" I”

r ‘h..

meals _

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

IMPACT OF PUBLIC LAW 94-142
ON THE FAMILY EmSYSTEM
OF A YOUNG HANDICAPPED CHILD

presented by

Annette Jane Remsburg

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MS. degree in Family and
Child Sciences

 

 

 

Major professor

Date February 26, 1981

 

0-7 639

llllllllllllllll\llllllllllllllllllll

3 1293 10440 8152

OVERDUE FINES:
25¢ per day per item
RETURNIfi LI§RARY MATERIALS:

Place in book re
turn
charge from circulattot: m3;

 

,, ‘ & [1.250325%

 

 

 

IMPACT OF PUBLIC LAW 94-142
ON THE FAMILY ECOSYSTEM
OF A YOUNG HANDICAPPED CHILD

BY

Annette Jane Remsburg

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Family and Child Sciences

ABSTRACT
IMPACT OF PUBLIC LAW 94-142

ON THE FAMILY ECOSYSTEM
OF A YOUNG HANDICAPPED CHILD

BY

Annette Jane Remsburg

Much confusion currently erists in the implementation
of Public Law 94-142, The Education of All Handicapped
Children Act. In order to deal with this confusion most
effectively, it is necessary to first be able to describe
the present impact of this important legislation. A better
understanding can be gained from a closer look at the
personal, social, educational, and economic consequences of
the law. ‘

This research utilizes an ethnographic methodology to
observe, describe and analyze the impact of PL 94-142 on the
family ecosystem of one young handicapped child. Data docu-
menting the interactions between parents, administrators, pubf
lie and private school teachers and other professionals
encountered in the process of obtaining appropriate educational
services for this young handicapped child 'are .described and
analyzed. .

Based on this analysis, accurate interpretation of
PL 94-142 in terms of services provided and :parent/profes-

sional communication associated with implementation appear to

be problematic.'

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Although the way seemed very lonely at times, it is
truly with much indebtedness that I present this thesis.
Dr. Susan Florio has provided more than her share of support
and recommendations. She is to be commended for her active
participation in this meager student's pursuits. Dr. Robert
Boger assisted as my major professor through the Institute
for ‘Family and Child Study as did Dr. Nancy Carlson as
director of the Pathways Project.

Serving often as a listening ear and shoulder to lean
on, my husband, Frank, provided a good deal of insight
throughout the course of this study. My little daughter,
Alysa, assisted also with the finishing touches as a source

of inspiration and love.

Finally, I am most indebted to the family ecosystem of
which I became a part. The parents of this child are truly
wonderful people and have shared much love with me. I only
pray that they will be blessed by seeing their beautiful

child reach her full potential.

ii

LiSt Of Figures. 0 O . O O O O O O O O O 0

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . ‘

Need . . . . . . . . . .

Statement of the Problem .
Rationale for Use of Ethnographic

Method . . . . . . . .
Overview . . . . . . . .
Definitions/Assumptions.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . .
Introduction . . . . . .

The Education of All Handicapped
Children Act, 1975 (PL 94-142)
The Family Ecosystem Approach. .

Ethnography. . . . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . . .

DESIGN OF THE STUDY. . .

Research.Questions . . .
Identification of Sample

Description of the settings.

The Home . . . . . .

The Private Nursery School

The Public School :
Classroom. . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . .

iii

Preschool

w

O‘O‘U‘UI-b

12
16
20

21
25
28
33
33
34

38
40

IV. Analysis of Data. . . . . . . . . .

Introduction. . . . . . . .

Enactment of the Ecosystem. . .

Ecosystem Echoes . . . . . .

V. IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . .
Problem Issues . . . . . . .

Specific Problem Issues of
to Preschool Handicapped

Children 0 I O O O O 0
Conclusion . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX I-' MODEL PROJECT. . . . .
APPENDIX II-FIELD NOTES. . . . . . .
APPENDIX III-IE‘I‘TERS/RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX Iv—ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY .

BIBLIWRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O 0

iv

Service

42
42

44
61

68
68
69

72
73

77
82
109
117
134

Figure

11'
III

IV

_VI '

VII

LIST OF FIGURES

.Flow Chart of Study. . .

Categories/Research Questions

Jamie's Home - Main Floor.

Nursery School Map . . .

Public School Classroom Map. .1

Ecosystem Representation.

Time Line of Study.

22

27
35

.39
43'

64

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Need

 

Enacted by Congress in 1975, the Education of All
Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142) mandates that
young children between the ages three and five be included
in the population to be served. It is relevant to study how
a law as important as this has an impact on ithese young
handicapped children. To do this we must look closely at
the child's primary support system - the family - as well as
other formal and informal support systems making up the
family ecosystem. This study is an in-depth analysis of the
complex impact of PL 94-142 on one young handicapped child's
family ecosystem.

A variety of factors potentially influence
implementation and impact of PL 94-142, not the least of
which is a new kind of relationship mandated between the
school system and the family system 'of the handicapped
child. Under the law, parents have been given the
responsibility of insuring that appropriate educational
services be provided for their young handicapped child. The

public school system has been given the responsibility to

meet the educational needs of all young handicapped
children. Appropriate services, however, may still not be
provided for many children. The "least restrictive
environment" as defined by the law may include appropriate
full or part-time placement of a young handicapped child in
a private nursery school or day care center with children
who are .not handicapped. However, most local school
districts do not recognize this as an alternative. If a
parent feels, and evaluation indicates, that such a
placement would be the most appropriate educational
experience for their child, they must request the service.
Such requests however, often are not met by the public
school system.

Many young handicapped children are not being served or
their educational placement may not be the most appropriate
and least restrictive environment as required by law.
Moreover, a young handicapped child who may have had a
positive experience in an integrated preschool setting may
be denied the same opportunity at age six. Reaching his or
her full potential may be inhibited due to labeling
constraints and/or insufficient program alternatives
provided by the public school.

A number of factors may contribute to this unfortunate
state of affairs. These include, but are not limited to:
1. attitudinal and philosophical dissonance among parents
and professionals, 2. insufficient and inappropriately

trained staff, 3. inadequate funding, 4. inappropriate

diagnostic/evaluative procedures, 5. inconsistent
communication within and between systems, 6. inexperience
with parents as contributing professionals, 7.
insufficient coordination with other agencies, 8.
inability to develop appropriate individualized educational
plans, and 9. administrative agility in avoiding the
issue.

Enactment of PL 94-142 reflects the moral sentiments of
the people. Though legislation may depict the wishes of the
tax payers, their pocketbooks may not be prepared to bear
the new burden. Also, the society at large or institutions

in particular may not be prepared to face the many changes

imposed on them by this new legislation.

'Statement'gf'the’Problem

 

This research is designed to observe, describe and
analyze impact of The Education of All Handicapped Children
Act (PL 94-142) on the family ecosystem of one young
handicapped child. This will involve documentation of the
complexity surrounding interactions between the many systems
involved. Data documenting the interactions between parents
and other family members, neighbors, medical professionals,
public and private school teachers, administrators,
therapists, psychologists, and the variety of other
professionals encountered in their attempt to obtain

appropriate educational services for their young handicapped

Child will be analyzed.

 

Much confusion presently exists in the manifestation of
PL 94-142. Conflicting interpretations by interfacing
systems are apparent. In order to deal with these issues
most effectively, we must first be able to describe them in
more detail. It is expected that further understanding can
be gained from a closer look at the personal, social,
educational and economic consequences of the law as it

affects a single family ecosystem.

'Rationale for Use of Ethnographic Method

 

Ethnography allows the researcher to attend to certain
systems comprising the family ecosystem as they fade in and
out of focus. This approach involves in-depth documentation
of how the law affects certain systems. This will be
accomplished by observing and recording, then analyzing and
describing the interaction between parents and school
personnel, for example. This method also allows for more
formal interviews when appropriate. A detailed analysis of
.data collected over a nine-month period, including the
important decisions made regarding labeling and placement
alternatives will be extremely useful in further

implementation of this very important law.

5

Overview

Further explanation of the ethnographic method of study
may be found in Chapters Two and Three of this thesis. Also
discussed in Chapters Two and Three is the conceptual
framework used to understand the handicapped child's family
ecosystem. The law itself will be further delineated and
discussed in Chapter Two. Selection of sample and settings
and a schematic model of the method used may be found in
Chapter Three. Chapter Four will be an analysis of the data
gathered including research categories and a diagramatic
representation of the family ecosystem. Chapter Five will
be a discussion of implications of the study for use by

practitioners and in theoretical development.

Definitions/Assumptions

 

1. A s stem is a whole scheme of parts regarded as forming
one complete whole in which the interrelation of the parts
is significant. '

2. Ecology is the study of relations between people and
their environment.

3. Ecosystem is the science of ecology in relation to
general systems theory.

 

4. Impact is the effect of one thing upon another;

5. Younngandicapped Child is one between the ages of'3-6
with—disabilities as defined by law.

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

 

In the interest of providing adequate background
information to the reader, the major areas of interest are
presented here with reference to relevant literature
reviewed. Unfortunately, more extensive coverage of these
pertinent topics is beyond the scope of this study. ‘ The
reader who wishes to explore these issues further is
encouraged to refer to the bibliography of this thesis.

The major purposes, provisions and problems of The
Education of All Handicapped Children Act will be delineated
in this chapter. The combination of ethnography and the
ecosystem approach regarding impact of recently implemented
PL 94-142 is unique to this study to the best knowledge of
the author. Consequently, the review of related research
found here is sparse. However, ethnography itself and the
family ecosystems approach are becoming increasingly popular

and related recent literature will be reviewed here.

The Edu‘c‘a‘tion‘ 2f ‘A‘ll‘ Handicapped Children“ Act ,

' 1975 (pp 13-142)

 

"Law reflects the moral sentiments of the

peOple." (Blackstone, great British jurist, date
unknown) '

The history of man has shown gross fluctuations in
societyls service or disservice to handicapped human beings
during any given period (Melcher, 1976). The relative
enlightenment of our society and a growing feeling of
frustration felt by parents of handicapped children and
other concerned persons (including regular and special
educators) may be given credit for Spurring the enactment of
Public Law 94-142, The Education of All Handicapped Children
Act ine1975. The purposes of this new law-are:

1. To assure that all handicapped children have
available to them a free appropriate public
education.

2. To assure that the rights of handicapped
children and their parents are protected.

3. To help states and localities provide for the
education of all handicapped children.

4. To assess and assure the effectiveness of
efforts to educate handicapped children
(Irvin, 1976).

The potential impact that PL 94-142 will have on the

education of all handicapped children throughout the nation,
on their families, and on the agencies that serve them is

extensive. The new law will actually affect all of

8

education and ultimately all families by affecting the
financial, educational and social climate of the public
3Ch°°1 system, and thus society. . Because of this, the
Office of Education recognized the need for intensive public
participation in the development of PL 94-142 regulations,
and took steps to insure maximum public involvement
throughout the entire rulemaking process (Federal Register,
August 23, 1977). In spite of this input many problems
.exist in the implementation of the various provisions of
this law.

Five provisions related to implementation of PL 94-142
which are especially relevant in terms of family ecosystem
impact are:

1. Protection in Evaluation Procedures (PEP)

2. Procedural Safeguards (Due Process)

3. Individualized Education Program (IEP)

4. Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment

(LRE)

5. Parental Involvment

The congressional .intent of the five provisions is to
balance the needs of the child within the 'school system
(Office of Education, Request for Proposals, April, 1978).
The U.S.0ffice indicates the need for this to be done in a
procedurally fair approach such that each child is ensured a
valid evaluation and an appropriate education suited to his

or her needs. The implication is that this should be in

9

accordance with the least restrictive alternative available
to reach that end.

“Mainstreaming," the current term .for the least
restrictive placement concept, has been interpreted
differently by many. Placements may be made with little
regard for the specific child's individual needs or what
developmental programs the child may have had in the past.
PL 94-142 also mandates in-service training for Special and
regular education teachers. But administrators in many
districts have chosen to provide only minimal instruction
and assistance. Klein also states that teachers, -by law,
have been given the responsibility of negotiating with
administrators and parents for the placement of the child in
question and successful placement often parallels
negotiating skills (Klein, 1979).

Further explanation of the relevant provisions of PL
94—142 follow:

1. Protection in Evaluation Procedures (PEP): To

assure that testing and evaluation materials
and procedures utilized for the purposes of
evaluation and placement of handicapped
children will be selected and administered so
as not to be racially or culturally
discriminatory. No single procedure shall be
the sole criterion for determining an
appropriate educational program for a child

(Part 121a.530).

1O

Procedural Safeguards (Due Process): The

 

school has the obligation to secure parental
permission not only to test and evaluate a
student but also to implement any placement
decision (Yoshida, et. al., 1978). The right
to a hearing or impartial resolution is also
provided for.

Individualized Education Program (£22): The
IEP is a comprehensive system for
instructional planning, implementation, and
periodic review and revision which the parents
must be involved in developing (Part
121a.340).

Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment
(Egg): The LRE is the location of the
provision of special services which maximizes,
to the greatest extent appropriate, the
education of the handicapped child with
children who are not handicapped (Part
121a.550).

Parental Involvement: A partnership between
the parents of the child in question and the
school is mandated. PL 94-142 states that
each meeting conducted for the purpose of
developing, reviewing, and revising a

handicapped child's individualized education

11

program should include one or both of the
child's parents (Part 121a.504).

Although Congress authorized substantial allotments
for the implementation of PL 94-142, it had not, as of
August, 1979, appropriated all the dollars authorized in
the bill (Klein, 1979). Thus, one of the obvious
impediments to full implementation of PL 94-142 is the
scarcity of funds available for appropriate programs to be
developed. This is due to the low‘ priority of most
legislators for such programs. Many schools also display a
lack of commitment to educating children with special needs,
likewise' giving them very low priority and denying parental
requests to provide their children with a free and
appropriate education.

Many factors potentially influence implementation of
these five provisions of PL 94-142 not the least of which is
a new kind of relationship between the school system and the
family system of the handicapped child. Consequently, we
must look at these factors as they relate to the law's
impact on young handicapped children and their family
ecosystem.

Dr. Ernest L. Boyer, U.S. Commissioner of Education is

quoted in an interview published in Exceptional Children, in

 

May, 1978 as saying this:

'...while administrators are finding some
inconveniences perhaps in coming to terms with the
law, that does not, in my view, begin to match the
inconveniences, the frustrations, and the
heartaches that for years have been generated by

12

the failure to have a fair and open educational
opportunity for children who had special

handicaps.” (p. 573).
"The‘Family‘Ecosystem”Approach

Ecosystem is a term used to describe a social system in
light of its ecological context. Therefore, it is not
possible to take an ecosystem approach without a basic
understanding of systems theory and the science of ecology.

Paolucci points out that an ecological perspective is
one of viewing organisms and environments in interaction.
The focus is on the interaction. A family ecological
perspective offers a holistic approach to the study of the
family. It focuses on the family and those environments
that directly affect it over which it has sOme measure of
control (Paolucci, et. al., 1977).

Systems theory in general has been utilized by many
disciplines over the years. The ecosystem model, however is
fairly new, especially in the social sciences. A systems
approach allows us to look only at the intra-dynamics of a
single unit while the ecosystem approach enables us to study
the interface between the single unit, system, or organism
and .its environment. The ecosystem approach is concerned
with linkages of systems rather than studying systems in
and of themselves. Many of the basic concepts which apply
to systems are also part of the ecosystem approach.

Defined briefly, a system is any set of interrelated or
interacting components. These components may be seen as

bounded either spatially, functionally or analytically, but

13

every system has a boundary. This division separates the
system from its environment. That system's environment
consists of other systems which combined make up an
ecosystem. BOundaries of systems are defined according to
purpose, thus what one may call an ecosystem at any point in
time, by another's definition may be considered to be only a
system. The only requirement is that an ecosystem must
encompass more than one system interacting. Interface
within ecosystems requires energy which must be obtained by
one system from its environment or another system. Because
of this it.may be said that all open, living systems exist
to some .extent in interchange with other systems in an
ecosystem. Any system can be an environment for another
system in that ecosystem, but no system exists in isolation
of environments, thus all systems are part of an ecosystem.
Bronfenbrenner (1977) conceived a model of the
“ecological environment“ as a nested arrangement of
structures, each contained within the next. He discusses
three concentric layers containing systems of the child's
enduring environment. They are:
.1. The immediate setting which contains the child
and includes physical space, activities and
social meanings;
2. institutions which surround (1) and include
the political system, legal system, education

system, etc.; and

14

3. the ideological system which provides
motivational meaning to (1) and (2).

More generally, Bronfenbrenner suggests that an
ecological model focuses attention on the simultaneous,
non-additive impact of a set of independent variables
interacting in non-linear fashion and functioning as an
integrated system. In this research, attention will be
given to these variables as over time, they shed light on
the impact of PL 94-142.

Boundaries, wholeness, control and feedback are four
very important family ecosystem concepts because they apply
to all systems. As they are defined according to purpose,
system and ecosystem boundaries may be perceived differently
by various investigators at any given point in time.
Boundaries arbitrarily determine what is to be considered
inside and what is outside any particular system, thus
affecting the overall picture of any ecosystem. These
boundaries are not tangible and must be communicated in
order to exist at all. Wholeness on the other hand is
always apparent in every system and ecosystem. This simply
means that affecting any part of a system affects the whole
system or affecting any system within an ecosystem affects
the whole ecosystem. A controlled system or ecosystem is
goal-seeking or cybernetic. It automatically orients itself
towards its goal. This is done by means of feedback, both

negative and positive. Negative feedback is corrective

15

while positive feedback may not correct but is circular.
Feedforward is anticipatory feedback and is the change agent
in an ecosystem.

The family ecosystem approach allows us to take a
holistic view of the family in relation to other systems in
its environment. As every family system has some input from
the environment (all are open to some degree), ’it is
essential that we look at how material and information input
is transformed in the family system and what is their output
into the larger ecosystem. This cannot be done by looking
at the family system alone. The linkages or interface
between the family system and other systems in their
environment are crucial with respect to the family system as
a functioning unit in society. This is what the family
ecosystem approach allows us to look at.

The basic principle of this approach is the assumption
that human beings need to be understood in the context of
the interface between their primary family system and the
adjunct systems comprising the family ecosystem (Auserwald

1968, as sited in Carlson et.al., 1976.)

