MEWMWWMLM[New I, mwmav zI
Micmgar flute I
‘aniverei'fiy j

dissertation entitled

PRACTICAL REASONING AND OBSERVATION:
A SECOND-GRADE TEACHER REFERS CHILDREN
FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES

presented by

Brenda Belson Lazarus

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Counseling, Educational
Psychology, and Special

Education

Ema-r91 “7774 {A} wad

Major professor

degree in

 

 

Date April 30, I985

 

MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

MSU
LIBRARIES

\-

 

 

 

 

'

RETURNING‘NATERIAng
Place in book drou to
remeve this checkout from
your record. ELNES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
Stamped below.

 

 

.Illikyfi!

1 4 K 1 9 7
!

SEP 1 O '87 53
‘55 K218
[411520132355
:3. KW Big“;

II .l
L;

 

 

 

PRACTICAL REASONING AND OBSERVATION: A SECOND-GRADE TEACHER

REFERS CHILDREN FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES
By

Brenda Belson Lazarus

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling. Educational Psychology.
and Special Education

1985

Copyright by
BRENDA BELSON LAZARUS

1985

ABSTRACT
PRACTICAL REASONING AND OBSERVATION: A SECOND-GRADE TEACHER
REFERS CHILDREN FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES
By

Brenda Belson Lazarus

The purpose of this study was to examine the way an experienced
second-grade teacher made decisions about children in her class with
regard to special education referral. My goal was to discern the fine
details of a teacher's ways of looking at children who are not meeting
with success. Why are some children referred for special education
while others with seemingly similar problems are not?

Data were gathered over the course of a school year using inter-
pretive participant observational techniques: participant observation.
fieldnotes. videotaping of classroom interaction. interviews and view-
ing sessions with the teacher. and document collection. Careful analy-
sis of all data sources provided the key linkages of the study.

Having an understanding of behavioral characteristics indicating a
handicapping condition did not provide enough specific. contextually
embedded information for the teacher to refer a child for special
education. The teacher used a phenomenological approach to guide her
decision making. Her general expectations for the class provided a

framework from which she referred children. The identification of

Brenda Belson Lazarus

mildly handicapped children began with practical. teacher-created cate-
gories for the children. Case studies of two children who were
referred are presented. as well as a contrast case of a nonreferral
child.

Three major factors influenced the teacher when she referred
children. These three factors were: (a) the child's classroom inter-
actional performance. (b) the teacher's observations and practical
reasoning about them. and (c) the institutional procedures and prac-
tices involved in referral.

The study has implications for preservice and inservice education
and for educational policy. Using interpretive participant observa-
tional research is explored. The findings of the study point to
(a) the importance of teacher education in giving preservice and
inservice educators preparation programs that emphasize individual
differences among children and suggest what to do about them. (b) a
need to examine the pervasiveness and ramifications of the practice of
making referrals based on the classroom teacher's perception of avail-
able district services. and (c) the need to find a better way of
looking at children in classrooms. one that takes into account ways in

which getting a special education identity is socially constructed.

The capacity to reflect critically

on one's own practice. and to
articulate that reflection to one's
self and to others. can be thought

of as an essential mastery that should
be possessed by a master teacher.

Erickson. 1985. p. 175

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without
the guidance. care. and concern of many individuals. My considerable
debt to my committee and to my family can only be hinted at here.

Fred Erickson. my thesis director. kept pushing me to look closer.
to think clearer. and to write better every time I thought I had a
final draft. His contribution to this study will be obvious to all
those who have had the good fortune to work with him. I thank him for
the conceptual work on the Teachers' Practical Ways of Seeing Project
that gave impetus to my guiding questions and for the unselfish giving
of his valuable time and intellect over the past four years.

The other members of my guidance committee were responsible for
helping fill out the ideas in the thesis when I was too close to them
to keep my perspective. Ron Molthuis. my advisor. has been a friend
and colleague in special education for many years. I thank him for not
discouraging me when I chose to do a nontraditional dissertation. Halt
Hapkiewicz. who initially encouraged me'to pursue doctoral study at
Michigan State and introduced me to the work of the Institute for
Research on Teaching. asked questions that forced me to fully develop
my key points and to remove superfluous material. lJim Buschman
initially guided me into the role of fieldworker and has continued to

give detailed editorial assistance as well as theoretical guidance.

My parents. Gordon and Jo Belson. have helped with financial
support and babysitting throughout the thesis writing and have always
encouraged me to pursue an education. My son. Nicholas. added the word
"dissertation" to his vocabulary at two years of age and made do with-
out me on many occasions. My husband. Donald. has been understanding.
has encouraged me. and has ungrudgingly helped with household responsi-
bilities and with Nicholas.

Finally. I thank "Mrs. Meijer" for allowing the study to happen
and for being so honest about her feelings and her teaching. She
allowed an outsider to enter her classroom and be a part of her life
with the children for ten months. She has continued to cooperate and
give assistance whenever I have called upon her. even after four years.
I will never be able to repay her generosity; She is truly a master

teacher.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LISTOFFIGURESoooooooooooooooooooooooo Vii

LISTOFAPPENDICES.oooooooooooooooooooooo IX
A NOTE ON STYLISTIC CONVENTIONS USED IN THE TEXT . . . . . . . . x
Chapter
I. INWODUCTION O I I O O O O O O O O O O 0 I O O O O O O O 1
Introduction to the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
An Introduction to Participant Observation . . . . . . 8
"Focus" and "Jelling" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Thes‘s overVIW O O I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 12
II. (BSERVING. REASONING. AND INTERACTING AS A BASIS
FOR IDENTIFICATION OF MILDLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN . . 13
Identification of Children With Mild Handicapping
Cond1t‘ons O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 13
Teacher Observation and Practical Reasoning . . . . . 22
The Classroom as an Interactional Context . . . . . . 27

III. THE STUDY: AN OUTSIDER'S GUIDE TO THE SECOND-GRADE
“ASSROW . O I O O O I O O C O O O O O O C O O O O O 30

Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Research Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
District. School. and Classroom . . . . . . . . . . 44
Backdrop. A School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SD
The Teacher of Room 125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
A "Typical" Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
The Children of Room 125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Special Education Referral Process . . . . . . . . . 63
sumary O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 65

IV. GETTING A SPECIAL EDUCATION IDENTITY IN A SECOND-

GRME CLASS 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O

A Teacher Views Her Class . . . . . .
Setting Children Apart . . . . . . . .

Setting Children Apart for Special Education

Referral . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Getting a Special Education Identity:
Large Group Behavior . . . . . . .

Small Group Behavior . . . . . .
Seatwork Behavior . . . . . . .
Interactions With the Teacher .
Interactions With Peers . . . .
Interactions Outside the Classroom
Craig: A Summary . . . . . . . .
Pam: Left to Her Own Devices . . .
Pam: A Summary . . . . . . . . .
Neil: Not Referred. No Discrepancy
Ndl:TASmmmy. ... ... ..
Case Studies: Overall Summary . . .

The Special Education Referral Proces :

and Pam's Paths . . . . . . . . .
Craig's Path . . . . . . . . . . .
Pam's Path . . . . . . . . . . . .
My Reactions to the Referral Process
Chapter IV Summary . . . . . . . . .

o o o o o m o o o o o o o o o o o 0

V. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . .

OVBNIW O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O
Interactional Performance in Classroom

Craig

0 o o o I a o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o (D. o o o o o o a o o o o o o
o o o o o (no 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o

0.000000000000000
fl

Contexts .

Teacher Observation and Practical Reasoning . .
Identification of Mildly Handicapped Learners . .

Implications for Educational Research and Practice

Preservice and Inservice Education and School

District Policy . . . . . . . . . .
Preservice Education . . . . . . . .
Inservice Education . . . . . . . .
School District Policy . . . . . . .

Concluding Remarks on the Implications
Analysis of the Wider Societal Context .

Ep1109ue O O C C O O O O O C O O O I O
”ENDIQS O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O
REFERmCES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

vi

0 ‘ O O O O

Page

68

7O
74

95
100
101
106
109
113
118
120
121
122
131
132
lhh
lh7

150
151
155
16l
162

166

166
170
175
178

186
186
189
197
202
205
210

212
2AA

Figure

1.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6

4.7
4.8

4.9

LIST OF FIGURES

Gates and Gatekeepers Into Special Education . . . . .
Room Arrangementv-September l98l . . . . . . . . . . .
Recording Vest With Radio Microphone . . . . . . . . .
Room Arrangement--May 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overview Tempo of the l981-82 School Year . . . . . .
Daily Schedule. Room 125. Mrs. MeiJer . . . . . . . .

Special Education Referral Process at Pawnee School.
1981-82 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O C O O O O O

Benchmark and Target Children . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mrs. Meijer's Informal Groupings . . . . . . . . . . .
Informal Ability Groupings of Room 125 Children . . .
Interview and Report Card Comments . . . . . . . . . .
Careers of Children Troubling to Mrs. MeiJer . . . . .

Stanford Achievement Test Stanines for Informal
Abi‘ 1ty Groups 0 O I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Classroom Standouts at Two Critical Points in the Year

Children Most Troubling to Mrs. Meijer in the 1981-82
SCh001 Yea r O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0

A Look at Craig's Seatwork Assignments for 2-3-82 . .

4.10 Summary of Craig's Strengths and Weaknesses . . . . .

4.11

Special Education Referral Process Events for Craig .

Page

37
39
49
52
60

66
76
85
87
88
9O

91
95

99
111
123
152

5.3
5.4
5.5

Special Education Referral Process Events for Pammy

Mrs. Meijer's Special Education Referrals in the

1981-82 School Year . . .

Mutually Constituted Patterns of Action and Meaning

Patterns of Action and Meaning in Setting Children
Apart for Special Education Referral . . . . . . .

Getting a Special Education Identity in Room 125 . .

A Social Construction Model

Gain Score Grade Equivalent Growth From 10-81 to 10-82

on the Stanford Achievement Test . . . . . . . . . .

viii

Page
157

163

169

174
179
204

208

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix

A.

DEFINITIONS OF LEARNING DISABILITY. EMOTIONAL
IMPAIRMENT. AND EDUCABLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED . . .

BEHAVIOR RATING SCALE--TEACHER'S CHECKLIST . . . .
PROJECT PERMISSION LETTER . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIELDNOTES FOR FRIDAY. SEPTEMBER 15. 1981 . . . .
STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST. CLASS PROFILE . . . . .
CLASS LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST. COMPLETE BATTERY TOTALS
CRAIG'S REFERRAL FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
THE CANDY PAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

END-OF-THE-YEAR READING TEST RESULTS FOR INFORMAL
GRwPSOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOIOOO.

Page

213
216
221
223
229
231
233
235
2&0

2h2

A NOTE ON STYLISTIC CONVENTIONS USED IN THE TEXT

In this thesis. interpretive participant observational research
was used to study one teacher and her class in a close and personal
way. Because of this. care has been taken to protect the anonymity of
those involved. Accordingly. I would like to preface the study with
some remarks about subject and setting confidentiality and some expla-
nation of the conventions used in reporting my results. The names of
the teacher. the children. and the school district have been changed to
protect their privacy. I have used pseudonyms throughout the paper to
enhance the readability.

In the body of the paper I have used quotation marks 0' "l to
indicate the exact words of the speakers and have followed the quote
with a notation such as FN's 9-9-81. p. 3. This means that the source
of the quote was the fieldnotes OOPS) of September 9. 1981. page 3.
Long quotations and vignettes are indented and single-spaced. They are
followed by the data source. date. and page references. In addition to
the use of FN for fieldnotes. I have occasionally used VT for videotape
notes. AT for audiotape notes. and TN for theoretical notes. Theoreti-
cal notes are notes written to oneself while in the field setting as a
point of interest arises.

There are a few instances in the study where I used paraphrases of

what someone said. In these cases I was not sure that I had the exact

words. or I could not hear something in its entirety on the videotapes
or audiotapes. In these cases I have used single quotes (' ') as a
notation system. This means that the words are very close to being an
actual quote. but they are not exact.

Throughout the study there are two different ways I have dealt
with the issue of gender. In the chapters that are predominantly data
reporting and discussion (Chapters IV and V). I have used the feminine
forms of personal pronouns for the teacher because the teacher I
studied was female. I have used masculine pronouns for thetchild who
was placed in special education because a boy was placed in the class-
room I studied. In the other chapters (Chapters I. II. III. and the
implications section of Chapter V). I have used both masculine and

feminine pronouns for teachers and children.

xi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Wm

Elementary teachers routinely engage in setting children apart
within their classrooms. 'There are programs for gifted children. for
remedial readers. for children who are artistically or musically
inclined. for student leaders. for student helpers. and for children in
need of special education. Throughout the course of a normal school
year. a teacher may be called upon to make decisions about all or most
of the above. This places the teacher in the position of being the one
who decides who gets in to programs and who does not. In this sense a
teacher is a "gatekeeper" (Erickson 8. Shultz. 1982). as well as an
instructor.

. The purpose of this study was to examine the way an experienced
second-grade teacher made decisions about children in her class with
regard to any special needs that they might have in the areas of
learning or behavior. These special needs were of a persistent. long-
term nature that extended beyond the transient. temporary problems that
bother many children during a school year but do not continue to hamper
their academic or social growth. These special needs may result in a
teacher making the decision to refer a particular child for special

education services. The teacher sees these special needs as requiring

intervention above and beyond the assistance she can provide within the
regular classroom.

What is there about a child that sets him or her apart in such a
way that the chilcfls teacher considers a special education referral as
an alternative (or an additional) setting to her class? The teacher in
this study had daily contact with 24 children. At the beginning of the
year. none of the children were in special education programs. exclud-
ing speech therapy. By the end of the year. the teacher had made two
referrals for special education services and had considered doing so
for two other children. How does a teacher decide whom to refer and
whom not to refer? Did the two children who were referred have charac-
teristics that were not present in the other children in the room?

What did the teacher learn about the other two targeted children that
led to her not pursuing possible special education placement for them?
What about other children who were troubling to the teacher but were
never even mentioned for referral? These are some of the questions
upon which this study was predicated.

In cases of mild to moderate learning or behavioral problems.
early identification is critical (Reynolds & Birch. 1977: Cantrell &
Cantrell. l976L. Early identification of children with learning dis-
orders is problematic. Children with severe physical. mental. or
emotional problems are usually detected before school entry by parents
and physicians. but mild to moderate problems due to learning disabili-
ties or emotional impairment.(see Appendix A for definitions of these

terms) may not be obvious until a child is placed in a constrained

environment such as a school. The validity of identification tech-
niques. the implications for educational intervention derived from
early identification. and the phenomenon of the "eel f-ful filling proph-
ecy" are areas of concern among professionals who must make these
decisions (Keogh & Becker. 1973). In the public schools in the United
States it may take one or two years before these mild problems start
to interfere with a child's expected progress in school. Therefore.
the first and second grades are crucial years for early detection of
such problems. This detection is not an easy task. The primary burden
for identification falls on the regular classroom teacher. Teachers
must make decisions about children in the early grades that may pro-
foundly affect the children's lives. both in and out of school. Some
of the difficult questions needing teacher reflection follow: Is the
child a slow learner. or does he or she have a specific learning
disability? Is the child immature for her or his age. or does she or
he have emotional problems that interfere with her or his school prog-
ress? Teugh decisions must be made that are not always easy to sub-
stantiate with "hard" data.

'The term "iearning disabilities" has been controversial since its
inception as a categorical definition of special education in 1963.
Strephosymbolia. congenital word blindness. dyslexia. minimal brain
dysfunction. and perceptual handicap were but a few of the many labels
given to children who were not succeeding in school. primarily in the
decoding of the written symbols of language. The confusion over what

constitutes a learning disability among special educators and the

medical professionals still abides (Kavale a Nye. 1981: Thurlow.
Ysseldyke. & Casey. 1984). Is it any wonder that there is confusion
for regular educators trying to determine if a child might have a mild
or moderate learning problem? It might be argued that it is not the
responsibility of regular educators to make this determination. 'Their
role should be to identify children who are not succeeding in the
regular class and to make referrals to the appropriate professionals.
As was found in the study to be reported. however. it is not unusual
for a regular classroom teacher. as he or she discovers children with
learning or behavior problems. to look ahead to see if the specific
child will fit within his or her perception of the school districtks
options for service.

av. The way children are set apart for special education by a teacher
has not been looked at before at such a microscopic level. The process
of how students get into special education has been investigated by
Mehan (1984) but not at the same level or with the same set of guiding
questions. He studied the issue of special education placement begin-
ning at the special education placement committee meetings. The
placement committee meeting is an important step. but only one in a
series of gates that lead to special education placement within most
school districts. Before a placement committee can enact a routine
(Mehan. 1984). a student first has to be brought to the attention of
such a committee. The child's regular classroom teacher is often the
first to bring a child to the attention of such a group. It is at this

point that the teacher's skill in practical reasoning and observation

takes on great significance. The regular class teacher thus opens the
first gate into special education (see Figure 1.1).

Once a child's case is brought to the building team's attention.
new gatekeepers take over. The principal. school psychologist. teacher
consultant. and possibly a reading consultant join the regular class
teacher in determining if a child is mildly handicapped to such an
extent that testing is warranted. The particular special education
placement system used in the school that was studied is discussed in
detail in Chapter III.

When a regular education teacher makes a decision to refer a child
to special education. there is a great deal more involved than meets
the eye. The significance of the interactions that occur within the
classroom context cannot be overlooked. This year-long participant
observational study of one second-grade classroom made it clear that
each and every school year has its own uniqueness. This is true even
if the teacher has taught the same grade for a number of years. 'The
interactions that occur between the teacher. the children. the curricu-
lum. and the materials are intricately woven together each school year
in a pattern that makes sense to those involved. The experienced
teacher looks for signs of reoccurring patterns familiar from previous
years. Children of interest are more or less important as objects of
the teacher's observations as she looks for telltale signs of problems.
but it seems that each class has its own special and unique qualities.
What factors enter into teachers' ways of seeing particular children

who trouble them? The importance of early intervention with

S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N

 

.co_umu:eo

_m_uoam Ouch mcoaooxOumm ecu mOumo "... oL:m_u

 

 

 

mamanaonmmm ma
.mpmfiamaoomm Honpo
.mpoonmm

mean .m mean
you we meow

 

-.UA .mal 4
Hancock soap
imosdmvhmdamom
.pmaaaa
mananmonmga I
we .mnospo comm mcavwom
pnwpdsm
pompasmcoo loco Hegemoa
Honomma .Pmdwoao Honoooa
.pmflmoaono»wm Iceman Hoonom soameSUH
Hoonom .Hanaoafinm Haasmom

_ .
.

.

. .

. . .
. .

 

 

  

  

? DU _ C<
manbmmm S<HB mm<qo
ewes UZHQHHDM mdqaumm

  

 

 

 

H V T n D 3 H

N O I I V D n O H

 

l

handicapped children is well known to educators. but they are still
reluctant to label a child as a special education student. Checklists
of behavioral characteristics have been developed to aid classroom
teachers in their recognition of the early signs of learning and behav-
ior problems. but the observations and practical reasoning of the
teacher doing the referral are not reflected in most of these forms.
On a typical behavior rating scale (see Appendix B for one example) a
teacher is presented with a predetermined array of academic and social
behaviors. In such category systems there is no accounting for the
"unofficial. informal dimension of role and status in the classroom"
(Erickson. 1985. p. 39). For example. hyperactivity has been found to
be the highest ranked descriptor of learning disabled children among
kindergarten and primary-grade teachers (Keogh. Tchir. & Windeguth-
Behn. 1974). What is it that a child does on a day-to-day basis in the
classroom that causes the child to be labelled hyperactive or inatten-
tive? Could two children display very different classroom behaviors
and both be checked off as inattentive on the referral form?

BCJ This study focused on one of the many routine sorting decisions of
a classroom teacher. The research question of interest in the study
was: What factors are responsible when a second-grade teacher identi-

fies children as being in need of special education? Three sets of

V'questions guided the study. The first set dealt with the observations

of the teacher in the first days and weeks of the school year that

alerted her to possible special needs in certain children. The second

i set had to do with what types of teacher observations and practical

reasoning took place once a certain child was targeted by the teacher.
The final set of guiding questions was formed after the teacher in the
study had referred two children for special education services. This
third set was developed in an attempt to understand why the teacher had
referred these two children and not other children who had problems as
well. The research questions are discussed further in Chapter III of

this study.

"E99115" ind "1911109"

In an interpretive participant observational study the accounting
of the actors. the teacher in this case. must be an integral part of
the researcher's story. Before the main corpus of data is presented in
the chapters to come. it may be helpful for the reader to have an
example of the types of data to be reported in this study and the way
they will be presented.

One finding to come out of this study had to do with a day-to-day
aspect of classroom life that the teacher called "focus and Jelling)‘
Students who could not "focus" on the classroom tasks and did not
"Jell" as part of the classroom microculture became "target" children
in the teacher's mind. I decided to ask the teacher what she meant by
the term "focus" after hearing her use it repeatedly early in the
school year. She used "focus" both :9 specific children. as in "This
is your next focus. Pamnun" and about specific children. as in "Neil is
unable to focus and complete his work)‘ Fellowing are portions of

fieldnotes from an interview held on September 22. 1981. In this

interview the teacher discussed how she was noticing that her brighter
students understood the expectations and routines already and that they
were beginning to lose focus as she gave directions.

Focusing means looking at. Focusing their eyes. . . . In fact.

I've noticed more often now than I did the first week. that when I

give directions . . . [some kids] are on top of the routine that

has been established thus far. are tuning out. and are going on.

and are maybe pushing a pencil when they should be listening . . .

because they already know. . . . The extra bright students. the

really withit kids. you know. they're beginning to already tune me

out when it comes time for directions. (FN's 9-22-81)

In this instance the loss of focus by a child could be interpreted
as being a strength. The teacher used her bright children as bell-
wethers to tell her that she could now spend less time on the routine
of giving directions.

As September and October passed. the teacher expected something to
happen with the class as a whole. This particular year she was puzzled
because the class did not seem to be coming together. or "Jelling.".as
she called it. In an attempt to get her to verbalize her intuitive
expectations about Jelling. I asked her if I could capture the Jelling
process on videotape. Her response. in an interview on November 4.
1981. shows the depth of understanding of the social ecology of a
classroom that an experienced teacher can have. In her eight years of
teaching she may never have been asked to verbalize about the types of
things she observed in her classroom.

I see individual students as part of the whole Jelling process.

. . . [She talked about a new girl who was isolating herself and

about another boy who cried in class today.) It's particularly

frustrating for me as a highly academic person. wanting to get the

academics into these kids because it gets so much harder in
[school district] as they go on. and not being able to do it

10

because of kids like Craig. Steve. . . . (You can't videotape not
jelling) because it's a feeling. It's the feeling you have
between you and your students and because that varies from year to
year with the personalities you're dealing with. it's never the
same. Even though my style of teaching hasn't changed much over
the last nine years. I mean. your style depends on your person-
ality and you may have new. new actual techniques for teaching a
lesson. but your class style of how you do things. and how you
respond to kids doesn't change much. (FN's 11-4-81)

In this portion of the interview the teacher said that teaching is
not the same each year. She said that it is not the teacher alone or
her techniques. but the feeling between teacher and students that
determines what type of year it will be. It is the interaction of
teacher. children. and curriculum that causes a class to jell at a
certain point.

In mid-March I asked the teacher again about the issue of focusing
because she was still using the term as she spoke about different
children. As I was trying to interpret all of the data accumulated to
that time. it seemed to me that she was now using the word "focus" in a
different sense. By this time of the year. her big "academic push" was
nearing its end with the approach of spring vacation (second week in
April that year). She did not refer any more children for special
education that year. Inlan interview held on March 11. 1982. the
teacher stated her belief about what "focus" had now become to her.

Focus doesn't merely mean looking at the teacher. It also means

processing what's expected of you. And that's where kids like

Craig are having the most trouble. When I say. "Focus on task."

Craig can look at you and be so sincere and not be processing one

auditory thing you're saying to him. and that'd probably be the

main difference in my userof the word. um. Focus means getting
rid of outside distractions. Getting your thoughts on only the

thing you're doing and. uh. processing what's being said. . . .

[Neil can be] just tumbling over himself [trying to think what to
say]. He can't narrow it down enough and focus enough on what he

11

wants to say to spit it out in less than [laughing] 50 words.

(FN's 3-11-82)

The children used as examples in this interview were both target
children. Craig was referred for special education. but Neil was not.
At this point in the year (March). it was no longer enough for a child
to look at the teacher or to look like he or she was doing the work.
The student must demonstrate more in the way of understanding. How a
student demonstrated this understanding to the teacher was one of the
things I was looking for.

The preceding quotations taken from actual field interviews are
meant to give the reader an idea of how a participant observational
researcher goes about verifying his or her assumptions and interpreta-
tions about daily life in the classroom being studied. This type of
interactional verification between fieldworker and teacher-actor is
part of what gives "particularizability" (Erickson. 1985. p. 50) to the
data being reported. The data are particular in the sense that the
events they document occur at a particular time and among a specific
group of people. In addition. the examples of "focus" and "jelling"
were chosen to illustrate the importance of the teacher's observation
and practical reasoning in special education referrals and the signifi-
cance of the interactional nature of the classroom. They also show the
teacher in her role of gatekeeper as she makes decisions about who is
and who is not processing. or understanding fully. what is happening in
the classroom over the course of one school year. As will be seen
later. not being able to process was a critical factor in one child's

getting a special education identity.

12

W
I Previous research exploring similar issues is presented in Chapter
II. An overview of the setting and subjects of the study. a descrip-
tion of the research method. and a discussion of the research questions
are addressed in Chapter III. The data gathered over this year-long
participant observational study are presented in Chapter IV. Conclu-

sions. implications. and suggestions for further research and for

practice are presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER II

CBSERVING. REASONING. AND INTERACTIAG AS A BASIS FOR
IDENTIFICATION OF MILDLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

In the process of trying to understand how a second-grade teacher
went about setting children apart for special education referral. I
drew on the theoretical and research perspectives of psychology.
sociology. education. and anthropology. This chapter is arranged in
three sections: the identification of children with mild handicapping
conditions. teacher observation and practical reasoning. and the

classroom as an interactional context.

WWW
BMW

Before children can receive special education services in the
American public schools they must first be identified as having a
handicapping condition that prevents them from taking full part in the
existing general education programs. This safeguard has been both a
boon and a bane for children. Since the passage of RA. 94-142. the
Education of Handicapped Children Act. in 1975 the identification
criteria for the special education categories have been strengthened.
if not standardized. across the country. This mandate. overall. has

been a great benefit to handicapped children and their parents. It has

13

14

forced school districts to examine their identification procedures and
policies.

It has been pointed out recently that while special education is
technically a subsystem of general education. in reality the two oper-
ate in school systems as separate. or dual. systems (Martin. 1978:
Stainback & Stainback. 1984). It is becoming more obvious. as teachers
try to sort out children with mild to moderate learning or behavioral
problems. that all students have their own unique individual character-
istics that differ along a continuum. If special education students
are seen as being deviant by teachers and others in society. then to
study deviance is to study all of mankind. This is true because of the
universality of individual differences (Telford & Sawrey. 1981). Each
of us is "special" in this sense. The emotional pain involved in the
labeling of children as handicapped is in part a result of the dual
service delivery system of education in the United States. 'The system
necessitates the labeling of a child as a special education student if
the child is to receive special education services.

The process of labeling handicapped learners has been reviewed
elsewhere (MacMillan 8. Meyers. 1979) and is not the central issue of
this study. Checklists are commonly used by school districts as
referral forms before special education consideration. The use of
checklist data for identification is suspect. Checklists force the
evaluator to make judgments about behaviors rather than to observe the
behavior itself. Preconceptions and expectations on the part of the

person doing the rating have been found in many studies (MacMillan &

15

Myers. 1979). The classification and labeling of exceptional children
must be understood in light of the larger social context. Categoriza-
tion has often been done. consciously or unconsciously. to maintain a
degree of social control (Hobbs. 1975). People react negatively to
those who are different. This reaction seems to be almost instinctive
according to Hobbs. Labels have been used for "obscure. covert. or
hurtful purposes: to degrade people. to deny them access to opportu-
nity. to exclude 'undesirables' whose presence in some way offends.
disturbs familiar custom. or demands extraordinary effort" (Hobbs.
1975. p. 11). The process of decision making about special education
in the schools is influenced by stereotypes such as sex. race. socio-
economic status. physical appearance. behavior. and perceived intelli-
gence on the part of the decision makers (Ysseldyke. Algozzine. &
Richey. 1982).

