?

(2) Can you identify some important questions that are missing?

(3) what is your overall impression of the questionnaire?

(b) What additional changes can you recommend to improve on the
quality of the questionnaire?

APPENDIX D

Perceptions of the Educational Planning and
Placement Committee Process

Dear PAC umber

‘lhe following questionnaire is an attempt to find out how the
Educational Planning and Placement Committee (E.P.P.C.) process
is currently operating in Michigan. me questions are divided
into three sections. Section One has questions designed to
find out some informtion about you. Section No concerns your
awareness of "due process". Not all of the questions in this
section are undated by the Rules and bgulations. but rather
they are interpretations of what due process procedure could be.
Section ihree is a series of statements designed to see how you
feel about the E.P.P.C.

line results of the survey will be completely anonymous. All results
will be scored with 19 reference to any particular intenediate
edxool district. rather they will reflect the attitudes and experi-
ences of PAC members from around the State.

'lhis inforntion will be ads available to the State Department
of Education. and. if warranted. it is hoped that some changes can
be made that will benefit parents in nesting the needs of their
handicapped children.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIOIS:

Please follow the instructions preceding cad: section in the
questionnaire. ihose of you who have attended more than one
3.P.P.c. are asked to respond on the basis of the last B.P.P.C.
you attended for your child.

'lhank you veg much for your time and effort.

Sincerely.

$01 /( geeks“;

Don R. Barbacovi

Doctoral Candidate

Special Education Department
Michigan State University

BMOIS OP Till
BDUGATIWAL MG All) FLAG”? com PMSS

IISTRUGI'IOIS FOR $6110! 99;:

Qmstions one to six are designed to find out some basic information
about Parent Advisory Casittees. mess questions are of a personal
nature: you may drooee not to answer a particular question. Hhen

answering. check only in; respuee.

(1) Ives- 1“

(t)_____21-29 (d) . 50-59
(b)__30-39 (e)___60 or over
(:3) M

(2) Indiate your ethnic groups
(a) Black (c) Shite

(b) Spanish speaking (a) on»:

(3) ‘lhe highest grade or level I have readied in sdaool 1;.
(a)___soae elementary or finished elementary
(b)____soae hid: school
(c)____finished high school (received apron)

(d) some college. tedxsical. or special training
after hid: school

(e) received Badielor's degree
(1') received lhster's degree
(g) received Doctorate

(b) How long have you been a member of the Parent Advison Committee:
(a) O to 5 months (d)________18 to 23 months
(b) 6 to 11 mths (e) 2'! months or more

(c)_____12 to 17 months

(5) that type of handicap does your drild have? (If more than one
mxrdigdilgren is handicapped. check the disability of your
(a)___lducable bntally Impaired
(b)_______'rrainable lbntally Impaired
(c)____Severely Mentally Impaired
(d)___Severely multiply Impaired
(o)___mming Disabled
(f)__8sotionally Impaired
( 8)__Rearing Impaired
(h)____Yisually Impaired
(i)______Physically or Otherwise Health Impaired

(1)—Speech and mm Impaired

(6) How any children do you have now receiving a special education
program or service?

(e)____.zoro (d)____‘lhree

(b) One (a) Four or more
(c) Two

IIBTRUCTIONS FOR SICTIOI 1V0:

me questions in this sectim are asking you to recall soae specific
items about your dilld'l Educational Planning and Placement Com-ittee
lbeting (hereafter referred to as s.r.r.c.). and each state-cut and
react to that statement. circling the appropriate response. If you
can not recall shat happened. circle the ”?”.

(7) Prior to the E.P.P.C.. were you informed by school personnel
that a friend. lawyer. minister. neighbor. etc.. could attend
the B.P.P.C. 225 you?

138 HO "?"

(8) Did someone attend the B.P.P.C. 53 you? }
ms '0 00?"

 

(9) Prior to the E.P.P.C.. were you inforaed by school personnel
that a friend. lawyer. sinister. neigbor. etc.. could attend
the I.P.P.C. um you?

as no 0e?»

(10) Did soaeone attend the B.P.P.C. um you?
YES NO "?"

(11) Prior to the E.P.P.C.. were you infer-ed by school personnel
that a form requesting special education services (referral)
needed your signature?

rss '0 "?"

(12) Did you sign a form requesting special education services
(referral)?

YES NO ”7"

(13) Has the information on that form (referral) filled out by school
personnel before you signed it?

as no "7"

(it) Prior to the B.P.P.C.. were you aware that school personnel my
be using psychological tests on your mild?

YRS F0 ”?"

(15) Prior to the 8.P.P.C.. were you inforaed by school personnel of
your right to have $1.1. school records concerning your child
available to you?

YES NO “?"

(16) Did you obtain your child's sdleel reeerds before the s.r.r.c.?
res so "7"

(17) Has the test inforaation presented at the E.P.P.C. orplained to
you by school personnel prior to the 3.P.P.C.?