"The family ecosystem approach makes it
possible to determine with much more clarity in
what life arenas the individual, the family, or
group of individuals needs assistance, thus more

effectively combating the dehumanization_ of our
age." ‘

16
Ethnography
Ethnography, because of its holistic perspective,
provides an inquiry process by which we can ask open-ended
questions which result in new insights.

For many years, researchers have been
concerned with uncovering the social facts of life

.in a given community by means of ethnographic
field work--by discovering what members are
actually saying to and doing with each other and
what they report about those sayings and doings.
Gradually theorists have also learned that it is
insufficient to study behavior in isolation from
,the social situations in which it is generated
(Cazden, 1974, p. 7). '

The use of ethnography in this study is based on two
sets of hypotheses as sited by Wilson, 1978:

1. the naturalistic - ecological and;

2. the qualitative - phenomenological
As ‘we have already dealt with the importance of the first
hypothesis in our discussion of the family ecosystem
approach, let us turn now to the qualitative -
phenomenological aspects as a theory based on naturalistic -
ecological observation.

If it can be assumed that human behavior is
significantly influenced by environment, then emphasizing
the importance of the "internalized notions" generated by
environment follows. Traditions, roles, values, and norms
are part of functioning in an ecosystem and must therefore
be examined in documenting the ecosystem. A vicious circle
results as much behavior in systems is influenced by

member's awareness of these "mental states" and by pressures

17

generated by others who are influenced by these states
(Wilson, 1978).

Phenomenology attempts to understand human behavior by
looking at the framework within which the members interpret
their thoughts, feelings, and actions. In ethnography, the
participant observer attempts to understand and document the
thoughts and feelings which are in the minds and reflected
in the behaviors of those she studies by systematic
observation of and participation in the daily life of the
group under study. Key incidents can be isolated for
detailed study. This can then be reported as part of the
description of the interrelated systems and, moreover, of
the relationship of one to the other.

Though qualitative by design, ethnographic research is
similar to quantitative research in that it has a long
history of investigators working continuously to refine and
develop effective and appropriate research methods. It
seeks to discover "meaning structures;" how they develop and
' how they influence behavior. Ethnography is based on the
assumption that "what people say and do is consciously and
unconsciously shaped by social situation." (Wilson, 1978, p.
17). -

Ethnography cultivates empathetic understanding.
Ethnographic inquiry is a systematic research process in
which synthesizing the various experiences of the

ethnographer aides in understanding the subtleties of

18

actions, thoughts, and feelings brought on by system

interface.

-Florio (1977) suggests that researchers in ethnography
must attend to two major sources of data which, at first
glance, seem to be of different orders of magnitude -- I.
the recording of (1) 'what is going on,‘ (2) participants'
interpretations, and (3) observers' interpretations of the
doings; and II. detailed analysis of the behavioral and
perceptual records.

The ethnographer is in many ways the instrument of
measurement. The very decision to participate as well as
to observe, abandoning available systems for categorizing
what is seen and heard and felt in the setting, implies that
'the researcher intends to put her/himself through changes,
to be modified by the setting, in order to learn about it
(Florio, 1977). What distinguishes this way of working from
experimental and quasi-experimental research is that it, in
Erickson's words, "relies on the field experience of an
observer, and the observer's capacity to reflect on that
experience during and after it as the primary' means of data
collection." (Erickson, 1976).

This point of view does not imply that experience is
gathered in a haphazard way, or that the researcher isn't
continually narrowing the first most general questions into
ones that can be answered in terms of the behaviors
observed, or even that the ethnographer does not count or

prove things. It does, however, mean that the field worker

19

spends a good deal of time deciding what is important to
count and how her/his counting may differ from the ways the
people being observed count things. (Florio, 1978).

Description, in and of itself is viewed as
scientifically valid in ethnography. It is based on another
assumption--that patterns are discoverable. If we look
closely we will see that the world is organized and
therefore we do not necessarily need to manipulate it to
study it. Thus, it' makes a great deal of sense to do
naturalistic case studies from an ethnographic .perspective,
especially when viewing an entire ecosystem.

According to Becker, (1970), the term 'case study'
comes from medical and psychological research, where it
refers to a detailed analysis of an individual case. The
method suggests that one can properly acquire knowledge of
the phenomenon from intense exploration of a single case.
An analogy. may be made here with respect to a study of one
young handicapped child's family ecosystem as it is affected
by the new law. Though we are unable to study the contexts
of every young handicapped child's family ecosystem as it is
affected by PL 94-142, we may look intensely at one case and
learn something about all similar situations.

Dukes discusses the N=1 study in which the researcher
will focus on a problem instead of being oriented either
toward a person (uniqueness) or toward a global theory
(universality). Problem-centered research on only one

subject may, by clarifying questions, defining variables and

20

indicating approaches, make substahtial contributions

(Dukes, 1977).

The frequency, magnitude, and/or variability of each
individual's actions can be examined continuously during
each phase and between phases of the investigation where

N=1. This is possible because of the descriptive data-

orientation of the intensive design.

Finally, ethnography is used to describe reality.1n

Mehan's words it, is not alone:

A body of findings, a method, nor a theory,
nor a world view. It is a way of working which
creates findings, methods, and theories. It
allows one; to experience (and describe) the
assembly of world views. (Mehan, 1975: P- 492)

’Summary

Theories in the behavioral sciences tend to be
extremely broad and difficult to operationlize. However, an
attempt has been made here to provide the reader with some
related background knowledge in the conceptual framework
used by this researcher. Such knowledge is necessary toward
an understanding of this study and its implications for
practitioners and in theory.

This ethnographic study within the conceptual framework
of the family ecosystem will become a stepping stone toward

an understanding of this very relevant law.

CHAPTER III
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The order of investigation in ethnography differs
significantly from the more traditional methodology. I In
this .field research, as in all ethnographic studies, a
refashioning of design takes place through most of the work.
The substance or reality of this case study is viewed in
creative, emergent terms rather than fixed or finite
patterns of investigation and analysis.

Because ethnography is descriptive in nature, it
requires that the researcher allow the course of events
partially to dictate .further ‘investigation that was not
possible to foresee at the outset of the study. Briefly'
outlinedhere is an indication of what was expected to occur
in this study including a schematic model of the method. It
was felt that a visual representation of the steps taken
during the cOurse of‘ this study would be helpful to both
researcher and reader. Thus, Figure I was developed. It
incorporates tasks of the thesis author and those of the
ethnographer into an organized flow of events.

Entry was not seen as a problem as it had already been

made in most cases (See Appendix 1. liodel Project ). Thus,

21

 

Recognition
Of Problem

 

 

Review
Literature

Select
Methodology
\l/

Participant
Observation

\l/

Informal
Interviews

L

.__l

 

 

 

31/
Analysis
Of Data

11

i___J L____l‘____J

 

11

Participant

 

 

Observation

 

 

4'

Analysis
Of Data

W

[Interview;]

22

 

Yes

Approve?

 

( T35519-

Select
Setting

Select
Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

Develop Working Negotiation '
Hypothesis Of Entry

 

 

Further
Development

 

 

Review With
Committee

 

 

l Summarize

1

[ Inference

. T _
I Describe J
l

 

L—l

No

 

 

Microanalysis
Of Data “

 

 

Proceed

 

Method

Rough
Draft

| Define

 

 

L___4

 

 

Of Working
Hypothesis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

figure 1

Leave the >
Field L‘

Literature

I

Analvsis
Of Data

 

Review ]

 

 

 

 

Flcw Chart of Study

 

23
the investigator proceeded to observe and document impact of
the law by looking at the contexts constituting Jamie's
family ecosystem, It was actually Jamie's mother, Mrs. T.,
who contacted the writer as a case facilitator on the MOdel
Project staff (see Appendix I). In that capacity, it was the
writer's responsibility to gather all relevant information
and proceed to find an appropriate integrated preschool en-
vironment for this child.

First, the usual home visit to obtain important back-
ground information and to simply meet the child and parents
was made by the writer. The next contact was with the nurs-
ery school teacher and director. The writer had already
spoken with them regarding the possible placement of a child
wdth special needs in their classroom. The writer also
phoned Jamie's public school teacher. Though these were the
major points of entry in this study, many other relevant
contacts were made along the way. As documentation is direct-
ed at uncovering systems impact, an analytical representation
of Jamie's family ecosystem will be presented in Chapter IV
Analysis of the Data. .

Ethnographic research provides new vantage points for
reflection and further deveIOpment of hypotheses (Erickson,
1977). Given the generation of substantial in-depth ethno-
graphic data, more critical and specific research questions
were posed and hypothes s formulated and tested. In this

study, naturalistic observations, anecdotes, and interviews

 

1All names of persons and places have purposely been
excluded and/or changed to insure anonymity

24

were used to collect descriptive data for analysis (see Appen-
dices I-III for examples).

As a participant observer, the researcer collected field
notes while participating in and between the systems involved.
Much time was spent in each of the three major contexts of the
child's ecosystem: 1. the home, 2. the private nursery
school, and 3. the public school. The majority of data col-
lected were from the home and nursery schOOl environments.
These data consisted primarily of anecdotal records noting
especially child behavior and reactions of others, notes from
informal meetings with all involved and other more informal
assessment records. Information obtained within the public
school context included some of the above in addition to re-
cords of more formalized meetings with participants. Informal
anecdotes recorded and compiled by the researcher were periods
ically reviewed. Formal and informal interviews occured as
‘more data were needed to reformulate hypotheses. Issues dir-
ectly and indirectly related to the impact of PL 94-142 were
addressed.

After determining several times that more information was
necessary (as the prOcess of decision-making regarding Jamie‘s
educational program placement remained incomplete) the re:
searcher chose to remain in the field for further observation
(see Figure I). [Upon finally leaving the field of study, a
more complete analysis of the data occurred as well as further
development of the working hypotheses and continued review of

current literature. After formulating a rough draft of the

25

entire study, the researcher further defined the methodology
used and proceeded to microanalysis of the data obtained.

- Descriptions and inferences were delineated and summarized.
Following a final review of the findings with committee mem-

. bers, the thesis was completed.

'Research'QuestionS'and'Categories

The central research question of this study is, "What
is the impact of PL 94-142 on the family ecosystem of this
young handicapped child?" However, in ethnography the
researcher continuously gets closer to the data collected
and asks more and more focused research questions of the
data. While the ethnographer does not rely on preconceived
categories and abstract questions, a logical selection of
key incidents and pertinent points must be developed as well
as a set of grounded categories to help reduce and analyze
the data.

Schatzman and Strauss (1973) discuss this analytic
strategy by saying that the ethnographer needs to analyze
as he goes along both to adjust his observational
strategies, shifting some emphases towards those experiences
which bear upon the development of his understanding, and
generally, to exercise control over his emerging ideas by
virtually simultaneous checking or testing of these ideas.

The cumulative character of qualitative data makes them
very complex to analyze. Some of them cannot be readily
quantified.. Portions of the data may vary in levels of

abstraction, frequency of occurrence, and in relevance to

26

the major research question and working hypothes s formulated
(Schatzman and Strauss, 1973).

The data were analyzed by charting patterns of co-occur-
rence and frequency of certain types of participant comments
and actions. Emergent inferences of the researcher were
checked against these patterns. Patterns of behavior were
discovered that indicate significant impact of the law. Five
Specific analytic categories were generated to make sense of
these patterns. They are the following (see Figure 11):
Changes of participants in terms of growth,

. Perceptions of participants in terms of goals,
Exhibitd vs. expressed confidence,

Expenditures of participants, and

UkwNH

Decisions made.

Figure II was derived in an attempt to organize the in-
ferences made and resulting hypothesis generated from the col-
lected data. These are categories and/or research questions
which became known to the author only after careful analysis
of the data. All were evidenced as contributing to the over
all impact of PL 94-142 on Jamie's family ecosystem. The
reader will also be referred to the appendix where appropriate
for more specific and extensive representative data.

A model of the ecosystem resulting from the analysis
will be presented in Chapter IV (see Figure VI) which relates

important information about how this new law is being implemented,

PERCEPTIONS OF:
Responsibilities
Goals for Child
Goals for School
Early Childhood

27

CHANGES OF:
Child

Mother

Father

Siblings
Extended Family
Teachers

Peers

Parents of Peers
Administrators

Ancillary Personnel
Medical Professionals

 

Education
Labeling
Evaluation/

Assessment
Child
Parents

CONFIDENCE:

*—— of
PL 94-142

In Each Other

(exhibited vs.

expressed)

Figure II

DECISIONS:
Label
Placement
How

By Whom
Why

When

EXPENDITURES OF:
All Participants
(time, expense, stress)

Categories/Research Questions

28

thereby shedding light on the general motivating research

questions (See Figure II). Which specific ~ players

part1c1pate in selected contexts becomes a relevant issue in

itself. How and why these players participate is even more

interesting.

The following section will serve to identify the sample
used in this study. It will be noted that it was written

after some contact with the participants in the field.

Identification of Sample

A five year old white female child and her family

ecosystem were chosen as the .sample of one for this
ethnographic study. Jamie was identified as handicapped
by the public schools since age two. First classified as

'mentally retarded' by her pediatrician, the label of speech
and language delayed (SLD) was given to her by the Local
School District (LSD) at the request of her parents. More
recently, she ‘was considered 'learning disabled' (LD)
and identified as 'aphasic' by a neurologist. 'Emotional
impairment' (EI) has also been tentatively proposed to
explain her atypical behavior. In A this regard ,
she is representative of many 'preprimary impaired' or

'developmentally delayed' young children. Above all,

she is a child with unique abilities and Special needs.

29

Having been served by a Home Trainer provided by the
Intermediate School District (ISD) at age two, Jamie was

then placed at age three in a Developmental Preschool room'

of a neighboring school district, where she has remained
four mornings per week. In this special education 'catch
all' classroom, she has seen other young handicapped
children with varying disabilities come and go.‘ In a
telephone conversation with the teacher of Jamie's special
education classroom, she said (see Appendix III; Field Notes
8-31-78) "I've had her for two years. She's really strange?
Both parents have indicated dOUth about their child's.
disability since early infancy. However, in an interview
with. Jamie's parents (Field Notes, 5-9-79), they said they
had "gone through the first two years of her life with
nobody to discuss cOncerns about her possible problems." '
Jamie's family is seen as representative of families of

young handicapped children in several ways by this researcher.

It is anw average nuclear family of middle socio-economic

status (SES) with dual parents and three children living in
the suburbs of an average-sized metropolitan area. The
father works full-time as an editor with the university
extension service, and the mother works part-time as a
laboratory technician in a nearby hospital. However, their
interest in finding appropriate services for Jamie and
progressive disillusionment with the public school

system--mother said, "I thought I could trust them.”,

30

(Field Notes, 9-22-78)--and resulting assertiveness to

protect the rights of their child may be considered unusual.
This condition may partially be attributable to this research-
er's involvement and interest in the case. Jamie's parents

were aware of Jamie's deficiencies. However, they often felt

her problems were misunderstood and mislabled, and possibly
inadequately served in the special education classroom.
Having become aware of a program to integrate preschool
children into regular nursery schools, they inquired.

It was with much- hopeful anticipation as well as
hesitation that Jamie's mother (Mrs. T) referred her to the
Model . Project (See Appendix I) for possible placement in
an integrated nursery school program. "She needs the
opportunity to be more mature and independent," said Mrs. T.
when she first contactedthe Project. The: author went to
Jamie's home as a Project case facilitator “and Mrs.T- poured
out her frustrations with the public school classroom and
stated her desire that Jamie be given an opportunity to be
part of a normal classroom now and hopefully in the
following years also. (Field Notes, 8-8-78). A possible
preschool placement was proposed after careful consideration
of what the classroom had to offer to meet Jamie's unique
needs. A traditional half day nursery school class meeting
three afternoons a week was chosen to provide structured
activities, consistency, good language modeling to enhance
her very limited vocabulary and more socially mature

children for Jamie to imitate.

31

Jamie's experience in the developmental preschool
classroom would continue to be provided, in addition to the
recommended daily. speech therapy, by' the local school
district. Placement through the Project ‘was chosen to
compliment not contradict Jamie's participation in that
program. Even though it was considered a vital aspect
of Jamie's educational experience, the private nursery
school program tuition would be paid for by her parents and,
in fact, not even recognized as part of her Individualized
Educational Plan (IEP) by the public school system.
Transportation to and from her special education classroom
was provided by the public school,‘but Jamie would be
transported by her parents to and from the nursery school

and no public school consultant would be provided to the

nursery school teachers.

Parent, 'prospective nursery school teacher, and the
Project staff members all discussed placement in the
private nursery school positively, yet openly expressed
some concerns.At this point,Jamie's mother was growing more
cencerned about her daughter's possible difficulty in an
integrated classroom. Mrs. T. said that she worries about
the reactions of others--"they may think Jamie is a brat."
She also stated that she is always hesitant to take Jamie in
public because she looks so normal but may act out. (Field
Notes, 8-8-78). The PIOject staff, of which the
researcher was a part, was careful not to promote false

hopes, but were supportive of Mrs. T. throughout the

32
process. The fact that all. Project placements are
initially considered temporary seemed comforting to all. No
one would' be "trapped“ into. anything uncomfortable or
inappropriate.

After discussing Jamie's needs with the other classroom
teacher as well as the nursery school parent board, a
decision was made to place Jamie in this classroom on a
trial basis. Contact was maintained between classroom
teachers and the author , as well as parents, while
arrangements were being made. The teacher visited Jamie at
her other school prior to nursery school attendance. Also,
an informal conference and observation periOd took place
with Jamie's special education teacher at her local school.
After this visit, a "sneak preview” of the nursery school
was arranged for Jamie and her mother.

It was mutually decided that the case facilitator
(Project staff member assigned to coordinate and follow
through with this case; the author) should be available in
the classroom the first week of the new school year. During
the 'first three transition days, the case facilitator
interacted within the classroom and also spent time taking
observation notes to analyze and share with Jamie's teachers
and parents. This perhaps accounted for the most important
information gathered-~how Jamie actually responded to
teachers, other children, and materials in the classroom.
Though problem areas were noted, a substantial number of

positive interactions in this new environment were

33

documented. Sharing this information with Jamie's mother
helped to relieve her anxieties. Carryover from nursery
school to home and to Jamie's special education classroom

was extremely important during this critical transition.

A description of the child's primary system--the home
and family--follows. Also described are the other most
relevant adjunct systems involved in the education of the
child--the private nursery school and the public school. It
will be demonstrated that for purposes of educational

decision-making, these constitute the functionally relevant

contexts in the child's ecosystem.