The issue of the identification and placement of mildly handi-
capped students into special education programs has been a controver-
sial topic since Dunn's (1968) admonition to the field nearly 20 years
ago. His article gave much impetus to the mainstreaming movement that
resulted in the enactment of P.L. 94-142. At the time of Dunn's
article. most special education students were receiving services in
self-contained classrooms. That is. the children received all their
instruction in one room and were rarely integrated with regular educa-
tion students. 'There were very few public school classes for children
with learning disabilities or emotional impairments. Learning disa-

bility was not a categorical special education program area at the

16

federal level until the passage of Pd“ 94-142 in 1975. The "learning
disabled" children. before their official recognition. were most likely
treated as remedial readers if they received services at all. Children
with emotional problems may have seen a social worker or were referred
to a child guidance center. Disruptive children were usually excluded
from public schools. Many of todayis learning disabled or emotionally
impaired children would have been considered "slow learners" by their
teachers before Pd. 94-142. The children were not achieving at normal
grade-level expectancy levels. but neither were they considered to be
educable mentally impaired. (Fer State of Michigan definitions of LD.
EMI. and EI. current at the time of the study. see Appendix AJ
Self-contained special education services for children with iden-
tified special needs have been a recognized part of public education in
the United States for a long time. Since 1975. even more attention has
been paid to the process of locating and serving all children who
qualify for such services. Further. the emphasis of P.L. 94-142 has
been upon the early recognition of problems and the treatment of them
in the least restrictive environment possible for the child. Children
with obvious handicapping conditions. 6.9.. blindness. deafness. physi-
cal impairment. and severe retardation. are more easily recognized and
placed into early intervention programs. Early intervention is defined
here as school-district financed. school-based programs that begin in
the years before the start of formal schooling. For children with
milder handicaps. those problems that have been called the ”hidden

handicaps." such as learning disabilities. mild emotional and mental

17

impairment. identification does not take place until schooling begins.
The earlier children with hidden handicaps can be diagnosed and receive
special education services. the better the prognosis will be for their
remediation and success in school (Cantrell & Cantrell. 1976; Reynolds
8. Birch. 1977).

Since 1973 investigators at UCLA have been studying early
identification of educationally "high-risk" and "high-potential" pupils
(Hall & Keogh. 1978). Variables such as teachers' perceptions of pupil
risk characteristics. predictive accuracy of classroom observational
techniques. teachers' ratings of pupils'lclassroom activities and
achievements. and selected measures of pupil learning styles were
examined. Quantitative analyses of data gathered over a four-year
period were analyzed. Researchers also spent a great deal of time in
classrooms and as a result concluded that it was the qualitative
distinctions that seemed to be the major influences on the designation
of pupils as "risk" or "nonriskfl' 'These "qualitative distinctions"
were what I hoped to capture in the study to be reported in the
following chapters. Hall and Keogh used structured interviews with
teachers to obtain much of their data. Their general finding was that
"risk" had to be defined in terms of the interaction between the
child's characteristics and the situational and educational influences
and constraints.

The results of other studies in the UCLA series: (a) called into
question the validity of screening and identification techniques (Keogh

8. Becker. 1973). (b) recommended that teachers' observations take on a

18

more prominent place in the identification process (Keogh. Tchir. &
Windeguth-Behn. 1974). and (c) recommended looking at the classroom
behavior of identified "high-risk" children with the goal being to
design an early intervention program for kindergarten teachers to use
(Becker. 1976). These studies pointed to the need for the regular
class teacher to do more than fill out a checklist when referring a
child for special education.

Before a child is considered for special education by the building
team. it has been recommended that an observation/assessment of the
child's learning environment be carried out (Heller. Holtzman. &
Messick. 1982A This observation should be a systematic look at what
the child's classroom environment is like and at the quality of the
regular education instruction the child receives (Messick. 1984). It
is only after any "deficiencies in the learning environment have been
ruled out” (Messick. 1984. p. 5) and a comprehensive assessment battery
has been given that a child should be considered for special education.
if such referral is still deemed appropriate. The implications of
these proposals are discussed in Chapter V.

A study of the placement of children into special education was
carried out in its naturally occurring setting (the school) by Mehan
and his associates (Mehan. 1984). These researchers found that the

designation ”handicapped student" is as much a function of the

school calendar. the demographic characteristics of the student
population. and other features of the social organization of the

school. as it is a function of some inherent characteristic of the
student. (p. 56)

19

They found that once a child's name was brought to the planning team
meeting. there was a predictable pattern to the meeting's structure
and also to the decision-making phase. Mehan concluded that what
really happened in these placement meetings was that routines were
enacted. This type of institutionalized activity is not decision
making because the steps of rational decision making were not followed
(Mehan. 1984). Steps had been eliminated and replaced by such
institutionalized practices as reduction of the range of possible
alternatives for a given child. placement of a child by available
category rather than by clinical profile if a certain teacher was at
his or her maximum case load. and by the preferential weight given to
the school psychologist's opinion despite a diversity of wishes on the
part of other team members at the beginning of the team meeting. The
school psychologist's position was the final one to be retained in all
40 of the placement meetings that Mehan and his associates studied
(Mehan. 1984).

In a study carried out to determine how teachers used the results
of psychoeducational evaluation (testing) in determining eligibility
[for learning disability services. Ysseldyke and his colleagues
(Ysseldyke. Algozzine. Richey. & Graden. 1982) videotaped 20 placement
meetings. ‘The recorded data were analyzed as to the type of data
presented during the meetings. These researchers found that there was
a correlation between the amount of information presented and the
identification of a child as learning disabled. The more data

available. the higher the likelihood of an L0 placement. Fourteen of

20

the 20 meetings taped (70%) resulted in an L0 identification. The
researchers felt that 83% of the statements made in the placement
meetings were irrelevant to the identification of a learning disabil-
ity. They reached the conclusion that "classification decisions are
more a function of naturally occurring pupil characteristics (sex.
socioeconomic status. physical appearance. eth than of pupil perform-
ance data" (p. 42).

Part of the identification process for special education is the
actual referral of a child by the classroom teacher. After five years
of research on the assessment of learning disabled children and the
related decision-making process regarding placement into programs for
the learning disabled. researchers have found that once a child is
referred for special education by a teacher there is a high probability
(92% nationally) that the child will be tested and placed (73% nation-
ally) into a special education program (Algozzine. Christenson. &
Ysseldyke.1982L

Further. this group of researchers found that 851 of a large
sample of normal third. fifth. and twelfth graders (N = 248) could be
classified as learning disabled under guidelines used in the school
districts that were studied (Ysseldyke. Algozzine. & Epps. 1983). The
classification of learning disabilities has been "an ill-defined.
poorly conceptualized. incredibly popular idea" (p. 165) since its
beginning according to Ysseldyke et al.

In the 1982-83 school year there were 4.3 million children (11% of

the school-age population nationally) identified under one of the ten

21

categories of handicapping conditions outlined by the federal
government (Algozzine & Korinek. 1985). Over 90% of the children in
special education programs were in four categories: speech impaired.
learning disabled. mentally retarded. and emotionally disturbed.
Within the 90% group identified above. Algozzine and Korinek found that
the percentage of students labeled learning disabled had risen 3% per
year between 1978 and 1982. and that there was wide variability state—
to-state in terms of percentages of handicapped served under the
various categories: LD varied from 25% to 62%. ED from 1% to 27%. MR
from 7% to 45%. and SI from 14% to 46%. Special education classes are
"overpopulated havens for the hard-to—teach." concluded Algozzine and
Korinek (p. 394).

One hundred forty children were referred for special education in
the school district studied by Mehan (1984). Fifty-three (37.7%) of
those children were referred to the formal Evaluation and Placement
(E&P) meeting stage of the special education referral process. The
other 62.8% of the children's cases did not go beyond the initial
teacher or parent referral. These children remained in their regular
classes or were given somerservice other than special education. such
as counselling or bilingual education.

Over 905 (98.6%) of the 53 cases the E&P team looked at resulted
in special education placement (Mehan. 1984). All of the children
except two FL4X) were placed into various special education programs.
Seventy-four percent of the group of children that were placed into

special education went into "pullout" programs. such as learning

22

disabilities or speech therapy. In a "pullout" program the child
remains in a regular class for the majority of his or her school day
and leaves for special education help. The other 23% of the children
were placed into self-contained programs. such as severe language
disorders. educationally handicapped. and multiply handicapped. No
children were placed outside the district for special education
services.

Mehan found a 98% referral-to-placement rate in the district he
studied in the 1978-79 school year. Ysseldyke found a 73% referral-to-
placement rate across the districts and states he studied from 1978 to
1982. The latter research group found that in districts where a teacher
held a high regard for the person receiving the referral. students were
"usually placed since the teachers recognize those who do qualify when
the process is completeJ‘ This statement was made by one of the
responding teachers in the study (Christenson. Ysseldyke. & Algozzine.
1982. p. 344). Apparently in this district teachers have a clear idea
of the type of child who will qualify for special education services.
These teachers may have a high regard for the person receiving the
referral because their own referral choices have been validated by this

person.

MW

The importance of a teacher's role as an observer and practical
reasoner of life in his or her own classroom has not been given much
credence by researchers until recently. Teachers have not been

encouraged to talk or write about their observations of life in their

23

classrooms. With the many demands placed on a teacher's time. there
are not many opportunities given for such reflection. nor is such a
practice usually rewarded by those in supervisory positions. There is
no "institutional audience" nor an "official place" in current educa-
tional settings for such critical reflection on one's own practice
(Erickson. 1985. p. 176).

For the purposes of this paper. teacher observation can be taken
to mean what teachers see in their daily interactions with the children
in their classrooms. Practical reasoning can be defined as that
reflection done by teachers to make sense of what they are seeing in
their class. Practical reasoning may differ from formal reasoning in
that teachers rarely are given. or give themselves. the time needed to
make decisions that are characteristic of formal decision-making
settings because of the nature of being confined to a classroom with 20
to 30 children for a period of six hours a day. The intensity of the
interactions that occur within those constraints as the teacher.
children. curriculum. and all the extras come together makes the kind
of reasoning that would occur. for example. in a scientific laboratory
setting impossible. The teacher must make immediate sense out of what
is happening in her classroom and take action on it in many cases.

Experienced teachers base many of their classroom decisions on
knowledge that is essentially tacit. This is the knowledge they gain
from routine decisions made over and over that rarely calls on them to

think consciously about what they are doing. To understand their

deci sions is to uncover the teachers' ways of making these decisions

24

rational (Hargreaves. 1979). The uncovering can only be done when both
the teacher of interest and his or her teaching environment are looked
at in relationship to each other. Hargreaves's analysis is a phenomen-
ological one. He looked at decision making as the teacher experiences
it. This thinking is in line with research on teaching done in an
interpretive mode. This way of looking at the teaching process makes
use of the teacher's common-sense knowledge about what he or she is
doing. A researcher can obtain this knowledge by collecting and ana-
lyzing the comments of teachers in their naturalistic environments.

The decision to refer a child for special education consideration
is based on the teacher's observation of the child as he or she
interacts in the classroom. Additionally. there are a number of
sources of information that teachers use to obtain information to
classify children. Teachers are influenced by their perceptions of the
child's social environment. his or her previous academic performance.
and the subjective information they receive about a child's social
behavior from his or her previous teachers (Gomes. 1979). According to
Comes. these classifications come to constitute the "unofficial school
biography" of the child and contribute to the child's official school
file. These biographies begin in the first year of the child's school
life and are very difficult to alter. Gomes found that the interaction
between teacher and child in the first few weeks of school is extremefly
important and has a great deal to do with why somelchildren are success-
ful and some unsuccessful in school. The child's communicative compe-

tence (Hymes. 1972) is the most rel ied-upon criterion used by the

25

teacher to assess the child's academic ability and potential (Comes.

1979). By communicative competence Gomes meant a child's ability to

ask questions. to make himself or herself understood. and to act like
he or she knew what to do in school.

After a teacher has observed the interactions of the children in
his or her class for some time. he or she usually begins to classify
them according to his or her own practical categories. The categories
are then broken down further as more information is obtained. A
teacher has to use practical reasoning skills when deciding if any
children need to be referred for special education evaluation. This is
a naturally occurring classroom event. The teacher forms categories to
take advantage of all the rich clusters of particularistic attributes
that form around the children as she gets to know them better through
her interactions with them. In studies of the way people form
categories. it has been found that category formation begins with the
principle of family resemblance (Rosch & Mervis. 1975). Rosch and
Mervis wanted to test the prevailing viewpoint that categories are
"logically bounded entities" (p. 573) against Wittgenstein's (1953)
principle of family resemblance as he had applied it to his studies of
language categories. Family resemblance can be defined as a set
wherein each member of a group has at least one. and probably several.
common elements. but few or no elements are common to all of the
members of the set (Rosch & Mervis. 1975). This principle can be used
to think about how teachers come up with their own practical cate-

gories. In his special education referral study. Mehan (1981) also

26

found that teachers"theories of perception and categorization follow a
family-resemblance theory rather than a critical-features theory.
Teachers treat the same behavior produced by different students in
different ways.

Teachers are common-sense. or "practical." reasoners as opposed to
reasoners of the scientific. theoretical tradition (Hargreaves. 1979:
Mehan. 1981). Positive co-occurrences of events and not all of the
possible events are what is important to practical reasoners when they
make decisions. This means that there are certain events that teachers
tend to watch fon. These events are used to confirm their interpreta-
tion of what is going on in the classroom. Rarely do they look for
diseonfirming evidence of the events that interest them. and they do
not look at every event possible in theirlclassrooms when they are
trying to make decisions. Erickson (1985) called the sense making that
teachers do "meaning-in-action" (p. 40). This meaning is shared by all
the members of any group of individuals who interact on a recurrent
basis. This meaning is distinct to the natural group experiencing it.
and even in the most mundane of classroom events the pattern of meaning
being experienced is never quite the same. Those shared meanings can
be thought of as a "delicate interactional balancing act" (Erickson.
1985. p.44) wherein if one member of the group falters the whole of

the group feels the vibrations.

27

Wax:

Life in classrooms is a "series of face-to—face encounters among
students and between teacher and student(sN'(Florio. 1978. p. 7).
Teachers get much information from these encounters that is used when
they informally assess the children and make decisions about them such
as group placements (Dorr-Bromme. 1982L The in-school face-to-face
interactions of students and teachers that fuel the decision making of
classroom teachers are not simply a matter of how the child responds to
the subject matter. Subject matter organization in the classroom is
intertwined with social organization in the enactment of a lesson
(Erickson. 1985). The social context changes constantly with the
interpretations and actions of all of those involved (Dorr-Bremme.
1982). The student who cannot keep up with these social context
changes is more likely to have difficulty with the teacher's academic
demands. thus causing incongruity between teacher and child (Erickson.
1985L. The child now has not only the academic demands of the class-
room to contend with but the social demands as well. The student's
interactional competence is likely to falter at this point. Interac-
tional competence in school is demonstrated. for example. in the way a
child talks. listens. takes turns. and shares (Florio. 1978L

When teachers think about referring a child in their classroom to
special education. I believe they do so from an interactional perspec-
tive. They look at the child in question for what he or she is:
behavior. abilities. family. and so forth. They also look at their own

expectations for the child--his or her social history. what has been

 

 

28

heard about the child from other teachers. and from their own experi-
ences with similar children in the past. It is in the interaction of
what the child appears to be to the teacher and what the teacher is
himself or herself that decisions are made. A child's success or
failure in school cannot be viewed solely as stemming from within the
child nor as being imposed on the child from outside.

As teachers observe daily events in their classrooms it is natural
for them to categorize these events. just as people form categories
around everyday occurrences. This type of categorization is very
different from the predetermined behavioral categories on a typical
special education referral form. 'Typically. when making category
decisions. it had been believed that teachers followed either a realist
or a mentalist perspective (Mehan. 1981). The realist looks at
students! characteristics or "critical features" to account for their
success or failure. There is something inherent within the child that
causes him or her to be noticed by the teachen. The mentalist takes
the point of view that a child's success or failure is determined by
the perceptions of the teacher. Teachers thinking along these lines
tend to find in children what they expect to find. regardless of
disconfirming evidence seen in the classroom.

Mehan (1981) found that neither position seems to account for what
teachers do when they are making decisions about referring children for
special education. Instead. Mehan felt that the teachers he studied
took an interactional perspective to account for both the student's

behavior and the categories that they. themselves. bring to the

 

29

interaction. These categories include the teacher's expectations for
academic performance as well as for appropriate classroom conduct and
are not independent of the student's behavior as was felt to be the
case. for example. in Rosenthal and Jacobson's (1968) work. The child
is viewed by the teacher in an interactive sense. The child is not
perceived as a "sum of isolated lines" but as an "organized Gestalt in
the figure" (Gurwitsch. 1966. p. 17). This type of interactional
perspective has been discussed by other researchers (Cantor & Mischel.
1979; Rosch & Mervis. 1975). The way a teacher perceives a child is a
function of both internal and external conditions. Teachers take into
account the total gestalt. the "ensemble of items which mutually sup-
port and determine one another" (Gurwitsch. 1966. p. 24) when making

sorting decisions about children in their classes.

 

 

CHAPTER III

THE STUDY: AN OUTSIDER'S GUIDE TO THE
SECOND-GRADE CLASSROOM

This chapter is arranged in four sections plus a summary. The
first section contains the research questions of the study. Next is a
description of the methodological approach. Third. the method of
analysis used in the study and underlying assumptions of thelnethodo-
logical approach are described. Fourth. the sample used in the study

is presented in detail. Finally. a summary concludes the chapter.

W

The identification of children for special education services in
elementary schools was the topic of this study. In particular. I was
interested in how a teacher identifies children with mild to moderate
learning or behavior problems in a second-grade classroom. While
children with severe handicapping conditions such as blindness.
deafness. marked retardation. or limiting physical handicaps are
identified before entering elementary school. children with mild or
moderate learning or behavior problems are usually not identified until
they enter schooL. This latter group of problems is known as high-
incidence disorders because they occur with greater frequency than the

former group. known collectively as low-incidence disorders. ‘The

30

31

special education categories of learning disabilities and emotional
impairment fall into the high-incidence group. (For definitions of
these terms see Appendix Ad In general. the identification of these
types of problems begins when the classroom teacher notices something
about children that sets them apart educationally or behaviorally from
the other children in her class. The teacher categorizes some of them
as being in need of additional attention. The teacher then closely
observes the children and makes some decisions about whether to make a
referral for assistance from sources outside the classroom. such as
special education. The major responsibility for the referral rests on
the chilcfls regular classroom teacher since it is usually not until a
child begins formal education that learning disabilities and emotional
impairments become a problem for the child. The regular classroom
teacher has a prime role in deciding whether a child obtains a special
education identity or not. I am taking the position that it is the
regular teacher who acts as the first gatekeeper in the first step of
the special education referral process (see Figure 1.1).

The primary questions addressed in this participant observational
study concerned the beginning of the identification process. They
focused on the classroom teacher's role in choosing the children to be
referred. The broad research question guiding the study was: 1191 does
mWanmmnMMMfi
special education,helpz Behind this overall question were three sets
of questions that were particularly useful in my getting started in the

field and in guiding the study. The first set dealt with the things a

ad

 

 

 

 

32

teacher notices in the first days and weeks of a school year that alert
her to possible special needs in certain children: Does the teacher
see this as more the absence of certain responses than the presence of
others? What. specifically. is there about some children's behavior
that causes them to be noticed by the teacher while others are not? Is
it the context of a child's behavior. as much as the behavior itself.
that catches a teacher's attention? Are there certain types of
behavior that cause a teacher to refer a child for special services. or
is it the total picture of the child?

The second set of questions had to do with what happens once a
certain child attracts the teacher's attention: Does the teacher begin
to look at the child in a different way than he or she does the other
children? Does the teacher see the identified child responding the
same as or differently than other children in teacher-child interac-
tions? Does the teacher see the identified child responding the same
as or differently than other children in child-child interactions?

Will the interactions between children who are referred for special
education and the other children change as a result of their being
identified?

The third and final set of questions was developed around the
popular notion that once a teacher makes an initial judgment about a
child it is very difficult to change that impression: How does a
teacher's impression of children who have been identified as being in
need of extra help in the first weeks of school change over the course

of a semester or the school year? Why is it that some children who

 

 

 

 

_ ___—--—i- ———-—' 4

33

appear to the teacher to have problems in the first weeks of school get
referred for special services and others do not? Will there be a
difference in what the teacher notices about children that gets them
referred for special services as the year goes on? For example. are
children referred in October for different reasons than they are in
January?

After I had been in the school for several months. I realized that
my question sets were too reductionist in nature for the phenomenon
that I wanted to study. Being a part of the naturalistic environment
of the classroom forced me to redefine my questions. The questions
began to revolve around how the teacher made sense of the interactions
within her classroom and the role that her own observation and
practical-reasoning skills played in this crucial. but naturally
occurring decision about special education referral. According to
Erickson (1985). research questions can be "reconstructed in response
to changes in the fiel dworker's perceptions and understandings of

events and their organization" (p. 9) while in the fieldsetting.

BeaeaneLEJan
Given the nature of the research questions and the in-depth
understanding of the phenomenon that was desired. I felt that a year-
long fieldwork study would be the most appropriate and best way to gain
these insights. Interpretive participant observation (Erickson. 1985)

was used to gather data for this study. It is already known that most

,referrals for special education in the high-incidence areas such as

learning disabilities and emotional impairment are done by the

 

 

 

 

_____- —._'.....__——--‘-—-——

———-

34

classroom teacher. What is not known is how the classroom teacher goes
about deciding whom to refer and whom not to refer. The research tools
of the ethnographic or fieldwork method have been adapted to education
from the disciplines of anthropology and sociology. It was felt that
these procedures. increasingly more prominent in educational research.
would be the most appropriate to use in trying to discover how the
classroom teacher sets children apart for special education referral.

Extensive on-site pant1gipant obsenxation was carried out. This
involved the often difficult task of finding the right blend between
observing and participating in the activities of the class. I was
present in the classroom almost every day from the first day of the
1981-82 school year through the month of October. After that. the
classroom was visited two or three times per week through December.
From January through the second week in April (Spring Break). I was
present once or twice a week. From mid-April until the close of the
school year on June 17. contact was maintained with the teacher by
means of the telephone and periodic visits. Care was taken to be
present at particularly crucial times during the year as identified by
both the teacher. previous researchers. and myself. In all. site
visitations were made on 62 different days. 11 of which were full days
and the rest half days. This amounted to approximately 312 hours of
on-site observation.

Observation was focused on the classroom teacher and the objects
of her attention. At first. student interaction was noted primarily as

it appeared to have a relationship to what the teacher was seeing.

 

35

Later. the interactions of specific children who were identified as
potential candidates for special education referral were more closely
observed. even if the teacher's attention was elsewhere. During the
periods of participant observation. extensive fieldnotes were taken and
mm pertinent to what was happening in the classroom were
collected. These documents included student assignments. bulletins to
go hone. district policy booklets. and so forth. Fieldnotes were
gathered during the classroom visits (Schatzman a Strauss. 1977; see
pages 94-101). Over 460 pages of footnotes comprise the written data
base.

Periodic M11915 were held with the teacher to gain insight
into her ways of interpreting and to confirm or disconf‘i rm the
researcher's inferences with supporting evidence reflecting the
position of the teacher-informant. For the most part the interviews
took place during the teacher's lunchtime. On several occasions
interview data were gathered during recess. in the car on the way to
lunch at a local restaurant. at the restaurant. and after school. The
format that worked best with the teacher in this case was that of an
informal interview rather than a structured formal interview. I
prepared a few specific questions about observations and ideas of
interest to me and interspersed these as they seemed appropriate. It
was not difficult to get the teacher to express her feelings about
events and specific children in the classroom. Her openness in the
interviews provided an excellent source of data. She made it easy for

me to check inferences without having to do much probing. Each

 

 

36

interview was audiotaped. and ten interviews were completed that span
the course of the school year.

'linegtaping of classroom events. the teacher. and specific target
children was done in an attempt to capture what she was seeing as she
went about her day-to-day teaching. as well as the specific behavior of
the target children. On several occasions the teacher specifically
asked for certain activities (the opening of the school day) and
specific children (Pamnw'during seatwork) to be filmed. These were
viewed and discussed afterwards. I felt that the use of videotape
would enhance both the teacher's recall of her cognitive processing at
the time of the action. and allow me to study the context of incidents
that might become salient at a later date. This method was particu-
larly useful later in the year when the target children had been iden-
tified as it allowed me to go back to the early videotapes and watch
the behavior of the identified children. At the beginning of the year
the camera was placed on a tripod in the front corner of the room.
behind the teacher's desk (see Figure 3.1). From this angle it was
possible to tape the class from nearly the same perspective the teacher
had when she addressed the children from her desk. A wide-angle lens
was used to include as many children as possible at one time. but the
camera was too close to the children to get all of them in view at
once. Later in the year. a zoom lens was used to focus on specific
children and events of interest.A In all. 19 hours of videotape are

included in the data corpus.

37

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Room arrangement--September 1981.

Figure 3.1:

 

 

 

l W.
C ( k...” r
. a ....
I . .. ..
... a a a .....m
m a a a ....
Q . B A .30.. «393..
A 02?: H cuss! . don.
.W m AT Octou 23:5 xefiz. :Tpfisu
..W A
. a «.95
\ J A A v I ...:
As... X3000 A” ......vftz A 58.2... 96.5
/ 5...... .... A a... .
DENSOLa V
I 30‘ 1..» 208 1t.“ 1‘ dugout; 5c

 

 

— X23 —:8§¢.—

~ +3.5; ‘ .....ttd

 

37

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

w a _ _ 1...... . . ....l
l .2
fl\VT Ill\\ LN r J“ an
... .m
. S ..m mu @ ......
L .. .. .m-m
.... a a 0 av.”
m one :a
uuxom A cute! . don.
.W m A ottoo 22.3 2.85 5385
..w A H . . - .
. a . 9.0.5..
_ .5 ,
X13. a .30.. . 9.05 Conan.
\ j g
A a: s lief... .. .. ..
/ «OSHOHF a 383:4 new A x66... .
fl 1. .5.‘ arm «is! 1‘s" fiflumdflflfldflunmu
.v‘LCOJQJU _ XZ-m grab¢>Cd

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Room arrangement--September 1981.

Figure 3.1:

38

Selected pieces of videotape were used on four occasions in
.xiewing sessions with the teacher (Erickson & Shultz. 1977). The
teacher and I watched the tape together. Sometimes I would stop the
tape and ask the teacher to recall what she was seeing or thinking
about at that particular point in the tape. Sometimes she asked me to
stop the tape at places she wanted to elaborate upon or to see again.
The viewing sessions were audiotaped and later coded and analyzed.

At the beginning of the study. permission slips for participation
were sent homerto the parents of each child in the room (see Appendix
(D. The letter explained that the children might be asked to wear a
vest that contained a cordless radio-microphone for a period of time.
The purpose of the vest was to capture the words of specific children
on the videotape. By the end of the study. each child in the room had
an opportunity to wear the vest at least twice. This made it possible
to have all the children on tape under the assumption that if one or
more were referred for special education I would not have to call undue
attention to them. This method also provided videotapes of contrast.
or benchmark. sets of children who were later studied in comparison
with the target children. To make the vest wearing less obtrusive. two
vests were used. One vest contained a "dummy" microphone. The chil-
dren thought that I was recording both children wearing vests. .A
pocket was sewn on the back of a blue denim vest and the radio-
microphone was placed inside it (see Figure 3.2). The microphone cord
was slipped under several flaps of elastic sewn on the vest at strate-

gic points and came over the shoulder where it was clipped to another

 

piece of elastic close to the wearer's mouth.

39

The antenna cord was

taped down at several places on the back of the vest with electrici an's

tape. The children enjoyed wearing the vests and eagerly requested

their turns. There was an expected amount of "testing" of the micro-

phone each time a child wore a vest. The vest wearing sometimes proved

disruptive to the class. but for the most part it was quickly forgotten

after a few minutes and the children and teacher went on with their

regular activities.