YES NO "?”

(18) Did school personnel inform you of the date. time. and place of
your child's D.P.P.C.?

YES IO "7"

(19) If you answered yes to question ”18". how were you informed?
(Circle the correct response.)

(a) By phone (b) By mail (c) In person

(20) Prior to the e.r.r.c.. were you aware that thc school should
give you a list of persons or organisations who could assist you
at that ueting?

YES NO "?"

 

(21)

(22)

(23)

(2k)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

126

Did the sdtool give you a list of persons or organisations prior
to W BOPOPO 0.?

YES NO "?"

Prior to the D.P.P.C.. were you inforaed by school personnel that
one of the purposes of that meeting was to determine if your diild
was eligible for a special education program or service?

res no ' "2"

Here you inforaed by school personnel of your right to contest
the decision of the 8.P.P.C.?

YES NO "?"

During the E.P.P.C.. were you aware that more than one placement
alternative should be considered for your child?

YES NO "?"

was there more than one placement alternative discussed for your
child during the E.P.P.C.?

ES NO "?”

During the E.P.P.C.. were you aware that the committee should
develop and write down some educational goals for your child?

res NO "?"

Did the comaittee develop and write down some educational goals
for your diild?

YES NO "7"

After the E.P.P.C.. did you sign a fora (or the E.P.P.C. report)
agreeing to the placement of your child in a special education
program or service?

YES NO "?"

 

l27

(29) Here you informed by school personnel. that your failure to sip
the B.P.P.C. report within seven days from the meeting. signified
your acceptance of the decision?

YES NO "?"

(30) Did you receive a copy of the B.P.P.C. report?
as no It?"

(31) At the conclmion of the B.P.P.C.. was a professional from the ‘_
ediool assigned to follow your child's progress? !'

YES NO ”?”

(32) Did you attend your child's B.P.P.C. meeting?
use so "7"

Notes If you answered 112 to qmstion ”32". d_o_ not answer the remaining
questions. man): you for your time and assistance.

IISTRUCTIOIS 29!. SOHO! mm:

limeining are a series of statements to assess your attitudu toward

the Educational Planning and Placennt Comnittee Meeting. bad and

react to each statement circling the response which most closely expresses
your feelings during your diild's B.P.P.C. You have a choice of five
responses to end: statement. ihey are: SA III Strongly Agree:

A-Agreel U-Undecided: D-Disagreei SDBStronglyDisagree
Please circle only 2 response.

(33) During the E.P.P.C.. I felt as though I nde a contribution in the
decision nking process.

SA A U D SD

(3h) ‘lhe conversation during the E.P.P.C. was dosinated by the professionals.

3A A U D SD

1418

SAIStrongly Agrees A-Agreet UIUndecidedI D-Disagreel SD-Strengly Disagree

(35)

(36)

(37)

(38)

(39)

(M)

(“1)

(”2)

he professiaisls listened to u opinions about u child.

SA A U D SD

During the B.P.P.C.. I felt as though the school personnel treated
as equal.
A

an
SA U D SD
During the B.P.P.C.. I felt as though the sdnool personnel treated

U D SD

I feel the inforution I gave at the l.P.P.C. was as important as
the infomtion given by others.

SA A U D SD

there seemed to be an open and honest atmosphere during the
BOPOPIGO

SA A U D SD

It seemed like the outcoee of the E.P.P.c. was planned in advance.
SA A U D SD
Ifeltasthoughlwerepartofateam

SA A U D 8D

For some reason. during the I.P.P.C.. I often felt my presence
was not needed.

SA A U D SD

129

SA-Strengly Agree: A-Agreel OIUndecidedI D-Disagreet SD-Strougly Disagree

(“3)

(M)

(55)

(#6)

(#7)

(“8)

(#9)

(50)

Ihadasmudi infimnce iuthedecisionaboutwdiildasanyoneat
the !.P.P.C.

SA A U D SD

'lhe professionals seemed to be well prepared.
SA A U D SD

During the B.P.P.C.. I felt free to express u opinions about u
child.

SA A U D SD

It seemed as if the professionals had ads the decision about u
child before the 8.P.P.C. even started.

SA A U D SD

me E.P.P.C. meeting was very businesslike and legalistic.
SA A U D SD

her sons reason. I came out of the E.P.P.C. feeling angry.

SA A U D SD

'lhe 8.P.P.C. process was too complicated for me to understand.

SA A U D SD

'lhe B.P.P.C. was a valuable process in determining my child's
educational program.

SA A U D SD

130

SA-Strongly Agree! A-Agree: Ill-Undecided! D-Disagreel SD-Strmgly Disagree
(51) I did not understand the educational Jargon used by the professionals.

SA A U D SD

( 52) Generally. I was well pleased with the entire sauna. process.
an A u n so

You have now completed the questinnaire. man]: you for your time and
assistance.

"Ilfllliflllllllill)“