Descriptions Qf‘the Settings

 

The Home

 

Located in a peaceful upper middle SES suburb about a
ten minute drive from a large university, this child's home
was sufficiently large for a family of five. A comfortable
place to visit, the lawn and house seemed always to be well
groomed and in good repair as did those of their neighbors.
Though many in the neighborhood were involved with
university work, immediate neighbors included a lawyer and
an accountant. There were no sidewalks, just quiet streets
and many trees and flowers. The scene on a typical

afternoon may include children riding bikes or shooting

baskets in their drive.

Though usually greeted by Mrs.T. and/or Jamie, all the

family members were always cordial and interested. The

34

first few minutes of most visits would be spent with Jamie
and one or two of the other children in their playroom (see
Figure III). The writer also felt comfortable visiting with
Mrs. T. in the kitchen while she prepared coffee or ‘tea to
share, after which Mrs. T. and the writer usually conversed
in their pleasant living room, warmed by the sunshine from
a large picture window or by a cozy fire in their ‘modest
fireplace. 'The writer especially remembers the warm close
feeling experienced on a cold winter day when their heat was:
not working, chatting with our coats buttoned snuggly to the

crackle of a blazing fire (Field Notes, 12-20-78).

In warmer weather there was occasion to enjoy the
backyard with Jamie. She was always proud to show her
latest accomplishments on their swing set and slide or in
the family garden. She also derived much joy from water
play in a small inflatable swimming pool, allowing her
mother and the writer to converse (Field Notes, 5-19-79).

As may have been expected, the frequency (about one
visit per week), duration (about two hours per visit) and
intensity of these visits allowed Jamie, her mother, and the

-writer to develop a rather close friendship.

The Private Nursery School

The classroom into which Jamie was mainstreamed is
representative of a nursery school environment. Licensed by

the Department of Social Services, all aspects of the

35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLAY
Room

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/ sum:
\ uP
BATHROOM A '\ CLOSET
. Dbl A
boot-
1
mm snaf
9rd?
k'TCHE“ ' LIV'NG
.l ROOM
TABLE
sum
DINING ‘ ROOM
‘TflBLC

 

 

 

 

 

{TMANO

 

FIREPLACE

t._l

 

 

Figure III
Jamie's Home - Main Floor

 

 

 

36

program comply with state regulations. Each classroom is
composed of twenty children (ten boys and ten girls), all of

whom were four or five years of age, the class was lead by a

team of two professionally trained and certified teachers.
The children were allowed to move about the two medium-sized
rooms located in the basement of a large church with much
freedom (See Figure IV).

Spontaneous interactions were encouraged by the overall
atmosphere and structure of the program. Although this
author inferred certain intended educational outcomes from
what was observed to occur in the classroom, the following
is an excerpt from information available to parents of child-

ren enrolled.

The program at this Nursery School aims to
foster individual development of the child through
his own activity and discovery. We try to: 1.
help the children to gain an awareness of
themselves and a respect for the rights of others;
2. provide good conditions for learning, a place
for self-reliant work and contented play, and 3.
awaken within the child the desire to acquire

knowledge. We feel these goals are best
accomplished by following a unit plan of study in
a controlled environment. Although there is

adequate time for free play, much of the session

is devoted to group activity in which the child is

encouraged to participate. (Parent Handbook,

1978)

With an emphasis on social enrichment, development of
cognitive skills was seen as a secondary goal of the
program. That they achieved their primary goal was evident
daily as the children worked and played together _-

helping each other in their efforts to learn about the world

around them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

64$
UxMB EmnflwM
Lat/Alas [sju’ We

fin!

_ HALL Want

_ BAIHRDOM 05x61 F19!
mu
1
HAU- bum
peak __
£1.0ng u’A‘ma
SHELF m“:
BOOKS
D002
' SHELF
7' 8L?
171m" 5'
12815
.31. s.
. Rz’fl? BLOCK
Wall: '
89,5” DRESSER COKNa
l: I LysmuF ]
Figure IV

Nursery School Map

 

37a

The teachers hugged and praised the children when appro-

priate. Thus the children displayed an air of confidence in
themselves and each other. They too provided positive physi-

cal and verbal reinforcement to each other.

Activities and materials appeared to prompt creativity

and stimulate expansion of conceptual understanding and

vocabulary. Routines were consistent, rules were enforced

and the children knew the limits. This did not come about,

however, without the normal amount of testing and

manipulation attempted by the children. Yet in this and

other respects, the children here seemed bright,

well-adjusted and polished or proper in their behavior and

appearance.

This classroom appeared neat, clean, bright and cheery.
An array of appropriate educational posters, unit pictures,
and children's art work adorned the walls. Though the
teachers did a good deal of cleaning upon the completion of
each day, the children were also encouraged to pick-up after
themselves. The teachers were not viewed as highly directive
except occasionally when necessary as in this example.

Mrs. N. asked Jamie if she wanted to go make
a jack-o-lantern. Jamie took her arm, stamped
feet, waved arms, pointed to slide in same room.
Mrs. N. helped Jamie get in line and explained
that she would get her turn on slide. Jamie left
line. Mrs. N. reminded her about her turn. Jamie
got back in line, took turn, then went to art
table by Mrs. N. Jamie held shears. Mrs. N. sat
beside her and helped her cut jack-o-lantern as
needed (Field Notes, 10-25-78).

38

The teachers served more often as interactive facilitators
and extenders of learning, providing what appeared to be a
safe environment in which the children could freely explore

themselves-~their thoughts and feelings-- and their world of

objects and people.

The PubliC'School: Preschool Classroom

 

Entering the second to the last door at the end of a
hall in a relatively new elementary school building, the
observer of this small developmental preschool classroom
(See Figure V) is almost immediately met by at least one of
the six or seven young children officially assigned to this
class according to the decision—of_an educational planning
and placement committee (EPPC). These children rarely

appeared very involved in the activities they may have been

engaged in, be it playing with dolls, riding scooter toys,
stringing beads, listening to a language stimulation record
or eating a snack (Field Notes, 9-7-78). This could be

inferred by observing the amount of inappropriate behavior '

indicating distractability. All of these activities., took
place in a single small room.which was petitioned into work
and play areas by equipment. A portion of the, room. was
carpeted but the majority of the floor space was ,1inoleum
and contributed greatly to the high noise level in the room.
A large teacher's desk and filing space occupied one corner
of the room which was off limits to all children at all
times. The children hung their coats, went to the bathroom

and rested (if needed) in an adjacent small room, which the

39

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RIDING
Toys
To”, Pay
‘ kl WHEN!
LA lac: E
4 ROU P SHIN“
$11505
DoLL
[nos .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SHOE.
Dock
RECORD
PLAYER 5:
EA 'L
) ( __
Locuses J
TEACHER 3
DESK
BATHROOM
Swans
Car CDT
AA 7112ch
SH Ewes

 

 

 

 

Figure V
Public School Classroom Map

 

40

teacher rarely entered. While the aide in this classroom

was responsible for toileting and other non-academic
portions of the day, the teacher led the formal group itime
in language development and made sure certain children were
working on specific tasks at another point in the day.

However, during playtime, she seemed unaware of what the

children were doing. During this time Ms.Z. often busied
herself at her desk or spoke with the various ancillary
personnel (i.e. speech therapist, psychologist, physical

therapist) who appeared with some regularity.
Summary

In order to study not only the educational effects of
the law on this child, but also the personal, social, and
economic consequences of the five provisions of the law on
both the child and her family ecosystem, careful
consideration has been given to the family and involved
systems regarding their ability to participate in a study of
this nature. Level of involvement and expressed interest in
participation is considered' a measure of the degree of
system Openness, and thus access. Linkages to the multiple
systems and access Ito settings and subjects had been
previously established through the author's work with the
Model Project. Informal and formal systems had been
tapped and appeared accessible to the degree of openness
required to secure adequate and appropriate data necessary

in light of this study's validity and credibility.

41

In summary, ethnography is a way of studying life situa-

tions hat is concerned with uncovering social meanings as

they are generated and interpreted in what people say and do
in their relationships with each other. By the joint use of

participant observation, which gives access to the actions

of members of the systems to be studied and interviews,

which give access to their perspectives, this ethnographer

attempts to discover and describe how what is going on and

what participants think is or should be going on is affected

by PL 94-142. Field notes serve as retrievable accounts of

what transpires. Teacher and parent anecdotes also

contribute to the information collected. Ongoing review and

analysis of this information is necessary in order to find
key incidents and recurrent patterns that merit more
detailed attention in the study. The data can and will be
coded, charted, counted and compared. It will form the
basis of the description of impact of PL 94-142 on the
family ecosystem of the young handicapped child. By
gathering both ethnographic data and conducting detailed
analysis of that data, it is hoped this study will uncover
some of the problems as well as solutions related to more

appropriate implementation of this law.

CHAPTER IV

Analysis of The Data

Introduction

 

A discussion of the theoretical and practical questions
asked in the course of this ethnographic study follows. In
order to address the broad question of impact of the law is
necessary to look closely at the everyday lives of the parti-‘
cipants in the systems under study. Therefore, a rendition
of that everyday life in terms of its SOOial contexts'and the
roles played by key participants is offered. Although the
reader will note that Chapters I-III as well as Chapter V of
this thesis are in- the thirdperson, Chapter IV will be
presented in first person narrative for the sake of clarity.

Figure VI is a schematic representation of the family
ecosystem of this young handicapped child. As certain key
incidents are linked to other key incidents, the relation
between the parts and the whole of the theoretical model of
the ecosystem should become clear to the reader. Thus, a
theoretically grounded account of the interactions of the

participants in the key incidents will be shared.

42

43

 

uaoummm
Hmoauaaom\ammOA\OHeocoom

 

     

 

  

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 

  
    

   

 

Poccomtma
CSZBE omH
Hoonom
muoumnumwcaeom Deanom
0mg
mocoaum

cam
muoncmwoz

 

 

 

meOnmmm poconpd

 

 

Boommm Hmcoaucooom

            

 

mucmumm
umnuo

  
      

 

 

  

 

Hoonom
hummusz
mum>aum

 

senses
ooeemuxm

 

 

 

 

woucuaaaomm

 

mmmo

 

 

——4

Figure VI
Ecosystem Representation

44

The Enactment of the Ecosystem

It is important not to lose sight of the child in our
efforts to implement PL 94-142.' However, for purposes of this
study, we need to go beyond the assumption that the child is
expected to progress as a result of such implementation. Of
more relevance to the impact of this law was the change
documented in the parents' attitudes, for example, and
attempts made by them to interact with other participants.
especially public school personnel.

Mrs. T. for example, was seen at the outset as very
hesitant to speak up and thus feeling discouraged and
frustrated about her daughter's education. However, after
Jamie had participated just one month in the nursery school
program, Mrs. T. appeared at least a little assertive
although still nervous about her role in her daughter's
education (Field Notes, 9-11-78). She also seemed relieved
that mainstreaming might work for Jamie. Having expressed a
concern and fear at first that the teachers, children and
especially other parents would perceive Jamie as a "brat"
(Field Notes, 8-8-78), after only one month she was almost
elated that such did not seem to be the case. A little-
later the same month (Field Notes, 9-18-78) She indicated a:
decision to check into alternative public school programs
available as she was not happy with the current placement in
the Developmental Preschool. She seemed very cautious about

not trusting the public schools' judgement, though she

45

confided in me a fading sense of trust and confidence in the
formerly esteemed school authorities. "I thought I could
trust them," she stated (Field Notes, 9-22-78). At this
time Mrs. T. also exhibited much self-consciousness and lack
of confidence in her own ability to make positive changes on
behalf of her daughter. She also noted that her family has
a history of perceptual handicaps which helps her accept
Jamie's special needs (Field Notes, 8-8-78). She
regularly and appropriately called on me in my role as case
facilitator for support and suggestions.

Although still appearing to be somewhat embarrassed by
her child's handicap, this parent gradually began
to participate in decisions made affecting the child's
educational welfare instead of passively accepting decisions
made by others. In October of 1978, for example Mrs. T.
called me with a very disturbing question regarding a
proposed change in the label being used by the public school

to describe Jamie's handicap. The public school teacher,
(Ms. Z.) had called her stating that the label would be
changed from Speech and Language Delayed (SLD) to Educable
Mentally Impaired (EMI). This was supposedly because there
were currently too many children with the SLD

classification. Ms. 2. also proposed at that time a

46

possible full-day placement in the same local school's EMI
program for the following school year. An appointment was
made for Mrs. T. to visit that program the following Monday.
However, Mrs. T. did not accept the label change over the
phone as she wanted to discuss it with her husband. This
proposed change came over the phone and not in written form
as required by law (PL 94-142, Part 121a.500). It was
a little bit early to suggest placement for the
following fall, especially since the current placement was
not seen as satisfactory by Mrs. T. It was at this point
that the impact of the parents' mistrust in the public
school's actions and decisions and recognition of their
rights under PL 94—142 began to work in favor of their
child.

Although Mrs. T. had expressed negative feelings about
the public school teacher from the beginning, it was not
until after this incident that she was able to let some
deep-rooted feelings of anger and regret surface. She
suddenly seemed to feel more justified in having these
negative feelings about 'the expert who had given so much of
her time to help Jamie.‘ For example, Mrs. T. stated on
October 6, 1978, during a home visit, that she always felt
misunderstood and disbelieved by Ms. Z. She told me of a
recent example when Jamie strung a few beads at home and how
she had wanted to share that information with Mrs. Z.
However, she did not because in the past such information

had reportedly not been accepted respectfully by Ms. Z.

47
Mrs. T. stated that she was made to feel inferior and
untrustworthy with such 'school related' issues although she

lived, worked and played with Jamie many more hours_ of the

day than did Ms. Z.

Mrs. T. also expressed during that same home visit (See
Appendix II for detailed field notes of this home visit)
much stronger negative feelings about the public school
program Jamie was now placed in. Stating that she felt it
was "wasting precious time" because Jamie seemed bored with
the progranr Mrs. T. openly spoke critically about the
curriculum and staff.

Jamie seemed to only get along with one other child in
the public school classroom -- a boy with whom she attempted

to share a variety of playthings and take turns

appropriately. The teacher and aide offered some assistance

and support but appeared to be directive and forceful in

their interactions with all the students. This example

illustrates such an interaction.

Ms. Z. standing by round table where J. and
several other children were using manipulative
materials (puzzles, blocks, stringing beads and
scissors). J. was having trouble cutting. Ms. Z.
promptly sat down on back of J. chair--her knees
and arms tightly holding J. in-—took J. hand in
hers and began snipping. J. turned around
frantically and fought to release hand from
scissors. (Field Notes, 10-24-78). '

Although more positive teacher-child interations were also
in evidence, another example of thissame approach was seen
in a telephone conversation with Ms. 2. when she noted that
they had to Torce’Jamie to paste inaterials the previous

year (Field Notes, 8-31—78).

48

However, Mrs.T. did not seem confident that a change in
Jamie's public school placement would be forthcoming without
a good deal of pressure. When asked if Jamie had been seen

by the school psychologist recently she said she had inquired?

on several occasions and she was ”tired of hearing from Ms.
Z. how busy he (the psychologist) is.” Mrs. T. said she
"had not been happy with her phone contacts with him in the
past, anyway," although they had never met personally.
Jamie had been in this same public school program for
two years, but her parents remained unaware of their rights
under the law. When I explained that no change could take
place in Jamie's educational placement until after an
Educational Planning and Placement Committee (EPPC) meeting
was held Mrs. T seemed very discouraged. She said Ms. Z.
had said there would be an EPPC meeting only after a new
psychological evaluation. Mrs. T. felt it would probably

take months to get that accomplished, yet, she didn't feel
there was anything she could do about that. When I

suggested that she could insist that the process begin
immediately, she seemed more hopeful. She seemed very
relieved and said she had never been able to share these
frustrations with anyone and thanked me over and over for my
support and interest in Jamie's well-being.

With the passing of time and my continued support, the
nursery school teachers became progressively more involved
in the interests of Jamie and her mother. One of the

teachers, Mrs. N., requested information regarding the

49

pending EPPC, indicating a desire to be involved. She also
reported having shared information about the Model
Project with a friend who had a young handicapped child,
indicating approval of the project. ' However, this
particular parent had been in contact with Ms. Z. and had
been told to beware of this private nursery school because
of "overactive children." (Field Notes, 10-6-78). This
comment angered Mrs. N., as she felt it was unfair.
Apparently, Ms. Z. had already been on the defensive in
order to make such a comment without ever having observed
the nursery school program. It does seem natural that she
would have ill feelings about the private program with the
possible knowledge that Jamie's mother was very satisfied
with the nursery school program and dissatisfied with what
Ms. Z. considered her more appropriate ‘special education
program. This type of reaction _and underlying attitude of
'territoriallity' is interpreted to be -an important
issue related to implementation of PL 94-142. It will be
discussed at greater length later in this analysis.

In an effort to bridge the communication gap between
the two programs Jamie particiapted in, I had arranged to
meet with the teachers on a bi-weekly basis. Although from
September to November this arrangement appeared to benefit
all participants (See Appendix II), Ms. Z. began to cancel
regularly scheduled meetings. It became apparent to me, in
my role as researcher that Ms. Z. began to feel threatened

by the successful placement of Jamie in.the private nursery

50

school. Consequently, she no longer chose to share any of

her observations of Jamie's development as seen in her

classroom. Whereas, the nursery school teachers were
interested in this information and were happy to share their
own observations, it was acceptable to them to discontinue
the meetings to eliminate the hostility they felt from Mrs.Z.

Time passed and Jamie and her mother 'became more and
more dissatisfied with the public school program. As no
changes appeared forthcoming, Mrs. T. began to put even more
pressure on the school to complete the psychological
evaluation and call the EPPC meeting by frequently
reminding Ms. Z. of her wishes.

In the meantime, the parents and myself--with little
help ,from the public school--explored possible alternatives
to the public school classroom in which Jamie participated.
Mrs. T. reportedly made fourteen phone calls in one day in
an attempt to arrange a visit to a single program. It was at
this point that Jamie's father began to take a more active
role in decisions made regarding his daughter's educational
placement. His further involvement came at a time when Mrs.
TJs frustration level was high and the details were getting
increasingly more complex. It simply became more logical
for him to visit possible alternative programs with Mrs. T.
than to ask that she relay all the information to him.
(Field Notes, 2-28-79). Although Mrs. T. or myself
continued to make most of the phone contacts and arranged to

visit programs, the interest and support shown by Mr. T. was

crucial.