 

Q)

Q

 

...----.-.-

I
O
I
l
|

\

\
\
\

\

 

 

\‘ uv"

FRONT

Figure 3.2:

:>

:3

c.-

g
a““

 

 

J.

Microfi one Cord
Radio Micmphone Transmitter
(inside pocket)

BACK

 

 

Recording vest with radio microphone.

4D

In summary. the interpretive participant observation method was
used to gather the data for this study. The techniques used by the
researcher were (a) gathering field notes during observations in the
classroom. (b) videotaping the teacher and children who were the
subjects of the study. (c) audiotaping interviews between the teacher
and the researcher. (d) audiotaping viewing sessions between the
teacher and the researcher to discuss what appeared on the videotapes.

and (e) gathering documents pertinent to classroom happenings.

Analysis

A four-faceted approach was used to obtain and analyze the data
from the study. The four strategies used were watching. listening.
recording. and analyzing (see Schatzman & Strauss. 1973. Chapters 4-7L
In an ethnographic study. the analysis of data begins while the
researcher is still gathering data. Analysis is integrated with the
other three fieldwork strategies. The data obtained from the different
methodological processes were compared and contrasted using a technique
known as ”triangulation" (Gorden. 1980. p. 12). In this process. what
has been learned from one data source is cross-checked for validity
with what has been learned from the other sources. An example of this
procedure follows: The teacher made a statement in an interview about
a certain classroom-management procedure she used. In this specific
case it was a behavior-modification technique. I examined the
fieldnotes for instances of the procedure being used and viewed the
videotapes for further occurrences of the use of the procedure by the

teacher. If the teacher was seen using the procedure on videotape

41

while at other times it had been documented in the fieldnotes that she
used the procedure. the evidence would strongly support her interview
statement. Instances of disconfirming evidence as well as confirming
evidence were sought to help the researcher make a stronger argument
for hypotheses that have been made (Erickson. 1979).
The next step was to look for classes of things. persons. and
“\events in an attempt to discover key linkages between the phenomena
occurring in the classroom (Schatzman a Strauss. 1973L It was within
the key links that the overriding model for the research developed and
the theoretical constructs emerged. This process is not static. That
is. the classes may change and key linkages may shift or lead to new
theoretical areas that necessitate further reading of the literature
and analyses. All of this was not done in a vacuum. Central to an
interpretive participant observational study is cross-checking with the
teacher-informant to keep the process constructually valid. Addition-
ally. communication with knowledgeable colleagues regarding the theo-
retical issues that were shaping the analysis helped me'clarify the
guiding constructs and focus on the key linkages.

Once the key linkages were set and the theoretical constructs were
researched. the next layer of data analysis began. This consisted of
the often-tedious process of organizing and sifting through the data
bases. Instances from the fieldnotes were color-coded around issues
and children. Audiotapes and videotapes were transcribed and color-
coded as the fieldnotes had been. A modification of Erickson and

Shultz's (1977) procedures for analyzing videotapes was used once the

42

children and events of interest were defined. I developed catalogs to
help me know where to find certain types of information in the
fieldnotes.

After two children had been referred for special education. I
selected instances of their classroom interactions from the videotapes
and made a master videotape of each child. When I made the master
tapes I used a Date-Time-Generator to record the actual school date and
running time (in minutes. seconds. and tenths of a second) on the
videotape copy for each event selected. Vignettes were written after
carefully watching the master videotapes and cross-checking my
fieldnotes for any off-camera interactions of importance.

Before evaluating the current study. the reader is cautioned that
the research methodology chosen has a number of underlying assumptions
that will be stated before the results are presented. Of primary
importance is the anti-reductionist belief that the whole cannot be
understood by examining its parts separately. The approach is also
predicated on humans being able to know themselves and being able to
express accurately their feelings about what they have done. Fron this
follows the assumption that people have the capacity to pay attention
to the meanings of their actions. to organize and simplify events
rapidly. and to take on complex social roles. Fourth. it is assumed
that most behavior is purposively constructed and cannot be understood
without knowing its meanings and purpose. The final assumption of
participant observational research has epistemology. the art of

knowing. at its core. It is the belief that the subjective view of

43

reality is both accessible and functional. It is possible to find out
what a person meant by viewing his or her actions or listening to his
or her words. The participant observational approach to research has
understanding as its primary goal. placing understanding above pre-
dictability and control. the goals of somerother types of research in
education.

A complete description of the setting and subjects of the study is
presented in the next section. The purpose of this is to help the
reader start to understand how the research questions. methodology.

analysis. and assumptions all blend together.

59111.09

In this section I set out to transport the reader to the actual
classroom that was studied. While this. of course. is not physically
possible. it may be mentally and emotionally possible to come close to
being there through descriptions. First. I describe the school
district. the school. and the classroom that was studied. Second. an
overview of the major happenings of the school year is presented from
the teacher's point of view. The teacher of the classroom is described
next. Following this. a "typical" day in the classroom is reviewed.
Fifth. the children in the classroom are discussed as a group and
finally. the special education referral process used at the school is
described. These are the essential pieces of background infonmation
that may minimally allow the reader to be a part of the l981-82 school

year in this second-grade classroom.

 

44

W

The school used in the study is located in a small mid-Michigan
community of approximately 30.000 people. The Seneca School District
(fictional name) is in close proximity to a major state university.
. the state capital. and a major division of a large automaker. The
community could be described as a "bedroom community." Its residents
work primarily in one of the above endeavors. The community is
beginning to change because a new shopping center and new businesses
have been built in the district. Seneca School District also includes
parts of two townships that are more rural in nature.

The district has grown steadily since it was consolidated in 1923.
The classroom being studied is at the Pawnee School. one of four
elementary schools serving the district. A one-story school. Pawnee
was built in 1955 and has since been renovated to include a media
center. a multipurpose room. and counseling areas. The district has
one middle school for grades six through eight and one high school.
noted statewide for its excellence. The residents of the Pawnee
School attendance area are very stable. The majority of the children
spend their entire elementary school career in this one school. This
is not true of all the elementary schools in the district. however.

Pawnee School houses almost 300 children and contains two classes
at each grade level from kindergarten through fifth. In addition to
the 11 classroom teachers. there are full-time teachers for music.
physical education. and remedial reading. There is a hal f-time special

education resource room teacher. a part-time speech therapist. and a

45

part-time school counselor. The school is served by a school psycholo-
gist and school social worker as needed. These specialists meet regu-
larly with the building team to discuss any children of concern to the
teachers.

The two second-grade classrooms are located across from each other
at the far northern end of the corridor in the original building. On
the wall outside the classroom door was a poster of Snoopy (the wise
beagle of Charles Shulz's "Peanuts" cartoon strip) lying on top of his
doghouse saying. "Relax. Second Grade Is a Breeze." Each child's desk
was labelled with his or her name and a picture of Snoopy. Snoopy was
the theme for this year's class. The children's art work filled the
room bulletin boards and hung from two wires the teacher had strung
from the front to the back of her room.

The way the desks were arranged and the children's positions in
the desks changed frequently throughout the year. Sometimes the
children's desks were in horizontal rows. sometimes they were in groups
of four to ten. and sometimes the desks were alone. At the end of the
year the desks were all together in a big U shape. The teacher had a
desk and a four-drawer file cabinet for some of her materials. Besides
the children's individual desks (see Figure 3.1). the room also
contained an area for free reading with a small table and two chairs.
This area was formed by using a bookshelf and another. wide shelf to
set it apart in one corner. On top of the shelf were wire baskets
where children filed their completed work. There were a rocking chair

and an easy chair with a footstool in the large open area at the back

 

46

of the room. This area was used for small group time. story time. show
and tell. and other such activities. The listening center was located
to the side of the large open area. It consisted of a round table with
four chairs. There were a record player. a cassette tape recorder. and
several headphones on top of it. There was a basket full of records
and tapes that children were allowed to listen to when their work was
completed. There was a compartmentalized. double-sided piece of
furniture known as the "cubbies" near the door. Each child was
assigned a cubby space. The children kept their lunches. paint shirts.
gym shoes. and various other items in these spaces. The teacher kept a
paper cutter. a box of spelling-group materials. and some clipboards on
top of the cubbies. There was also a set of smaller cubbies by the
door that was used as mailboxes. Notices to go home. homework. and
awards were placed in these boxes by a helper or the teacher. and the
children were to take their mail as they left for home at the end of
the day. The room contained a sink and lavatory in another corner.
There were storage cupboards and a teacher closet along the western
wall. Scissors. glue. scrap paper. and rulers were left out on top of
the counter for the children to use.

Roon 125 was very much a reflection of what the children were
working on that particular day and time. It was a room that looked
lived-in. Children's work was hung. pinned. and stapled all around.
It was also apparent on the first day of school that the majority of
these children knew a great deal about how to go to school. They

entered the room. took their seats. remembered to raise their hands

47

without being reminded. and got out their pencils. books. and other
needed supplies.

Before beginning the field study in Room 125. Mrs. Meijer told me
that there would be frequent changes in the seating arrangement. From
September to June. 13 changes were recorded in the fieldnotes. Many of
them were major reorganizations. I spent so much time looking at the
mundane issue of seating arrangements for several reasons. First. the
arrangements were made with a stated rationale on her part. Second.
these changes generally tended to set children apart from the main body
of activity. Finally. the seating arrangements can be used as visual
evidence to show what happened to certain groups of children in terms
of their movement in the class as the year progressed.

When I looked at the seating charts for the beginning and end of
the school year. several physical factors were noticeable. The
opening-of-school seating arrangement (see Figure 3.1) is very ordered.
There are six groups of three children and one group of four children.
all facing the same direction and lined up in straight rows. To the
teacher a row consisted of the two groups of three desks next to each
other: thus there were four rows. with Row 4 consisting of only four
children in one set. The row closest to the chalkboard where the daily
assignments were written was referred to as the front row. or the first
row. The rest were called the second. third. and fourth or back row.
The back row was the row of four desks closest to the door. The
teacher's desk was at the far front corner. facing the children and in

a diagonal line with the door.

48

Looking at the seating chart for the end of the year (see Figure
3.3). it can be seen that the teacher had moved all the children's
desks into a U shape. She had moved the front of the class to the
chalkboard by the door and had moved her own desk to this end of the
room. but in the same position--facing the children and the door. She
had reversed the focal-point of the room. The U consisted of six
desks next to each other forming each leg of the U. Fjve desks formed
the base of the U. Four children's desks were placed inside the U.
These four children were each opposite another child on the U. The U
shape reflected the coming together of the class at the end of the
year. They had "jelled" enough to be seated in one large block of
desks.

When the children arrived on the first day of school. the teacher
had already taped laminated name tags to each desk indicating where the
children should sit. Four considerations went into her decision about
where to place the children: First. she spread out the highest
readers. Reading scores from the past May's testing. recorded on a
card prepared by last year's teacher for each child. were used for
this. Next. the teacher spread out any children new to the school.
Third. "trouble kids" (FN's 9-9-81. p. 6). those who were known to have
behavior problems. speech problems. or others as noted by their first-
grade teacher. were separated on the periphery of the group. The
teacher said that her recollections of her observations of the children
from last year also influenced her decisions. First and second grades

share recess time and the teachers share recess duty. This gives the

49

 

 

Idea!"
-__1,.—\‘ 41.5} g,"\. 4"‘\_ 44"5‘ 1 ‘ é
:""'°' 1 I
21 ’ I
+1 a. 3355;“ Andrew judy Joe Koren bbkc] l
I \ ;
I
I
' (l Corrie MV)’ DONG
' < John
i " h I :
' ( Pam“ Eltmbei Jimm I
i I y
l ' . if i I
' ( Natl Royce, Sarah Donald Mary Steve CF09:
I
l
l
l
l
I I j
1 Teacher
1 1’:2L
l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.3:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l l

 

Room arrangement-~May 1982.

50

second-grade teachers a year to observe the children before they get
them. Finally. the teacher said that she put the shorter children in
the front. Presumably she knew their height from observation. as it

was not recorded on the child's data card.

NOW

A physical description of the classroom can give the reader a
mental picture of the school environment. The reader's own experience
of being a student should give some degree of familiarity to the scene.
What is more difficult to recreate for the reader. however. are the
particularities of the rhythm of this classroom in this school year.
Before I present the findings relative to the research questions of
this study. a general feeling of the way the 1981-82 school year went
for the teacher will be given. What follows is a highly interpretive
context-stripped synoptic look at her calendar year. I have attempted
to delineate high and low points of the year. Later. it will be
important to contrast the tempo of the year with the times of the year
when the teacher made her special education referral decisions. I hope
this synoptic view will be helpful in seeing how setting children apart
was. to an extent. practically grounded to different points of the
school year.

Each school year has a pattern and a rhythm of its own. 'The
experienced teacher is in charge of the class. but it is the children
who are in control. As I looked back on the 1981-82 school year in
Room 125 through the teacher's interview comments and in our informal

conversations. I formed impressions of the high and low points she

51

experienced during the year. On the overview figure that follows (see
Figure 3.4). the tempo of the year is traced via the heavy black line
to the right of the page. I have distilled each month down to its
major happenings or feelings and have used direct quotations from the
fieldnotes. A discussion of the figure follows.

September was a time of beginnings. It was a time of rules and
routines. There was an overall focus on classroom climate. The
teacher made an attempt to spot potential problems and problem
children. She tried to intervene before things could get out of hand.
She was very much in charge. She told me that she allowed little time
for self-expression or exploration at this point in the year on pur-
pose. The room arrangement at the beginning of the year supported the
teacher's contention that she was academically oriented with the chil-
dren being separated into ordered rows.

October brought on a "getting to know you" mood to Room 125. The
teacher increasingly focused on individual children's personalities.
needs. and strengths. It was at this point in the year that the first
set of children were seriously considered for referral to special
education services. By mid-month the work load in the room had picked
up significantly. The reminders of rules and routines. common up to
this point. were at a minimum. The teacher expected the children to
begin to work more independently. She was not going to. as she said.
do any more "spoonfeeding." This was the beginning of her feelings of
dissatisfaction with the class's progress. The teacher started talking
to me about the class "not jelling" (FN's 10-29-81. p. 7). This

hrs. Mei 1181‘

1981-1982 School Year

R00! 125

 

March April May June

February

January

 

November December

October

September

 

52

Emphasis on End of Year Rituals, Closings

"Hang on to a semblance of order” ( -82)

"IIANGIN' IN THERE"

Emphasis on Self-Expression, reativity.
Affective Tone

”Pretty well in tune with exp ctations" (3-11-82)

Emphasis on Academics

 
   
 
   
 

”The push is on" (1-13-82)

”THE BIG JUMP"

Too much "spoonfeeding" (11-4-81)

Class "Not Jelling" (10-29-81)

CLASS NO'II‘ " JELLING"

Work Load begins to build

Emphasis on Rules. Routines. Beginnings

"CEI‘TING READY TO FLY"

Overview tempo of the 1981-82 school year.

Figure 3.4

53

feeling carried over into November. At the same time the other second-
grade teacher was talking about one of her students getting ready to
"fly" in her work. By this she said that she meant the girl was ready
to really zoom ahead with the schoolwork. These were indications that
both teachers expected some sort of change to be occurring by this
point in the school year.

About this time the class began the preparation of artwork for
Halloween. There were special projects and activities right on into
November and December. The three weeks between Thanksgiving and the
Christmas vacation were taken up with holiday rituals: making gifts
for parents. doing special art projects. and baking together in the
school kitchen. At the same time. the children were expected to be
more independent and not to rely on their teacher for as much assist-
ance as earlier in the year. The teacher indicated that she felt like
she was "spinni ng her wheel 5" (FN's 12-1-81. p. 3).

The New Year. 1982. seemed to signal a new phase for the teacher.
She referred to this period as the beginning of the "big jump." "The
push is on." she said (FN's l-13-82. p. 2). It was time for "shooting
ahead and teaching kids things" (FN's 2-23-82. p. 3). She increasingly
put emphasis on the curriculum. In interviews she talked about where
she was going in each academic area. There was less talk about prob-
lems or individual children. although these did not cease to be of
importance. She was not going to keep the majority of the class wait-

ing for the stragglers any longer.

54

The "big jump" mood continued from January to March. when the
teacher stated that her class was "pretty well in tune with expecta-
tions" (FN's 3-11-82). p. 2). At this point in the year she felt she
could let down a little and allow the children more time for affective
activities. They had more class discussion. The seating arrangements
were more group oriented. although the children still faced the chalk-
board as cursive writing continued to be introduced. a few letters at a
time.

Spring vacation was in early April. and the teacher predicted that
it would be all downhill after that point. In 1982 there was an
unusually lengthy ten weeks after vacation until school closed. Both
second-grade teachers had lamented about what a long spring it was
going to be. April and May passed. and some of the children were still
finishing up the major project of the year: the wild animal "research
report."

For the teacher the end of May and early June were the "hanging in
there" time of the year. A "gang of boys" had formed. and the girls
were pairing up. Children's feelings were hurt when best friends
changed overnight. The teacher spoke to me about trying tol"maintain
her cool." Reading testing. math testing. and a second-grade play
about nature all disrupted the normal daily schedule. The end-of-the-
year rituals and special events occupied a great deal of class time
until the last day of school. June 17. The day before school closed
the children received their teacher assignments for the next year.

They all counted down the final 30 seconds on June 17 and they were

55

"officially" third graders. The children climbed aboard their buses

and left for home.

SLOW
Before I move further in the study I would like to introduce the

main character of the study. Up to this point she has been described
only as "the teacher" or "she." Mrs. Meijer (not her real name. see

A Note on Stylistic Conventions for details) was in her early thirties.
She had been teaching for seven years. all in the Seneca School Dis-
trict. and was in her second year as a second-grade teacher at Pawnee
School. Mrs. Meijer had taught fourth grade at another school in the
district previously. She received her bachelor's degree in elementary
education and her master's degree in reading from the university
located nearby. After college she stayed in the area. obtaining her
first teaching job in the Seneca District. Mrs. Meijer is Caucasian.
and divorced. and was raising her young daughter alone at the time of
the study. She had volunteered to take part in the larger study
(Teachers' Practical Ways of Seeing. Frederick Erickson. Principal
Investigator. for the Institute for Research on Teaching at Michigan
State University). She was very open as to her personal feelings about
teaching and what went on in thelclassroom. Mrs. Meijer could express
herself in ways that were easy to understand. It should be remembered
that most of her words were being recorded and a great deal of her
teaching was being videotaped. Audiovisual recording usually inhibits

a person not used to "performingJ'

56

6 "13:91:31.. Di}!
My version of the school year as told from the teacher's

perspective has previously been described. Next. a "typical" day in
Room 125 is outlined to give the reader a fuller sense of what life in
this second-grade classroom was like. As anyone who has ever taught
can attest. there is rarely a typical day. and what follows reflects
this. The description is a composite of several days of fieldnotes
rather than an actual day (see Appendix D for exact fieldnotes from a

"real" day).

A Day in Room 125

Four yellow school buses started bringing children to Pawnee
School at 9:00 a.m. Children filed off the buses. hung up their
coats and hats on hooks along the hall wall by their respective
classrooms. The children in Mrs. Meijer's room had until 9:10 to
get ready to begin the day. The arrival time was for putting
lunches away in cubbies. for sharpening pencils. for using the
bathroom. for talking to friends. or for just generally easing
into the day.

At 9:10 Mrs. Meijer would say. "Boys and girls. it's ten
after." or something similar. and the children were expected to
take their seats and to stop talking. Usually they responded
quickly. but sometimes they had to be reminded to get ready. Her
opening tasks included taking attendance for the day. taking hot
lunch count. collecting any notes children had brought from home
or homework they were returning. and finally. the recitation of
the Pledge of Allegiance. led by one of the children. These
activities usually took less than ten minutes. and then Mrs.
Meijer moved on to a discussion of the daily assignments.

Mrs. Meijer would have two or three student helpers return
the previous day's papers that she had checked. generally in the
evening at home. The children were to file papers that she had
initialed in their desk folders. made specifically for this pur-
pose. The papers that still needed correction were to be left out
on the child's desk to be finished during any extra time during
the day. The daily assignments were written on one side of the
front chalkboard every day. Several examples follow.

57

9-21-81 11-24-81
1. Letters-o. p 1. Math
2. Girls 2. Journal 11-24-81
3. Mighty Math 3. Language
4. Fish 4. Story Problems

5. Spelling-p. 33
6. Stuff Turkey

 

3-2-82 6-3-82
Cursive Spelling--118-119
Math-Red-Test Math-Y-Unit Test
Yellow-189-190 +24l-24l
WkBooks-R 25-26 R
S 25-26 Cloze
SP 23-24 Reading WkBooks-87-88
Make Spring Journal Corrections
Diorama
God's Eye

At the beginning of the year Mrs. Meijer spent between 15 and
20 minutes (some days up to 30 minutes) going over the assignments
with the children. Each worksheet would be passed out. The chil-
dren tore out their math and reading workbook pages. and any spe-
cial equipment (such as construction paper) that they would need
was distributed. At the end of the year she spent five or less
minutes going over the boardwork. The children were to do the
assignments in the order that they were written on the board.
They were to stack the pages they had tolcomplete on their desk
from first to last. in the order to be completed. As an assign-
ment was finished the child was free to go over to the area of the
room where Mrs. Meijer kept five wire baskets. labelled by sub-
ject. Papers were to be filed name up. all facing the same di rec-
tion so they would be all ready for Mrs. Meijer to grade without
her having to organize them first.

After she explained the daily seatwork. Mrs. Meijer started
meeting with her small groups in reading. math. and spelling. She
did not meet with each group every day. The small group instruc-
tion continued until 10:20 when it was time for morning recess.
The children had a lS-minute break. They went outdoors if the
weather permitted. and then came back to the room for their snack.

Usually the two second-grade classes had snack together.
They alternated rooms and the teacher whose room it was would show
a short film or filmstrip to both classes of children. The other

58

teacher usually returned to her own classroom to correct papers.
and many times the "on duty" teacher sat in the semi-darkness and
graded papers as the children watched the film. After snacktime
the children would return to their own room and continue with the
unfinished work from before recess. Mrs. Meijer usually continued
to call up her small groups for their lessons. This went on for
the rest of the morning until it was time to clean up for lunch.
While the children were getting themselves ready. Mrs. Meijer
usually went around checking corrections or helped children who
had problems with their work.

Lunch was from 12:10 to 1:00. The teachers walked their
classes down to the lunch room. but after that had a duty-free
lunch. Lunch hour aides were hired to do playground supervision
or room supervision on incl ement-weather days. When the children
returned to Room 125 they were to take a seat on the carpet by
Mrs. Meijer's rocking chair for story time. This seemed to be one
of the most rel axing ti mes of the day for both the children and
their teacher. Mrs. Meijer enjoyed reading to the children and
went to great effort to dramatize each story or--as the year
progressed--each chapter of the current book. The children heard
about Runaway Ralph. Pippi Longstocking. and Mr. Popper's
Penguins. among other favorite children's stories. They often
asked her to read more when she stopped.

After story time. afternoon activities varied depending on
the day of the week. Tuesday. Mrs. Meijer taught science to her
class while on Thursday she taught the same lesson to the other
second-grade teacher's class. Meanwhile. the other second-grade
teacher was teaching social studies to her class on Tuesdays and
to Mrs. Meijer's class on Thursdays. Wednesday afternoons were
art project times. Monday and Friday afternoons were usually
devoted to more group ti me: an hour of Monday morning time was
taken up with gym and music and there were "specials" on Friday
also (see Figure 3.5). The children went to music for a half hour
on Wednesday morning and to gym for a half hour on Friday after-
noon. The class also went down to the school library every Tues-
day from 11:15-11:45. and the reading teacher came in the room on
Fridays from 11:20-12:10 to teach a special group lesson.

In the unscheduled afternoon time Mrs. Meijer had the
children write in their journals--usually one or two times a week.
She had Show and Tell three days a week with the children being
divided for presenting. There was also Special Gym for one-
third of the class one afternoon a week. Each group of children
got this extra gym period once every three weeks. The children
needing remedial reading help went to the reading teacher's room
for three 25-minute sessions a week. Three children went for
speech correction on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 2:00-2:20.

59

Every afternoon from 2:20-2:40 there was recess. The time
after recess was devoted to finishing up work from the day and to
"Upa You BodyJ' This last activity was the time when Mrs. Meijer
checked on who had done their seatwork. She went over to the wire
baskets of work completed during the day. She picked up a stack
of papers. Each time she went to a new basket the children were
to stand up. When she called their name they were to sit down.
This meant that she had received their paper. Those children left
standing were questioned as to the whereabouts of their missing
paper. Sometimes Mrs. Meijer was left with one or more "no name"
papers. and the children were called up to identify them. Some-
times the child forgot to turn in the paper and would take it to
the teachen. In the case where the child had not yet completed
the paper. it was assigned as homework due the beginning of the
next morning. Later in the year Mrs. Meijer started sending work
home on Fridays only. Those who had done little work that week
had quite thick stacks of work to complete by Monday.

At about 3:05 Mrs. Meijer began dismissing children by groups
to go to the hall to get coats. to get anything from their cubby.
or to pick up any notices that were to go home from their Wmail-
box" (a group of small cubbyholes by the door). Then they were to
sit down in their seats to wait for dismissal. At 3:15 the chil-
dren*were dismissed to go to one of the four bus lines. ‘They
placed their chair on top of their desk as they left. Mrs. Meijer
went to the hall to supervise her bus line and to make sure that
all children were out of the building before waving "OK" to the
bus driver.

I have just presented a day in Room 125. The schedule varied
remarkably little during the entire year with the exception of special
assemblies and performances. ‘The following daily schedule (see Figure
3.5) was prepared by Mrs. Meijer. primarily for substitutes. and gives

a quick overview of what has just been described.

W
The next layer that must be added to the description of the

setting for this study is to talk about the children in Room 125. For

the reader to understand how Mrs. Meij er came to set apart children for

\OkOkOm

11
ll
11

ll

WNNN—

:05
:10
:15
:20

:30
:AS
10:
10:

IS-lO:30
3O

:lS-ll:h5
:hD-12:10
:A0-12:05

:55

:lO-l:00
:00
:05

:h0-2:10
:00-2:20
:20-2:“0
:hO-3:00
:05

:15

60

Kids arrive, sharpen pencils, bathroom breaks, talk, etc.
Attendance, lunch count, pledge, collect notes
Monday: GYM

Paper returners pass out previous day's work. Children
file initialed papers in desk folder. Leave out work
needing corrections.

READING SPELLING JOURNAL
MATH HANDWRITING SEATWORK REVIEW
OTHER

Small group lessons and seatwork
Monday/Wednesday: MUSIC
Recess Duty every Friday

Snack, movie or filmstrip or return to seatwork and small
group lessons

Tuesday: LIBRARY
Friday: READING TEACHER--CLASS LESSON

Mon/Tues/Thurs: Jason, Carrie, Becky, Judy, Joe, Craig
to Reading Teacher

Dismiss by groups to use bathroom and wash for lunch.
Circulate to initial corrected work.

LUNCH

Monday/Wednesday/Friday: Show 'n' Tell

Tuesday: Science

Thursday: Social Studies in Mrs. Field's room
STORY ART CREATIVE WRITING
Special gym (1/3 of class)

Tuesday/Thursday: Speech--Joe, Karen, Becky

Recess Duty every Monday

Tie up loose ends

Dismissal by groups to hallway hook, mailbox, and cubby.
Return to seats.

Orderly dismissal to bus lines. Supervise Bus 5 line.
Wave to driver after all have left building.

Figure 3.5: Daily Schedule, Room 125, Mrs. Meijer.

61

special education referral. it will help to have a general sense of
what the children in this classroom were like.

It has already been noted that these children knew a great deal
about how to go to school on the first.day. They came from predomi-
nantly middle— to upper-middle-class Caucasian families that tended to
value education. There was one non-Caucasian child (Chinese-American)
in the room. To someone who has taught only in an urban or rural
school district. this class of children may not seem familiar. at least
on the surface.