51

Mr. T. also began to transport Jamie to and from
nursery' school with more regularity. This allowed for much
more direct contact with the teachers and myself, not to
mention the extra time and attention he was able to give his
daughter, which resulted in an even closer relationship be-
tween the two. Mr. T. noted that he could communicate with
Jamie better than ever before (Field Notes, 1-31-79), and

also seemed to understand his wife's frustrations better.

Another context in which Mr. T. became involved
included the medical professionals and their role in
diagnosis of Jamie's disorder. Although taking their
children to the pediatrician had typically been done by Mrs.
T., when specialists were involved Mr. T. also participated.
A trip of some distance was made,for example,to have Jamie
tested by a pediatric neurologist. (Field Notes, 9-13-78).
Some follow-up information was required by the family
pediatrician, which became very difficult for the parents to
obtain. After repeated phone calls to the doctor's office
with no cooperation, Mr. and Mrs. T. decided to change to
another 'pediatrician in the area whom they felt they may be
able to rely on more. This change reportedly was a result
of several years of dissatisfaction with the first doctor's
attitudes and/or ignorance regarding Jamie's problems. When
Mrs. T. had asked questions about Jamie's~behavior as an
infant she reported simply being reassured that Jamie would
"grow out of it". Two years later the same doctor diagnosed

Jamie as mentally retarded, although at that time he was not

52

instrumental in assisting her parents to find any
educational or supportive services. In fact, attempts made
by Mr. and Mrs. T. to seek additional help or further advice
were directly or indirectly criticized by the doctor as
being disrespectful of his diagnosis and a waste of time.

Another group of people encountered by the parents in
their quest for appropriate services for Jamie included
those in administrative and ancillary positions with the
public sOhool system. This system was extensive and complex
Personnel with differing roles and statuses involved in
Jamie's case included the developmental classroom teacher
within the neighborhood school, the Local School District
(LSD) with its own special education director, and the
Intermediate School District (ISD) and corresponding special
education director and subordinate teachers, psychologists,
therapists and evaluators. All of these people came in
contact with Mr. and Mrs. T. on various occasions, some more
frequently than others, some with more direct impact on the
situations revolving around the contacts and others in the
capacity of their position only (See Figure II). The
following is a summary of the contexts in which these
contacts were made.

Although of course some contacts of minimal consequence
were made with administrative and ancillary personnel early
in the school year, things did not really seem to start
happening until January -- after much patient persistance on

the part of Jamie's parents. The psychological evaluation

53

which had been promised for months finally proceeded and
included a brief observation of Jamie in the nursery school
(Field Notes, 1-29-79). When speaking with Mrs. T. on the
phone about the psychologist's observations (which she had
called him about) she reported that "he doesn't see any
positive points of nursery school. He didn't see Jamie as
deciding where or what to play, but rather believes she just
does what she happens to do -- he calls her skills
accidental and her play serendipitous." As this decision
making ability had been something both Mrs. T. and the
nursery school teachers had noted considerable improvement
in since Jamie began nursery school, this kind of remark not
only surprised but frustrated and disappointed Mrs. T. She
also noted that the psychologist thought Jamie perceived a
task as only a play activity and thus might not complete it.
In my role as case facilitator, I tried to reassure Mrs. T.
that observations and comments made by the psychologist
indicated his lack of a basic knowledge of the early
childhood learning environment approach. He saw nursery
school as just a nice place to play rather than a setting
designed to foster developmental growth. (Field Notes,
2-1-79). This is seenby the author as another problem of
implementation inherent in the training of most public
school personnel.

Peer modeling, or imitation of other children was an

especially important part of the nursery school learning

54

experience for Jamie. She often watched another child
attempt a particular task before trying it herself,
obviously inspired and encouraged by the other child's
example. An anecdote of this kind of situation follows:
Tammy is stringing beads as Jamie comes to

the table. Tammy holds up her string of beads an?
says to teacher "see." Her string 15 about ha

' itement
full of beads. Jamie now shows some exc
and purpose in choosing and stringing severai
beads. She strings the beads quickly and wit

' ' ' 11 causing
t . Tammy's string is nearly fu. ,
fizftete yhold it high. Jamie looks at It and says
excitedly "tall, tall” and again chooses bean:
quickly and strings them With purpose (Fie
Notes, 3/2/79).

The psychologist's evaluation was completed with the
help of Jamie's public school teacher. Ms. 2. expressed
great. faith in the accuracy of the psychologist's

observations and assessment. (Field Notes, 2-21-79). She

also stated confidently at the same meeting with

myself and Jamie's speech therapist that she "couldn't

bother” with strategies being used at nursery school and at

home. This was very unfortunate for Jamie because of the

inconsistency of treatment across environments. The speech

therapist, however, did seem co recognize the importance of

consistency and expressed an interest in being kept up to

date regarding related progress.
In the meantime, Mrs. T. had continued to seek
alternative placement ideas for Jamie. She reported that

she had met with much opposition in trying to arrange visits

to various programs (Field Notes, 2-28-79). She said

55

"double talk seems to be a necessity...I keep getting the
run around...its like a game." She became suspicious that
the administrators "just didn't want parents to become too
aware and start making waves. She felt, too that there
"obviously was some communication breakdown." (Field Notes,
2-28-79).

After this conversation, I suggested that she seek help
from the LSD Special Education Director. After phoning him
she reported (Field Notes, 2-23-79) that he had ”refused to
give her any information on other programs before the
Educational Planning and Placement Committee (EPPC) met. He
said she was trying to "put the horse before the cart."
Mrs. T. began feeling very bitter towards the public school
and said she was angry with herself "for not being more
assertive earlier." (Field Notes, 2-23-79).

With further testing being recommended by the
psychologist, another group of professionals became involved
-- the Central Diagnostic Team (CDT). Mrs. T. was informed
by the psychologist that if she would wait until after the
CDT evaluation someone would go with her to alternative
placements of interest and explain the programs to her
(Field Notes, 3-7-79). Although Jamie's parents were
patient and persistent, this never materialized.

However, by this time (early March) the EPPC meeting
seemed to be close at hand although no date was set. The

parents began to feel that the Intermediate School District

56

(ISD) simply causes unnecessary confusion without
accomplishing much. They observed that. none of the
professionals want to incriminate themselves so they just
keep 'passing the buck.’ Mr. and Mrs. T. also felt that
"none of them respect parent's opinions.” (Field Notes,
3-7-79). This feeling led them to believe they would be
'outnumbered'. at the EPPC meeting and would thus not
accomplish their objective of placing Jamie in the 'least
restrictive environment' as the law proposed. So they asked
if a teacher from the nursery school and myself could be
present to help support them. The law does allow for such
participation in the meeting by anyone the parents choose to
invite (PL 94-142, Part 121a.345).

In April the testing continued. Two different days,
(4-19-79 and 4-25-79), Mr. and Mrs. T. were expected to
bring Jamie to the ISD offices where she was tested by the
CDT. Also during this time the parents met with the child
psychiatrist who served as laison between the team of

evaluators and the parents. Although Ms. Z. had said that

Model Project staff would be contacted by CDT for our input,
this did not occur ( Field Notes, 4-28-79).

Throughout all of this testing, in addition to more
medical examinations by their new family pediatrician, Mr.
T. remained quite involved. He shared his feeling as being

on a high with Jamie -- very close and hopeful." (Field

Notes, 4-18-79).

57

In preparation for the EPPC meeting, Mr. and Mrs. T.
felt_ it would be beneficial to review Jamie's school
records. ' Mrs. T. suggested that Mr. T. write a letter to
the special education director asking permission to do this.
He said however, that there was no need for a letter as they
would not see anything ;. They made an appointment and
finding his concern to be true, inquired as to why no
psychological records were included in her file. They were
informed that they needed to make an appointment with the
psychologist to see those. This seemed quite a waste of
their time and they left the school angered once again.
(Field Notes, 5-9-79)

At the beginning of May, dates for the EPPC were
discussed. The parents wanted to be sure to have their
representatives present and the school had the schedules
of many ancillary personnel to consider.

During a conversation with Mrs. T. (Field NOteSI
5-19-79) she expressed that she felt "real put off" by the
LSD.. Here it was the end of the year and they still had no
knowledge of what would happen to Jamie the following year,

though they had requested that the decision making process

begin months ago. She asked, "Are they doing this on

purpose so there simply won't be time to get her in the most
appropriate program?" The same day she shared her
perception of the psychologist's point of view in relation

to her contacts with other special educators.

58

"They all have the same attitude. I don't know
why they teach it in special education classes.
The nursery school teachers don't see it that
way. The psychologist and Ms. Z. -- all they
know is how to deal with problems instead of
viewing any of Jamie's actions as positive."
(Field Notes, 5-19-79).

The previous comment is seen as basic to the problems
manifested in implementation of PL 94-142, especially as
it relates to the preschool child. In order to . place
a young handicapped child in the most appIOpriate and
least restrictive environment, both the strengths

and weaknesses of the child's performance need to be

perceived, recorded, and considered. As noted from the EPPC
meetings involved in the placement decision (See Appendix
II), this issue became the real struggle between parents and
professionals in the case of Jamie.

The position of quiet frustration these parents had been
expected to maintain regarding their daughter's education
seems inexcusable. They were simply made to feel fortunate
that services were available and were expected to leave all
the rest up to the public school 'experts'. It seemed to
be a rude awakening when they slowly realized that all was
not well, and that they must take some responsibilty if‘
positive changes were to occur.

Finally, early in June (Field Notes, 6—5-79), Jamie's

parents were informed by the neighborhood school principal

59

that the EPPC would meet June 8, 1979, and inquired about
who they wished to invite. He also noted that although they
could ask whomever they wanted to participate, contributions
made would not be considered in the final decision.

At the meeting on June 8, 1979, this same administrator
made it clear at the outset that "any questions participants
invited by the parents may have should be directed through
the parents. (See Appendix II). At this gathering of the
EPPC evaluation results and summary reports were given by
ISD personnel. A unanimous decision to label Jamie
"trainable mentally impaired" and place her at the ISD
developmental center was arrived at by the public school
personnel. It appeared that this placement suggestion had
actually been agreed upon prior to the EPPC meeting. In any
case, this recommendation was unacceptable to the parents.
After a frustrating two hours the meeting was adjourned with
no decisions made. The school year was now truly at an end
and yet the 'stalling' continued.

Several days later (Field Notes, 6-12-79) Mr. T.
received a phone call from the LSD Special education
director. He said simply that they would need to meet to
discuss some things. Mr. T. said "fine, lets meet at our

house," to which he was referred to the principal for a

location. When Mr. T. phoned the principal he was not
impressed by the "artificial sympathy" displayed. "I
understand that you want what is best for Jamie -- I want

the same for my children." But he went on to try to

6O

convince Jamie's father that he was wrong in not letting her
go to the TMI program by saying he felt it was definitely
the right place for her, after reviewing all the reports.
Mr. T. replied "well sure, that's what all the reports say
-- what should a guy think if thats all he knows of the
child. You've never met Jamie, how do you know what she
needs? In fact you don't even seem to know much about the
programs in your district." (Field Notes, 6-12-79).

Mr. T. discussed some of his feelings with me a couple
days later. Though he seemed frustrated about the current
situation, he also appeared accepting of past circumstances.
He said, "This whole EPPC thing has really been good for our
whole family. It has been pulling us together. And its
amazing how Jamie is changing. We expect more of her now
and find she is capable of more." (Field Notes, 6-14-79).

The process continued with a 'pre-EPPC' meeting held
June 18, 1979, with only the Special education director and
the principal representing the public school. This was
billed as a discussion meeting in preparation for the next
EPPC meeting to be held in the fall (as other school
personnel were now on summer vacation).

As a result of growing dissatisfaction and confusion
Jamie's parents now sought legal advice. Conveniently,
their neighbor lawyer offered to help out. Although he
recommended proceeding with a hearing as afforded by law,
the parents chose to wait it out and pursue the avenue of

working cooperatively with the school. However, after a

61

full summer of anxiety and another EPPC meeting September 5,
1979, and still another four hour meeting September 11,
1979, a label and placement decision were agreed. to as a
temporary compromise only. Jamie's parents accepted a dual
placement which actually offered little of what they felt
was appropriate for Jamie. However, the reader may feel by
this point at least partially aware of the feeling of
wanting to simply give in and be done with it. Is this

truly the way PL 94-142 was intended to be implemented?

'Ecosystem‘Echoes

 

Extracting from these data certain patterns and trends,
this researcher concludes that the current impact of PL
94-142 is not entirely positive for the child or the family
ecosystem. There tend to be many inherent problems in the
interpretation and implementation of this important new law.
An attempt will be made here to uncover those which are most

readily discernible and some which are not.

With reference to the ecosystem conceptual framework‘
(See Figure II) we can discuss the three systems of which
this .child was a part in terms of how territoriality may
affect decisions made. Whenever it was necessary for two of
the three systems to come together in order to discuss an
issue involving the child, this interaction usually took
place on one of the systems own 'turf.‘ For example, if the
parents needed to meet with the nursery school teachers,
this meeting could either take place in the child's home or

at the nursery school. Although both of these situations

62

did occur, in the case of meetings held with public school
personnel, despite the parents request to meet in their home
all were- held in a local public school building
during school hours. Although this arrangement was, of
course, most convenient for the administrators, teachers and
ancillary personnel it often was very inconvenient for the
parents. They usually would need to hire a babysitter, take
time off of work, and drive to the location of the meeting.
As they entered the- public school territbry, they became
visitors. As such, they could not be as comfortable as

they may have been in their own home.

The greatest gap in communication seemed to also stem
from the notion held by public school personnel that they
must protect their turf. Possibly this problem seemed

especially evident there because of the power of peer

influence which was observed. There seemed to be a real
sense of unity which manifested itself most readily when the
system was threatened. Such was the case when it became
evident to Ms. Z. that Mrs. T. was not satisfied with the
classroom in which she taught. There appeared to be a
defensive reaction which came out clearly in her negative
comment regarding the private nursery school (see page ‘5').
Many times thereafter comments were made by not only Ms. Z.
but also other public school personnel which were direct or
indirect insults to both the private nursery school (see
page:49) and Jamie's primary family system (See Appendix

II). The members of these latter systems also reacted

63

defensively, as would any system under attack. This is a
natural healthy reaction, as is taking pride in one's own
environment.

In the case of educating a young handicapped child,
however, participants from different settings are required by
law to come together and develop an IEP in the best interest
of the child. Although her ‘parents and even private

nursery school teachers were . most generally_

willing and available to discuss Jamie's needs, the opposite
appeared to be true of the public school personnel. This
was apparent in the lack of interest shown by Ms. Z. in
meeting with. the nursery school teachers and myself. Also
very little of Ms. Z.'s time was devoted to discussing
Jamie's progress with her parents. Much less time for this
important communication was given by the psychologist and

speech therapist, and never in Jamie's home.

Possibly the most problematic issue resulting from
insufficient time given to this case by the public school
personnel was in scheduling the EPPC meeting.. Whether the
delays were intentional or just a matter of priority
conflicts, the stalling effectively took its toll on Jamie's
parents' persistence. This reality surely served as a
deterrent to their seeking the most appropriate and least
restrictive environment for Jamie (see Figure VII)-

Many of the comments made at the June 8, 1979, EPPC

64

- Last two EPPC meetings (placement) 0 September 1979

I

First two EPPC meetings (I ‘ June 1979

 

Parents visit alternative programs

Psychological evaluation began 4“January 1979

Parents visit alternative programs

Parent requests psychological IPOctober 1978
evaluation

Child enrolled in nursery school - September 1978

 

Parent contacts Model Project " August 1978

Time Line of Study

Figure VII

65

meeting (see Appendix II) evidence the problems in communica-
tion that-ocpured thrOughout the year. Contributing to.
Jamie's parents' feelings of frustration and helplessness
was the fact that they were simply outnumbered by a whole.
array of public school personnel (See listing of those
present-Appendix II). As both researcher and case
facilitator with the Model Project, I was asked
to be present at the meeting by the parents. They had also
asked that one of the nursery school teachers be present.
However, although allowed to present' brief recommendations
(See Appendix III), participants invited by the parents were
asked to direct questions through them (Field Notes,
6-8-79). This effectively minimized the contributions which
could be made on their behalf and probably had a profound
impact on decisions made.

It should be noted here that for purposes of bringing
this study to some closure, I left the field
after the June 8 EPPC meeting. However as case facilitator
I' attended several more meetings with Jamie's
parents and the public school personnel before a tentative
placement decision was finally made--a compromise reflecting
only partially the wishes of Jamie's parents, and possibly
meeting very few of Jamie's needs.

There appeared to be a conflict of interests and mis-

communication between the parents and public school system

66

throughout the course of this study. Having encountered

this kind of situation previously, I set out to discover

more about this problem, 'Could it have been an oversight

on the part of the public school or was it more intentional
than one would wish? Did the personnel involved, especially
Ms. 2., even know what their own rights and responsibilities
were? Did Ms. Z. act on her own free will or was she
heavily influenced by her superiors? The public school
teacher (Ms. Z.) is only a small part of the entire system
affecting the child. She is directly responsible to the
Local School District and the Intermediate School District
administrators and works directly with ISD ancillary person-
nel such as the psychologist. Is it any wonder that MS. 2.
would wish to speak highly of such close cohorts? Was she
covering up the psychologist's inadequacies in dealing With
this case because of their common allegience to the public
school, leaving the parent and child out on a limb with no
recourse?

In conclusion, it needs to be stated that there remain
many unsolved mysteries related to the implementation of
P1 94-142 and its impact on the family ecosystem of this
young handicapped child. It is hoped, however, that the is—
sues touched on here will be considered worthy of consider-
ation and evaluation by personnel involved in providing

educational services to any child with special needs.

67

The apparent conflict of interests between the parents
and public school personnel surely stems in part from in—
adequate funding as well as inappropriate training. And
although harmful effects of the interactions (or lack there-
of) between the same systems were surely unintended, elim-
ination of this negative impact is in order. Attitudes
need to be changed and rights and responsibilities further

understood.

CHAPTER V

IMPLICATIONS

Introduction

 

This work should be perceived as an exploratory study
giving insights, discovering new relationships and
suggesting hypothesis to be further tested. Special
educators are ordinary mortals, different from other people
only in their profession. Thus we must try to understand
the feelings as well as the set-backs and gains evoked by
this new law. However, being restricted here to words on a
page has made that task very difficult. Communicating in a
linear fashion--making points in paragraphs, one after
another--does not lend itself well to a discussion of
feelings involved.

Having expected to uncover the family as a powerful
transformation system, reporting to the contrary is
somewhat difficult and dissappointing. However, conflicts
noted between family and school are not surprising, in spite
of PL 94-142. The family is an intimate primary system
where children are treated as very special people; the
school is a functional secondary system in which children

are treated as members of categories. This will always be

68

69

so. Tensions between these two systems are part of the
competition of our society. Who knows best what is best for
the child?

It does become critical to distinquish between creative
conflict and negative discontinuity. Tension becomes
dysfunctional when it is rooted in a power struggle.
Creative conflict can only exist when there is a balance of

power between families and schools.

Problem Issues

 

Albert Shanker, in an article entitled "Problems and
Prospects of PL 94-142," says that ”promising help without
providing the reSources to make it possible is the cruelest
kind of hoax." (Shanker, 1980, P. 28) We can see the truth
in this statement when considering the frustration
experienced by the parents in this study.

In the same publication, Charles Davis points out that
PL 94-142 does not specifically define an appropriate
education for the handicapped child. Rather, it merely
provides an operational definition, one which describes the
process of arriving at an appropriate education. The intent
of the process is to prevent both discrimination and
exclusion. Davis states that "a child is functionally
excluded if not given the special services needed to allow
him to benefit from an education." (Davis, 1980, P. 6) The
problem seems to be that parents, teachers, administrators

and children may go throngh the process only to end up with

70

a placement apparently designed to meet the needs of the
school district, not the needs of the child. Parents may be
misinformed regarding the reasons their child -did not
qualify for certain programs. Other children are simply
denied a program altogether, unless parents have the
patience to pursue due process procedures.

As we try to decipher the total impact of PL 94-142
from this in-depth study, it becomes apparent that many of
the factors mentioned only briefly in Chapter I, page 2,
indeed affected the outcome of this case. Standing back
from the enactment of PL 94-142 within the ecosystem we
'hear' echoes from the participants which give us clues to
the factors affecting implementation of this law.

We can look at the total picture as portrayed by the
Ecosystem Representation (See Figure VI) and see that the
child must remain the central focus of all other system
interactions.

It is not surprising that participants from separate
systems find communication, much less, cooperation difficult
in light of their distinctness within the ecosystem
framework. The public school, for example, really has no
reason to interact with the private nursery school. Each
stand alone in their own separate entity. It is only when
the child, who participates in both settings, carries with
her, from one system to the other, needs which could be

cooperatively met that the separate systems need to

communicate.

71

Then where do the parents of this child fit into the
total picture? Are they not, in essence, a part of each
system the child participates in by their very relationship
to the child? It was not until enactment of this law that
parents were required to be recognized as contributing
members in the decision-making process. Is it any wonder
then that the educators have trouble accepting the parents
as 'professionals' in their own right. After all, they have
been educated and have gained important experience such that
they should certainly know what is best for the child.
Should it make no difference that parents live with and
learn from the child what is best twenty-four hours ‘each
day?

Or could the root of the ‘problem truly lie in the
insufficient and inappropriately trained educational staff
provided by the public school system? Not only does there
seem to be an inability to develop appropriate
Individualized Educational Programs for the child with
special needs, the diagnostic and evaluative procedures
leave much to be desired.

PoSsibly it all really comes down to inadequate funding
and consequent administrative agility in avoiding the issue.
This study is a case in point.

Although Jamie had been tested by a neurologist and was
found to be aphasic, it was of no consequence because the
public school officials chose to ignore this information.

In spite of persistent efforts made by Jamie's parents to

72

take this into consideration, it was consistently put aside.
In discussing aphasic students, Karen DePauw notes "they
need a special program to enhance their integrative
abilities, to facilitate neurological development, to
improve motor development and to ameliorate perceptual
deficit.” (DePauw, 1978). The school system of this child
did not have such a program available and had no intention
of creating one due to budgetary constraints, and additional
administrative responsibility.

Sam Clements states that, "the schools, despite PL
94-142 will continue to fail to meet the needs of...learning
disabled children. 'Least Restrictive Environment' has
turned out to be what is least restrictive to school
budgets." (Clements, 1980, p. 361).

Specific Problem Issues E: Service 39 Preschool Handicapped
Children

 

 

 

1. There is a great need for an availability of
service alternatives to preschool handicapped
children as their needs differ. Placement in
the least restrictive environment (LRE) as
mandated by PL 94-142 may include integrated
preschool settings as well as home/center

'base programs and/or self contained special
education classrooms.

2. with respect to eligibility, programming, and
funding some type of 'labeling' of children

remains a necessity. However, a

73

non-categorical approach needs consideration,
especially for the young child with special
needs.

Despite explicit guildelines provided by the
law (PL 94-142), there is much question and/or
hesitancy in taking the responsibility of
providing services to preschool handicapped
children. It is given low priority by many
legislators and educators alike.

At this early age, it is extremely important
that aspects of prevention are considered with
respect to the 'at risk' preschool handicapped
child.

Certification and training of all preschool
educators needs to be implemented with
emphasis on skills in working with families
and handicapped children.

The preschool handicapped population needs
representation within the State Departments of
Education to serve as spokespersons in
coordination of efforts to create and improve

services.

Conclusion

 

Although Congress authorized substantial allotments for

the implementation of PL 94-142, it never appropriated all

the dollars.

The federal government is to assist schools by

74

providing the difference in cost between a regular education
and Special education programs. However, there will never
be enough money left over to aid the handicapped. Schools
can only fund special education programs by shifting their
priorities. Any child's development should not be impeded
by budgetary constraints, as quite probably happened in the
case of Jamie due to what this author feels was an
inappropriate educational plan.

No law is perfect. However, the important thing to
remember is that opportunities for young handicapped
children are now available that never existed before and
parents must know how to seize them. The recognition of
that role, and the rights of parents of young handicapped
children is one of the most significant changes brought
about by PL 94-142. There is no longer any legitimate
debate about whether parents should participate in planning
and monitoring their child's educational program. Every
step along the way from the time a child's special need is
first suspected, a parent's right to take action is now
protected by law.

PL 94-142 leaves much open to interpretation regarding
the preschool child. We will have to see what transpires in

the next few years with respect to allocation of funds.

Addressing the complex issues related to the provision of
appropriate early childhood programs will take time.
Mainstreaming, labeling, teacher training with child

development as a theoretical base, the nature and extent of

75

parent involvement and the roles of other disciplines all
have special meaning when applied at the preschool level.
The greatest challenge lies in reorganizing the
consciousness of public School personnel and legislators in
this regard.

Our goal should be to develop a unified approach to
teaching young children. Separate divisions evoking 'turf
protecting' work against any child's total program.

Lilian Katz suggested in a presentation at the
University of Illinois in 1970 regarding early childhood
education, there is still much to be done. This holds true
today. Let us not defend our failures, nor drain our energy
by placing blame (otherwise known as a 'Blame Drain').
Let's do our jobs well and reach out for an alliance with
those who work on other aspects of the total context of
education, remembering at all times to keep our eyes on the
children.

Albert Shanker says that "only one viable course
remains. School boards, administrators, teachers and parents
cooperatively must document those things under the law that
they have been able to do using available resources and
those they have not been able to accomplish. This evidence
will need to be placed before Congress with the request that

it either provide sufficient funds to close the gap. or

change the law.

76

Edwin W. Martin, Director of the Bureau of Education

for the Handicapped in 1978 had this to say regarding PL
94r142:

... there is no bill passed by the Congress

that is not amended somewhere along the line and,

in many instances, improved... I think we are

realistic enough, and the Congress is certainly

realistic enough, to understand that everything

will not happen in ideal circumstances, with 100

percent effectiveness all the time."

Patience and persistence on the part of parents will
pay off. Although in this case it appeared to be a losing
battle, we should not overlook the hidden positive points
resulting from the struggle, i.e. better programming for
the child, more involvement of the entire family, and
increased awareness on the part of school personnel of the
needs of the child and the rights of the parents. Efforts
like this collaboration between parents and professionals

can change old attitudes so that we can move ahead toward an

appropriate education for all handicapped children.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX I

-MOdel Project
(excerpt from Program Narrative, October, 1978)

The successful integration of young handicapped
children requires the participation and cooperation of many
different individuals. For many involved, this is a new and
unknown experience, requiring contact with members of the
community outside of familiar systems of contact. As a

support systemhthis PrdjeCtanticipates and responds to the

needs of key groups of individuals: children, their
parents, their teachers and participating agencies.
Together, these people comprise an "ecosystem" which

surrounds the individual integrated child. (See Figure II).
The support services offered to these different groups are
based on fundamental observations of what individuals need
in order to become involved in change and development. Much
consideration has been given to the expectations that people
bring to participation in a social or educational
innovation. We have observed that:
-Most individuals have initial concerns when faced with
a new experience. They may feel less competent,
threatened or worried that they stand to lose
services, status or power.
-Each person is unique and has individual needs,

concerns and abilities. Each person has his/her own

77

78

way of learning, receiving information and using

resources 0

‘

-When individuals are offered alternatives and choices,
and are encouraged to define their own needs, they are
able to be active participants in a process, and
better able to generate and implement their own
solutions.

-Transitions are a challenge to most individuals and it
is often during these times that most services will be
needed.

-Willingness to participate in a new experience is
highly important for success. Individuals who
voluntarily elect to participate by self-selection
will be more likely to. become partners in the
process.

-Ongoing services which are periodically reassessed for
effectiveness must follow the initial, transitional
services.

-Ongoing communication amongst participants is
extremely valuable and must be encouraged.*

-All people need recognition and positive acclaim for
their accomplishments. All people need feedback from
others in order to develop and adapt.

An understanding of these complex needs forms the basis

of the Support/Facilitation component of theMOdel Project-
We have found that when individuals feel that their needs

and abilities are considered and respected, they are better

79

able to work towards a common goal of providing the most
appropriate early educational experiences for young
handicapped children.

As a technical assistance modelxhis Project provides
supportive services in order to implement the carefully
negotiated placement of an individual handicapped child.
These services have two primary functions: they are
supportive of the individual irecipient and they are
facilitative of further growth and developemntlhe Projects
services to children, teachers, parents and agencies are.
supportive; helping to provide a needed security while
developing new competencies and while coping with ongoing
responsibilities. As each individual has unique needs,
support services vary according to those needs. The
combined effect is to create a positive climate for the.
introduction of children with diverse needs and abilities.

This Model’ also serves a. facilitating role by exposing
individuals to a range of alternatives and by being aware of
the total picture surrounding a child's involvement in an
early childhood program. This role of coordination is aimed
at increasing participants' abilities to identify and
utilize resources on their own.

In providing support to the various persons involved
with the integrated handicapped child,the Project actively
initiates services as well as responding to needs as they
arise. Attempting to anticipate the needs and concerns of

participants and plan services and adaptations to prevent

80

problems, response is made to needs at two levels of
awareness: the stated needs of participants which are
apparent ("My child needs transportation," "I will need
another aide in the classroom during lunchtime") and the
perceived needs (Teacher A has not oriented her whole staff
to the goals for Johnnie; the Local School District needs to
be filled in on Sally's current new growth in nursery
school). Identifying needs in the total system surrounding
the child is one of the coordinating functions thatthe Project
serves.

Pre-school aged handicapped children often have complex
needs, not all of which can be addressed within the
integrated classroom without additional services. These
additional or adjunct services play a significant role in
the development of the young handicapped child and his/her
family. Often, the special child is involved with numerous
other agencies. These agencies include physicians,
therapists, special educators, and school district
personnel.The Project is concerned with the integrated
special child's ecosystem and iwith assisting parents in
negotiating with other services. Therefore;he Project works
towards establishing. cooperative relationships with other
agencies. This thrust of coordination with other agencies
is a vital and productive aspect of the Support/Facilitation
process. The primary function is to share information about
a particular child so that there is greater correspondence,

consistency of goals and methods and understanding between

81

the different professionals with which the child and family
participate.The Model fosters a "whole child" approach by
reaffirming that ,the child has multiple needs and
abilities. -

Another reason the Projectcoordinates so readily with
other agencies is to encourage communication between
different disciplines that have formerly been segregated.
By initiating and responding to agency concernS,Project staff
develops trust and a kind of cross pollination of ideas. In
efforts to increase available developmental alternatives for
young handicapped children, Project staff works towards
supporting and expanding a community network of existing
services. Working cooperatively with other agenciesis a
form of dissemination, exposing more professionals in other
fields to the goals, methods and program results relating to

integrated young handicapped children.

APPENDIX II

APPENDIX II

FIELD NOTES

(Anecdotal Records—Interviews, Meetings, Discussions,
Perceptions, Notes)

CHILD-J.T.

RECORDER-A.R.

DATE-9/18/78

SETTING-NURSERY SCHOOL J-(1st day without Mom in class)

 

TIME EVENTS COMMENTS
2:30-3:30 Seemed happy upon arrival
— smiling
Followed directions to
take book and sit on
carpet square
Got up several times for
new book—had to be asked
to put others away
Started tugging at and Reaching out to other
asking other child to child immediately
tell her 'what's that' Other child just looked

Listened to
eyes wandered

teacher but

Imitated my posture -
hands folded (washing
hands - pretended)
Watched others disperse
for free play

Imitated teachers and
helped pick up carpet
squares - put down in
piles

Went to playdough after
suggestion — hesitantly
rolled, pounded, poked,
made 'cookies' — held
up hands "not on"
smiling

Sprayed water when
washing hands

 

82

at her amazed

Used many phrases

Stayed there all of free
play

Good conceptual under-
standing

Impatient for turn - made
baby noises — for
attention?

 

CHILD-J c To

TIME

EVENTS

FIELD NOTES

(Anecdotal Records- Interviews, Meetings, Discussions,

Perceptions, Notes)

RECORDER-A.R.
SETTING-NURSERY SCHOOL J-(1st day without Mom in class)

DATE-9/18/78 (cont'd)

COMMENTS

 

 

Spille

and laughed

Knew other

like
it

d juice at snack

hers

child's bag
- grabbed for

83

Embarrassed?

Matching concept

 

CHILD-J.T.

FIELD NOTES

(Anecdotal Records-Interviews, Meetings, Discussions,

Perceptions, Notes)

RECORDER-A.R.

SETTING-NURSERY SCHOOL

TIME

EVENTS

DATE-9/22/78

COMMENTS

 

1:00

 

Spent much time in hall,
excited about flowers on
other bags - pointing
naming, jumping knocked
other child's coat off
hook, hung up when asked,
took her coat off and
hung

Pointing to book on her
lap - J. said 'a king'
other child said 'that's
not a king'

Looked to doorway, looked
in other room and saw me
- came towards me - I
said she needed to look
at her book on carpet
square but I couldn't
cause I had work to do.

Went to middle
near three girls

of kids

Book
asking
etc.

looked with them
'what's that'

J. last to put books back
on shelf - all four

T. telling
table-sat
N.

about water
next to Mrs.

Sat quietly and
attentively thru large
group

Went near water table -
pulled sleeves up - stood
and waited till teacher
said O.K.

84

 

Lots of energy to burn

Needed much prompting

Other child
little disgusted

seemed a

Looking for me?

Not on square — wanted to
be friendly

Others
wished

responded as J.

Short group time today

FIELD NOTES

(Anecdotal Records-Interviews, Meetings, Discussions,
Perceptions, Notes)

CHILD-J.T.

RECORDER-A.R.

SETTING-NURSERY SCHOOL

DATE-9/22/78 (cont'd)

 

TIME EVENTS‘ ""““"‘ ... "COMMENTS"““ ...... A.
Asked what I was doing - Remembered
said 'just watching'
Tried to talk with other Other child said 'don't
child - splashed some out splash' and just looked
- wanted to drink and at her funny - confused
asked to T. said 'not to drink'
1:45 Asked for towel to dry T. helped
hands
Went to small table to T. brought in climber -
punch paper noisy
Went to T. and pointed to T. said "Amy's going
slide and Amy and said down" other child said
"Amy?" ' "she put wet hands on
her" T. said 'her name is
J.’
Wanted T. to come help
her on slide said 'come T. said I like the way
on' you said 'come on'
Climbed up but did not go‘
down slide
Climbed down steps andeas same slide at public
nearly ran to get puppets.School
- brought them to T. J
2:00 T. not looking and J. T. saw J. come down and
went up steps and down said 'good work'
slide with puppets 4
Other child waiting onflT. seems to like this
steps - J. gave her a other child
puppet 1
2:05 Standing by. T. saw Mrs.‘

N. in yellow room - asked
T. (pointed) if she could
go - yes 'but leave
puppets'

 

85

4

4
(

 

CHILD-Jo To

FIELD NOTES

(Anecdotal Records—Interviews, Meetings, Discussions,

Perceptions, Notes)

RECORDER—A.R.

SETTING-NURSERY SCHOOL

DATE-9/22/78 (cont'd)

 

TIME EVENTS COMMENTS
Went directly to Mrs. N. Followed directions
after putting puppets in
basket
Picked up Teddy bear and
mouse
2:10 Playing dress up with Parallel play with three

 

prompting from Mrs. N. -
began to pretend washing
dishes - looked around
pointed at other child's
name tag

86

 

other children

Put on necklaces, etc.
for Mrs.N.'s approval?

T. interested in other's
names

FIELD NOTES

(Anecdotal Records—Interviews, Meetings, Discussions,
Perceptions, Notes)

CHILD-J. To

RECORDER-A.R.

SETTING-HOME

TIME

DATE-10/06/78

 

EVENTS ............. ...... COMMENTS““““"““
10:00 am J. smiled andgheld Mom‘s For Ifi'security-has
hand as I came in the encountered many
door - then pointed to strangers
her book shelf then to
the couch and said
clearly "sit down." 1Mom seemed very pleased
Mom put on tape and we"
said she could listen to
it and play while we
talked in kitchen - short J. was quite quiet and
tantrum - began playing played appropriately
alone talking to self
(sometimes loudly) for
Showed me bathroom attention?
upstairs then waited by
door with ,things from
room to show me, named Very proud of her room!
rabbit, baby, bear,
shoes, bed, etc.
12:00 Dad came home just after
noon J. dumped stringing beads Had bead -

and clung to him whining
- said bye to me.

 

(See also interview notes from this

87

strung a
joined us at table
I stayed too long for J.

 

home visit)

INTERVIEW
By Phone with Ms. Z.
August 31, 1978
Will have Friday's for meetings-"ideal"

“she's going to be a real challenge.”