From an academic perspective. this was a class that. as a group.
had an overall grade equivalent of third grade (3.0) at the beginning
of second grade (ZJD. They all took the Stanford Achievement Test in
October. Their Class Profile shows that on the Complete Battery total.
57% of the children scored in the middle stanines (4. 5. 6) and 43%
scored in the upper stanines (7. 8. 9) (Stanford Achievement Test.
Primary 1. Form A; October 1. 2. & 5. 1981). No children scored in the
lower stanines on.the Complete Battery. but some individual students'
subtests were in the lower stanines. Stanines 7-9 are considered above
average. while stanines 4-6 are average and stanines 1-3 are below
average. The class composite grade equivalents and stanines for each
of the subtests are available in Appendix E. The subtest grade
equivalent scores ranged from 2.5 (math concepts) to 3.5 (listening
comprehension). There was no evidence to indicate that this Class
Profile was dissimilar to those seen in previous years in this school

district by Mrs. Meijer.

62

A cl ass has another reputation. besides an academic one. that it
brings with it to a new grade. This reputation. real or perceived. is
based on the fol kl ore that develops about the class. for example in the
teachers' lounge. in the halls. on recess duty. while monitoring the
bus lines. and in teachers' meetings. Before the school year began.
both second-grade teachers had been told by the first-grade teachers to
expect attention problems. Accordingly. the teachers planned several
listening activities for the first weeks of school becaDse they had so
many "singers. hummers. and mumblers" (FN's 9-9-81. p. 7) as Mrs.
Meijer put it. There were several rambunctious boys in the second
grade. and both teachers said that Mrs. Meijer had gotten the greater
share of them.

Mrs. Meijer said that there were more children with speech impedi-
ments (three) and more children with psychological files (six) than she
had ever had before. Psychological files are usually established for
children who have been referred for special help or who are in special
education. In Viewing Session 2 (ll-12-81. pp. 6 & 7). Mrs. Meijer
talked about the children having short attention spans and being imma-
ture. She also said that she had never had so many children who
"needed to sit alone in order to function" (p. 6). Both she and the
other second-grade teacher were hesitant to make jokes with the chil-
dren or to relax much because the children got off task so quickly.
She felt that she lacked rapport with this class and that they were a
"l azy bunch" (FN's 11-4-81. p. 3).

63

The above descriptions were meant to give the reader a feeling
that. although academically this class of children was average or above
average. the teacher felt that she had a challenging class because of
the problems referred to above. Both aspects of their reputation.
the academic and the social. should be looked at in the analysis of

Mrs. Meijer's setting children apart for special education referral.

W
The last piece of background information about the setting for

this study that is needed before the findings are presented has to do
with how children are referred for special education services in the
Seneca School District. The process of referring a child for special
education services at Pawnee School was a fairly straightforward
procedure. A teacher. parent. or the principal could initiate the
referral process. 'The district used a four-page referral form that was
completed by the classroom teacher (see Appendix B)land given to the
principal. The principal forwarded the referral to the district
office. Then the referral child was discussed at a building team
meeting with the classroom teacher and the specialists present. .At
this meeting the specialists would share any previous information about
the child that they might have. A decision would be made about
requesting the parents' signature on the psychological evaluation form.
The team may have decided to have the building resource room teacher
observe the child in the child's classroom and do some educational
evaluation before having the psychologist test the child. If this was

the case. the team generally met again. ‘They may have made further

64

recommendations to the teacher or have decided not to pursue psycho-
logical evaluation.

After the evaluations were completed. the team met again to
present their findings to the teacher. The parents were notified by
the appropriate specialist. Shortly thereafter the formal Individual-
ized Educational Program (IEP) Meeting was held with the parent(s) in
attendance. The IEP Meeting at Pawnee School conforms to state and
federal guidelines. Those present at the meetings vary somewhat.
depending on the chilcPs suspected disability. In a case of suspected
learning disabilities. the principal. the classroom teacher. the school
psychologist. the resource room teacher. and the parents are present.
The principal would greet the parents and introduce them to the staff.
They were informed that the meeting was being held to sign papers to
certify the outcome of the testing that had been completed. The par-
ents were given a booklet describing the services for the learning
disabled in the state.

Usually the specialists have each already explained the test
results to the parents by telephone. but they each go over their
findings briefly at the meeting. Complete written psychological and
educational evaluations can be read by the classroom teacher at a later
date by contacting the principal or the school psychologist. Then the
psychologist summarizes for the parents and makes a recommendation
regarding placement. This is discussed. and anyone with questions
asks them. Then the proper IEP form is signed with the determination

to place or not to place in special education entered. If the child is

65

found eligible for placement. a more detailed discussion is held
outlining when and where services are to be delivered. Objectives for
the child. and the other legally mandated components of the IEP (Pds
94-142). are written.

Figure 3.6 summarizes the referral process at Pawnee School. The
decision points are marked by diamond shapes. In a school district
such as Seneca that uses a discrepancy between achievement and ability
to determine eligibility for learning disabilities services. a "not
eligible" determination. at the lower elementary grades in particular.
does not necessarily signal the end of the referral line for a child.
The committee may decide to keep the child "under observation" for a
specified amount of time and then look at eligibility again. hence the
”No. but" decision on the flow chart. This apparently is done because
it may take additional time for a discrepancy to show up for a learning

disability.

Sumarx

Chapter III contained four sections. First. the research ques-
tions of the study were presented. Second. a description of interpre-
tive participant observational research. used in the study. was given.
Next. the assumptions behind the research approach and thelnethod used
to analyze the results of the study were given. Finally. the sample
used in the study was described. This included a look at the setting.
the teacher. the children. the school year. a typical day. and the

special education referral process used at the school.

.Nm:_mm_ ..occom ooczmm um mmouoLa _mLLOmoL comumuzoo _m_uoam um.m dc:m_u

 

66

 

              
       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

as? .8
BER mafia...
mom 28mmm§o
zOHansnm _
some E 208330 1 28mmm§o
28.2520 524884 23.28%
amaze mean some some .. . goofing:
Smash . 2H 22m 3 22.6 2023:8—
, Swaps Sage... 538mm
_ , .3 33m.
«39m:P_ azamsam

 

 
   

    

£<moomm
ZOHHEUDQM

 

  

 

LI...

   

  

 

   

-opfins one .pconmm
. pace—dose .Hozomo... 28mmm15
. mmacpnzoo . 20HB<UDQH
szmnbsm our Bzmzmmmmm< m<A=oam

 

 

 

 

67

The inclusion of this extensive amount of background data is
needed because it is all part of the teacher's observations and it
gives the richness of life in classrooms upon which she bases her
practical reasoning as she makes sorting decisions about children in
her class. A teacher cannot choose whether to refer a child to special
education or not without considering the interaction of the child and
the many factors that make up the classroom microculture. A knowledge
of how things worked in Room 125 at Pawnee School will help the reader
decide if my interpretation of the events of the 1981-82 school year
makes the same sense to him or her. particularly in the way that

Mrs. Meijer set children aside for special education referral.

CHAPTER IV

GETTING A SPECIAL EDUCATION IDENTITY IN A SEmND-GRADE CLASS

I will return to the initial issue of the study. children with
mild to moderate learning or behavioral problems. Such children are
usually not considered for special education services until they enter
schooL. These mild to moderate problems include learning disabilities
and emotional impairments (see Appendix A for definitions used). The
identification process begins when a classroom teacher notices student
behavior that causes her or him to set students apart. or categorize
them. as being in need of additional attention. In other words. the
teacher feels that something special may have to be done to meet the
needs of these students. The primary questions addressed in this study
revolved around the beginning of the identification process. The focus
was on the regular classroom teacher's role in choosing the children to
be referred for special education. The broad research question guiding
this study was: mumammnmmnwmnm
in need 91 special education nudges in .tbe earix elementary amiss!

The decision an early elementary grades teacher makes when deter-
mining whether to refer a child for special education services or not
is based on a phenomenological perspective of the child. The actual

act of referral involves filling out a form by the teacher. but the

68

69

factors a teacher considers before filling out the form are much more
complicated. These factors and the way the teacher perceives and
categorizes each child are the subject of this study. There was
something special about the way a child set himself or herself apart.
both spatially and temporally. that alerted the teacher to a possible
problem. Certainly a child with academic and/or behavior problems
could trigger a referral to special education. but in this case there
seemed to be something that transcended the physical list of character-
istics on the special education referral form and caused the teacher to
set some children apart for referral to special education.

The critical nature of the interactions between teachers and
children in the first days of any school year has been pointed out by
other researchers (Clark 8. Yinger. 1979: Emmer. Evertson. 8. Anderson.
1980; Games. 1979L These early interactions form a basis for the way
a teacher thinks about a child for the rest of the year. Teachers'
expectations for the child are set by school records. what they have
heard from other teachers. and their own impressions from those early
days of the school year (Brophy. 1982). In this study. general
expectations for the class as a whole guided the teacher's decision
making. Her referral decisions coincided with certain points in the
overall rhythm of the school year. The children who were referred for
special education received varying amounts of the teacher's attention
throughout the year. There were two critical times in the school year
when the teacher gathered all of her information about the children

together and was more inclined to make a formal referral for special

70

education. ‘The first came around the last two weeks in October. At
this point the academic work started to become more important than the
rules and routines. ‘The second major decision point came at the
beginning of January and lasted for several weeks. The teacher
described this as her time for pushing ahead and teaching kids things.
her big academic push. She was looking to see which children could
take the push and which could not.

This chapter of findings begins with a discussion of how Mrs.
Meijer saw her class. with particular emphasis on two of her terms:
focus and jelling. ‘These two terms are related to the research
question. Following this discussion there is a detailed description of
how Mrs. Meijer started setting children apart into various groups.
Vignettes of the two children who were referred for special education
by Mrs. Meijer add rich descriptions to the reporting. A summary

of the major research findings concludes the chapter.

.A.Ifii:h§£.lifil§.flfl£.§lfl§§

A photographer must have the ability to focus on his subject
accurately. He must also be able to look at the overall composition of
his intended photograph and select the correct frame for his subject.
A classroom teacher. like the photographer. must also make decisions
about focus and frame in the classroom. Mrs. Meijer used the term
"focus" many times when talking about the children in her class
throughout the course of the 1981-82 school year. Her personal
interest in photography may have influenced her extensive use of the

term. but it is an apt metaphor for the identification process. Before

71

a teacher refers a child for special education. he or she spends many
hours trying to frame a chihfls abilities against his or her expecta-
tions. The teacher spends hours focusing in on specific children as he
or she attempts to locate the child's problems. To even the most
casual observer of the classroom scene. it must be clear that it is
impossible for a teacher to be aware of all that is occurring at any
one ti me. The aim of a teacher's classroom focus may be to get the
overall. or wide-angle. view of her class. This was particularly true
of Mrs. Meijer's focus at the beginning of the year. Classroom manage-
ment was a primary concern as she did not yet know the children well.

I observed her as she quickly scanned over the classroom until some-
thing caught her eye. and then she would focus on it. Mrs. Meijer also
used the term "focus" to apply to an individual child or small group.
She would tell a certain child to focus on his or her work. or say.
"This is your next focus." Both uses of the term changed as the year
progressed.

Mrs. Meijer's framing changed from wide-angle to telescopic once
she got to know the children better. She would "zoom" in on individual
children in an attempt to get a detailed look at them as the photog-
rapher does when a telephoto lens is used. Mrs. Meijer also did this
when she worked with small groups of children. For example. when she
was teaching a small reading group. that group was her frame of refer-
ence. Children doing seatwork were blurred into the background context
and only became salient if there was a noise or movement that disturbed

the overall picture for Mrs. Meijer. If this occurred she quickly

72

expanded her frame to the entire class until the disruption ceased.
with or without her direct intervention.

At the beginning of the year. Mrs. Meijer used the term "focus" to
mean eye contact on the part of the child. The meaning of "focus" when
applied to individual children was discussed in Interview 3.

. . . just means looking at. Focusing their eyes. and most of the

time. like with Neil. you can have a visual. You can see

something visual in his face. where his behavior is showing you

that he's not attending to what you're doing. . . . (FN's 9-22-81.

p. 2)

By the spring of the year. "focus" had taken on a deeper meaning. In
Interview 8. Mrs. Meijer discussed her ideas about this term again.

. . . Focus doesn't merely mean looking at the teacher. It also

means processing what's expected of you. . . . Focus means getting

rid of outside distractions. Getting your thoughts on only the
thing you're doing and. uh. processing what's being said. (FN's

3-11-82. p. 4)

Her second definition of focus was one that few children at the
beginning of second grade are ready for in a developmental sense.
Craig. Neil. Pammy. Steve. Mary. and Joe were the children most often
mentioned as being out of focus. They received frequent reminders to
focus on their work. It is notable that as the year progressed these
children were the ones who came to be identified as the target children
for the study. This change in the way Mrs. Meijer used the word
"focus" paralleled what was happening with the way she viewed individ-
ual children. She went from an almost total focus on the children's
behavior at the beginning of the year to a focus on the cognitive

aspects of the children's progress. Mrs. Meijer used the word "jelling"

when talking about this phenomenon. On October 29 she said that she

73

felt her class was "not jelling" (FN's 10-29-81. p. 7). What seemed to
lie behind the jelling issue was her expectation that at some point in
the fall the cl ass should all start working together and start to move
ahead. It was also at this point that the workload began to pick up in
the class. Mrs. Meijer began to complain about having to "spoonfeed"
the children. This meant that she was having to help them too much.
She felt that they should know when to sharpen pencils. when to go to
the bathroom. what daily seatwork to do. and where to put their com-
pleted work.

In Interview 5 (ll-4-8l. p. 2). Mrs. Meijer said that jelling was
not something that an observer could actually see. I asked her if I
could film "jelling." She did not think it would be possible.

It's a feeling. It's a feeling you have between you and your

students. And because that feeling varies from year to year with

the personalities you're dealing with. it's never the same.
She said that jelling is an "overall kind of thing" (FN's 11-4-81.
p. l) and individual students are seen as "part of the whole jelling
process." The actions of individual students are the phenomena that.
when viewed from the teacher's perspective. are what give her the
knowledge that her class is jelling.

Four months after the above interview. Mrs. Meijer continued to
use the jelling metaphor for the phenomenon of her class working
together as one fairly harmonious group.

Can't say my class isn't jelling. Most of my kids are pretty well

in tune with expectations. What I'm noticing with kids like

Craig. Steve. and Joe is that they can no longer meet the expecta-
tions and they're starting to fall behind. (FN's 3-11-82. p. 2)

74

It is clear that jelling was tied to the class meeting the teacherus
expectations in some way. There came a certain point in the year when
most of the children could meet the demands. and then she made her
academic thrust. January through March were the most important months
for cognitive growth according to Mrs. Meijer. Her personal focus at
this time of the year was on the curriculum. She was conscious of the
fact that these months were usually the most productive for the
children.

On March 11. Mrs. Meijer mentioned to me that three children were
not able to keep up with her expectations. They were. in addition.
among those whom she described as not being able to focus. ‘The
children in a classroom who are not "processing" what is expected of
them and are not "i n tune" with the teacher's expectations are the
children most.apt to be set apart by the classroom teacher for further
consideration. The children who were considered for referral for
special education services in the 1981-82 school year came from this
group of children who set themselves apart and/or had been set apart
by Mrs. Meijer. These children will be discussed after a description
of some of the children for whom Mrs. Meijer had high expectations is

presented.

W
A feeling for the way the class ran for the majority of children

is needed as contrast for the stories that will comellater in this
section of the children who were having difficulties. Context is

crucial to understanding the research questions and findings in a

75

participant observational study. Some stories about the children who
were succeeding in the class will be told. A discussion of the groups
that Mrs. Meijer set apart during the year will follow. Finally. an
examination of the groups that became the foci of this study will be
presented. Fieldnotes for a full morning early in the 1981-82 school
year are reproduced in Appendix 0. These notes describe what happened
on a "typical" morning (9-25-81). The activities for the half-day
included: opening of class activities. a handwriting lesson. boardwork
explanation. journal writing. spelling groups. reading groups. film and
snack time. and seatwork. These fieldnotes are typical of the kinds of
observations noted throughout this year-long study. Sections from the
fieldnotes that were interesting to me because of some relationship to
a possible handicap were further developed into stories about particu-
lar children and events. What follows is a series of five vignettes
that I wrote from the fieldnote data. ‘These vignettes present the
reader with a "look" at the classroom interactions. Later in this
chapter I will separate the children into sets according to the way
Mrs. Meijer was beginning to see them in terms of their overall class-
room performance. The children who were succeeding in the class
according to the teacher's expectations can be considered to be her
benchmark children. Mrs. Meijer used these children as her reference
points throughout the school year to judge the progress of other chil-
dren. The stories will feature benchmark and target children together
in interactions. as well as the two groups interacting with the other

children in the class. Figure 4.1 is a listing of the children most

76

often cited by Mrs. Meijer in interviews and talks as being members of

the two groups.

BenchmarLCbinren IametJZhinnen
Donald Paul Steve Mary
Elizabeth Sarah Joe Pammy
Jessica Andrew Craig Neil

Figure 4.1: Benchmark and target children.

The following story about the Red Math Group shows the five
children in the lower math group interacting with the teacher. Of this
group of five children. Craig was the only one referred for special
education. Notice how he responded to teacher directions. Notice also
how Mrs. Meijer used a concrete approach as she directed her small

group lesson.

Subtraction Lesson--Red Math Group

Steve. Sarah. Craig. Karen. and Carrie (Mary was absent) were
called back to the group area of the carpet for their math group.
Mrs. Meijer wrote on the board:

2 3 5 5
13. i2. :2. :3.

All of the children were looking directly at the board except
Craig. Mrs. Meijer asked them if they could see how the numbers
2. 3. and 5 could be worked four different ways. She spread out
five workbooks on the floor in front of the children. She used
them to show how four different problems could be worked. The
children could see. visually. how the operations worked. Mrs.
Meijer erased the previous example and wrote:

2 8 10 10
13 :2 -__. fi__

77

She called their attention to the sample box in their math book
(p. 25). Craig looked on Karen's page. Mrs. Meijer appeared to
be totally focused on her math group. but had to interrupt them at
this point to tell the people doing seatwork that there was too
much "buzz" this morning and to remind them to do their own work.
Paul. Donald. Neil. and Joe were singled out and told to get busy.

The Red Math Group worked individually on the problems on
page 25. Mrs. Meijer helped Craig. at least three times that I
counted. by giving him explanations of how to do the work. Mrs.
Meijer went back to helping the others and then checked their
answers. Sarah was the only one who seemed to understand what
they were doing as I watched. Steve appeared very confused. He
was looking and did not do any writing. He looked around at the
other children. Mrs. Meijer asked them all to look at the next
sample box on page 26. Mrs. Meijer wrote: 9-5= and 9-4= . This
time Craig appeared to be watching her write up the examples. She
again used the workbooks to show them how to work the problems.

 

 

Math bOOko 6 '2 2
page 26 fl "'8 18.
. e
:2 re.
7 1 9
1'3. :5

 

Ibo.
Iii...

 

 

 

 

78

After working for about ten minutes on these problems. Mrs.

Meijer checked their progress. Karen and Sarah were excused to

their seats because they were finished. Mrs. Meijer still watched

Steve. Carrie. and Craig and helped them as needed. Craig was

excused next. then Carrie. and finally. Steve. (FN's 10-13-81)

This story represents a typical meeting of the low math group. A
concept would be reviewed or explained. Mrs. Meijer would go through
some examples on the board. The pages would be assigned and then
checked by Mrs. Meijer. She excused children as they finished or
demonstrated that they understood the concept sufficiently to work on
their own at their desk. She watched over the work as it progressed in
front of her. helping on a one-to-one basis if a child had difficul-
ties. The use of concrete materials to explain the problems was com-
mon. The high math group (Yellow) was much larger and the children
received less individual help. but the procedures were generally the
same as for the Red Group. Both groups used the same book. the differ-
ence being that in September the children in the Yellow Group had
started about two chapters further back in the book than the Red Group.
In the low group all the children except Craig had known to look at the
board for the teacher's examples. They had also known to look at the
examples in their book when a teacher directed them to. while Craig
looked at a neighbor's book instead.

In the following description of a large group lesson that occurred
in December. notice the difference in the way the benchmark and target
children (see Figurer4.l for a list of names) responded to Mrs. Meijer

in the lesson on question words. Members of each group both volun-

teered and gave correct and incorrect responses. Also notice the

79

differences in the actions of the two groups when they were actually

directed to start working on their daily assignments.

Who-What-Where-When-Why

Mrs. Meijer began the group lesson by asking the children to
"generate" a list of question words. Hands shot up immediately
from John. Elizabeth. Jessica. and then Pammy. John. the first
called upon. came up with "How." The children gave more question
words and they were written on the chalkboard by Mrs. Meijer.
Karen. Andrew. and Steve put their hands up to volunteer. Steve
was called on. He said. "There." Mrs. Meijer asked him if
"there" asks a question and told him that "there" usually tells
something. Andrew was called upon next. responding. "They." Mrs.
Meijer pointed out why they were wrong and moved on. Most of the
children appeared to be watching her. Steve volunteered "is" next
and was told that he had given a correct answer.

Mrs. Meijer then asked them if they had ever heard of the
five w-h words that go together and are asking words. No one had
the answer. so she told them that the five words were: where.
when. what. why. and who. They were asked to practice saying
these and to memorize them. She asked them all to say the five
words together. A chorus of "Who. what. where. when. and why"
could be heard. Steve said. "Who. what. where. why" twice as they
practiced. leaving out "when." Both times Elizabeth turned around
in her seat and looked at him. He seemed oblivious to his
onission.

Mrs. Meij er started going over the assignments for the next
morning. Some children (Elizabeth and Andrew) were sprawled over
their desks. and several more were yawning or stretching (Jessica.
Karen. and Judy). By this time. Craig and Steve were no longer
paying attention to Mrs. Meijer. Craig was wearing the recording
vest with the radio-microphone. At this point in the year he was
sitting next to Steve. Their desks were the closest ones to Mrs.
Meijer's desk. near the front chalkboard. where most of the expl a-
nations were given. After Mrs. Meijer finished the discussion and
gave directions. she suggested that they take their seatwork pages
out of their desks. Jessica was the only one who was already
getting out her math book as Mrs. Meijer talked. Soon Elizabeth.
Sarah. Judy. Andrew. Karen. Mary. Pammy. and the others began to
do as directed. but not Craig and Steve. Finally Steve made a
move to start working and Craig called out to the teacher. "What's
the top one?" (VTN's 12-4-81). He was referring to the top words
in the daily boardwork list that were written on the chalkboard
directly to the side of his desk. Mrs. Meijer came over and asked
him to sound out the words. He decoded slowly. ”Student council

80

re—port." Mrs. Meijer said nothing further and Craig stood
looking at the board for a few seconds. then hummed to himself as
he went about getting out his workbook pages. glancing at the
board from time to time.

Craig helped Steve find some of his pages. Then. as Craig
tried to tear the day's math page out of his workbook. he ripped
the page as often happens with perforated pages. "Oopsie." he
sheepishly muttered. Steve looked at Craig and mimicked him.
Then he said. "Oopsie. oopsie. goody. goody." Steve got his
paper out of the book without ripping it and said. "My first time
doing it right."

Mrs. Meijer was at the paper cutter across the room expl ain-
ing something to Judy. With only a glance toward her. Craig. torn
paper in hand. headed in her di rection. He began to call her name
for help before he was even halfway over to the spot where she was
standing. He said. "This ripped when I was taking it out." Mrs.
Meijer made Craig wait until she was done with Judy and then told
him to go get a piece of tape from her desk to fix his paper.

Then she made a general announcement to the class that they were
wasting too much tape and should be more careful when tearing out
their pages.

Craig returned to his seat to make the repairs and went up to

Mrs. Meijer's desk to get a piece of tape. He carefully put it on

the torn sections and then noticed that there was not enough tape

to cover the entire rip. so he had to go back for more. After he
had placed the second piece of tape on the page he held the page
up to the light and called to Steve. "Hey. lookit. You can see

through it!" (FN's 12-4-81)

It took Craig nearly six minutes to get ready to do his daily
assignments. With the exception of Steve. who had been kept involved
with Craig's torn paper. the rest of the class had quite a head. start
on him. While Craig's six-minute lag might seem insignificant when set
against an entire school day. it was unfortunate for Craig and others
like him that these lags tended to occur on a daily basis and in a
variety of situations. not just before getting started on their
assignments. Both Craig and Steve had partially focused on what Mrs.

Meijer expected them to do. but neither appeared to understand the

81

assignments well enough to stay focused on what they should have been
doing during the time of the torn math paper.

In the next vignette. a contrast between Elizabeth's and Craig's
comprehension of the teacher's directions is apparent. Craig figured
out how to get a piece of drawing paper only after watching another

child. but he used his new knowledge to help a third child.

Getting a Piece of Drawing Paper

On the first day of school. a half day. at about 11:15.
Mrs. Meijer told the class that she wanted them to draw a sel f-
portrait before they went home. The children were busy finishing
up the rest of the morning's activities and were at different
stages of readiness to begin their portraits. Mrs. Meijer gave
the di rections for the art project and told the children to ask
her for a piece of drawing paper when they were ready. Mrs.
Meijer continued with writing on the chalkboard. and some of the
children began to draw themselves. Donald looked around the room.
apparently trying to figure out where the drawing paper was.
Craig seemed to have the same question on his mind. and he went
over to Mrs. Meijer. He asked her where the paper was. He was
told to think about what she had said. Right then. Elizabeth came
up and asked Mrs. Meijer for a piece of drawing paper and she was
handed a sheet. Craig. looking puzzled. seemed to be trying to
figure out what Elizabeth had done that he hadn't. Mrs. Meijer
went on about her work. leaving him to stand there thinking.

A few minutes later. Royce went up to Mrs. Meij er and asked
her where the drawing paper was. He received the same response as
Craig and stood there looking puzzled too. At that point Craig
came over to Royce and whispered something to him. Royce went
back up to the teacher and said. "May I have some paper?" Mrs.
Meijer responded. "Yes. you may." and gave him the desired sheet
of drawing paper. (FN's 9-9-81. p. 4)

Even though I did not observe how Craig figured out what Mrs.
Meijer's directions had been. this episode seems to demonstrate that he
learned the correct response needed to obtain the piece of paper
without having to be told again by Mrs. Meijer. It also shows one of

the withit children. Elizabeth. following directions correctly on the

82

first attempt. She may have modeled a correct response for Craig or
she may have told him what to say.

From the beginning of the year several students in the class stood
out as being more adept in the role of student than others. One of
these children was El izabeth: another was Paul. Elizabeth's ability to
obtain needed materials was just described. The following example
demonstrates Paul's ability to approach the teacher for help. get it.
and return to his assignments. At the same time Pammy attempts the

same activity and does not get the teacher's help.

Approaching the Teacher for Help
It was shortly before lunch and Mrs. Meijer was helping

individual children with their seatwork as they came up to her

with questions. She was sitting at the small reading table

talking to Gail. Pammy went up and waited for her turn. Paul

came up next and they both stood around the table waiting. Mrs.

Meijer finished with Gail and acknowledged Paul first. Pammy

stood there waiting. She seemed to forget why she was there and

went back to her seat. never having talked to Mrs. Meijer.

(FN's 9-22-81. p. 1)
Paul was able to come up to the teacher. get her attention and help.
and go back to his seat to finish his work. Pammy was waiting for the
teacher's help. but she never followed through. She used up more time
than Paul. and she never received the teacher's help. She may have had
the same question as Paul and therefore benefited from Mrs. Meijer's
response to him. This is not known.

In December Mrs. Meijer told me that she was not happy about the

progress of her class. On a day that had not gone well. the children

83

were cleaning up and getting ready to go home. Mrs. Meijer said later

that she had been at her "sharpest" (FN's 12-9-81. p. 2).

Taking the Rap

It was a Wednesday and there had been a student council
popcorn sale that afternoon. Many of the children had purchased
popcorn. Mrs. Meijer had found a wedded-up popcorn bag on the
floor just as the children were lined up. coats and hats on. all
ready to go to their buses. She asked for the person responsible
to claim it. No one did. She waited. Children nervously looked
around at each other. Toward the back of the line Paul was
quietly trying to talk someone into claiming the bag so they could
leave. Suddenly. Elizabeth spoke up and said it was hers and
tried to take the bag from Mrs. Meijer. Mrs. Meijer just looked
at Elizabeth. The look on her face implied that she did not
believe the bag was Elizabeth's. and she did not give it to her.
She asked for the real person to claim it. No one did. Mrs.
Meijer said that there would be no student council popcorn for
anyone next week. The children. looking disappointed and doing
some groaning. filed out and got on their buses. (FN's 12-9-81.
p. 2)

Paul and Elizabeth were two of the children whom Mrs. Meijer
considered among her brightest and most "withit" kids. "Withit" was
used in the sense of knowing what to do at the right time and doing it.
(I will return to Mrs. Meijer's use of this term.) Paul demonstrated
his withitness by trying to talk someone into taking the rap although
he apparently was not willing to do it himself. Elizabeth summoned up
her courage and decided to risk admitting it was hers. It is not known
if Mrs. Meijer heard or saw what Paul was up to or if it really was
Elizabeth's bag. The former is more probable than the latter to me.
based on my observations. In any case. Elizabeth demonstrated her
withitness by feeling able to volunteer to take the rap in order that
all the rest of the children might get to their buses on time. The

pl an did not succeed. These stories conclude the look at the general

84

interactions of the class and at the beginnings of how this experienced
teacher set children apart.