"borderline trainable"

have had her for two years-tactile defensive (had to force

her to paste)

"Jamie drives Mom crazy."

She was at day care two years ago-all she did was scream
Has made language gains

Large group may be a problem

"Really a strange child"

Had been considered autistic

Many emotional problems

Very moody

In morning group-only four children

Wouldn't mind us (Mrs. N and myself) coming to observe
Just not Wed.—1st day

Not structured yet.

Beginning of day best-begin at 8:30-9:00—Aide there also
Ms. 2. can maybe talk with us.

J. likes book sharing most

Stares off into space

Went through Central Diagnostic two years ago

Jamie is scheduled for testing this fall

ISD-Psychologist-real good with young children

88

50

by

89

"Sometimes Mom confuses things"

"Gets into things (J. Mother) and thinks they'll be a
cure-all."

Just past labeling stage

Hard for her to process things

"I don't think there's any doubt that its neurogical"

Next year I see her going to the educable room next door or
developmental center

Greatest gains have been in communication and
social-emotional.

Wrote a report up for Ann Arbor that I might want

"Mom says she can do things-but getting her to do them is
different"

Ms. 2. has profile for me to look at

Don't need release

Will give me report or psychologist's evaluation after

completed, also.

Visit with Mrs. N. to public school Classroom September 7,

1978

Jamie really getting along with only one other child (D.)
there.

Nice to D. shared, kissed, took turns

Mrs. N. wants extra person-J. will need to sit next to
teacher at group

J. listened to and followed verbal directions.

Ms. Z. says J. can sort and match colors, but often won't
Ms. 2. says J. good at fine motor, but not coloring

Ms. Z.-J. likes puzzles

Gets frustrated, excited and sort of shakes, kind of spacy
sometimes (ignores)

T. "do you want to..." J. "yep"

good at clean up

90

Teacher's Perceptions of Child's lst Visit to Nursery
School

September 11, 1978

Mom real nervous

J. took to Mrs. N. right away.

Mrs.N. was able to interpret J.'s words

J. did not want to leave

Went to puppets and books

Involved for at least 20 minutes

Mrs. M. asked about food alergies-none

except doesn't drink milk at home but OK to drink at school
Mom would like to know menu-Mrs.. M. planing this in
newsletter

Mom asked for conference time with teachers (daily)

Mrs. M. said whoever is at the door at pickup time will
confer

(happy I would be there next time)

Mrs.M. feels Mom won't always need this (daily conference)
Felt as if Mom left happy

Gave Mrs. T. an opportunity to shine

Assertive, confident yet cautious

Mrs. M. really thinks our conferences should be without J.
esp. keep negative comments away from her hearing

example: "she cannot pour"

Allow J. to hear_positive comments

91

92

Mrs. N. was uneasy at public school

Mrs. N. asked about shortened time at nursery school if
necessary.

Mrs.T. thought that would be OK due to simple fatigue

factor

 

Notes from phone call with Mom October 5, 1978

Mom feels 'in a quandry' over Public School

"Just to see Jamie be able to walk in line with other kids
was exciting."

Starting to pick out letters (a couple)

Counting?

Mom thinks she knows colors

Picked out balls and squares

Ms. 2. said she's more resistent now

Mom says J. loves owls "that's an early word"

J has come to a point where she'll learn more

Really seems to enjoy both schools not too much for her
Cranky at 11:00—hungry

Mom sits with her reading books

Not happy when Dad took her-wanted Mommy

Not as independent at home as during summer (same every
fall)

Wants to talk about labeling

93

Discussion with Mrs. T. (pre-arranged home visit~met Mr. T.

briefly, too) October 6, 1978

Had expresssed desire on phone to discuss feelings
concerning proposed change in label from Speech and Language
to EMI as requested by school (relayed through Sharon by
phone) also proposing EMI full day class for next year.

Mom visiting that program Monday

Feels uncomfortable talking with Ms. Z. as feels like she's
lieing (misunderstood).

Example-Jamie strung beads at home, yet if Mrs. T. tells Ms.
Z. feels like she won't believe it.

Thinks J. is bored at Public School-wasting time (3rd year
in same room) same teacher-feels it would not be much
different in older room (more advanced afternoon group)

Not happy with psychologist (who she has never met) and is
tired of‘hearing how busy he is.

Ms. Z. says EPPC will be held after psychological
evaluation.

I encouraged her to insist that the process be started
now-said I can participate

She was extremely glad just to share frustrations and

receive my support.

94

Discussion/Interview with Mrs. T. October 25, 1978

1:30-3:30 p.m.

Observed J. in classroom (see field notes)

Told her I had done some checking into concrete steps to
take now and possible alternatives for J. in the near
future.

Asked if she was still feeling the same about the problems
in the public school (as discussed October 6, and again
October 18) and if she'd be interested in following through
on her 'rights' as a parent to be sure J. received the best

services possible (influenced)

She said that she "had always thought she could trust the

school"

95

Meeting with Mrs. T. November 3, 1978

She had called local school district Special Education
director.

Impressed that he was honest and said he didn't know
anything about Jamie-He said principals know more.

He said there was no need for her to visit other programs
until. after psychological evaluation—Mrs. T. disagrees (my
influence?) said she's putting cart before horse.

Father not being very understanding now—too busy
Mother—in-law thinks Mrs. T. crazy to spend so much time
being concerned about school (traditional view)

Sisters kids and sisters. had influence early (experience
with special education programs)

Very excited/pleased about my study—wants to help others

avoid problems.

96

Intrepretation Notes

Ms. Z. mentioned that if the proposed tax cut (econ) goes
into effect (political) then special education funds will be
cut (values—ed.). I thought this to be interesting
insight-she is concerned (at least about her paycheckl).

My intrepretation (as researcher not entirely disjointed
from my agency participation) of the feelings expressed at
the meeting this morning includes confirmation of the
defensive/possesive position taken by the special education
teacher as representative of the public school system. It
has become apparent to me that I must investigate that
system further and include the speech therapist and

psychologist as informants as recommended by the Ms. Z.

97

SCHEDULED TEACHER ' S MEETINGS
Meeting with Ms. Z. and Mrs. N. Friday, 10-13-78

Mrs. N. says I should check about re-evaluation of hearing

at MSU but Ms. Z. says its within normal limits.
Both agree they should work on fine motor skills, J. likes
it and is good at some tasks.--cutting is an example. Jamie

has strength in her hands, though previously doubted.

Ms. Z. says Jamie should do snipping once per week but Mrs.

N. doubted that was enough.
Discussed physical constraint-Ms. 2. doesn't think its a
problem "has always worked for me. ' Mrs. N. noted J.'s

negative reaction.

Questioned J.'s foot wedging under others-started before and

continues at group-time testing, seeking limits.
Both see days where J. is real spacy? (if tired)

Discussed abstract concepts-sorting colors, etc., neither

sure about J.'s understanding.

98

99

Both agree she is getting spatial concepts-on, under, in.
Mrs. N. thinks J. is still at concrete object level. Ms. 2.

says she sees use of pictures as vehicle for teaching

SCHEDULED TEACHER'S MEETINGS
Meeting with Ms. 2., Mrs. M., Mrs.N. (entry) 11-03-78
Discussed my study-asked if o.k.-all showed interest

Ms. 2. says in six years of teaching special education she

would never call J. typical. Jamie has unique
problems/unique situation. Mrs. Z. says include speech
therapist and psychologist in study. Has respect for

parents as they have done much for J. Says SES level not

typical-parents more concerned knowledgable/interested.

Shared information:
Father calls her 'Jo Jo'
Squeezes glue bottle
Counting 1-1

Other child and J. put pegs in lite and brite together

Other child said 'come on over and sit with me' J.

responded appropriately, 'kissed her bye, also--attempts at

social interaction.

Other children still a little fearful of J. pinching and

pushing. J. pats after pinches (trying to be social)

100

101

Ms. Z. does feel comfortable with forcefull approach
although Mom expressed concern. Told her about Mom's
concerns about label, psychologist, EMI,, S. said she ought

to see Special Education Director

Discussed:

CDT-Central diagnostic Team

EL ED at Red Cedar School, Ms. 2. did practicum there

Look into developmental history

Call and meet, CDT

Ms. Z. has lots of respect for Mr. K (Psychologist) (IISD)
Could psychologist who called Mrs. T. have been different.
Will observe in classroom 1st, he may include other
evaluators

Mrs. Z. notes J. likes men

I will ask Mr. K if he could observe at nursery school as

part of evaluation.

I should always call 1st to observe in Ms. Z's room.

102

Ms. 2. expressed concern that I am intervening in special
education process. Says 'let it happen 1st.‘ I tried to

explain that I'm simply trying to share all information with

Mrs. T.

(Ms. Z. seemed fearful of any intervention-could she be

concerned about my revealing her inadequacies?)

PARENT INTERVIEW
May, 1979

1. What were some school arrangements, teacher practices,
teacher characteristics, etc., that parents liked?

Masterful tester, good listener, not feeling pressured,
tangible goal.

2. What were things that the parent did not like?

—Lack of communication between professionals

-Must tell child's story over and over _
-Lack of respect and compassion for parents knowledge of child
(imply that parents too emotionally involved)

-Put on the defensive by many professionals

-Written reports and testing given too much credit (may not be
current but still used for decision making)

-Most professionals encountered were not good testers or good
listeners.

-Always seem to go through about six people before getting
anything done

-Feel kept in the dark re: their rights

-Some professionals act defensive when parents ask questions
(don't want ripples thus graze over much)

-No flexibility

-Too much front office, not enough time with knowledgeable
professionals (inaccessible)

-Labels misused

-As teacher disagrees with and disbelieves what parent says,
feels if they speak up it may only harm child more

3. What suggestions does the parent have for improving
home-school relationships? What should teachers do, or
remember?

—Found they get a better response when both parents deal with
professionals

-Professionals need not feel defensive or threatened by
parents—should just listen and work together and remember that
parents live with child and have real vested interest.
-Parents should not be kept waiting so long to see
professionals (especially with child)

~Atmosphere for testing child could be less stark

-Should be a mandatory rule that when moving into a new school
district have meeting/interview with Special Education
Director so he/she can be aware and dispense of
information—coordinate/facilitate case.

-Teachers should follow through on home visits as should
therapists on prescribed therapy sessions.

103

EDUCATIONAL PLANNING AND
PLACEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
June 8, 1979 9:00 a.m.-11:15 a.m.

Present:

J.-Psychologist ISD

Ms. Z.-teacher LS

D.-Principal LS

G.J.-Principal LS

B.-Special Education Superintendent LS
M.-Psychiatrist, Central Diagnostic Team, (CDT)
Mrs. N.-Preschool teacher
D.F.-Deve10pment Center Principal
A.-Author

Mr. & Mrs. T.-Parents

J.W.-Speech, CDT

P.-SH resource room

S.K.-Speech, LS

E.-EMI teacher

Setting: Public School Classroom

Seating:
G.J.

J. MS. Z.
E. D.
S.K. B.

P.

M.
J.W.
MR. T. MRS. N.

MRS. T.

104

105

G.J.-Goal today is to reach decision about placement-we'll
start with psychologist.

Asked that people present with parents direct questions thru
them

psych report-J. I.Q. 37-40-conclusion.-TMI

M.-Common core area-issues of mental retardation etiological
factors determined by neurological, no emotional/behavioral
problems

-Seems between severe developmental delay or language
dysfunction

-Said she understands second hand that parents visited other
programs

-Position as rep. of CDT-

dev. level more basic to her functioning than lang. delay
thus TMI vs EMI. ‘

-The fact that performance less than 1/2 chronological age
seemed most important.

Mr. T.- how do you relate neurological impairment?
-Said he's not sure what M. is saying is same as he
visualizes

M.-What you visualize as a parent is just as important as
what any of us say
-Programatic issue most important

Mr. T.-We agree

J.W.-Told all the evaluation figures .

"we in our fields for the purposes of helping children
separate cognitive dev. and lang. dev...

Mr. T.-Brought up neurological report-explained aphasia

Mrs. T.-we are able to read into her feelings better than
anyone doing testing

J.W.-cannot buy into aphasia unless other dev. areas
normal.

S.K.-J. has made growth, good attitude change at 2-1/2 year
level. March 1977, 3rd sentence, not much growth since.
Passes everything, but again "its a test," As you
mentioned. (pointing to Mrs. T.)

Mr. T.-Asked for test items in particular from S.K. You ask
classroom teacher and give credit, but what about parents.

J.-Said he gave credit for things Mrs. T. said she does.

Mr. T.—Gave throwing stone example. "J. needs to be in the
mood."

106

M.-Said "we have a variety of tests and evaluators to go on
here."

Mr. T.-"is there such a thing as a non-testable child?"

Mrs. T.4brought up 'serindipitous' (as used in psychological
report)

M.-"even constructive play is at levels"

Mrs. T.-"I believe...She is delayed but the question is
Why?

Mr. T.-"Its dangerous to label child TMI when she very well
may not be. We don't think she is.

M.-Point is the best place to place her though label is very
important.

Ms. Z.-I've seen much growth-progress has been consistent
but...uses a lot of language now, more cooperative now,
dramatic difference, seeks adult then can play, much
perservation (language and activity), toileting a
problem-supervised, 'inconsistent-doesn't like it, still
lowest functioning child Ms. Z. has, cognitive gains very
slow, shares gross motor skills (gains), pasteing.

Mr. T.-we have had...5-1/2 to 6 years experience with this
child, we know her best. There is never anything J. does
with no apparent reason, gave example of leading dog, all
behaviors triggered from not being able to express herself
or do things, takes a special ability to work with this
child.

Mrs. N.-Gave summary of nursery school involvement, many
questions from others, indicated interest.

A-read report (See Appendix III)

1st comment from B.-no developmental kindergarten

F.—But must look at program.

Mr. T.-"You are all no doubt gifted testers, neurologist
report said he "wouldn't call her retarded", "manipulation
indication of intelligence" (group acted like they were
tired of hearing Mr. T.)

Mrs. T.-asked if they had gotten neurologist report——No
M.-asked "what do they want?"

Mr. T.-said modification of Learning Disability Classroom
and Resource Room.

107

Mr. T.-Peer modeling lacking at Developmental Center for
TMI.

E.-Said she's concerned about frustration over structure.
Mrs. T.-We are too.
M.-left the room to attend another meeting

D.F.-said hope they will get modeling at home and in
community, (example roller skating, grocery store)

Mrs. T.-All they get there is long looks
G.J.-intervened-comment, defense being made, waste of time,
its time you told us where we should place her (looking at

parents).

J.W.—said "sounds like all you want is more nursery
school."-no that's not it-so tell us.

Mr. T.-said here's what we want, we do want more nursery
school if that's what you want to call it, what we're faced
with is the appropriate program needing to be created. We
have felt put on the defensive by all of you from the
beginning.

Mrs. T.-asked for comments from others

S.K.-said its not easy?

J.-limited to slots of kids so TMI best

Mr. T.-is there a similar program for special language
problems

J.W.-said its prohibited by law presently
Mrs. T.-what do you feel about Title I,B?
B.-Cognitively oriented

J.-perhaps we should look at combination of TMI program and
'mainstreaming' in EMI

D.F.-asked about negative behaviors parents saw in TMI
programs that J. could model.

Mr. & Mrs. T.-would be very upset to see J. in TMI room.
J.-says she may be frustrated in EMI-also teacher

Mr. T.-could there be an aide in EMI

108

B.—IISD would be responsible to hire an aide

A—commented on need for aide in EMI due to teaching style
G.J.-said it was an inappropriate comment

Mr. T. said A. wasn't attacking teacher

B.-Didn't rule out LS, asked parents to state needs
G.J.-asked about MSUS placement in nursery school

Mrs. N-suggested 6 months temporary placement

P.-Gave report of observing at LS, proposed TMI with one day
in day care

11:05 (G.J. moved over next to B. (discussed something
privately)

B.-proposed that we reschedule the meeting for one day next
week, will give a chance to observe and screen Title I.

G.J. and B.-will get together with IISD to discuss
possibility of aide in EMI

J.W.-said if you say no its no

B.-said we're looking at now not forever, will reevaluate
every six months

Mr. T.-asked for any other possibilities

B.-said he didn't want to answer that-will review. Said to
Mr. T.-you made significant points especially "she doesn't
do anything without reason, will call Mr. T. if he thinks of
anything, could wait until September to observe class
composition.

109

May 7, 1979

Home Management House
Campus

Dear :

We would like to express our full approval of the Project at

A5 parents 0f J. , we had the good fortune of profiting directly
from this excellent program and talented coordinator, Annette Remsburg.

Mn

N, wife and I are extremely grateful for Annette's determinatien and per-

severance, which may have come just in the nick of time.

Ja has profited immensely from the mainstream program at Nursery,
also thanks to the understanding and concern of teachers

We were fortunate enough to catch the program in its third and final
year. We heartily endorse any similar programs that may be "in the wind"--
for all of the other " J}.'s " out there.

Annette's dedication and hard work in making the program work through
should not go unnoticed——we have too often been confronted with experts at

paper shuffling in special education today. Action and help can be hard to
find.

When it comes to "sizing-up" people and their integrity,£I. is smart,
like any kid. It took me a little longer to realize the full benefit of
Annette Remsburg (and the Program), but I know it now.

"Annette" is one of the first names J. has been able to master. It is a
household name at our place—- (J.'s "hero", and ours, too.

Sincerely,

Mr. & Mrs. T.

cc: A. Remsburgl///”

APPENDIX II I

110'

A Human Support System Model
(or Integrated Handicapped
Children and their Families

June 5, 1979

14313me

10: Education Planning and Placement Committee

FREE: Annette Remsburg, CaseFacilitator, &@

RE: Recommendations

Having observed .1 periodically over the past nine months in

both the integrated nursery school environment and the segregated develop-
mental classroom, it has become apparent that she functions best with some
degree of structure in a program with firm and consistent limits yet
rejects more forceful demands. Physical assistance is often met With rage
and uncooperativeness as are verbal requests (as in the testing situation).
She has learned to be very manipulative in the segregated setting and
displays inappropriate atypical behavior more frequently there. Normal
peer models and the opportunity to explore her own feelings and abilities
in the 'safe' nursery school environment has proven beneficial. Her
parents report evidence of a much happier and well adjusted child overall.
Her vocabulary, both receptive and expressive, has improved and another
major accomplishment has been evidence of the child's improving ability to
gain inner emotional control. '

Assuming that after the necessary screening, J would be accepted for
the Developmental Kindergarten at School for 3 half days
per week, I would recommend that this be considered as part of her l.E.P.
for the 79-80 school year. In addition, placement in the DH classroom
at . , where she could also recieve occupational therapy and speed!
therapy regularly (weekly and/or daily).

This recommendation is based on the opinion that the developmental delay
this child displays is a problem of neurological disorganization and/OI
dysfunction rather than simply mental retardation. Every opportunity for
J to be with normal peers in the least restrictive environment could
be provided including music, physical education and art, as well as field
trips, asserblies, etc.

.
' 0‘ ‘l" '
.0.

...:... -ZLJ 111
0/5/79

‘lnc 7

Up ~

This arrangement may be considered temporary pending a possibly more

,accurate diagnosis of the child's major disability based on classroom
observation. Careful attention could be given to emotional overtones and/
or perceptual difficulties, with the anticipation that a classroom for
young learning disabled children may be more apprOpriate in the future.
Development of speech and language and its relationship to socio—emotional
growth could continue to be a primary goal for this child.

attached: Anecdotal Summaries
1.E.P. and revisions

cc: , parents
Project Director

112

DevelOpmental Gains

An observational adaptation of the Learning Accomplishment Profile
was administered by the nursery school classroom teachers in the fall
and Spring. Specific gains included:

Gross thor - Throws and catches ball; stands on one foot; climbs
down ladder (alternating).

 

Fine Motor - Builds tower of 9 cubes; strings 4 beads; imitates
horizontal line; paints strokes, dots and circular shapes at easel;
enjoys finger painting

Cognitive - Follows three directions; asks many questions beginning
”what," "where"; names objects by use; shows use of familiar Objects
on request; responds correctly to "Show me one finger, block, etc.";
answers correctly to “Are you a girl or boy?"; points to eyes or mouth
on request; refers to self by name; selects his toys or clothes from
others; points to and repeats names of six body parts; names or points
to self in photographs; "reads" pictures (creates a story); labels
clay products as "cake," "pie," etc.; tells action in pictures;

can obey commands using prepositions; knows day, night.

Communication — Gives first name on request; responds to walk, run,
climb without demonstration; points to ten body parts on request;

says "all gone" or "all done" apprOpriately; points to twelve familiar
objects when named; answers "what's this?” with object name; asks for
common food items when shown; names five familiar people; answers
“what's doing?" with action words; answers simple "where" questions;
names familiar environmental sounds; points to picture of common
object described by use; tries to tell about immediate experiences;
able to use gestures appropriately; reacts through vocalizations to
pleasant or unpleasant experiences; combines words used as whole
sentence; adds descriptors to nouns; combines noun and verb; refers
to self using pronoun but may confuse "I" and "me"; imitates words.

Self-help - Pours from pitcher; can carry breakable objects; puts
on coat, etc. unassisted.

113

DATE: June 13, 1979

T03 LSD Special Education Director
LS Principal

RE: J,

FRmk Mr. and Mrs. T.

Attached is a statement of our analysis and convictions regarding educational
progrannfing for our daughter, J-

Ne respectfully ask that you carefully consider this in arriving at an
equitable recommendation for her placement.

 

114

All who are concerned with the "best interests” of Jolie would agree,
it seems clear to us, that the best program for her today is the
School EMI room, combined with the Title I kindergarten at

Part of the dilemma of the first EPPC meeting was that we had been given
the choice between nothing and something thatvmuldn'tvmrk. The TMI program

at is beyond consideration. The EMI room in Haslett is not oriented
to meet J . '5 needs. In fact, the committee seemed to be in agreement
that J would not fit in there, because it is "paper and penc1l" academ-

ically structured. And, we agree.

Even the addition of an aide and teaching tools (noticeably absent when we
have ovserved there) would not change the program, we feel. The intent
would remain basically the same. And, we don't want our daughter to suffer
further setbacks--when a tailor-made, proven program already exists (closer
to home than the one you proposed!)

The program, which involves heavy emphasis on teaching methods that
stimulate all senses (sensory integration), is exactly what the doctor
ordered (see correspondence already submitted.)

Just as all people are not alike, neither are all EMI programs. The people
we have invited today can help further elucidate the differences in teaching
approaches and their effects on a very unique child, like J ..

Our "numbers" are not meant to intimidate you, but convince you. The people
we have invited today have trustable, valuable input to offer. 0n.this pornt.
we would like to lodge an informal complaint with the manner in which one of
our resource persons was quieted at the first EPPC meeting, 6/8/79. _Annette
Remsburg, a key facilitator and creditable educator involved deep]! I" mUCh
of J '5 recent tremendous gains, was speaking on behalf of the Chlld when
she tried to tell how the _ EMI program would not work. We expect she
will be heard today.

We are reasonable and fair parents-—but not dumb parents. we will resist
being trampled by the very institutions and agencres that serve us back our
tax dollars.

115

We know J - needs special help. we don't diSpute the fact that J is
functioning well behind her age. How much behind is open for debate. More
important, however: flhy_is she so far behind? Could it be a multiplex of
handicaps, so intricately woven that her earlier gross and fine motor probleMS.
her previous emotional limitations and always a stubborn, strong willed
disposition have blocked growth? we have contended that these problems have
made J very difficult to test, and until recently, often "unteachable" or
perhaps betteg,"unreachable."

Directly and indirectly, J '5 teachers at have said the same things.

Finally we submit: has J '5 failure to grow in the Developmental
Room been primarily her failure or that of the program?

116

A Human buppori Syslem Model
for lnlegraled Handicapped
Children and their Families

AUTHOR] ZATION TO OBTAIN lNPORlMTICN

1: ”PS. /— - - , hereby give my consent to

(name of parent or guardian)

A/fl/Wé ENSEMC of the PATHWAYS Project to obtain information

(name of staff member)

 

.——§

regarding my son or daughter,

 

(child‘s name)

from

 

 

(name of person—lagency releasing inTormation)

 

 

 

Signaturgfof Parent or Guaflian

777:3 C7303

Relationship to Child

/a- 6- 7? Hi.

—Date

 

APPENDIX IV

APPENDIX IV

Annotated Bibliography

Overall Implementation Factors
Introduction to Issues
Though specifics of the major provisions presented in
this annotated bibliography appear to be making possible as
well as preventing smooth implementation of PL 94-142, some
overall factors are certainly relevant also. Articles
selected and annotated for this first section together focus

on some of the problem areas as well as possibilities for

change and trends for the future.

Pechter, Steven E., "Exceptional Law or Law With
Exceptions?“ Amicus, March/April 1979, pp 68-73,
(Vol. 4 #2). '

Calling PL 94-142 a "revolutionary law,"
Pechter presents two conflicting interests of
those who initiated the law and those who must now
implement it. He says "institutions respond
slowly to change and the promises of PL 94-142
will be fulfilled only through persistent efforts.
He presents four major categories of obstacles to
parents trying to obtain legally mandated services
for their handicapped children.

1. fitting children into existing slots,
forcing them to meet schools needs due to
budgetary restraints

2. role of special education changing from
"dumping ground"

3. principals are ignorant of placement
process, feel threatened

4. more concerned with 'paper compliance' than
meeting demands made by concerned parents

Pechter states that "the availability of
services remains the single most important rule of
thumb in deciding how to educate exceptional
children." He says 'the ideal process of

117

 

118

assessment, planning and then placement never
follows such a neat, clean progression. Quoting
one school psychologist ”Assessments are conducted
to qualify a child for special education,...not to
develop a complete understanding of that child's
needs.” He also points out another problem in
that ”funding is based on labeling (thus) the
school's incentive lies in labeling as many
children as possible at minimal expense--using
available services. The human dynamics of
placement meetings are crucial, too. He says that
despite the new law, parents still feel that
antagonizing school . officials will cause
retaliation against their children. Above all it
must soon be recognized that cooperation is the
key.

"Clarification of Final Regulations to Public Law 94-142,"
Amicus, Jan/Feb. 1978, pp. 8-11.

Individual Education Program:
-statement of specific Special education and
related services provided and extent to which
child will participate in regular education
-member of evaluating team to be present
-advance notice to parents
-copy on request
-in effect before services provided
-not accountable for projected growth

Procedural Safeguards:
-parent must be fully informed of all relevant
information before evaluation
-upon request, be given information on
individual evaluation
-when a due process hearing initiated, parent
must be given information on free or low cost
legal services
-list of hearing officers maintained
-new evidence revealed five days prior to
hearing .
-parents can open hearing to public
-parents can bring child
-oral or written arguments or both
-additional evidence sought
-after hearing request, must be held and
decision made within 45 days (extended upon
request-by whom?)
-written copy of hearing and review decisions
mailed to each party

119

Evaluation:
-at least one teacher or specialist in area of

suspected disability must be part of evaluation
team

Least Restrictive Environment: .
-must be placed as close as possible to home
-must be able to part with non-hand, in
nonacademic and extra curricular 'as much as
possible' -

Parent Involvement
-parents have access to all records prior to
any meeting (includng hearing)
-can demand that 'personally identifiable'
records be destroyed 'if no longer necessary'

Bohrer, Terezie 8., Louise Breedon, and Richard J. Weikart,
"David v. Goliath,” Amicus, March/April 1979,
pp. 82-85, (Vol. 4, No. 2)

This is an article about the role of lay
advocates in efforts to bring about changes in
attitudes and legal mandates affecting education

of handicapped children. It discusses, the
powerful impact of group or 'class' advocacy and,
more extensively, the difficult tasks of

individual advocates who are often "thwarted by
the system."

Defining and. advocacy as "the act of speaking
or writing in support of something: the advocate
is a person, who pleads another's case. The 'lay'
advocate is any person fulfilling this function
who is not an attorney. It notes that thousands
of persons fit this category presently.

Pointing out that although 'class' advocacy
played ‘a significant role in the passage of
PL—94-142, laws do not enforce themselves.
Consequently, the authors suggest that lay
advocates must now turn their attention towards
case advocacy, attending to the situation when the
system, in spite of the law fails to meet the
specific needs of a handicapped child. "The most
important services the lay advocate can provide
are those that support the family's struggle to
see that their child's needs are being met.” He
or she can assist parents in making 'their
contributions to the decision making process more
meaningful. "Responsible advocacy at all levels
within the system brings about a clearer
understanding of handicaped students needs, and

120

improves the working relationship between
educators and parents.

Galloway, James R., Michael E. Norman and William V.
Schipper, "Education for all Handicapped Children:
Present and Future," Education Unlimited, Dec. 1979,
(Vol. 1 #6.)

 

The authors of this article provide an overview
of the various provisions of PL 94-142, discuss
the effects these provisions have on federal,
state and local educational agencies, and predict
future events and social forces which may have
major implications for the nature and structure of
the delivery of special education services in the
80's and 90's.

Protection lg Evaluation Procedures

 

 

Introduction to Issues

Evaluation here means procedures used in accordance
with the law to determine whether a child is handicapped and
the nature and extent of special education and related
services needed by that specific child. Written notice must
be given to parents prior to such evaluation and before
placement changes may be made based on results. Evaluation
materials and procedures must be selected and administered
according to each child's specific needs, and no single test
or procedure may be used as the sole criterion for
determining appropriate services for any child.

The evaluation must be made by a multidisciplinary team
or group of persons, preferably including the child's
current classroom teacher. Parents retain the right to
obtain an independent educational evaluation at public

expense if they disagree with an evaluation performed by the

 

121

public school. However, much confusion and contradiction

currently exists in implementation of these provisions.

Evaluating Exceptional Children
A Task Analysis Approach

Howell, Kenneth W., Kaplan, Joseph S. and Connell, Christine
Y., Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus, Ohio,
1979. Chapters One and Two.

Designed as a much needed basic text for a
student's first course on the evaluation of
exceptional children, this book is presented in a
teachable format. However the ~information it
contains would be useful to any educator as it
clearly and concisely delineates pertinent
theoretical and methodological aspects of
educational diagnosis.

An introduction makes the distinction between
educational diagnosis as an art and a science.
Proclaiming it to be a science, the analogy is
made between learning educational diagnosis and
cooking. Although innate abilities may be
involved, the basic competencies for each may also
be acquired by following the right recipes...thus
this 'cookbook' text.

Chapter One contrasts two different .models of
evaluation, psycho-educational and task
analytical, then goes on to describe the later in
detail. An important point is made at the onset,
"It isn‘t possible to sum up a person with test
scores." Definitions of frequently misused terms
are also given as seen and used by the authors.

Chapter Two includes a brief history of
evaluating exceptional children, pointing out that
confusion has resulted from special educators
trying to explain the cause of handicaps while
also attempting to cure them. Discussing
litigation, legislation and changing technology,
the distinction is made between disability and
handicap. The authors suggest that "New
procedures are needed that go beyond the.
explanation of a disability and toward the
treatment of a handicap." In a further discussion

of "Theoretical Considerations" labeling vs.
diagnosis is dealt with as well as evolution of
the I—Q test. The chapter concludes with a

discussion of changes in the field.

122

Schen, Judith Ellen, ”Danger-Testing in Progress," Amicus,
March/April 1979, pp. 74-81.

Ms. Schen reminds the reader that ..."it is the
resonsibility of parents, administrators,
teachers, psychologists, and other advocates to
use the laws and make them work.Examp1es
shared in this article came from the authors
experiences working with children mislabeled as
mentally retarded.

She begins by stating that I-Q Tests deserve
careful scrutiny and goes on to explain why.
Parents are given specific suggestions regarding
how they can make I-Q testing more meaningful with
their child.

Ms. Schen then states that "Differences among
testers may be as important as differences in
tests...” She also sites a study done in
Pennsylvania which showed that:

"in districts anxious to maintain high

enrollments in classes for the
retarded-and thus maintain their levels
of state aid-psychologists were
pressured to test children with

instruments such as the Stanford-Binet
which characteristically yield lower
scores than other I-Q Tests." (David
Kirp, Peter Kuriloff and William Bus,
"Legal Reform of Special Education” in
62 Calif. L. Ref. 65 (1974)

Also discussed with examples given are cases
where the test validity is questionable when
administered to "nonstandard" people (i.e.: not
white, English speaking middle class. Ms. Schen
says "like the I-Q scores of culturally and
economically dissimilar youngsters, the scores of
physically disabled youngsters may not be
appropriate measures of those youngsters learning
potential. She goes on to discuss the problem of
differential diagnosis...of younger children and
the dangers of labeling and segregating too
early.

A lengthy discussion follows of how evaluation
can and must be translated into education through
careful consideration of the individual education
program committee (IEP) as required by law. She
states that "the IEP committee must exercise the
greatest caution in how it uses standardized test
scores." Because of the powerful testing

 

123

industry, these tests will not be eliminated soon
and thus must be used to best diagnose educational

needs. This includes determining a child's
strengths as well as weaknesses. And in
conclusion, Ms. Schen reemphasizes that

”evaluation is a tool to be used with the greatest
of caution.” ‘

Jenkins, Joseph R. and Darlene Pany, ”Standardized
Achievement Tests: How Useful for Special Education?"
Exceptional Children, March, 1978, pp. 448-453, (V01-
44 #6.)

Implications of apparent curriculum bias of
achievement tests are discussed here as they
relate to identification and classification of
exceptional children. The authors conclude:
”Special educators should exercise extreme caution
when selecting assessment devices for identifying,
classfying, and evaluating the growth of
exceptional children.”

Klein, Stanley D., "Psychological Testing-Questions and
Answers," The Exceptional Parent, Aug. 1979.

 

Though psychological tests play a vital role in
the education of children with disabilities, the
author notes that ”use of the intelligence test
alone as a basis for educational planning for

 

placement is inappropriate"-not to mention
illegal. Beginning in 1972, The Exceptional
Parent presented a series of articles about the
psychological assessment process. Readers
questions were welcomed and this article responds
to some of the specific questions received

regarding tests and how they are utilized. In his
book entitled, Psychological Testing of Children-A
Consumers Guide, Klein’states and repeats in this
article, "In order to do an adequate assessment of
a child, we need a wide range of samples of the
child's behavior; samples of his behavior at home,
at school, on the playground, as well as on the
tests...For all children, the essential issue is
not intelligence, but, rather, effective
living-living themselves, with their family and
with the community." He also states that "no test
score by itself can be interpreted to mean that a
child shall Spend so many hours per day in a
particular type of classroom.”

 

 

 

124

Procedural Safeguards

 

Introduction to Issues

The procedures for due process are among the important
provisions of PL 94-142 because they contribute to the
assurance of a free and appropriate education to each
handicapped child. Due Process is a constitutional right of
all American citizens—the basic premise being that an
individual should always have notice and an opportunity to
present his or her position in legal dispute and that no law
or government procedure should be unfair or arbitrary.
Unfortunately, due process rights regarding the education of
the handicapped were not clearly articulated until

recently.

The minimum due process rights specified in PL 94-142

include:

1. Timely and written notice prior to the
identification, evaluation, or educational
placement of a handicapped child.

2. An opportunity to respond to the substance of such
notice.

3. The holding of a hearing, if necessary, in which
the child and his parent, guardian, or surrogate
and/or their representative, such as legal counsel
of their own choosing, will have an opportunity to
review and challenge all evidence (including
relevant school records), cross examine all

witnesses, present evidence, obtain an independent

125

evaluation, and receive a complete and accurate
record of the proceeding.

4. That the burden of proof as to_the recommended
action be borne by the education agency through the
presentation of appropriate evidence.

5. That the hearing officers make a decision solely on
the evidence presented at the hearing.

6. That an opportunity must exist for the parties to
appeal the decision of the hearing officer.

7. The assignment of a surrogate parent when the
child's parent or guardian is not known or is
unavailable or when the child is a ward of the

State. (Saunders and Sultana, 1979)

Jacobs, Linda J., "Hidden Dangers, Hidden Costs," Amicus:
March/April 1979, pp. 86-88, (Vol. 4 #2.)

From a school administrators point of view,
Jacobs states "It is the encouragement of an
adversarial position on the part of the parents
which many educators resent." She says that ”in
some instances, involvement of parents and other

.lay persons in the professional decision-making
process has reached a level where it preempts the
judgement of the trained professional."

The 'hidden costs' Jacobs continues, occur
because 'there is no line item in a school systems
budget for due process..." and the cost of a state
level hearing is several thousand dollars." She
also sites the negative reactions which hearings
invoke and notes that positive statements from
satisfied parents would be "very effective vs.
vehement complaints by dissatisfied parents."
Jacobs also recognizes that "teachers are becoming
increasingly demoralized by the amount of

paperwork and number of meetings they are required
to attend."