Throughout the course of this year-long study of one second-grade
teacher. the focus of the observation revolved around how she deter-
mined if any children needed to be referred for special education
services. The story became a study of the practical ways a teacher
sees the children in her classroom. The story is about how the teacher
judged a child's ability to learn effectively from her and what she
decided to do about it if she felt the child needed someroutside
intervention. As the school year progressed. the children were infor-
mally sorted into categories. These categories were largely undefined.
but they seemed to form sets for the teacher to ponder.

To begin to understand how Mrs. Meijer went about grouping
"families" of children together. the fieldnotes and interview
audiotapes were carefully examined to identify her specific verbal
references to sets of children. It was felt that these natural
families might show some resemblances to one another that would prove
to be indicative of the patterns involved when she set children apart
for a specific purpose. as in referral for special education services.
Seventeen sets were thus identified (see Figure 4.2). These sets are
by no means mutually exclusive. nor do they include formal groupings
made by Mrs. Meijer for instructional purposes. as in her reading.
spelling. and math groups. Rather. they reflect the informal day-to-
day observations that Mrs. Meijer felt were important to point out in

interviews or in discussions of the day's happenings. It is noteworthy

85

Benckmarldu, lieu I I 51.104),- DOC‘SI‘I’I Omitted)- NOTHI‘KN)’: rarchT); MI CalcjonzedUJC)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ _ A I- - A -IJJ I- o
%&lmm 9:;299221 z!“ :E’mvzgz FAMILY
. " ' O
3.5;... .... : ..., iaflggg Wis
«4 «i
S§.mlm5€383§ REF 333 03 (moascnxrrIons)
._ wanted to get to
9-9 xx xx mowmt awg
first group of
9-10 x X X ”isolated“ children
9-21 x x x K ”targeted" children
to be tested need
10'6 K K x hel to 0 on in school
"need to sit a one in
1.1-26 X K Xx A X X '( 1‘ order to Lgction”
“bunch of talkative
12-8 X )( ‘ K 3"
- u 0 ”off on cloud nine”
11 x x xx 5 e, 1mm
. .: exc for not
2'11 K . ‘1 ‘1 E followifing directiLons
2-11 x X ' '13 Aqeader
g P=favorite
3.2 ‘ _; X . )S . g "on a par with IQ.
3.2 x A X A K .- A a still concerned about
3.11 x e 2 "when.“
E 6 ”none of their correct-
3-11 x K A ° ions dons la1_st week
3-11 x A A x a( ”cans of boys“
“gang of he s"
I}33 xk A X K A y
highest readers on
5-26 ’1 A K mup reading test
5-26 only kids who scored
’ S. “*1 0 4 .K. ‘ ‘ fl 1 ‘ below grade gym. on
I £9123 test
I a l T 1 I T' es 56*
i11667‘ 427412135 Liblo A;..'$c..o.ps

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.2:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mrs. Meijer's informal groupings.

86

that 14 of the 17 sets of children were problem groupings. That is.
they were groups of children mentioned as having. or causing. specific
probl ens for Mrs. Meijer.

Some of these problem sets were made up of children the teacher
considered referring for special education services. These were the
children I most closely observed through the fieldwork process. I
wanted to discover what it was about these children that had caused the
teacher to refer them for special education. She referred to them as
her "target" children (FN's 9-21-81. p. 2). Of all the problem sets.
why did certain children become "target" children?

Other sets of children identified by the teacher were studied as a
means of contrast. The pool of children from which the sets were
formed consisted of the members of Mrs. Meijer's second-grade class
during the 1981-82 school year. Informal categories created by Mrs.
Meijer included the "bright. really withit" children. the "doesn't
quite have it" children. and the "has it. but can't put it together"
children. The majority of the children in the class were between the
upper and lower extremes (see Figure 4.3). in what I have called the
average group as they were never given a family name in our discussions
by Mrs. Meij er. The informal categories I have described were groups
talked about by Mrs. Meijer. but they were not actual groups in the
classroom. She had other types of groups that existed in everyday
life. There were reading. math. and spelling groups. She had

groupings like her "gang of boys" and the children with emotional

87

problems. Children could be members of several groups. Only the

informal groups are reflected in Figure 4.3.

Doesn't quite have it

 

 

 

students3
Bright, really Average 3’
withit studentsT students2 \ ’
Has it, but can't pufi
it together students
1
Paul 2Jimmy Gail 3Mary “Craig
Elizabeth Carrie Jason Joe Neil
Andrew Judy Doria Steve Pammy
Donald John Blake
Jessica Karen Sue
Sarah Becky Royce

Figure 4.3: Informal ability groupings of Room 125 children.

Interviews structured around Mrs. Meijer's class list were held at
two different points in the year (late September and mid-Marchh She
was asked to say whatever she wanted about each child. (See Appendix F
for complete listing of Room 125 children.) Figure 4.4 was developed
from listening to these two taped interviews and from transcribing Mrs.
Meijer's comments about the four groupings of children previously
described in Figure 4.3. Also recorded on the figure are excerpts from
Mrs. Meijer's comments from the June report card as they were available
for the children of interest. These comments were recorded while I was
looking at the report cards alone. and no discussion was held with Mrs.
Meijer about them. They are included as an end-of-the-year summary

statement of how she felt about each child.

88

 

 

 

 

9-22-81
Name 10- 6-81 3 23 82 6 82 (report card)
Extra Bright, Really Uithit Kids
Paul active, sports-minded, continues to be a
quick finisher, likes leader
to be entertained
Andrew mother is a teacher work is fine, behavior (not recorded)
problems, but getting
better
Eliza- mother is a teacher, nothing unusual contin. top perform-
beth follows expectations, ance, super example
super worker, no problems for others
Donald "brightest student,” has settled down super student
except. in math, too
silly, push from home
Sarah ”another Elizabeth,“ "has really bloomed,” quiet, positive
math anxiety, sensitive, no tears lately, up influence
hesitant, quiet two groups in reading
Jessica fairly adept, feminine ordering behavior, needs some remind-
when necess., plays “mothering” role to ers to stay on task
devil’s advocate older brother, busy-
body, losing friends
Doesn't Quite Have it Kids
Mary doesn't like school works at her ability, still hesitant
misses things
Joe happy-go-lucky, immature, silly in hell, (not recorded)
speech and reading bothers others, made
help progress in spelling
and reading
Steve disorganized, not (mother didn't show difficult student
keyed to academics. up for conference) to motivate
question home support
Has ItJiBut Can't Put It Together Kids
Nell Isolated his desk, low-average ability, has not internalized
turns around and could do more if appropriate behavior
bothers others focused, parenting
problems
Pammy distraction problem, parenting problems has become a much more
. letter formation cheerful student
Craig lnnuture, listening petlt mal seIZures? continues to be

Figure h.h:

problems--medlcal?, one

direction at a time.
kindergarten repeater,

primer reader, adjustment
problems every year so far ,
probablelearningdlsabil-
ltles, seems "bright kid,”

wants to learn, visual

learner, wants to help him

get tuned in to school

interview and report

hesitant--wrltten and
oral directions

card comments.

89

In an interview on March 2. Mrs. Meijer talked about what she saw
as the specific problems of the group of children in her "doesn't
quite have it" group. She said that Mary. Joe. and Steve were "on a
par with 1.0. and what they have on the ball" (FN's 3-2-82. p. 4).
According to Mrs. Meijer. Mary has "no specific disability" and will
always be "the C student." Steve is "such a pig pen" that he sticks
out anyway. and Joe. although he works hard. is going to have a "long
school career." By the end of the time she called the "big push" for
academics in March. Mrs. Meijer said that Steve and Joe. as well as
Craig. could "no longer meet the expectations" (FN's 3-ll-82. p. 2).
She further elaborated that most of the class was dbing a "pretty good
Job" except for Mary. Joe. Steve. Neil. and Craig.

0f the five children mentioned above as not doing well. only Craig
was referred for special education services. He was referred in
October. In Figure 4.5 the "careers" of the eight children Judged most
troubling to Mrs. Meijer are displayed. The figure is based on her
comments from interviews throughout the academic year. Both Steve and
Joe were mentioned as being "target" children for referral yet were
never referred. Neither Neil nor Mary was mentioned for referral.
Pammy. the second child to be referred. was not included by Mrs. Meijer
in the group of children not able to meet her expectations in March.

In Pammy's case the evidence seems to point toward factors other than
academic ones. She was in the highest reading and math groups. but she
rarely finished all of her seatwork. Craig. Pammy. and Neil had the
family resemblance of "having it. but not being able to put it

90

together." In other words. there was something about these children
that made Mrs. Meijer feel that they had the ability to do the work she
was assigning. yet they were unable to organize themselves or their
thought processes in such a manner as to allow their abilities to come
out in a way that made them successful in school. It can be seen in
Figure 4.5 that only two of the eight children who were most troubling
to Mrs. Meijer were actually referred for special education services.

This indicates that she used referral to special education sparingly.

 

Pammy ‘\\_ Referred for Special Education

I
Has it, But Can t Craig ___d,/'V

Put It Together Kids

Neil
______________________________________ S NOt Mentioned for referral
Mary -———//,~

‘\\_ Mentioned for Referral

 

Doesn't Quite
Have It Kids

 

 

Gail ———) Referred for Counseling
Jason ---%’ Referred for Retention

Figure 4.5: Careers of children troubling to Mrs. Meijer.

On the other hand. Mrs. Meijer. as Just mentioned. felt that
Steve. Joe. and Mary lacked the capability to do much better than "C"
work. On the October 1981 Stanford Achievement Tests (see Figure 4.6).

Craig's stanine range (3-7) was the lowest of all six children.

91

However. Joe. Steve. and Mary were not much ahead of him with stanine
ranges of 4-7. 4-8. and 5-9. respectively. Mrs. Meijer's bright.
withit children. Paul. Andrew. and Elizabeth. all had scores entirely
in the high stanine ranges. Donald (5-9). Jessica (5-8). and Sarah
(5-7) showed more variability but were all average or above in achieve-

ment. Complete Battery Totals for all children in the class can be

found in Appendix G.

LOW AVERAGE HIGH
l 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9

Paul

0], er vmfl
llza eth

‘tgprewjfl . )

 

 

 

1?

Joe

 

‘_
Craig . .

 

 

 

 

°"' Extra bright, withit kids

Doesn't quite have it kids

 

-++++ Has it, but can't put it together kids

 

 

 

Figure 4.6: Stanford Achievement Test stanines for informal
ability groups.

92

Not all children who pointed themselves out did so in ways that
would cause a teacher to suspect that a special education referral was
needed. Donald. Paul. and Andrew were far from being "model" students
in class in terms of behavior. While not being in trouble with Mrs.
Meijer as much as Craig or Neil. they certainly received more teacher
reprimands over the course of the year than did such boys as Royce.
Blake. or John from the average group.

The major differences between Donald. Paul. and Andrew on one
hand. and Craig and Neil on the other. was that the former group were
part of Mrs. Meijer's "extra bright and/or really withit" group of
children as previously mentioned. On a qualitative level the misbehav-
iors of Donald. Paul. and Andrew were of a different nature in time and
place than those of Craig and. to a lesser extent. Neil. The bright
and withit boys may have been regarded differently because they man-
aged. in spite of some»silly behaviors at times. to get their work
done. They participated appropriately during lesson times for the most
part. They tended to get into trouble at unsupervised times. such as
lining up. recess. and free time after their assignments were com-
pleted. They were also more adept at.getting away with talking or
sharing answers "behind the teacher's back" (Spencer-Hall. l98l) than
the more "out-of-it children" like Craig. Steve. and Joe. They seemed
to have both a sense of their own worth in the teacher's eyes and a
sense of how far they could go with their inappropriate behavior before

causing the teacher to become really angry with them.

93

An outsider (the researcher in this case) can be misled as to a
child's abilities and achievements if she relies solely on the
teacher's comments. This was apparent when we discussed the end-of-
the-year reading scores in May. One of the boys whom I felt Mrs.
Meijer included in her group of average children was John. His scores
on the Stanford Achievement Test and the Gates McGinitie Reading Test
placed him as one of the brightest children in the class. He had never
been grouped with that set of children by Mrs. Meijer in her verbal
discussions of the children with me.

I suspect that John's beginning-of-the—year crying outbursts and
silliness kept Mrs. Meijer from including him in the withit group at
first. He chose Jimmy as his best friend at the beginning of the year.
Jimmy was a child who lacked self-control at times. Later in the year.
John's best friend was Royce. a new boy to Pawnee School who was
somewhat quiet and shy. John was on the fringe of the withit boys but
was not really included in all of their activities.

It seemed that Mrs. Meijer had attributed certain social-emotional
characteristics to John that overrode his high achievement scores. I
expressed surprise at the end of the year when I saw his reading test
results. John scored high grade equivalents in both vocabulary (5.6)
and comprehension (5.7). I had placed him in the "average" group
academically. Mrs. Meijer was surprised that I did not know what a
good reader he was. She did not express surprise at seeing his scores

but rather seaned to expect than to be high.

94

In two of the interviews (#5. ll-4-Bl and #8. l-l4-82) Mrs. Meijer
talked about a number of children who were not part of the process of
coming together as a class. When she first talked about the cl ass "not
Jelling." Gail and John were specifically mentioned as examples of how
an individual child. or a few children. can disrupt the whole process.
John had been in tears over a math assignment. and Gail continued to
isolate herself from the rest of the children. Later. Mrs. Meijer
implied that Steve. Craig. and Jimmy were also holding up the class's
progress.

When the Jelling issue was discussed again in January. Mrs. Meijer
said that most of the class had Jelled. but again she cited a number of
children who were not part of the process. Steve. Joe. Mary. and Craig
were lagging far behind in academics. John and Jason were described as
having problems with immaturity. Neil and Gail were primarily behavior
problems. Figure 4.7 shows the classroom standouts at these two times
in the year when the issue of the class Jelling was discussed.

It is interesting that neither Neil nor Pammy was included as part
of the "not Jelled" group in November. By January. Neil was included.
but not Pammy. By January 14. Mrs. Meijer had already referred Craig
and Pammy'for special services and had included them. as well as Neil.
in the "has it. but can't put it together" group. It is also
interesting that even though more children (eight) were cited by Mrs.
Meijer in January was not being part of the group. she made no further
referrals of children for special education services that school year.

lihen Figures 4.5 and 4.7 are compared. it can be further noted that

95

even though John was listed both times in Figure 4.7 he was never one
of the children considered for special education referral. Pammy. who
was referred. was never listed as not meeting expectations in either
November or January. as shown in Figure 4.7. This tends to support the
notion that there was something more than failure to meet expectations

that caused a student to be referred for special education.

 

 

ll-h-8l, Interview 5 l-lh-82, interview 8
Class is ”not jelling” This is the ”big jump”
Craig Craig
\ l
. Steve oe
Steve Jimmy \ Mary .
\\ 1’ Jason ‘ Ne;l
Gai l John Gail \ John
\ / \ /
Rest of the class Rest of the class

Figure 4.7: Classroom standouts at two critical points
in the year.

WW

I was particularly interested in the practical ways Mrs. Meijer
set children apart for special education referral. I felt that by
looking at the children she might refer. I would be able to determine
what set these children apart from the others in the classroom. At the
beginning of the study there was no way of knowing if the teacher would
refer any children. There were several children who seemed to point

themselves out to me from the opening day. As it turned out.

96

Mrs. Meijer verbally targeted four (Craig. Pammy. Joe. Steve) of the 22
children in Room 125 for special education referral. She actually
referred two (Craig and Pammy) children. One of them (Craig) was
placed into special education classes for the learning disabled for the
next school year. 1982-83. The other child (Pammy) was not placed into
special education.

Both children whom Mrs. Meijer referred for special education were
in the group of children she had labelled her "has it. but canFt put it
together kids." I decided to look closely at the data on this group of
three children--Craig. Pammy. and Neil. Craig and Pammy were the ones
who were referred for special education services. Craig. Pammy. and
Neil were three very different children. yet Mrs. Meijer saw a common-
ality in all of them. Craig and Pammy were referred to special educa-
tion as possibly being learning disabled. Mrs. Meijer's practical
definition--"has it. but cankt put it together"--perhaps better than
any clinical characteristic best describes the puzzling condition that
teachers face when they come across a child with learning disabilities.

Thumbnail sketches of the three children's characteristics are
presented bel ow. The descriptors are mainly my comments about the
children. written as I observed them or as I thought about them later.
The few words in quotation marks are Mrs. Meijer's words. Examples of
each characteristic were found in the fieldnotes. I will present some
of these in stories about each child.

.Q:aig--questioning; alert. yet out-of-it; dense; in one ear

and out the other; smart; wants to be withit--Cub Scout. snow-
mobile; artistic ability.

97

.Eamnur-absent—minded; insect lover. scientifically inclined;
lonely; shunned by classmates. but doesn't seem to care; individu-
alistic. not concerned with doing what others do.

.Ne11--brooding; aggressive; "mousie" at times with teacher;
mean. frequently copies others' work; shy about volunteering in
class; "emotional things."

After noting the above characteristics of the three children. I
went to the fieldnotes for the first weeks of the school year and took
out observations written about these three children. These observa-
tions were chosen to show how the children were already setting them-
selves apart from their classmates. At the time I wrote the fieldnote
observations that follow. school had been in session for two weeks and
the children had settled into a routine. The children in the class
were expected to take more responsibility for themselves now as Mrs.
Meijer was busy getting her small groups organized for reading. math.
and spelling.

9-17-81 Neil: Warned twice before 10 a.m. about his behavior.
Mrs. Meijer mentions an "office" (his seat moved away from others)
as a possibility for him. Teld again about getting his seat
changed.

Eammy: Reads to herself in a corner during Rainy Day
Recess. No interaction with other children. Has cabbage wedge
for snack today. In art builds a "playground for lady bugs" out
of craft straws.

9-lB-8l final: Often stands while doing seatwork. Argues
with Joe and is talked to several times in the morning by Mrs.
Meijer for his behavior.

Emmy: Gets a teacher-imposed time limit to try to
get her to complete her work.

.Qnaig: Stands a lot to work at his seat. Asks to
sharpen pencil at wrong time (during class. not before).

9-21-81 Neil: Is told to "focus“ several times. Copying
Donald's paper.

98

91319: Does not pass papers over to the side of his
row when directed. Mentioned as a "target" child. Asks for
something to be repeated. and he is told to have his eyes and ears
open. He seems excited when he notes that there are only 15
minutes left until he gets to go home.

Emmy: Mentioned as a "target" child. Shares
excitement with Craig that there are only 15 minutes left until
they get to go home.

The above notes show that these three children were already
becoming objects of Mrs. Meijer's special attention. These early brief
fiel dnotes serve as an introduction. I will next go on to discuss the
three children in a longitudinal way across the school year. I will
look most closely at Craig since he was the one child who became
eligible for special education services. This discussion will be
followed by a look at Pammy. the other child who was formally referred.
Next. a brief look at Neil will be given. Neil is included as an
interesting contrast to Craig and Pam since he was in Mrs. Meijer's
practical grouping of "has it. but can't put it together kids." yet was
never referred for special education.

Earlier in this section. I said that Mrs. Meijer verbally targeted
four children for special education referral. These were: Craig.
Pammy. Steve. and Joe. Since Steve and Joe were never referred. their
cases will not be discussed in detail. but the reader may want to note
them as they appear in some of the vignettes about other children.

These two boys were part of Mrs. Meijer's group of "doesn't quite have

it kids" (see Figure 4.8).

99

 

 

"Has It,But Can't Put "Doesn't Quite
It Tbgether Kids" Have It Kids"
Neil Mary
Targeted for
Referred: Craig referral. but Steve
Pammy not referred: Joe

Figure 4.8: Children most troubling to Mrs. Meijer in the
l98l—82 school year.

To study each of the three children in depth. I used the following
process. First. I carefully went through the data corpus and examined
all specific references to each child's behavior. These notes were
then analyzed and categorized into the specific types of problems each
was experiencing. Next. available pieces of videotape were studied to
get a sense of the antecedents and consequences of behaviors in the
context in which they occurred. Then. short vignettes were written to
portray actions (rich description) and shorter. supporting pieces of
data (thin description) were gathered. Portraits of Craig. Pammy. and
Neil emerged that showed a shared "family resemblance" (the "has it. but
can't put it together kids") as well as the particularistic attributes
of each child. The family resemblances appeared to influence Mrs.
Meijer's decision to set them apart as a group. The descriptions of
the children to follow must be considered within the context of the
entire group of children who were members of Room l25 that school year.

When the teacher went about using her personal skills of
observation and practical reasoning. it was necessary to>do this from

an interactional perspective. She looked at the child individually.

100

but she also had to think about how the child interacted with the other
children in the class. with her as the teacher. and also how the child
interacted with the curriculum and its materials. Being a successful
second grader in Mrs. Meijer's class involved the ability to interact
in several different types of classroom events. These events were:
Jeme mp eetjfifles. where Mrs. Meijer presented a new concept.
reviewed material already covered. and gave group directions or
assignments; smell emup eeflxjjjes. such as reading and math groups;
jneeeeneent neck Limes. seatwork and individual ti me needed to complete
a small group assignment; teacher Jntenaetjen Limes. when the children
received help or when they were just talking with the teacher in face-
to-face exchanges; and finally pee]: Wen times. before. during.

and after class. on the playground. and in the lunchroom.

WW

Craig was the first child referred for special education by Mrs.
Meijer and the only child who was placed into special education from
Mrs. Meijer's class in the 198l-82 school year. In this extensive
description of Craig. stories and comments from all the major events
involved in being a second grader in Mrs. Meijer's classroom are
represented. This was done because Craig was the one child in the
cl ass who was eventually placed into a special education classroom for
the mildly handicapped (L0) as a result of Mrs. Meijer's practical
observation and reasoning skills. He was a standout from the first day
of school. In fact. Mrs. Meijer knew a great deal about Craig before

he entered her class. She knew that he had repeated kindergarten and

101

had not had a very successful year in first grade. She knew that he
had received help from the reading consultant in the past and that he
would. no doubt. need it again this year. She did not refer him for
special education immediately. nor did she indicate that she planned
to. Rather. she viewed her task as his teacher to try to decide what
his problem areas were and how she could best help him. Her first
opportunity to observe Craig's behavior was in the large group context
because this was the primary interactional stage at the beginning of
the school year. Mrs. Meijer had gathered the children together on the
floor by her rocking chair before their dismissal to go home. (Later
in the year the children simply lined up. but in early September she
made sure each knew what bus to take. had their bookbags or lunchboxes.
and she made any announcements that needed to be made to all of them.)
Note how Craig set himself apart in this example of his behavior in a

large group activity.

W
Lining Up to Go Home

3:15 p.m. It was time to go home on the first full Monday of
the school year. The children were seated on the carpet at the
back of the room and Mrs. Meijer was in her rocking chair. She
directed everyone who eceugm; their lunch box to line up. Nearly
half the children got up and headed for the door. Mrs. Meijer
next excused those who nought lunch in the cafeteria. All the
rest of the children except one got up from the floor and went
over toward the door. Mrs. Meijer had started to stand up when
she noticed that Craig was still sitting on the floor. a bewil-
dered look on his face. He appeared to be waiting. Mrs. Meijer
asked. "What did you do for lunch today?" He answered that he had
an egg sandwich. Mrs. Meijer waited and then said. 'But you

102

brought a sack. right?" Craig continued to sit until Mrs. Meijer

went over and told him to join the other children in line to get

on their buses. (VTN. 9-l4-Bl)

At the time. Craig's mix-up did not seem remarkable. Yet looking
back. it is a clear example of the types of problems in comprehending
the nature of school tasks that surrounded him all year long. Didn't
he hear Mrs. Meijer's directions? Was he unable to hear the difference
between the sounds of bought and brought? Or was he confused because
he brought a sack lunch rather than a lunch box and Mrs. Meijer had
said. "1 unch box" people line up. Other children who brought sack
lunches (not lunch boxes) got up when the teacher said this. He was
the only child left sitting on the floor at the conclusion of Mrs.
Meijer's directions. Craig stood out from the other children on this
fourth day of school. He had problems in taking.di rections or
explanations in one situation and being able to transfer them to a
similar situation when he encountered it. The videotape of this
activity clearly shows the expectation on his face. Bringing a sack
lunch was not the same to him as bringing a lunch box. nor was it the
same as buying a cafeteria lunch to him. She gave two categories. but
he appeared to be waiting for a third. Most of his classmates did not
share this difficulty. at least consistently. The lack of ability to
generalize (or transfer what he had learned in one situation) tended to
bother Mrs. Meijer as the days and weeks wore on.

Craig's confusion in a large group over the nature of a social
task. lining up. was shown in ”Lining Up to Go Home." Another example

of Craig's behavior during a large group lesson. this one on metrics.

103

should exemplify the problems he showed above. This lesson came much
later in the year. Mrs. Meijer's academic push was in full swing. and
Craig's frustration at not being able to keep up was at its highest.
For everyday math lessons Mrs. Meijer had two groups. but for metrics
they all did the pages together as a group activity. The class was
sitting on the floor with their math books and pencils. Mrs. Meijer

was in her rocker.

Metric Measuring Lesson

Mrs. Meijer began the lesson by directing the children to
tear pages 139. l40. 142. 143. and 144 out of their books. As
they began to tear out the pages. she reminded them to keep the
pages in order because they would be stapling them together at the
end. Craig had the first page in his hand and stopped. Mrs.
Meijer said. "Tear it out Craig and keep right on tearing until
you get to page’l44J' She next gave the class directions on how to
show her they were ready to continue. Craig was the only child
not ready to go on. They were asked to turn to page 140 as page
139 was "not expected" of them. Craig was on the wrong page. and
Mrs. Meijer had to tell him specifically to turn to page 140. She
finished explaining what they were to do on each page and then
told them to punch out the measuring "sticks" from the back of
their books. Craig managed acceptably with this task.

The next eight to ten minutes were spent in measuring the
different items called for on the pages. Mrs. Meijer walked
around helping where needed. She went over to help Craig and
noticed Steve on the wrong page. She told them that they would do
page l4l together because it would be too hard to do alone. They
were to measure some lines in units and Mrs. Meijer drew a sample
on the board. They discussed the directions. and the children
began to measure individually as Mrs. Meijer walked around
helping. Craig looked on Karen's paper. About an hour after
beginning the lesson. the children's workbook pages were stapled
together. and the class all checked their answers at the same
time. (FN's 3-ll-82. p. l)

In the fieldnotes I made no indication of the number of answers
Craig. or any other child. got correct. The notes provide a record of

the children who were not functioning appropriately during the lesson

104

as they were singled out. Craig's problems seemed to be with compre-
hending the nature of the task rather than with being able to do the
problems.

That afternoon after the children had gone. Mrs. Meijer said that
Craig's measuring was fine. She explained. "He can do the skill that's
required of him if he knows what to do." When I asked her about his
performance during the metric lesson she said. "He couldn't follow.
Wasn't on the right page. Didn't see where the picture . . . just
didn't have those kinds of put it together things. Once Craig tore the
page out of his book. he was completely lost" (FN's 3-ll-82. p. 3).
Mrs. Meijer said that Craig relied heavily on visual cues. She said
that he had learned to compensate for his weak auditory skills by
relying on his visual abilities and that "without a finger point [to
the problem] he was completely lost" (FN's 3-ll-92. p. 3). Her
comments help develop the picture of a child who is lost without
visible structure. Tearing out the three or four pages from their
bound. ordered sequence in the book contributed to Craig's confusion in
getting started. Once he got going. he apparently was able to complete
the task.

According to Mrs. Meij er. one of Craig's biggest problems was not
following directions. On his special education referral form (see
Appendix H) she stated her concerns as difficulty with "memory tasks"
and "understanding directions." She felt that Craig's difficulty with
directions came in the understanding of what to do. She suspected that

his short-term memory might be the problem. Another example from the

105

fiel dnotes. the first art lesson. may help to explain the manifesta-
tions of Craig's problem with directions.

Art is generally an exciting part of school life for most second
graders. Mrs. Meijer explained to the eager children that they were
going to be given a sheet of construction paper and some straws. They
were to use their imaginations to make a design. She suggested that
the straws could be stuck flat to the paper or stick up at any angle.
Mrs. Meijer was standing in the middle of the rows of children. but to

the outside. facing them as she gave directions.

An Eager Artist

When she was ready for them to get their supplies. she said.
"People in my back row. that are not lefties. may go get some
scissors and a glue bottle for your row." Paul. Jimmy. and
Jessica all got up and headed for the scissors can. Elizabeth
stayed in her seat. She is left-handed.

Mrs. Meijer was about to go on when she noticed that Craig
was speedily on his way back to the supplies area. He had been
sitting in the front row. She said to him. "Craig. are you in my
front row?" Craig didn't say anything. He turned around with a
sheepish-looking grin on his face. He started to head toward his
desk. putting his left hand to his chin and then his right hand to
his ear as he walked quickly back to his row. The rest of the
children just watched him. Some were smiling. (FN's 9-l7-8l)
From where Mrs. Meij er was standing and directing her attention.

Craig could possibly have thought that he was in the back row as his
row was the farthest away from the scissors cans. Two pieces of evi-
dence tend to dispute this. however. First. Mrs. Meijer had consis-
tently referred to Craig's row as the first. or front row and to the
other children's row as the fourth. or last row. This incident took

pl ace on the seventh day of school. Second. no other children from

106

Craig's row moved toward the scissors. and all three children from the
back row did get up. Three of the four back-row children were "withit.
together kids." Did Craig truly think that in this instance he was in
the back row. or could it have been the excitement of the first art
lesson that caused him to rush forward before his row was called? As
the year went on. Craig proved himself to be one of the most talented
artists in the classroom. Was he not listening to Mrs. Meijer and
tuning out on the "back row" portion of her directions? Again Craig
"pointed himself out" in front of the whole class for not following
directions.

In addition to having difficulty following directions in large
group activities. Craig also had problems in small group activities and
when he was working independently. such as during seatwork. Specific
examples from the fieldnotes and videotapes will be pointed out; .Also.
examples of interactions with other children will be given. Several of
the stories will point to cognitive—thinking strategies that he
appeared to be using. These are included because it was Mrs. Meijer's
feeling that Craig had the ability to do better and this was her main
distinction between the "has it. but can't put it together kids" and

the "doesn't quite have it kids."

W

An examination of Craig's actions in reading and math group
lessons may shed additional light on why he was the first child Mrs.

Meijer referred for help.

107

Craig was in the 811nm (Houghton—Mifflin. l97ll) reading group.
the middle of three groups in Room 125. The children took turns
reading orally. Sarah was the only child praised for her reading this
particular late-September day. Craig was told to use more excitement
in his reading. (He usually read in a monotone.) After the oral
reading they were directed to do some workbook pages. and they all
started to write except Craig. When Mrs. Meij er questioned him about
why he was not working he said. "I didn't understand what to do" (FN's
9-30-8l. p. 2). She helped him and next explained that they were to
underline a certain picture on a page. When Mrs. Meijer reminded Neil
to underline. Craig did too. This was one time that he was not caught
for his inattention to the task at hand. He seemingly took a cue from
a classmate.

Similarly. a couple of weeks later in math group I noted that all
the children except Craig were watching Mrs. Meijer do a sample problem
at the chalkboard. Later. he looked on Neil's paper to see what to
do. At least three times during the lesson Craig had to be told what
to do and how to do it. He did watch the next time that Mrs. Meijer
demonstrated at the board. He was excused from math group to go to his
seat at 9:56 a.m. but was again asking Mrs. Meijer for help at 9:59.
She told him that she was not going to "spoonfeed" him anymore (FN's
lO-lB-Bl. p. 3).

Three months later Mrs. Meijer was still giving Craig extra help
in his math group. She had called the Red Math Group back to the

floor. She began to go over page 130 with them but noticed that Craig

108

was not on the right page. She told him the page number as well as
where to look on the page. She went over the general directions of
what to do. They were to underline their answers. The problems had to
do with the months of the year. Steve was sent back to his seat to get
a pencil. Mary was counting from right to left. but wasn't observed by
the teacher. Craig looked on Sarah's paper before he even tried to put
down an answer. He was so busy figuring out the six months of the year
that he forgot he was supposed to be underlining. He asked. "Do you
circle it?"

Mrs. Meijer went over the rhyme of the months ("Thirty days has
September...") and called the children's attention to the big calendar
on the front bulletin board. They were to find out on what day of the
week January had started. Steve could not name the day. Carrie could
not do it either. Mrs. Meijer told them and went on to explain pages
104 and 105. which dealt with skip counting. She asked Steve to
continue from "2-4-63' He did it and answered that he was counting by
twos. Mrs. Meijer asked Craig to go on from "4-8-12." He did not get
it. First he said. "BJ' Then. with a prompt. he said he was counting
by fours. Carrie was unable to go on from "3-6-9." but Mary could.
Mrs. Meijer helped Craig make an apostrophe as they had to write 2'5.
4'5. 3'5 on their worksheet to identify the counting patterns. Page
106 was explained. and then Mrs. Meijer gave the children time to
complete the four pages on their own at their desks while she called up

one of the reading groups.

109

Clearly. Craig was not the only one having difficulty in his math
group this particular day. It is also clear that he had trouble both
with remembering directions and grasping the concept of skip counting.
These same difficulties in comprehending both the nature of the social
task and the academic task involved were apparent when Craig was doing
seatwork. One of the seatwork activities that the children had to do
was "centers." Mrs. Meijer would set out six to eight sel f-instructing
activities on a table for the children to do during the course of the
week. They checked their name off on a master list after the activity
was completed. They could do these activities in any order they

wished.

SeatmcLBehame:

Around Halloween Mrs. Meijer set out a ghost puzzle as one of the
center activities. The pieces were in a box. but it was not the
original box. There was no guiding picture of what the puzzle was
supposed to look like when finished. There were quite a few medium- to
small-sized pieces. and it looked to me like the finished puzzle would

be about 5" x 7" in size.

The Ghost Puzzle

It was mid-afternoon when Craig went up to the centers table
and selected the puzzle. He took it back to his seat and dumped
the pieces out on his desk. He tried to put some pieces together.
He was not getting very far. When I asked him. he said that he
was trying to start at the center of the puzzle. He seemed to
have no strategy for fitting the pieces together. He tried to fit
pieces together that had colors that didn't match. He did not try
to fit the edge pieces together or to fit pieces that contained
obvious parts of words. He soon gave up and put pieces back in
the bOXe (FN'S 10'21'811 Pa 4)

110

Craig did not seem frustrated when he could not do the puzzle. When I
told him about the strategy of looking for the edge pieces first. he
did not seem the least bit interested. He had tried. but did not
appear to be bothered by his inability to do the puzzle. The puzzle
was like Craig himself. All the pieces were there. but it was diffi-
cult to put them together to make a whole. Instead of trying to put
the puzzle together. Craig moved on to the next activity.

While Craig was trying to do the puzzle. Pammy was catching up on
seatwork. Elizabeth. Karen. and Sarah were cleaning up the painting
area after everyone had finished the day's art project. Andrew and
Paul were back at the listening center. Mrs. Meijer had told the
children to be sure to read the back board and to do what it said after
they finished putting their skeleton bones (Halloween project)
together. The back board directed them to finish today's boardwork.
Several children. Craig and Joe among them. went directly on t0>centers
instead of doing their boardwork. On many occasions throughout the
year. Craig went on to free time or another activity when he had not
finished his seatwork. Most of the time he was noticed and redirected

by Mrs. Meijer. Sometimes he was not.

Is All of His Work Done?

The listening center was a place reserved for children with
all their seatwork completed. On February 3. at 15 minutes before
lunch. Craig headed for the area. Was all of his work done? His
being finished with seatwork early was out of character with his
usual work pattern that had been observed for the past five
months. My check of the wire baskets where thelchildren placed
their completed pages surprisingly turned up one of Craig's papers
in each of the baskets. A close look at the quality of his work
shed light on why he was done so quickly. (FN's 2-3-82. p. 2)

111

Figure 4.9 shows what Craig turned in for each of the five seatwork
subjects that day and what the actual assignment had been. At this
point in the year the academic "push" was on. Mrs. Meijer had just
learned that Craig was not eligible for special education. A few weeks

later she commented that Craig was not every trying anymore.

 

 

 

Subject Assignment Craig's Paper
Spelling underline & capitalize just underlined
Candy Page alphabetize words & no poem
(worksheet) write a poem candy/candle incorrect
Journal write about Ground full of erasures

Hog's Day "I wish that ther

was no tosh they of
the gond hoge"*

 

Reading pp. 101 & 102 skipped one on page

Workbook 101; others were
correct. page 102
looked okay

 

Math pp. 117 & 118 pp. 115 & 116 okay.
(with teacher) but these weren't
assigned for today

 

*Likely translation: I wish that there was no such thing as the
Ground Hog. (The Ground Hog had seen his shadow. and therefore
according to legend there would be another six weeks of winter.) (FN's
2-3-82. p. 3)

Figure 4.9: A look at Craig's seatwork assignments for 2-3-82.

112

The previous notation of the incorrectness of Craig's work when he
turned it in made me want to look for instances where I could actually
observe Craig completing his seatwork. I remembered that a few days
earlier I had watched Craig doing some math problems on his own. so I
went back to the notes and videotape of the math boardwork of J anu-
ary 29. The day's math boardwork had been explained with examples at
about 9:45 a.m. An hour later. after recess and snack. Craig began to
do his problems. He and Royce and a few other boys were copying the
problems from the board. Occasionally they looked as if they were

pointing to specific problems and asking each other questions.

Math Boardwork

l. 11 6 8 9
i6 :1 1.4. :1

2. 15 12 9 5
+ :1 i8 :11

3. 24 48 56 47
+ 13.1 :22 :21

(FN's 1-29~82. p. 2)

As I waked down the row behind the boys I noticed that Craig was
working on the first problem in Row 3: 24 + 30. His method for doing
the probl em was as follows: First. he added 2 + 3 in the tens column
and got 5. Then he added 4 + 0 in the ones column and got 4. His
answer of 54 was correct. but his method of achieving it would ulti-

mately lead to error in problems that required carrying (regrouping) in

113

the ones column. It would have been interesting to see how Craig
handled this. Some of the other children may have been using the same
method as Craig. but it was not recorded in the fiel dnotes.

Each of the settings just mentioned--large group. small group. and
seatwork--was part of the interactional context set up by Mrs. Meijer.
As has been noted. with each of these settings there were interactional
tasks required of the children that caused problems for Craig. In the
following pages. Craig's social interactions with the teacher and his
peers will be examined. Would Craig's difficulties still be evident

when the academic requi renents were renoved?

Washer:

A Day on the Floor

The morning Upa-You-Body was over. Craig. Pammy. and Steve
had been left standing twice. Judy once. and John three times.
(Being left standing meant that a paper had not been turned in to
the teacher.) Andrew had just tattled on Neil for looking on
Donald's paper. Mrs. Meijer was getting the class ready to go on
to handwriting when she noticed Craig rocking in his chair. She
told him to move to the floor to work.

While the rest of the class went on with printing. Craig
worked on spelling. He was asked to get a clipboard to write on.
and by the time he was ready to start the handwriting the class
had moved on to their journals. Craig was seated on the floor
right in the path of the children who were coming back to the wire
baskets to file completed papers. He did not move so they walked
around him. or stepped over him. until Mrs. Meijer saw this and
told him to move. He moved over to the group area of the carpet.
and a few minutes later when Mrs. Meijer started math groups she
had to sit by her desk. He was working on the last worksheet of
the morning before finishing the others. coloring when he was not
supposed to be. The morning went on. Group work was over and
Mrs. Meij er moved to her desk. Students started to come up for
individual help. Craig was in the way for the third time. and he
still had to be told to move. (FN's 10-10-81)

114

Craig's inability to be perceptive about being in the way. or
being in the wrong line. was problematic all year long. He would be
told something once. or even twice. and still not be able to general-
ize. or apply it. to the same situation when it confronted him again.
Mrs. Meijer said that usually a day on the floor cured the chair
rocking. but "We'll see with Craig" (FN's lO-lO-Bl. p. 3). She seemed
to think that once would not be enough for him.

This problem with generalizing was also evident when Mrs. Meijer
gave oral directions. One day in mid-October Mrs. Meijer gave the
class a pretest on compound words. The test had been passed out. and
she had explained what compound words were. When she asked if anyone
was having problems. Craig raised his hand. His question was. "What
are compound words?" Mrs. Meijer explained again and told them to
underline the two parts. Craig said. "Do you circle it?" Mrs. Meijer
asked him to repeat what she just said. but he did not at first.
Finally he said. "Through it" (FN's 10-21-81. p. 5). Many times I
wondered if he was behaving this way deliberately. Later in the day
Mrs. Meijer said that she could tell by his face that he really did not
remember what she said. "He's not processing." she concluded (FN's 10-
21-81. p. 5). The special education resource room teacher was in the
room observing Craig the same day. Mrs. Meijer said that the resource
teacher could not have picked a better day to see the way he really is.

Another example of Craig's inability to judge a mood came on the

first day that Mrs. Meijer turned over several of the children's messy

115

desks. She had been trying to get them to keep their desks in order
for several weeks. The children were out for afternoon recess and she
caught sight of Neil's extremely messy desk. She went over and turned
his desk down. spilling the contents on the floor. She also "dumped"
the desks of Joe. Paul. Karen. Sarah. and Steve. When the class
returned from recess they were surprised to see what had happened.
There was a hush as the children looked around. Whispers of "she did
it" could be heard coming from some of those who had stayed in for
recess.

There was a slight air of tension as the children waited for Mrs.
Meijer to explain. Before she had a chance. Craig spoke up cheerfully
and said. "Mine's all messy too. Do you want me to dump it too?" (FN's
11-3-81. p. 5). Mrs. Meijer told him that if she had wanted his desk
dumped she would have done it. He misjudged the seriousness of the
situation in the room. or perhaps he was trying to make light of it.

Craig also misjudged the social implications of occurrences on
other occasions. Early in the same year. on the second day that
videotaping was done in the class. was another example. As was to be
expected when an outsider enters a classroom of second graders with a
videotape recorder. camera. microphone. and a television monitor. there
was much curiosity about the whole business. The teacher and I told
the children what was going to happen. and Mrs. Meijer proceeded with
the day's activities. The next day. however. Craig brought his own

tape recorder to school. He was ready to capture the day's happenings

116

for himself. He proudly came over and showed it to me. Then he placed

it on his desk. running it for the other kids.

A Second-Grade Recorder

When Mrs. Meijer noticed Craig with his tape recorder set up
on his desk in the front row. she asked him to put the recorder
inside his desk. It was distracting Craig and the other children
around him. She said to Craig. "If that bothers your work today
I'll have to put it on my desk till recess." Mrs. Meijer went on
with her explanation of the morning's work and the day began. At
about 10:50 a.m. Craig took the recorder out of his desk. Mrs.
Meijer noticed him showing it to me. and he was asked to put the
recorder on her desk. which he did. but he left the machine
running.

Periodically during the remainder of the morning Craig would
run up to her desk and check the tape. He turned it on and off as
they left and returned to the room. Mrs. Meijer did not appear to
notice his activities until the children had gone to lunch. She
played back somerof the tape and was surprised to discover that
the machine had recorded from inside the desk. She said that she
was not about to let him take the tape home and do "goodness knows
what" with it. So she erased the morning's recording during her
lunch break.

When Craig returned to class after lunch. he ran up to the
teacher's desk. presumably to turn the recorder back on. but found
it missing. He ran over to Mrs. Meijer and questioned her as to
its whereabouts. She told him that it was in her closet and that
he could get it after school. She told him that she had not given
him permission to record the class. Her explanation seemed to
satisfy him. and no more mention of the tape recorder was made
until about five minutes before bus time when Mrs. Meijer got the
recorder out of her closet. Craig saw her and ran over and tried
to take it from her without asking. He was directed to sit down
at his desk. The recorder was handed to him as he walked out the
door to get on his bus. and that was the last I heard of the
recording venture. (FN's 9-5-81. p. 1)

This example points out what I considered to be one of Craig's
strengths that at the same ti me was one of his weaknesses. He was
aware and excited about what was going on. his recording in this case.

but he became carried away with what he was doing to the point of

117

getting himself reprimanded by Mrs. Meijer for continuing to record
after she had asked him to put the recorder on her desk.

Before I move on to Craig's relationships with his peers. one
further example of his inability to size up the social situation in the
classroom will be presented. It happened on a day when there was a
slight change in the established routine that had evolved around the

use of the canputer in the classroom.

Integration Skills

It was a hectic Tuesday in Room 125. It was the class's day
to have the microcomputer in their room. (At the time of the
study the school had two machines to share among all the classes.)
It was also library day. Usually Mrs. Meijer left the computer in
the room and when the class returned to the room the children
resumed turns. This particular day. however. she decided to wheel
the whole computer cart down to the library. She wanted the
children to go right on with their turns when they were not
selecting books.

Mrs. Meijer had not made an announcement to the cl ass about
her plan. but it seemed obvious what she had in mind when she
pushed the heavy cart down the hall and set it up in the library.
After it was ready to go she called John over to take his turn.
John took his turn at the computer and went over and tapped Craig.
who was next on the list. Craig stopped what he was doing. He
walked back to the classroom and passed right by the computer.
Mrs. Meijer noticed that no one was using the computer and was
checking into it when Craig came back from the classroom with a
puzzled look on his face. Mrs. Meijer got him started on the
program and went on to help other children select books.

(FN's 3-2-82)

Mrs. Meijer used this incident later as an example of Craig's
"lack of integration skills" (FN's 3-2-82. p. 3). It also seems to
point to his difficulty with social perception. as noted previously.
One might assume that by second grade. when a child sees his teacher

push a cart loaded with a microcomputer down to the library. he would

118

realize it was to be used there. No other children were observed going
back to the room to use the computer. In addition. Craig was not the
first child called up to work on the machine. In this instance. he
seemed oblivious to the surroundings. On some occasions Craig was able

to observe other children's behavior and to imitate it. Not this time.

Winger:
With his peers Craig remained pretty much on the fringe of the

"gang of boys" that existed in Mrs. Meijer's room. The other children
accepted him but did not go out of their way to include him. Craig
would also join in with the boys' sports at recess. He huddled with
them in the halls and at breaks and was not an outcast by any means.
The class appeared to accept him for what he was. with tolerance and
little malice.

The only observed act of a hostile nature directed toward Craig
occurred at the beginning of afternoon activities one day in March.
The children were sitting down around Mrs. Meijer for their story.
John came in and jumped on Craig's foot. This type of behavior was
very unusual for the cl ass. and Mrs. Meijer immediately asked John why
he would do such a thing. At first John said nothing. He looked
quite upset by Mrs. Meijer's question. He finally said. "See. Craig
keeps trying to sit with us and I don't want him to sit by us!" (FN's
3-16-82. p. 1). Mrs. Meijer talked about that not being a good reason
to jump on him. Craig looked surprised and a little hurt by the
incident but didn't say or do anything. and Mrs. Meijer went on reading

the story.

119

There were several times throughout the year when the class would
react to Craig's behavior before Mrs. Meijer did. Once in a science
lesson the class was experimenting with what happened to light rays
when a flashlight beam was directed in different angles. Mrs. Meijer
had to keep telling a few of the children to quit leaning forward to
see because they were blocking the beanfls path. Finally. she had
warned them enough and said that the next time anyone did it that would
be the end of the experiment. On the very next trial. Craig started
leaning out into the middle. This time it was his classmates who
yelled out. "Craigie. Craigie" (FN's 11-10-81. p. 2).

On another occasion when the class was across the hall in the
other second-grade teacher's room for social studies. Craig got up
twice with the wrong row of children. ‘The second time it happened
several children yelled out. "Craigie. you're in Row 1" (FN's lO-l-Bl.
p. 5). There was no other child in the class who invoked this type of
reaction from the other children. The principal of the school called
him "Craigie"iand so did his mother when she was at school helping out
with puppet making one day. Craig is not a name that usually gets made
into a diminutive like Jim or John. Even though he was one of the
oldest boys in the class due to his retention in kindergarten. he was
physically small and was treated like he was younger. or less respon-

sible. by almost everyone. including his Cub Scout leader. as will be

obvious in the following paragraphs.

120

WW

I did not have much evidence in the fieldnotes about Craig's
competence outside the classroom. but I had wondered if he was the type
of child who would seem more "normal" in nonschool activities and
only show his learning disabilities in school (see Cole & Traupmann.
1980. for further discussion of a learning disabled child in
nonschool contexts). I had observed Craig trying to help Paul with a
Cub Scout activity in the hall one morning before school. Craig told
Paul that his mother was supposed to sign the activity after he
completed it. Then Paul asked Craig if he knew what to do for the
religious activity. Craig said no. but he showed off his three
activity beads that were sewn on his Cub Scout jacket. I decided to
try to gather some evidence on his behavior in Scouts because I
suspected that perhaps this was Craig's area to shine.

Just a little over a month later. while the children were with the
other second-grade teacher for a film. an opportunity presented itself.
Mrs. Meijer and I were talking in her classroom when the school
librarian came down to the cl ass. She brought a message from the Cub
Scout leader: Mrs. Meijer was to announce to the boys that there would
not be a meeting today. The Scout leader had told the librarian to
tell Mrs. Meijer to "look Craig in the eyes" and tell him to go home
after school (FN's 2-23-82. p. 2). Mrs. Meijer asked the librarian to
repeat it. There was no special message for any of the other boys. It
seemed that even the Cub Scout leader believed that Craig was a child

who had to be told something directly; she had set him apart from the

121

other boys too. Craig seemed competent in scouting activities. earning
beads. and even trying to help others. but he had trouble following
directions outside. as well as inside. the classroom. Admittedly. this
one instance is too incomplete a base on which to characterize his
entire out-of-classroom interactional performance. Nevertheless. there
does seem to be enough evidence to state firmly that the Cub Scout

leader had also set Craig apart from the other boys in her troop.

mm

It should be clear that Craig had difficulty across all the
interactional-event settings in Mrs. Meijer's room. His case has been
fully described here because he was the one child in the room who
achieved the status of obtaining a special education identity. The
actual procedural data on how this came about will be discussed later
in the chapter. At the beginning of the year it was Craig's "family
resemblance" to other children with problems whom Mrs. Meijer had known
in the past that had earned him a spot in the set of "target children."
Switching from her role as a teacher to that of a gatekeeper. it
appeared that it was the universal. pervasive difficulties that Craig
displayed in all of the classroom events that I identified in Mrs.
Meijer's second-grade cl ass that helped her make the decision to refer
him for special education services.

Craig was a second grader who wanted to do well but lacked basic
skills in reading and math. In addition. he lacked skill in compre-
hending the nature of tasks asked of him across the classroom contexts.

He had difficulty following directions. was slow in getting started.

122

and was impulsive when responding to the teacher's questions. He
seemed alert and smart at times yet out-of-it and dense at other times.
This section on Craig concludes with a list of Craig's strengths and
weaknesses (see Figure 4.10) as noted throughout the year. The list is

taken from the fieldnotes and from interviews with Mrs. Meijer.

bun—MW

The second child referred for special education evaluation by Mrs.
Meijer was Pam. Unlike Craig. who seemed to stand out in the activi-
ties of the class. Pam blended into the background. almost to the point
of seeming to be withdrawn. At times Pam could be working on something
in the midst of a crowd of children and not pay any attention to them.
It was almost as if she were in her own little world. Often she had to
make up her school work during recess or free time when she should have
been interacting with classmates. Pam had a particularly difficult
ti me completing her seatwork. Mrs. Meijer explained the four to six
daily activities at the beginning of the morning and then she expected
the children to do them independently in order as she worked with her
various groups. By mid-September it was obvious to Mrs. Meijer that
Pammy was one of the children who was having trouble getting the daily
work done. When seatwork was checked at the Upa-You-Body time of the
day. Pammy was usually left standing at least once every day. In the
following story an incident is described where Pammy was isolated
from the other children by Mrs. Meijer. Notice that other children
are working alone and completing assignments while Pam is still on

the first assignment near the end of the afternoon. Notice what

123

.mommocxmoz ocm mnucheum m.m_ocu mo >emsaam "o_.: oe:m_m

 

ooouusm

cu co_ucuuum _"_ mono: ..mELOc mm: umw oNim use; an
Auocumou mc_omou ecu scum o>onmv ocmum oo:_m> «o: mc_omoc .mc_>cu cameo. o: niu

oox_m .mpe:~_um .me u_uoa usonm mcuocoz mmim mmocum cove:

>L0umosm unacsu memo—o .mc_co_umo:o .mEo_o0ea

ecu >_cm_:u_uuma .E_; mo oouuuaxu .m:u_nm; .>uo_xcm .omoe emu o: ocoi0u

m.um;3 manoeua u.cmu .emaum >muum loco .oummcoaeou 0u eczema. mm; .m:_

mox__ .cume cm m:_>eemu LOm >omoe >__mu i~__m:uaoucou c. >u_:u_mm_o .mc_omoe
icosao_o>oo yo: .xcoz_oocum m_; unanm m_; c. mco_mco>c_ ocm a.mmeo>uc NIN
mucoeeou o>_ummuc mc_xme .mo_x Lozuo >_uuoueoucm co_u_oom :E:_oui~.mooo mm:—

EOLm >m3m u_m ob mc_>mc um oummocaoo moo—:uwuoe .ue_u m on mc_;u

..m:m_> co mom—mu .m___xm coeuomOH ago no oumeucoucoo >_co emu .Louumum
iuwiuaa axon. .omme agape co m:_on im_om m we: .c_mon cu o~_cmmco u.cmu onw—
.mc_3o__ow >u_:ubmm_o .Oo cu umn: ascex mc_mmou0ca uoc .NiO.

a; m“ ...xm oo emu .ocoe>cm >cu u.:oz ..im men—20cm mc_mmouoLa >e0u_o:m ...oz

xcoz .mo_x cacao co 0u .ccmo_ cu mucmz .mu_cu .oom cu

mu_aou .m__mxm comumumuuc_ o: :.m_00u: m_ peony ..m pom Op mucmz .o_x u;m_un
we co_umum_aam cu mc_:umo_ :_00u: sot» .emm cm Lmo> >eo>o mew—noLa Housemamom olo—

mc_om >u_:ubmm_o .A_m:c:oH oxb_v m___xm eocemu_ .m:m_>

mc_u_c3 cu_3 >u_:u_mm_o .Aum_mo_o;u :.o_: Ou muumm some u_mmn zocx u.cmu0o

u>ma .oo;um ace» mucueeou omusuv noun .eoomoe Lue_ea .eoumoaoe cuuemmcooc_x

uco coca egos ;u_3 xmmu m mc_Ee0ucoa c. .xmmu co >mum cu >u___nm:_ .co_uuuc_o
Eo_n0ea .m___xm u_mmn mm; .m:_ccmo_ m_ mum oco coca ueoe zo__0m ou >u___nmc_ muo—
conuumOH ucauu_a mc_;u>eo>u mco_umu:o omim

m_a ecu use u.cmu .uum mc_omoc ecu 50;» ~30 mcmcau Lo .zuc:_ cu
mc_;u>cm mc_uuum ace ...03 oo Ow Lemme miu uzo Luge—o .mcouuuoc_o zo__0m u.cmu o_lm
:o_umuoz uumo co_umuoz oumo

124

she does after she is sent to the corner to work on her story by

herself.

My Tooth Story

In mid-September Mrs. Meijer had her second graders write a
story about teeth for Dental Health Week. .After story time she
explained what they were to write about. She told them to title
their story. "My Teeth StoryJ' Before they could start to write
the story they had to make their spelling dictionaries. At 2 p.m.
the first children to finish the dictionaries were given paper for
"My Tboth StoryJ' This was 35 minutes after Mrs. Meijer had given
directions. By 2:10 Donald. Jimmy. Paul. and Jessica were fin-
ished with both tasks and off to other activities.