Yet she does not wish to "argue against due
process procedures," though she suggests "we may

126

be at a point where we are losing sight of our
real objectives." She suggests finally "it is
possible that this developmental step is necessary

in order for parents and schools to learn to trust
each other's judgement."

Ekstrand, Richard E., "What To Expect and What To Do,"
Amicus, March/April 1979, pp. 91-96, (Vol. 4 #2.)

Stating at the onset of this article that ”a
special education hearing can only work if all
parties have a basic understanding of the
procedures involved." Ekstrand suggest that
"local school systems should implement hearing
procedures and develop programs to inform
potential participants of all relevant
procedures." This informative article provides
specific guidelines to assist school systems and
parents in understanding how these procedures can
work for the benefit of all parties.

Topics covered here include: Grounds for a
hearing, impartial hearing officers, recording the
hearing, preparation for the hearing itself, and
actually conducting the hearing. Appeals are
discussed briefly.

Saunders, Marybeth and Qaiser Sultana, "Due Process Rights

of the Handicapped: Familiarity of Professionals,”
Education Unlimited, Nov. 1979, pp. 13-15, (Vol. 1
#5).

 

 

To explore the level of awareness of due
process rights among professionals working with
handicapped children, a brief questionnaire was
administered to 87 individuals including regular
educators, special educators and other related
professionals. After being asked if they were
'familiar with the term' in this context, the
professionals were asked to 'list any three rights

that come under this process in regard to the
handicapped.

Interestingly enough, 9 out of 33 special
educators could not state one correct due process
right although they believed they were familiar
with the term. In conclusion, the authors state

that "it appears that all personnel involved with
handicapped individuals may be in need of further
instruction about due process rights of

handicapped children." They suggest that "the
responsibility for providing this education must
be accepted by (l) Institutions of higher

127

education... (2) school systems and other
agencies...through inservice programs...and (3)
advocacy groups...disseminating this information.
They say, too that "the process of achieving full

awareness and understanding must be .a
collaborative effort."

Silberberg, Gregory, "Schools Have Home Court Advantage,"
March/April 1979, pp. 89-90.

Referring to the school systems prior to PL
94—142 as 'benevolent dictatorships' Silberberg
notes the exclusion of some students from
educational services with no recourse available to
discontent parents. "The focus was on the

'average student ' with a sharp eye on 'per pupil
costs.'"

He says that now, as a result of successful
legal action and 'political pressure,‘ the schools
have become 'constitutional monarchies.’ "No
longer may they dispense education as they see
fit, but must provide appropriate education to all
children regardless of their Special needs."

"More importantly," Silberberg goes on to say,

"if a parent disagrees with the school, the school
must defend its actions or inaction before an
impartial hearing officer." Yet he says PL 94-142
does not give parents equality, in fact they
remain at a disadvantage. "Facing an adversary
who has time, money, resources, and determination
on its Side, parents, with limited funds and few
.or no resources, have an urgent need to find an

appropriate educational program for their
children." Although he says that its amazing
parents even bother to request due process
hearings. "More amazing and a credit to the

process is that a favorable decision is achieved
in a Significant number of hearings.

The remainder of this article suggests helpful
hints to parents and advocates to achieve
satisfactory results. In concluding, however, he
'states "an analysis of the. practical aspects of
the due process procedure can only lead to the
conclusion that educational authorities have
tremendous advantage."

128

Individualized Educational Program

 

Introduction to Issues

Not only must the parents of a handicapped child be
notified regarding changes in their child's program plan and
give consent prior to such change, the law also mandates
parent participation in the development of their child's
IEP. However, the extent of this participation has been left
open for interpretation by the public schools. Required
content has been specified but may vary greatly in
specificity and appropriateness. School districts must be
accountable for an annual review of each handicapped child's
IEP, however this is where the letter of the law and the
spirit may differ greatly. In order to be effective, the
IEP must be truly useful to the staff who actually works
with the child daily. Unfortunately, the plan itself often
becomes just one more strip of red tape required by this
Federal legislation and does very little to insure an

appropriate education.

 

Turnbull, Ann P., Strickland, Bonnie B., and Brantly, John
C., Developing and Implementing_ Individualized

 

 

 

 

 

Education Programs, Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.,
Columbus, Ohio, 1978.

 

Although rules and regulations set forth
guidelines of what must be done regarding the IEP,
educators now need assistance and training to
develop skills in order to truly comply with the
requirements. This book is a comprehensive guide,
designed to help educators meet that
responsibility. It is divided into four major
parts:

1. The Individualized Education Program:
Translating Legislative Requirements into
Educational Practice (including a thorough

 

129

analysis of Six major principles of PL

94-142: zero reject, non—discriminatory
evaluation, IEP'S, least restrictive
environment, due process and parent

participation).
2. Procedural Guidelines for IEP Development
(from referral of the child to IEP

development by specially constituted
committee).
3. Mechanics of IEP Development and

Implementation (each chapter focusing on
one of the required components; levels of
performance, annual goals and Short term
objectives, evaluation procedures, the
placement decision and monitoring).

4. Orientation of School Faculty (suggesting
administrative and staff development
strategies).

Least Restrictive Environment

 

Introduction to Issues

This provision of the law exists to insure that
handicapped students will not be separated from peers who
may provide very important role modeling. Placement in a
segregated school or classroom should occur only when "the
nature or severity of the handicap is such that education in
regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and
services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." (Sec.
121a.550)

A continuum' of Special education and related services
must be made available to all children and opportunity for
participation in regular non-academic and extracurricular
activities must be provided. This provision has been
popularly referred to as 'mainstreaming' and carries with it
many negative experiences and attitudes. This is basically

due to misinterpretation and lack of preparation on the part

 

130

of Sdhool personnel. A greater understanding and more
positive attitude is sure to come with training and
experience.

Umansky, Warren and John R. Cryan, "Mainstreaming of Young

Children: Unanswered Questions," Childhood Education,
Jan. 1979, pp. 186—191.

 

 

This article is the result of a concern for the

many teachers, parents, and administrators
currently caught up in mainstreaming
educationally, physically and emotionally

handicapped children without adequate time to

prepare for dealing with problems to be resolved
in the process.

Noting that mainstreaming has been called 'one
of the most complex educational innovations ever
undertaken,‘ the authors procede to give rationale
for mainstreaming and review the research siting
methodological problems and implications. Three
recommendations are provided in conclusion. They
are, in part:

1. "Relationships between variables and their
specific effects on children Should be
examined further.

2. Teaching-learning experiences Should be
task-oriented and based on each child's
individual needs, and

3. Teacher education institutions must offer
prospective teachers the skills to work in
integrated education settings."

Yaffe, Elaine, "Experienced Mainstreamers Speak Out,"
Teacher, February, 1979, pp. 61-63.

Based on insights from teachers in Colorado
Springs who have been mainstreaming for years,
this article provides some useful thoughts on the
pros and cons while also Siting specific
implementation suggestions. These include the
availability of trained special education teachers
and other 'experts' to make diagnosis and help in
planning.

They also feel the 'regular' children must be
adequately prepared before a handicapped child
joins them and that classes must be smaller with
reasonable variation in disabilities represented
per class if mainstreaming is to work.

131

Mitchell,' William R., ”The Murky World of Mainstreaming,"
Education Unlimited, Nov. 1979, p. 4-6, (Vol. 1 #5).

In this excellent, thought-provoking article,
Mitchell states that ”Educators who like things to
stay neat and manageable, or at least to stay in
their familiar patterns of disorder, have
correctly concluded that mainstreaming, if it
works at all, is going to require some radical
adaptations; and so they are against it.”
Although also noting that some educators are
'genuinely concerned' he says it is ”the
responsibility of every teacher, administrator,
resource person, and support person to accept as
his own task the welfare of every student...with
equal access to opportunity (for all).' He says
"mainstreaming is an attempt to undo the assembly
line concept in education." Providing a detailed
list of strategies for better implementation he
concludes, ”We must remember that we are building
programs with people, and people have feelings and
need support and reinforcement and recognition and
patience.” He says ”one thing is sure: like
democracy it won't run itself; it requires human
vision, human energy, and human commitment.”

Parent Involvement

 

Introduction to Issues

The public school system has been required by the new
law to inform parents of handicapped children of their
rights under PL 94-142. School districts have chosen to do
this in a variety of ways. Some unfortunately still seem to
ignore this legal responsibility or approach it
half-heartedly at best. Others have gone to a great deal of
effort and expense to produce very informative parent
handbooks which they make readily available. Hopefully all
districts will soon follow the fine example of those who

care.

132

"Improving the Handicapped Regs,” Network-The Paper for
Parents, National Committee for Citizens in Education,
April, 1977.

Informing parents of suggestions made by this
committee to the Bureau of Education for the
Handicapped to strengthen proposed regulations
governing PL 94-142, this article Sites seven good
ideas to protect parents' rights. These include
items such as training for involved parents and
school officials, conveniently scheduled hearings
to discuss state and local plans and use of public
facilities to post such plans and other related
information.

”Parent Advisory Committee Handbook," Marquette-Alger
Intermediate School District, Jan. 1978.

An extensive collection of very useful
information, this type of handbook could be useful
in many districts to enhance special education
program quality. Of particular interest is the
section entitled, "Program Analysis of the
Education for all Handicapped Children Act.(PL
94-142) and the Michigan Mandatory Special
Education Act (P.A. 198 of 1971)” found on pages
34-45. This ISD also provides parents with a
similar handbook.

"Program 'n Services for...Handicapped in Michigan-Parents
Handbook,” Report funded by HEW grant, USOE and the
State Board of Education.

This resource book is designed to briefly
explain the educational rights handicapped
children have in Michigan as well as to identify
people who are available to help parents obtain
appropriate services.

Snell, Martha E. and Dunkle, Mary, "A Review of Established
Programs for Training Parents of Young Handicapped
Children," Education Unlimited, Nov. 1979, (Vol. 1
#5) o

 

This review examines critical aspects of five
variables affecting parent training programs:
target population, rationale and objectives,
procedures, delivery systems and incentives. As
PL 94-142 mandates parent involvement, emphasis
here is placed not only on training parents as
parents and teachers of their handicapped child,
but also as advocates serving to further services
to their child and others.

133

Klein, Stanley D., "Parent-School Conferences: Guidelines
and Objectives," The Exception§l_ggrent, August 1979.

 

Presented in this article are some Specific
guidelines to help parents and professionals meet
in an environment where both can Share their
expertise and develop plans to work cooperatively
to help children. "Merely placing parents and
educators...in the same room to discuss a child
does not automatically make that experience
fruitful. Educational planning can result in
conference participants feeling insecure, nervous
or on the spot." As they come into the conference
room, parents and professionals ought to have the
goal of developing a partnership whose efforts are
to be helpful to the child."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Almy, Millie. Ways 2: Studying Children. Teachers College
Press. New Y5??? 1959.

 

Andrews, Mary A., Bubolz, Margaret, and Paolucci, Beatrice.
An Ecological Approach to the Study of the Family.
Michigan State University. Unpublished paper.

Arena, John. "An Interview with Sam D. Clements." Profiles.
January 1980.

Auserwald, Edgar H. Interdisciplinary versus Ecological
Approach. Family Process. Number 7. September 1968.

Bohrer, Terezie S., Breedon, Louise, and Weikart, Richard J.
"David v. Goliath.” Amicus. Vol. 4 #2. March/April 1979.

Bronfenbrenner, Urie. "Principles of Professional Ethics."
Cornell Studies in Social Growth. Reprinted from The
American Psychologist. Vol 7 #8. August 1952.

 

________. Toward an Experimental Ecology of Human
Development, American Psychologist. July 1977.

Bubolz, Margaret M., Eicher, Joanne B. and Sontag, Suzanne.
The Human Ecosystem: Conceptual Clarification. Michigan
State University. March 21, 1977.

Carlson, Nancy. The Context gf Life: A Socio-Ecologicgl
Egggl of Adaptive Behavior and Functioning. U. S. DHEW.
Bureau 5? Education for the Handicapped. 1976.

 

"Clarification of Final Regulations to Public Law 94-142."
Amicus. January/February 1978.

Colvard, Richard."Interaction and Identification in Reporting
Field Research: A Critical Reconsideration of Protective
Procedures." (reprint).

DePauw, Karen Pamelia. "Enhancing the Sensory Integration of
Aphaic Students" in Journal 9: Learning Disabilities.
Vol. II #3. March 1978.

.Ekstrand, Rich
Vol. 4 #2.

p:

rd E. "What To Expect and What To Do." Amicus.
March/April 1979.

134

135

Erickson, F. Some approaches to inquiry in school/community
ethnography, Paper delivered at the workshop on
Exploring Qualitative/Quantitative Research Methodology
in Education. Monterey. July 23, 1976.

. What Makes School Ethnography 'Ethnographic'?
(reprint).

Erickson, F. and J. Schultz. Social solidarity and indexical
repair: contexts, forms, and functions of a speech act.
Unpublished paper. 1976.

Federal Register. Implementation of Part B of the Education

of the Handicapped Act. Vol. 31 #163. Tuesday, August
23, 1977.

Florio, S. and M. Walsh. The teacher as colleague in
classroom research. Paper presented as part of a
symposium on studies of the social organization of the
classroom at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. San Francisco. 1976.

Galloway, James R., Norman, Michael E. and Schipper, William
V. "Education for all Handicapped Children: Present and
Future." Education Unlimited. Vol. 1 #6. December 1979.

 

Generatgg, The Vol. 10, No. 2, Spring 1980.

 

Goodenough, W. Rethinking 'status' and 'role‘: toward a
general model of the cultural organization of social
relationships. In Tyler ed. Cognitive Anthropology, New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 1969.

 

Gumperz, J. Language, communication, and public negotiation.
In Sanday, ed. Anthropology and the Public Interest:
Fieldwork and Theory. New York: Academic Press. 1976.

 

 

Hall, E.T. The Hidden Dimension, New York: Doubleday. 1966.

 

Howell, Kenneth W., Kaplan, Joseph S. and Connell, Christine
Y., Evaluating Exceptional Children: A Task Analysig
Approach, Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus,
Ohio. 1979.

 

 

"Improving the Handicapped Regs." Network-The Paper .for
Parents. National Committee for Citizens in Education.
April 1977.

Irvin, Tom. Implementation of Public Law 94-142. Exceptional
Children. Vol. 43 #3. November 1976.

 

Jacobs, Linda J. "Hidden Dangers, Hidden Costs." Amicus.
Vol. 4 #2. March/April 1979.

136

Jenkins, Joseph R. and Pany, Darlene. "Standardized
Achievement Tests: How Useful for Special Education?"
Exceptional Children. Vol. 44 #6. March 1978.

Keefe, Dennis. Energy and the Structure of Social Systems:
Significance for Families. Michigan State UniverSity

Klein, Stanley D. "Parent-School Conferences: Guidelines and
Objectives." The Exceptional Parent. August 1979.

 

. "Psychological Testing-Questions and Answers." The
Exceptional Parent._August 1979.

 

Mehan, H. and Wood, H. The Reality, pf Ethnomethodologx.
Wiley-Interscience. New York. 1975.

 

 

Melcher, John W. Law, Litigation, and Handicapped Children.
Exceptional Children. Vol. 43 #3. November 1976.

Mitchell, William R. "The Murky World of Mainstreaming”
Education Unlimited. Vol. 1 #5. November 1979.

Office of Education, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and

Welfare. Request for Proposal. Washington D.C.. April
1978.

Paolucci, Beatrice, Hall, Olive and Axinn, Nancyt Family
Decision Making: An Ecosystem Approach. John Wiley. New
York. 1977.

"Parent Advisory Committee Handbook." Marquette-Alger
Intermediate School District. January 1978.

Pathways Project Program Narrative. Michigan State
University. October 1978.

Pechter, Steven E. "Exceptional Law or Law With Exceptions?"
Amicus. Vol. 4 #2. March/April 1979.

"Program 'n Services for ... Handicapped in Michigan-Parents
Handbook." Report funded by HEW grant. USOE and the
State Board of Education.

Saunders, Marybeth and Sultana, Qaiser. "Due Process Rights
of the Handicapped: Familiarity of ProfeSSionals.
Education Unlimited. Vol. 1 #5. November 1979.

Schatzman, Leonard and Strauss, Anselm, Field Research.
Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 1973.

 

 

Scheflen, A. How Behavior Mgggg. New York: Anchor. 1974.

Schen, Judith Ellen. "Danger-Testing in Progress." 591993-
March/April 1979.

137

Schiamberg, Lawrence. Introduction to a Systems Perspective
to Human Development in Humgg Development and Human

Ecology: A Ecosystems Perspective. MacMillan and Co.,
New York. 1979.

 

 

Silberberg, Gregory. "Schools Have Home Court Advantage."
March/April 1979.

Sims, Laura 3., Paolucci, Beatrice and Morris, Portia M. A
Theoretical Model for the Study of Nutritional Status:

An Ecosystem Approach. Ecology gf’ Food and Nutrition.
Vol. 1. 1972.

 

Snell, Martha E. and Dunkle, Mary. "A Review of Established
Programs for Training Parents of Young Handicapped

Children.” Education Unlimited. Vol. 1 #5. November
1979.

 

Turnbull, Ann P., Strickland, Bonnie B., and Brantly, John
C. Developing and Implementing Individualized Education
Programs. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus,

 

Ohio 1978.
Umansky, Warren and Cryan, John R. "Mainstreaming of Young
Children: Unanswered Questions,” Childhood Education.

 

January 1979.

Vidich, Arthur and Bensman, Joseph. "Freedom and
Responsibility in Research." Comments - reprinted by
permission of the Society for Applied Anthropology
from Human Organization. Vol. 17 #4. Winter 1958-1959.

Wilson, Stephen. The Use of Ethnography in Educational
Research (reprint). 1978.

Yaffe, Elaine. "Experienced Mainstreamers Speak Out."
Teacher. February 1979.

Yoshida, Roland K., Fenton, Kathleen S., Kaufman, Martin J.
and Maxwell, James P. Parental Involvement in the
Special Education Pupil Planning Process: The School S

Perspective. Exceptional Children. Vol. 44 #7. April
1978.

Zigmond, Naomi. "A Prototype of Comprehensive Services for
Secondary Students with Learning . Disabilities.
Learnigg Disabiligy Quaterly. Vol. 1. Winter 1978.

      

HICHIGR

1111111111111?