After recess (2:20 to 2:40) Mrs. Meijer demonstrated the
day‘s art project. leaf rubbings. At 2:50 the class was told that
the tooth story must be finished before they could go on to the
art project. Mrs. Meijer was at the small table helping students
with the spelling of difficult words. She called Pam to come back
to the table with her spelling dictionary. She saw that Pam was
still finishing up on the dictionary and hadn"t.even started her
tooth story. Mrs. Meijer said to Pam. "This [tooth story] is your
next focus. Go get your pencil." Mrs. Meijer sent Pam to the
free—reading corner table to complete her story.

Pam went to the corner and sat down. but then stood up again
and leaned forward as if to take a few steps toward the main part
of the room. She stopped. appeared to be deciding if she should
go. and then tentatively ran to her desk and came back a few
seconds later with her spelling dictionary in her hand. This had
taken almost two minutes. She finally sat down. scooted the chair
up to the table. looked at the paper in front of her. then looked
away to her left at the bulletin board. Next she put her pencil
up to her head. then to her hair. shaking her right leg all the
while. Another minute had gone by as she flicked her pencil under
her chin while looking at the bulletin board. She finally turned
to her work again. sighed visibly. scooted her chair up and
stopped. scooted back. stood up and turned toward where Mrs.

Meij er was standing. Pam talked to herself. pointed her finger
sternly as if she was mimicking someone saying. "Sit down herefl'
and then she sat back down. still mumbling.

Four and a half minutes had now passed since Mrs. Meijer sent
Pam to the corner. and she still had not begun to write. She
looked at her paper again for five seconds. looked at the bulletin
board. glanced at what the rest of the class was doing. and then
looked back at the bulletin board. Sarah came over to the corner

125

to get a book and Pam returned to her story. but still did not
write anything.

Almost a minute later Pam went up to get spelling help from
the teacher. She asked Mrs. Meijer to spell "once upon a timeJ'
Mrs. Meijer told Pam that she would write "once" for her but that
she was sure that Pam knew how to spell "up" and "on" and could
put them together. Mrs. Meijer walked away carrying Pam's spelling
dictionary. Pam and Mary (also waiting for help) followed her.
Pam went back to the corner to work. Two minutes later she came
back up to Mrs. Meijer to get more help. She had to wait a full
minute for the teacher to help two boys who were there before her.
At 3:10 Mrs. Meijer told the class to clean up to go home. and Pam
headed back for the corner to work on her story. Finally. eight
minutes and 40 seconds after being told to go to the corner. Pam
gave her tooth story to Mrs. Meijer. .She was told to put her name
on it and put it with the others. (FN's 9-15-81)
Unfortunately. a copy of Panfls final effort is not available. The
fieldnotes make it clear. however. that she finished her tooth story
that day. This incident was recorded on videotape and later studied
after Pam was referred for special education. Originally. I chose to
film Pam because I had observed how hard it was for her to concentrate
on her seatwork when the teacher was not directing her in a lesson. In
the nearly nine minutes that she was in the reading corner. Pam
actually spent less than four minutes on the writing of the story. It
was apparent in the videotape that she did not sit and concentrate on
this task. Most of the other children finished nearly 45 minutes
before she did. She never got to the art project and never finished
coloring her spelling dictionary. The specified times in this long
vignette are exact times.
I presume that Mrs. Meijer isolated Pam to help her concentrate.
She wanted to keep Pam away from the distractions of the other children

doing their leaf rubbings and moving about. Pam did not work on her

126

story even in the corner where she was alone. She looked all around.
flicked her hair and face with her pencil. moved her feet and legs. and
got up and down several times. This pattern repeated itself many

ti mes over the course of the school year and was a contributing factor
to Pam's having to stay inside during recess many days to complete her
work. even though she was one of the better readers in the class. Only
one other top-reading-group child. Gail. consistently missed recess.
She had different problems that hindered her completion of the work.

Mrs. Meijer said that she knew Pam had trouble completing tasks
the previous year as well because she had talked to her first-grade
teacher. Mrs. Meijer wondered if Pam could possibly have a "far-point
copying" problem. She meant that Pam was unable to look at something
on the chalkboard and to copy it on her own paper correctly. This task
involves short-term memory also. Was it the "connection from what she
thinks and what she can produce . . . or . . . just hand coordination?"
asked Mrs. Meijer (FN's 9-22-81. p. 3). By the third week of school.
Mrs. Meijer was trying to diagnose Pam's difficulties and had made
careful observations of her difficulties.

During a science lesson in early December. Pam was chosen by Mrs.
Meijer to portray the sun in a demonstration. In a viewing session of
this lesson held later. Mrs. Meijer noted Pam's quickness in responding
to many of her questions and statements. She said that Pam often looks
like she is not paying attention when she really is. Several examples
of this behavior will follow in the "Things in Space" vignette. Mrs.

Meijer commented that Pam is "pretty much on task when we have group

127

discussion. It's when she's left to her own devices that there's a

problem" (FN's 12-8-81. p. 3).

Things in Space

"What do we call the place where the earth and stars are?"
asked Mrs. Meijer during an afternoon science lesson. When no one
raised a hand to volunteer an answer. she called on Elizabeth. one
of the most reliable of the children. Elizabeth tried. but did
not come up with the answer Mrs. Meijer wanted. Sitting a few
seats away from Elizabeth. Pam mouthed the word "space." but made
no attempt to volunteer. Mrs. Meijer appeared to see Pam and
called on her. Pam started to raise her hand as she was called
on. then said. "Space." Mrs. Meijer said. "Correct." and went on
talking about things spinning in space. As she said this Pam spun
her hand and went. "Whirr. whirr." under her breath. The lesson
continued on and Pam played with the recording vest that she was
wearing for the videotaping. talked to Jason. who kept turning
around to talk to her. and put her finger in and out of her mouth.

About ten minutes after Mrs. Meijer had asked the question
about space. she called for Royce to be a model of the earth and
Pam to be a model of the sun. Pam was given a kick ball to hold
as the sun. She giggled and seemed pleased to be chosen. Royce
was given the globe for his model of the earth. Mrs. Meijer asked
the class what was wrong with the model of the sun. When no one
responded. she called on Pam. Pam replied. "It's smaller than the
earth." Mrs. Meijer said. "What do you know about the sun?"
Pammy responded. "It's supposed to be very bigger than the earth."
Mrs. Meijer went on to explain to the cl ass that she would have
had to have given Pam the big Indian rubber ball from the gym if
the model was going to be realistic. As she said this. Pam
buckled her knees under her as if the small ball she was holding
were now a much larger and heavier ball.

Mrs. Meijer then had the children look in their science books
at the picture of the children doing the experiment. They were
balancing the balls on their heads. Pammy immediately put her
kick ball on her head and then turned to Royce. who was still
standing and holding his earth model in front of him. He copied
her and put his on his head. Pam giggled as Mrs. Meijer asked
them to show the others how the model worked.

The whole experiment lasted four minutes. after which Pam and
Royce were sent back to their seats. Pam had a big smile on her
face as she sat back down in her desk. The Things in Space
science lesson continued. (FN's 12-1-81)

128

This brief episode illustrates Panfls ability to comprehend
cognitive content while at the same time physically appearing as if she
was not paying much attention. In the viewing session of the above
lesson Mrs. Meijer said. "Sometimes it's funny. because you think she
might not be paying attention when she really is. Like she responded
with the globe so quickly there" (FN's 12-8-81. p. 3). Mrs. Meijer was
speaking of Pam placing the kickball on her head.

The writing of the tooth story. described earlier in this section.
is an example of what happened to Pam when she was "left to her own
devicesJ' She was distractible. but as Mrs. Meijer put it. it was an
"inner distraction." She exhibited an "unattending behavior person-
ality" (FN's 9-30-81. p. 11). Mrs. Meijer said that Pam tended to see
details but couldn't put the whole thing together. For Pam. the source
of her problems as a learner seemed to come from inside her.

In January Mrs. Meijer began teaching the children cursive
writing. Mrs. Meijer would write the day's letters on the chalkboard;
she also had a chart that she placed about midway in the class for
those in the back row to see. The children had to copy their letters
from either the board or the chart. Pam had a very difficult time with
cursive writing. Sometimes she tried to do another assignment when the
class was practicing the day's letters. or she would try to cover her
work if an adult walked by. Her paper was often full of erasures and
rips. Mrs. Meijer had suggested to her parents that they work on
handwriting at home with her. Another time. Pam was heard whining

about a lost paper when it was time for handwriting. This was unusual

129

behavior for her. She had not previously been seen as a complaining
child. When she finally found her paper it was torn and full of
erasures even though the children had been told that since these papers
were for practice. they did not have to erase mistakes. Her problems
with cursive writing continued throughout the school year.

With Pam. more so than with Craig or Neil. Mrs. Meijer was con-
cerned about possible physiological deterrents to learning. In mid-
year Pam's pediatrician discovered that she had a severe allergy to
peanuts. The doctor had found an excess of some chemical in her body.
and he placed her on a special diet for a month at the end of February.
Mrs. Meijer was concerned that this strict diet would set Pam even
further apart from the other children. Mrs. Meijer saw Pam as being
different from the others in other ways. too. She told me that Pam's
hair style (short and shaggy). sloppy cowboy boots. and clothes from
Sears (never any designer clothes or brands from specialty shops. FN's
2-18-82. p. 2) contributed to her lack of friends. The school
counsel or told Mrs. Meijer that she was going to suggest a pet to Pam's
parents. but the diet made it impossible. She could not go over to her
best friend's house because the friend had a new dog. Other kinds of
physical indicators of ill health that Mrs. Meijer noted during the
year were dark circles under her eyes. asthma attacks (reported from
home. not at school). and a general lack of alertness that is usually
not seen in a healthy seven year old.

Mrs. Meijer seemed to feel that a great deal of Pam's difficulty

was caused by her parents. She felt that Pam's parents were

130

"wel l-meaning" but that they didn't know "how to parent" (FN's 2-18-82.
p. 2). She cited several examples in support of this statement. In
first grade. Pam's parents put the house key on a chain around her
neck. She had to let herself in the house after school because they
both worked. Mrs. Meijer felt that Pam was too young to have this
responsibility. The principal told Mrs. Meijer that Panfls father was
surprised at the suggestion that he read stories to Pam. She was an
only child and was alone much of the time at home. She had many
interests. but they tended to be of a solitary nature and were science
oriented. such as collecting insects and stones.

Even though Pam was not placed into special education. a recommen-
dation was made by the building team for her to see the school social
worker; The team felt that she needed counseling about her peer rela-
tionships. The social worker developed a group that included Pam and
three girls of her choosing from the class. By March 11. Pam's counsel-
ing group had met twice and Mrs. Meijer reported that it seemed to be
going well. Pam had to find out something she did not know about
someone else. and Mrs. Meijer overheard her asking another child. They
had seen a movie about friends in the group. Pam had started to
participate in class discussions again.

The fieldnotes do not contain as much information on Pam as there
is on Craig. but she was also clearly a child who Mrs. Meijer felt
needed extra attention and encouragement. Pam tended to withdraw into
herself rather than interact with peers or her teacher. Craig. on the

other hand. was continuously interacting with peers and teachers. Both

131

of these children were referred for special education services by Mrs.
Meijer and both were seen as "having it. but not being able to put it

together."

W

The difference between Pam's problems and Craig's should be
apparent to the reader now after reading the stories and comments about
both children. The two had been put in the informal group of "has it.
but can"t put it together" children at the beginning of the year.
Whereas Craig seemed to be happy and outgoing. Pam seemed unhappy and
withdrawn from classroom interactions. On a one-to—one basis she was
very talkative. although the teacher rarely got to see this side of
Pam. Although Pam was in the highest reading and math groups. she was
not turning in all of her seatwork assignments.

The comments are meant to give the reader an idea of Pam's inten-
actional difficulties. Mrs. Meijer worried about Pam because she felt
that Pam was too different from the other girls to be able to make
friends with them. Mrs. Meijer mentioned things like Pam's dress. hair
style. and her diet as being problem areas.

The two fieldnote stories about Pam contrast her behavior in an
independent activity--writing a story for Dental Health Week--and in a
group activity--the "Things in Space" lesson. Mrs. Meijer decided.
after careful observation. that it was when Pam was "left to her own
devices" that there were problems. She reasoned that these problems

seemed to come from an "inner distraction" and. as such. Mrs. Meijer

132

referred Pam to the special education team as a mildly handicapped
child. Mrs. Meijer was able to use her observational and practical-
reasoning skills to see a child who had high ability but was not
achieving school success primarily due to interactional difficulties

of a social nature rather than to any lack of academic ability.

.N91lL__NQI_B§£§££90L_NQ_01§££§RQDSX

The third member of this trio. Neil. was not referred for special
education by Mrs. Meijer. His story is being presented as a contrast
case to those of the other tw0>children in the "has it. but can"t put
it together" group. If Paufls distinction was that she was inner-
directed and Craig's was that he was outer-di rected. what was Neil's
distinction? What.was his "family resemblance" to Craig and Pam in
Mrs. Meijer's mind? Why were Craig and Pam referred for special
education and not Neil? Mrs. Meijer was concerned about Neil's lack of
academic progress as well as that of Craig and Pam. I looked at Neil's
cumulative records for his educational history. He had been referred
for special education in first grade (3-23-81) but apparently he was
not placed. There was no Individualized Educational Program (IEP) in
his school records to indicate special education placement. Mrs.
Meijer had never mentioned that Neil had been in special education.
The evidence indicates that he had not.

It was noted previously in this report that both Pam and Craig
stuck out in the first days of school as being children portraying
profiles of inappropriateness. In his own way Neil. the third member

of the "has it. but canFt put it together"lchildren. also stood out in

133

those early days. He was one of the children chosen to be a helper by
Mrs. Meijer on the first day of school. She said that she had
deliberately chosen children for helpers on the first day of school
because she wanted to get to know some of them quickly based on what
she knew about them from last year. That same day. when the principal
came in to the classroom with the superintendent to welcome the
children back. he asked a question of Neil specifically. The only
other child the principal directly called upon by name was Craig. This
seemed to indicate the principal's familiarity with these two boys in
particular. Apparently. the principal also set these two boys apart in
his mind. although his calling on these two boys may have been a
coincidence.

The first task the children were asked to perform independently
the first day was to make a name tag for themselves. Mrs. Meijer had
laid out index cards and colored marking pens at the small table. Neil
was playing with the markers instead of using them to complete his name
tag. and Mrs. Meijer had to speak to him about it. Finally she had to
ask him to leave the table because he had spent more than enough time
there to complete the project and still was not done.

Mrs. Meijer noticed that Neil had gotten out of his seat many
times on the first day. The second day of school. she changed Neil's
desk from the center of his group of three to the inside. on the aisle.
His desk was moved many more ti mes throughout the year in an attempt to
find a productive spot for him. Mrs. Meijer told me that Neil was

"disruptive." He often turned around in his seat and bothered other

1311

children. Neither Craig nor Pam was ever labeled disruptive in this
sense.

Mrs. Meijer planned to discuss some of the "emotional things"
about Neil with his parents at the November 18 parent-teacher
conferences. She said that his cumulative school file indicated that
he frequently hit other children. Neil's parents were scheduled for a
double conference (40 minutes). and they ended up staying even longer.
His parents seemed to feel that Neil's past teachers had been "out for
him." and they were afraid his future teachers would be too. Neil had
swim team practice four nights a week and took piano lessons. Both of
these activities were private. not part of the school program. Mrs.
Meijer felt that he lashed out at school because he did not have any
way of getting "rid of some of his hyperness" (sic) at home. His home
time was very structured. Mrs. Meijer told Neil's parents that she
felt Neil wanted to perform but was unable to. Mrs. Meijer suggested
the possibility of Neil's seeing the school counselor to help him work
out some of his problems. His parents told Mrs. Meijer that they would
think about this and let her know after Thanksgiving break. Apparently
they decided not to follow up on Mrs. Meijer's suggestion of counseling
for Neil as no further mention was made of it.

Several times in the fall. Mrs. Meijer described Neil as a
"nonfocusing" child. According to her early definition of focusing. a
child was to look at her and pay attention when she was explaining

assignments. Neil was more apt to be turned toward a neighbor or

135

looking off in the distance than to be looking directly at the teacher.
Many times he even appeared to avoid eye contact with her.

By January. Mrs. Meijer felt that Neil had "done some improving"
(FN's 1-14-82. p. 4) in the classroom but that his hall and playground
behavior had not gotten any better. She had discussed this with Neil's
mother. On February 3. Mrs. Meijer said she had to "collar" Neil for
spitting on some fifth graders. Neil's behavior often seemed impul-
sive. as with the spitting. His classroom performance often seemed
impulsive. as the story to follow will show.

After the Christmas holidays. Neil began to appear in the field-
notes more frequently even though Mrs. Meijer felt that he was improv-
ing. I often stood behind the cubbies to write when I was in the room.
Neil's desk had been moved to the end of this piece of furniture.
apart from the other children. As I stood there. I often noted that
Neil read directions out loud to himself before he did an assignment.
On February 3. all the children had to do a worksheet that Mrs. Meijer
called the "Candy Page" (see Appendix I). This worksheet dealt with
alphabetical order. The children were to help the candy maker get his

Valentine's Day sweets ready.

The Candy Page

There was a "candy box" with 12 empty spaces at the top with
words written on them. The words were : love. face. candy.
Valentine. kiss. handle. lace. candle. heart. dandy. mine. and
dove. The children were to cut out the candies and paste them in
the candy box in alphabetical order. They they were to write a
Valentine poem using the rhyming words from the candy box. To do
this assignment Neil's strategy was as follows. (1) He cut out
all the "candies." (2) He laid them all out on his desk. (3) He
read the directions aloud to himself. (4) He started saying the

136

alphabet "a." "b." "c." and after each letter he paused and looked
for a word beginning with that letter. (5) He found a word that
fit. put a huge glob of glue on the back of it. and pressed it
down on the space. (6) After sticking down several words. he ran
over to the wire basket containing the worksheets that other
children had already finished and filed. He looked at some of
them. then ran back to his seat. (7) He realized that he had made
a mistake with the "c" words by not noticing that there were two
of them before he went on to the letter "d." He ripped the
misplaced words off the page and started rearranging his "candy"
words. About 30 minutes later. Mrs. Meijer saw him looking at
some other children's papers again and told him not to do it
anymore. (8) Neil took his page back to his desk and started
writing his poem on the back of the paper. (FN's 2-3-82. p. 3)
This episode demonstrates Neil's strategy for doing the
assignment. Up to a point his strategy was a good one. His problem
may have been that he was not used to having more than one word begin
with the same letter. or perhaps he simply did not look closely enough
at the 12 words before he spotted "candy" and stuck it down. As he
quickly went through the alphabet. he glued down the first word he came
to with the alphabet letter he was working on instead of checking to
see if there were other words that started with the same letter. The
episode also seems to demonstrate that Neil cared about completing his
work correctly. At least two times as he was working. he ran back to
check the papers of those who were already done with the Candy Page.
The first time he checked he saw that he had made a mistake by going on
i
to the "d" words. and he was able to return to his seat and correct his
own error.
Mrs. Meijer had a lengthy conference with Neil's parents on
February 18. They were upset about his report card and had asked for a
conference with the principal and Mrs. Meijer. They started the

meeting by asking the principal if he had seen Neil's report card. He

137

told them that he and Mrs. Meijer had written it together so he was
well aware of its contents. Neil's parents told him that they had
hired a private psychologist to work with Neil. They were again
offered the services of the school counselor. and again said that they
would consider it. Mrs. Meijer came away from the meeting with the
distinct opinion that the parents did not think much of her as a
teacher. She said that she learned about Neil's family life from
listening to his parents talk. She said that he was under constant
parental supervision. His father sat with him every night as he
practiced the piano. Mrs. Meijer got the impression that the parents
did not agree on child-rearing practices. She said that several ti mes
the father deferred a question to the mother. notably about going to
see a psychologist. Mrs. Meijer said that Neil's brother was having a
hard time. according to his kindergarten teacher.

On February 23. Neil appeared in class wearing glasses. Mrs.
Meijer told me that he needed to wear them for reading and other close
work. He fingered them. twirled them. and took them on and off. Neil
rarely wore his glasses as the school year progressed. Mrs. Meijer had
also met with Neil's psychologist and they had set up a behavior modifi-
cation plan for Neil with four rules. The rules were taped to his
desk. They read: (1) Stay in seat. (2) Not bother others. (3) Sit
quietly--hands and mouth. (4) Do your own work. Neil could receive up
to 16 check marks per day for complying with all four rules during the
four times per day that the teacher was supposed to check him. Mrs.

Meijer kept a tally of infractions by making marks on her hand when she

138

caught Neil breaking a rule. Neil was supposed to keep track himself
and report to her at the end of each day. At 2:30 on the 23 rd. Mrs.
Meijer had three tallies for Neil. and she told me that yesterday she
had had seven.

About a week later I asked Mrs. Meijer how Neil's plan was coming
along. She said that she had not been able to follow through on it
last Friday because of the special activities at school. Mrs. Meijer
said that if she had time she would sit down and have Neil rate himself
on a five—point scale. She said that she reminded him during the day
by saying. "'four rules.' but it doesn't stick. There's no guilt . . .
even though I've told him 'that's not acceptable school behavior'"
(FN's 3-11-82. p. 5). She talked about not understanding how Neil
could be so "mousie" (acting quiet and timid) at times and so "totally
out of whack" in other instances. like wrestling in the library (FN's
3-2-82. p. 4).

Neil was in trouble for talking while the teacher was talking and
for sharing answers with other boys. In the hallways he had been
pulling hair. grabbing hats. and tripping other children. Mrs. Meijer
said that he had trouble processing information. By March. processing
had become part of Mrs. Meijer's definition of focus. She said. "He
can't narrow it down enough and focus enough on what he wants to say
and spit it out in less than 50 words." She described Neil as "just
tumbling over himself" (FN's 3-1-82. p. 4). This was in reference to

an incident when Neil was at the computer. Something had not worked

139

right and he had to go ask Mrs. Meijer about it. He was unable to
express to her verbally what was wrong.

The spring parentvteacher conferences were held March 17-19.
Neil's parents were late for their conference because they had spent
extra time in an earlier session with his brother's teacher. They
stayed longer than their allotted time with Mrs. Meijer. too. 'They
brought a letter to her from the psychologist. He wanted to meet with
her to go over the behavior modification plan. The psychologist wrote
that she was not to lecture Neil. but simply to instruct hlflh He also
suggested that daily removal from the group for disruption would be
better for Neil than long-term removal of his desk to another area of
the room. Mrs. Meijer was upset about the letter. She felt that the
psychologist was trying to tell her how to run her class.

When I asked her why she had not referred Neil for special
services in light of all his problems. she said. "I have pegged Neil as
a student of low-average ability. and when he performs. he performs at
that ability rangeJ' She said that she felt he could "probably do more
if he could focus on the task and keep his mind on himself instead of
others. but as far as seeing a learning disability. or places where our
specialists could help. I really haven't seen that Neil needs that kind
of thing. In fact. I think the psychologist will probably do more in
terms of the boy's behavior. because of getting to the parents. than
anything else" (FN's 3-23-82. p. 6). Clearly. Mrs. Meijer felt that
Neil's parents were the major cause of Neil's problems. She saw little

that she or the school district could do for him at this point.

140

On April 1. Neil told Mrs. Meijer that Craig had bent his fingers
back on the playground. When Mrs. Meijer asked Craig about the
incident. he said he did bend Neil's fingers back. but he did it
because Neil punched him in the stomach first. Mrs. Meijer reprimanded
Neil for hitting Craig. Later in the day. Neil's desk was isolated
from the other children for not paying attention. For the most part.
Neil appeared to be accepted by the other boys. While not one of the
most popular children. he was not shunned by his classmates as were
Craig and. at times. Pam.

Mrs. Meijer continued to send home nightly reports to Neil's
parents throughout the spring. This meant that she had to check on his
behavior 16 ti mes a day. She told me that Neil's psychologist felt
that he no longer needed to come to therapy. Mrs. Meijer said that. in
class. Neil was "right back to his old behavior. Even though I'm
sending these home. I don't think the family's giving him the rewards
that they were" (FN's 5-26-82. p. 9). She said that at first Neil
"lived in mortal fear" of the daily checklist. She said that she had
sent home a bad report the previous day for "library shenanigans." He
was too loud. would not settle down when asked. and did not do much
seatwork. Mrs. Meij er ended her discussion of Neil that day by
repeating her feelings that Neil's parents had an incorrect perception
of him.

Mrs. Meijer felt that he had low-average ability and that when he
did work. he worked at that level. In other words. there was no

discrepancy between his ability and his achievement-~one of the

14)

criteria for suspecting a learning disability. On the other hand.
although his disruptive behavior continued to bother her all year long.
Mrs. Meijer apparently felt that there were no services that the school
district could provide to help Neil with his behavior: Neil was not
referred for special education services during the 1981-82 school year.
If Neil continued to show such a profile of inappropriateness all year
long. why was he never referred for special education? If the source
of Pam's problems was some type of inner distraction and Craig's was
some type of outer distraction. the source of Neil's problems seemed to
be from outside the school environment altogether. Mrs. Meij er spent
more time with Neil's parents in the school year than with any of the
other parents. The lack of a special education referral decision for
Neil seemed to have a great deal to do with how Mrs. Meijer saw the
child in relationship to his family.

I would like to present several stories about Neil's classroom
behavior because I want to explore further his classroom responses to
see why Mrs. Meijer had originally grouped Neil with Craig and Pam as
"having it. but not being able to put it together)‘ "Getting the Math
Test Done" will show Neil's early problems with attention and impulsiv-
ity. He got up three times to go to the bathroom and once to go to the

hall within a 30-minute time period during a math test.

Getting the Math Test Done

In the first days of the school year Mrs. Meijer gave the
children a number of informal achievement tests to help determine
her group placements. On September 10. after storyti me in the
afternoon. she asked the children to get ready to do another page
of the math test they had started the previous day. Neil was

Hi2

chosen to pass out the papers. Mrs. Meijer told the children that
this page would be a little harder than their previous work. They
began to work on it at about 1:30. She walked around. looking
over shoulders. as the children worked. A few minutes later she
told Donald. who was helping Neil. that Neil needed to do his own
work. She reminded the children that this was a test to see what
they already knew. It would help her to know what to teach them.
As she walked past Donald and Neil. Neil took a poke at her with
his pencil. Mrs. Meijer. in all likelihood. did not feel it
because it had been more of a pretend swipe. Donald. who proved
to be the best student in the class in math. finished the test in
about ten minutes. At 2:07. everyone else was done except Pam.
Steve. and Neil. In the approximately 30 minutes between the time
Neil was told to do his own work and the fiel dnote observation
that he was still working at 2:07. he had taken two bathroom
breaks and had been out of his seat at least two other ti mes that
I observed. After the first bathroom break. Neil forgot to turn
out the light (room procedure) and was reminded to do so by three
or four other children. Mrs. Meijer then noticed that he did not
have much of the test done and told him where she wanted him to be
on the page when she returned. He worked a little and then
watched John draw for a while before he took another bathroom
break and then went out into the hall. Mrs. Meijer followed him
and could be heard telling him to always let her know when he was
leaving the room. He came back in with a pencil box and went on
with his math work. Meanwhile the majority of the other children
had moved on to the next assignment and were getting ready to go
outside for recess. (FN's 9-10-81. p. 6)

After the children had left for the day. Mrs. Meijer told me that
Neil was a "lazy. nonfocusing child." She said that from what she
could see of his math test as she walked around. his answers looked
good. She said that he had done better today than yesterday and that
he had completed more work. She felt that moving his seat to the aisle
helped. When asked if math was particularly hard for Neil. Mrs.
Meijer responded. "When he does attend. he can perform. but it's just
that he is a nonfocusing child" (FN's 9-10-81. p. 8). In other words.
when he attended to his work he could do it. He had the ability.

Earlier in this section Neil's strategy for doing the Candy Page

worksheet was discussed. Another example of his use of a learning

143

strategy for math was observed on October 29. These strategy stories
are being included to give the reader an idea of Neil's cognitive
abilities. His strategies may not be unique for a seven year old. but
because Neil did so much subvocalizing (talking quietly to himself) it
was easy for me to record how his thoughts seemed to connect to his
actions. On October 27. Neil was at the computer doing the day's math
program. Several ti mes he left the computer and ran over to his desk
where he seemed to be doing something to his Snoopy name tag that was
taped to the top of his desk. Then he would run back to the computer
and type in his answer. I was too far away to be able to tell exactly
what was going on. On October 29. however. I was standing at the
cubbies. right by Neil's desk. and could watch him working without

being conspicuous.

Using a Math Strategy

Neil had a ditto page of 24 subtraction problems sitting in
front of him. He was not getting started right away. It was 11:29
and he had done only one problem. I could hear him talking to
himself (under his breath) about his math problems being the next
thing to do. He sat and rocked in his seat a bit. then stared in
space. still not working. Two minutes later. after Mrs. Meijer
spoke to some other children about getting to work. he began. He
went to his Snoopy name tag again. and this time I could see that
he had devised a way of using it to count. He did not have a
number line taped to his desk like some of the other children.
(Mrs. Meijer did not have enough of them for the whole class and
was waiting for more to come.) As I watched. he appeared to be
tapping his pencil on the letters of his name and on the picture
of the dog. He tapped certain parts of the letters and the dog to
count. (Closer observation of the name tag later found many
pencil-point marks on it.) I could see that he was getting the
problems correct. He quit for a while. watched some interaction
between Royce and John. and then went back to the last row of
problems. It was now 11:37 and the problem was 12 - 3. He said.
"Twelve minus three" aloud and counted on Snoopy and on his

144

fingers saying. "1. 2. 3." Then he said. "9." wrote his answer

down. and took his paper over to the wire basket for completed

math papers. He left his paper and came back to his desk but
counted out another problem. Then he went back to the basket. got

gisapaper out. and changed one of his answers. (FN's 10-29-81.

Neil seemed to have most of the answers correct as I watched him.
so I decided to look at the problem he had changed. I saw an erasure
on 14 - 6. He had erased an 8 and written in a 7. I looked at the
paper under his. but it was correct. 14 - 6 = 8. I went over and asked
Neil why he had changed his answer. He said. "I thought it was a wrong
answer" (FN's 10-29-81. p. 3). Although I was unable to detect any
further reason why Neil thought his answer was wrong. I had discovered
what he was doing with his Snoopy name tag. He had devised his own
unique math aid. While this is not a remarkable ability in a child by
any means. it does give a clue to Neil's mental abilities and his
resourcefulness.

This type of anxious behavior was noted at other points during the
school year. One afternoon when the class was with the other second-
grade teacher for social studies. they were assigned partners of the
opposite sex and had to pantomime an action that she had written on a
slip of paper. Neil did not have a partner. so the teacher asked him
to be hers. When they got up in front to perform their action. Neil
forgot what to do and Mrs. Field had to whisper it to him. Later she
told me that "his hands were shaking with nerves" (FN's lO-l-Bl. p. 6).
He seemed particularly reluctant to perform in front of the class.

This included the simple volunteering of an answer when Mrs. Meijer

asked a question. Unlike Craig. whose hand was generally up whether he

145

knew the answer or not. and Pam. who would volunteer when she knew the
answer. Neil was quite reticent about this aspect of being a student.

Neil's switching between behaviors may have been one factor that
caused Mrs. Meijer to be puzzled about hiuu One day she remarked that
sometimes he was "such a mouse" (FN's 3-2-82. p. 4). It did not seem
to go with his aggressive behavior at other times. like wrestling in
the library. hitting and spitting on the playground. and teasing other
children behind the teacher's back. One morning Mrs. Meijer showed the
cl ass Neil's paper as an example of a good handwriting assignment. He
shyly smiled and looked proud (FN's 1-13-81. p. 1). Another day I
observed him making a paper airplane out of a note Mrs. Meijer had
given him for having a good paper (FN's 2-2-82. p. 2).

Although Neil did not seem to have one particular best friend in
the class. he was usually in the mainstream of activities. On the
playground he always took an active part in whatever sport the boys
were playing. One day when the reading teacher came in to do a lesson.
Neil was chosen to act out a fairy tale. He was allowed to choose any
two boys to help him. Donald was his first choice and Jimmy his
second. Donald was one of the smartest children in the class. He was
mischievous. but only behind the teacher's back. Jimmy was fun-loving
and quite often in trouble with Mrs. Meijer but was in the top groups

for reading and math.

146

Nefl_:_.A_S.umma1:x

The stories and comments about Neil were included to give the
reader a sense of Neil and a chance to think about why he was not
referred for special education by Mrs. Meijer. Initially Neil was
grouped with the other two referral children as "having it. but can"t
put it together)‘ After many months of observing Neil and trying to
make sense out of his actions. Mrs. Meijer decided that he was of low-
average ability and was achieving to his ability when he wanted to.
Therefore. she did not refer him.

The comments show Neil to be a boy who had trouble staying in his
seat and concentrating on his work. He bothered other children. He
could not stay focused on the tasks at hand. even when his desk was
isolated from those of his peers. He seemed afraid to speak out in
class and was hesitant to approach the teacher for help. but could be
very aggressive on the playground or in the hallways. I had seen him
be mean to other children. Mrs. Meijer had seen him hit and spit at
other children.

In the fieldnote stories I have tried to describe incidents that
would support the above comments. Neil had strategies for learning
that he would use instead of always asking Mrs. Meijer for help as
Craig did. The stories make it clear that Neil wanted to complete his
school tasks successfully. as evidenced by the way he would check his
answers against other students' work. They also show Neil in times of

inattention and nonfocus.

147

Neil was more or less salient to Mrs. Meijer as the school year
went on. He was not always the focus of her comments. There came
a point when she no longer felt there was a gap between what he was
capable of achieving and what he actually achieved. It is doubtful
that this happened at any one point in time that could be pinpointed.
The first opportunity that Mrs. Meijer may have had to put all her
observations together might have been the day I asked her why she had

not referred Neil for special education (FN's 3-23-82).

W

The significance of the teacher's practical reasoning and observa-
tion can be seen in the three case studies presented. Throughout the
difficult process of diagnosing a child who is not succeeding in school
and trying to decide if special education services are an appropriate
alternative. the regular education classroom teacher is in the pivotal
position. The teacher is receiving a great deal of input from the
child. from the other children's reactions to the child. from her or
his own reactions to the child. and most important from the way this
input is interactionally put together in the context of her or his
classroom. The teacher takes all the new input and must make sense of
it in the context of her or his own expectations. her or his personal
traits. and the constraints and opportunities placed on her or him by
the school district. among other factors. This is not an easy task.
Teachers are rarely given credit by the public. or even by their own
administrators. for the complexity of the decisions they must make

about children.

148

When she decided not to refer Neil. Mrs. Meijer added another
piece to the puzzle of how a teacher goes about deciding whom to refer
for special education. She had grouped Neil with Craig and Pam in the
set of children who she felt had the ability to succeed in school. but
somehow could not yet put everything together to be a success. Craig
had been referred and labeled learning disabled. Pam had been referred
and given school counseling services. Neil was a disturbing child to
Mrs. Meijer. This was evident in the fieldnotes and interviews. She
talked about his disruptive behavior and indicated that she felt it had
an emotional basis. but said that she did not see any of the services
they had at Pawnee School being right for Neil. She felt that his
outside therapy was the best thing for Neil and his family.

In Interview 8 (3-11-82) I asked Mrs. Meijer what she was seeing
or noticing at that point in the year. Her response struck me as
curious at first because instead of citing anything having to do with
the curriculum or with particular children. she responded by talking
about the contacts that she had had with Craig's. Pam's. and Neil's
parents that year. She said that "many of the problems of the children
are there because of the parental problems" (FN's 3-11-82. p. 5).

To varying extents. Mrs. Meijer appeared to attribute the cause of
the problems of all three of her "has it. but can't put it together"
children to their parents. I sensed that with Craig she felt he was
just like his parents. and she questioned the extent to which education
was valued in the home. Craig's mother had helped at school with the

Halloween party and the puppet-making project. His parents were

149

concerned about his lack of progress but seemed as bewildered as Craig
as to what to do about it. As will be seen later. Craig was making
progress. He just had a lot further to go than some of the other
children.

Mrs. Meijer attributed much of Pam's problem to her parents' lack
of ability to parent. She described them as bright. highly educated
people with an eight-year-old daughter who was being treated more like
a miniature adult. While Mrs. Meijer held Pam's parents responsible
in part for her problems. she did not view the relationship as destruc-
tive to Pam. It simply did not help her sel f-confidence. Pam's inner
distraction played a part in the feeling of joint responsibility
between child and parent for her problems.

Mrs. Meijer said that she felt Neil's problems were a result of
parental pressures on him. Mrs. Meijer sensed an inharmonious rel a-
tionship between the parents over child rearing. and she felt that this
greatly hampered Neil's chances of success in school. She may not
have referred Neil for special education because she felt that his
parents were responsi ble for his behavior. It should also be recalled
that Neil was referred. but not placed. for special education in first
grade.

When she said that Neil did not fit into existing special
education services. Mrs. Meijer added evidence to the argument that a
teacher takes a phenomenological approach to making classroom decisions
such as determining which children are in need of special education

help. She looked at the child's needs in relationship to the total

150

school picture. She expected her class to "jell." both educationally
and behaviorally. at certain times during the school year. Mrs. Meijer
had an idea of what was available in the school in terms of special
help for children. She did not see the district specialists as being
able to help Neil. She seemed to have made this decision on her own as
she never referred Neil to the multidisciplinary team. It should also
be pointed out that Neil was receiving assistance privately. Mrs.
Meijer said that she felt the outside therapy could do more for Neil
than a referral to special education.

This concludes the general discussion of the data about the "has
it. but can't put it together kids." Next will follow a description of
what happened to the two children who were referred for special educa-
tion and the process each went through in the course of getting a
special education identity.

The discussion in this section deals directly with Craig and Pam.
In the previous section. examples of their general classroom behavior
were given. The specifics of their referrals for special education
services by Mrs. Meijer will now be presented. Children like Craig and
Pam seem to keep ti me to a "different drummer" as they progress through
school. Both children's idiosyncrasies stood out from the first days
of the school year as recorded in fiel dnotes. audiotaped interviews.
and videotaped recordings of the classroom. What follows is an

examination of each child's education career path as they went through

151

the special education referral process in the 1981-82 school year. The
official steps leading to referral will be traced separately (see

Figures 4.11 and 4.12) in the coming pages.

W111

Craig was one of the first children "targeted" by Mrs. Meijer in
our conversations held on 9-21 and 9-22. In Figure 4.11 a summarize-
tion of the events leading up to Craig's placement into special educa-
tion is given. The major decision points are discussed next. with
pertinent examples from the fieldnotes when appropriate. ‘The first
building team meeting (see Chapter III for discussion of term) for
Craig was held on October 5. 1981. not quite a month into the school
year; Present at this meeting were the principal. Mrs. Meijer. the
remedial reading teacher. the resource room teacher. and the district
school psychologist. Mrs. Meijer had submitted a four-page referral
form that was standard in the elementary schools in the Seneca district
(see Appendix A). As a result of this meeting. Craig was observed in
the classroom by the resource room teacher on October 21. Craig did
not seem to be bothered by his school progress at all. A few frustrat-
ing events had happened. but I never really saw an indication of his
unhappiness until October 27. That day everything seemed to fall apart
for Craig. and real frustration crept into his voice. At the beginning
of the morning heihad been warned to turn around in his desk. He was
told that he would be sitting on the floor again (see FN's 10-8-81)
today if he did not. Mrs. Meijer then had the class do Upa-You-Body

.m_muu to» mucu>u mmoooLa .mcuouuc comumuaoo _m_uoam "...: menu—u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

152

 

 

   

 

    

 

 

      
 

 

     
 
 

  

  

  

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

mum
eoanom cad»
condom Mom
.:>mno noon:
“GHQ-dosdm i..- ell : ..lu PJ
amasmom
ca madam
pcoosvm
E
3.3.3 kw , T:
.mmim i
.m .a. H 93 S .3 H8353
anemone mm H: pooemmommm mo .voonmm aoonmmmau
oumaunonnmm_ odim pcoeowwam oovoamaoo monoEEOOoH .Honomop codvmosom
oped doomam .ocoaacoon pocammomm< 5H Hmasmom -
pcooopm .m.m.H . Hmnuomom
- mica
mudvocz
ado
. 3-3 - a 1
9.33:
amps

 

 

MA 26 A

153

for math. Craig was the only one left standing after she called the
names on the papers she had received the day before. She and the class
waited while Craig searched around his desk for the paper. She asked
him if he had done it. and in a high-pitched voice he responded. "I
don't know" (FN's 10-27-81. p. 1). Mrs. Meijer went over to help him
look for it. She later said that she found over 20 unfinished papers
in his work folder.

A little while later the class started to do spelling. The
children were told to open their books and look for something. While
the rest of the children took their books out. Craig merely sat and
stared. When Mrs. Meijer asked the children to look at something
specific. he said. "I can't see it" in that same high-pitched voice.
While it was not unusual for Craig to be on the wrong page or to be
starting to work after the other children. it was unusual for him to be
using such a high-pitched voice to respond to Mrs. Meijer. It was as
if the realization that he was floundering in the school work had
finally caught up with him. It was now the end of October.

Craig's problems seemed to be carrying over into his physical
education class too. That same day when Mrs. Meijer asked the gym
teacher how her class's behavior had been. she was told that they were
doing much better except for "one little guy" (FN's 10-27-81. p. 3).
Craig. For the next three months Mrs. Meijer spent a great deal of her
time trying to help Craig by getting special services for him. On
November 5. she met with his parents to discuss his difficulties. She

reported that his father was pretty quiet. Craig's mother had given

154

her consent for psychological testing to be done. She said that she
had always known there was some type of problem with Craig.

The second building team meeting took pl ace in mid-November. The
results of the resource room teacher's observation were discussed. and
Mrs. Meijer was told that the tests might not show any learning dis-
ability until fourth grade. The team decided to go ahead with psycho-
logical assessment. and the required form was sent home for Craig's
parents to sign. The school psychologist saw Craig on December 8. two
months after the first team meeting was held. The psychologist's
report was ready after the holiday break. but the meeting was delayed
twice because there were snow days on two successive Mondays. The team
could not meet any other day because the district specialists had to be
in other buildings on the other days. The third team meeting finally
took place on February 8 and was attended by the same people as before.
with the addition of the school counselor. At this meeting. Mrs.
Meijer was told that Craig did not qualify for special education
services in the Seneca School District.

The IEP meeting was held on March 3. 1982. five months after Mrs.
Meijer had first referred Craig. Attending this meeting were Craig's
father. the school psychologist. the principal. Mrs. Meijer. the
resource room teacher. and the school counsel or. The recommendation of
the team was that no placement be made at that time. Mrs. Meijer was
asked to reevaluate Craig in June to see if fall 1982 placement in the
resource room might be warranted. Just two weeks later. before the

spring parent-teacher conference. Mrs. Meijer told me that she was

155

ready to recommend to his parents that Craig be allowed by them to go
into the resource room then. rather than waiting until June. She did
not make the recommendation because the reading teacher asked the
parents to take Craig to get an electroencephalogram (tracing of his
brain waves) to exclude the possibility of neurological involvement.
The reading teacher had worked with a child similar to Craig before.
and that child had had neurological problems. Craig's parents asked
for services to begin at a meeting they had with Mrs. Meijer in May.
On June 10. Craig was formally placed into the special education system
as a learning disabled student. He finally had his special education
identity.

It took the entire school year to resolve what Mrs. Meijer first
deemed to be a serious problem that would stand in the way of Craig's
educational success in second grade. I will return to a discussion of
what was happening to Craig in the classroom around some of the crucial
times in the referral process following the section on Pam's referral

steps.

13mm

Early in the year Mrs. Meij er was sufficiently concerned about
Pam's difficulties to telephone her mother rather than wait for Open
House or conferences to come up. What bothered the teacher most was
Pam's inability to complete assignments due to not being able to focus
on the task. She was questioning the cause of Pam's distracti bi lity.
Mrs. Meijer wondered if it was an auditory. or a visual. or even an

internal distractibility (Interview 3. 9-22-81). Mrs. Meijer talked to

156

the building team about Pam in early October. The school counselor
told her that Pam wouldn't qualify for special education because her
reading scores were too high. She suggested that Mrs. Meijer use an
"office" (a desk separated from the rest of the children's desks to
limit distractions) with Pam. This suggestion was never followed
during the researcher's presence in the classroan.

On November 12. Mrs. Meijer said that Pam was next for referral
now that she had Craig "in the works." She said that she wanted to "go
on record" (FN's 11-12-81. p. 5) as having tried regardless of what the
counselor had said about Pam's eligibility chances. Around this time
she also noticed that Pam was bending her face particularly close to
her paper and wondered if she might need her eyes checked or a complete
physical exam. There was no Pawnee School Referral Form completed by
Mrs. Meijer on Pam. as her mother had been the one who finally asked
the principal to have her evaluated. In this case. the team skipped
directly to the assessment phase of the referral process (see Figure
4.12). After the Christmas holiday. Pam was tested by the resource
room teacher. When the teacher walked Pam back down to the room from
the testing. she told Mrs. Meijer that she had not checked all the test
answers yet. but she felt that Pam was "very bright" (FN's 1-5-82.

p. 3).

Report cards went home on Friday. February 5. Mrs. Meijer told me
that Pam's mother had called her at home on Saturday. Pam had burst
into tears when her parents found the report card in her school bag on

Saturday. According to her mother. Pam had sobbed that the other kids

.>EEmm ace muco>o mmouoLa _mceowoc cowumusoc _m_uoam "~_.: oe:m_u

 

 

 

 

 

 

157

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

min
pHcmaom
xnes Hmaoom
Hoccom :33 ml [III-ll
ooapmcsom Hmaowom
ca macaw
pccoovm
j Na 1:
ma - .... a -
. H Human

a.m.H copay: —1 cmmwou pcoammowmm ,Ho .vcmumn acoummmao

.pcoemomam . *1 . pWWmMomm< mucous—coon income» codvmosom

mocoaaooon mum ance so Hmaowem

.m.m. H 3382 - , 953nm Haflmmom l -

 

 

 

 

 

 

158

did not like her. Pam told her parents that they had all hated her
since she was in preschool. .Apparently this report card was the
breaking point for Pam after holding these feelings inside for three
years. Unfortunately. I did not get a copy of the report card to see
what had upset Pammy.

On February 9. the second team meeting was held to discuss Pam's
test results. At this meeting Mrs. Meijer was told that Paufls parents
had taken her to a pediatrician. When he noted the dark circles under
her eyes. the thinness of her body. and the increase in asthma attacks.
he felt that there might be a physical problem. It was reported that
the parents were taking the child to an allergy specialist.

Another team meeting was held on February 16. and Mrs. Meijer was
told that since Pam did not have any academic problems. she did not
qualify for special education. It was decided that the school coun-
selor would meet with her to work on her socialization skills. A few
days later Pam was noticed eating a lunch of rice cakes. carob chunks.
and fruit juice. She told me that she could not have any eggs. milk.
or wheat foods for 30 days.

On February 23. Mrs. Meijer told me that the counselor had asked
Pam to choose four girls to be in her socialization group. The group
finally got settled on March 2 and included Sarah. Mary. and Carrie in
addition to Pam. On February 25 Mrs. Meijer said that Pam's mother had
called to ask her if there had been any noticeable changes since the
diet began. Mrs. Meijer said that Pam had been more responsive in

class and the black circles under her eyes seemed to be gone. She was

159

still having a great deal of trouble with cursive writing. Paufls IEP
meeting was held on March 1. On March 2 (Interview 7). Mrs. Meijer
discussed the results. Panfls mother had explained that the allergy
tests would be going on all month. Panfls guinea pig had to be taken
away. Pam had been having trouble with Judy. a classmate who lived in
her neighborhood. .Judy had received a new dog and Pam could not go
over to her home to see it because of the allergy tests. Pam's mother
told Mrs. Meijer that Pam had always had a hard time making friends.
Her current best friend was the kindergarten-age son of family
friends. Pam talked about marrying him. according to the mother.

The IEP report stated that Pam's reading. math. and spelling were
all at grade level or above. The school psychologist said that Panfls
problems were "social emotional discomfort" (FN's 3-2-82. p. 3). She
recommended that the counselor work with Pam on making friends. She
said that Pam had a real feeling of isolation. The psychologist felt
that these problems were probably the cause of Pam's poor school
performance. She was unhappy with herself for not being able to do the
things she saw other second graders do. Mrs. Meijer said that they
told the mother that Pam seemed to be "socially naive" in terms of her
age group. Panfls mother told the team that she had hoped the "allergy
thing" was the reason for the problems. but not anymore. The dark
circles under her eyes had come back. and the same reactions reappeared
even though she was still on the diet.

On March 23. Mrs. Meijer said that Pam's father had come in alone

for the parent-teacher conference. She told me that they discussed the

160

diet and Panfls failure to increase her academic output. He said that
they would try to help her with cursive writing at home. They also
talked about how hard it is to be the parent of a child you know is
smart yet isn't succeeding in school.

The rest of the spring passed by without any noticeable improve—
ment in Pam's work habits. Mrs. Meijer's comments about Pam in Inter-
view 10 on May 26 can be summed up by the statement that there had been
"no significant changeJ' She went on: "The only thing I can say about
Pam is that she may be a little more outgoing and a little bit more
responsive to me. but as far as producing any more work. . ." (FN's
5-26-82. p. 8). She then said that Panfls reading scores for the end of
the year were fine. Her word recognition was 4.7 and her comprehension
score was 3.6 (in grade equivalents). "You know the ability is there.
It's just the application of skills that doesn't come through or show
up on paper" ”WVS 5-26-82. p. 8). When asked about the counseling
group. Mrs. Meijer said that Pam was going alone now. According to
Mrs. Meijer. she "did not have the desire [to put in the work] to
change. . . . Even though it bothered her. it must not have bothered
her enough to do the things that she was asked to do" Ghvs 5-26-82.
pp. 8 & 9% She was friendly with Judy again. and one friend seemed to
be enough for Pam.

At year's end. despite Mrs. Meijer's efforts. Pam was still
floundering. "left to her own devices." Unlike Craig. for whom some
hope of help during the following year had been held out. there was no

more discussion about what could be done for Pam.

161

We:

When I read back over the fieldnotes for the entire year. I noted
that in mid-February Craig was no longer figuring in the notes as much
as he had previously. In fact. the notes were practically devoid of
specific "Craig incidents" for two or three weeks. In looking over his
referral path (see Figure 4.11). note that it was on February 8. at the
third building team meeting. that Mrs. Meijer had learned that Craig
would not qualify for special education services. She was disap-
pointed. as she felt that Craig was a little boy who could greatly
benefit from one—to-one help. She said. "He's so eager to do well"
(FN's 2-9-82. p. 5) and he could really have "benefited from the extra
help." Mrs. Meijer had been sure all along that Craig would qualify
for special education. She may have felt his ineligibility was a
negation of her ability to identify a child for special education.
Perhaps the disappearance of Craig references in the fieldnotes was
also a reaction to my own shared disappointment with Mrs. Meijer
because I had followed his progress so closely. Possibly. it was
because Mrs. Meijer became more focused on other children from then on.

With Pam there was also disappointment. but Mrs. Meijer had never
held out much hope for her placement from the beginning (refer to the
"just want to go on record" comment). Also. Pam did end up receiving
counseling services from the school's guidance counselor. On the other
hand. Mrs. Meijer was more disappointed about Craig because he received
an "on hold" for three months until his reevaluation in June. By June.

with enough discrepancy between Craig's achievement and his ability

162

finally documented. he was placed into an L0 resource room program for
the next school year.

Both Craig's and Pam's special education referral paths are
retraced in Figure 4.13. The regular education classroom was the
starting point in the referral process. The first decision point (or
gate. see discussion Chapter I) was when Mrs. Meijer decided whether or
not to refer the children to the special services department. If a
referral was made. the building team met to discuss the child and to
decide if testing and/or observation were needed. If testing was done
the next decision point came at the IEP meeting. At this meeting. with
the parents present. it was determined if the child qualified for
special education or not. Another option. "not placed but keep under
observation." was used for Craig. This meant that the teacher was to
keep a close watch on the child's progress and alert the team if
further action was needed. In this option. another IEP meeting was
held after a stated period of time. At the second IEP meeting for
Craig it was decided that he should be placed into special education for
the following school year. (See Chapter III for a complete discussion

of the special education referral process used in the school.)

W
The overriding research question of the study was: He: .dpes ene

Wmnmmnmmmmmm
semiceslntheeafly elementarxenadesj The conclusions of the study

.Lmo> .oo;um umn—mm. ecu c_ m_meccwoe co_umu:oo _m_uoam m.eu~_oz .mez

mdmnwAmw.

zaammxmwv

"m_.: ot=m_u

 

 

ooanom made
oopmpm Mom
.c>mno noon:
econmmmao
ooapmosom
Hmaowcm
ca whoop
pcmospm

 

163

 

©

 

rt _
.oonmmmau @

coapmoscm
HmHoMom

ca cameo
acouspm

 

Cub.

«snaoer

 

 

hi

 

J

aconmmmau
coaemosom
undemom
ca mhmpm

0.883

 

OC-

 

 

 

 

 

Ii
zoonmmmau
aoapagem

gamma
ca macaw

0.83pm

caduceus
no

.aconmm

.Hccomcp
so

.menomo.

 

   

  

soonmmmao
coapmooea
Hmaowom

 

 

164

were derived from an intensive year-long participant observational
study of one experienced teacher in a suburban second-grade classroom.

My intention in this chapter has been to show the importance of
the teacher's observation and practical reasoning in the special educa-
tion referral decisions that she made. The children did not get spe-
cial education identities based on static behaviors on a classification
referral instrument. She did not refer every child in her class who
had problems. nor did she even refer all the children whom she targeted
for referral early in the year. She used multiple factors that varied
in their individual importance with the child being considered. As
such she was using polythetic rather than monothetic classification
schemata (Levine. 1984). This type of classification helps account for
her use of the family resemblance (Wittgenstein. 1953) approach when
she made her referral decisions. The children referred for special
education resembled each other in many aspects of their classroom
responses. but they did not have identical difficulties. as was shown
in the case studies presented.

Simply having a general understanding of the typical behavioral
characteristics that indicate one or another handicapping condition did
not provide enough specific. contextually embedded information for the
teacher to make the practical decision to refer a particular child for
special education services or not. The teacher's observations of the
interaction of the child with the classroom and school system. as well
as the teacher's own past experience. were crucial in the actual

referral decisions that were made. A teacher's personality. her or his

165

past experience. and her or his teaching philosophy interact with
student characteristics and behavior; 'These mediate what students do
with the teacher in classroom interactions (Mehan. Hertweck. & Meihls.
1983). There was an "ensemble of items" that mutually supported and
determined one another (Gurwitsch. 1966. p. 24). This ensemble of
items was unique to each child being considered. The issues touched on
in this summary are looked at in more depth in the following chapter.
I have tried to provide the reader with a framework from which to
consider the findings by first presenting the teacher's overall
expectations for the class as a whole and her observations across a
school year. This section was followed by a discussion of her practi-
cal ways of grouping children in the room. The major emphasis of the
chapter was on the three case studies and the vignettes about three of
Mrs. Meijer's target children. one of whom attained the "status" of
getting a special education identity. A discussion of the findings

follows.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

mm

It has been said that teachers and their students accomplish
desired (and undesired) ends based upon the way they mutually construct
"patterns of action and meaning in a classroom microculture" (Erickson.
1985. p. 91). The patterns differ from year to year both within and
across classrooms. This study was carried out with an intention to
understand how one teacher made decisions in a classroom. The inten-
tion changed to understand how one teacher and her students engaged in
the construction of patterns of action and meaning resulting in the
teacher's referral of children for special education services. I
believe that what Mrs. Meijer was talking about when she referred
to her class as not."jelling" (see Chapter IV for discussion of this
issue) was the overall pattern of action and meaning that she was
expecting to see form from within her class. The class would be
"jelled" when the patterns of action and meaning came togethen. It was
in the construction of the patterns that the teacher identified stu-
dents with problems. The subsequent referral of two children in the
class to special education was but one of the elements of incongruity

that was preventing a clear pattern of action andlneaning from being

166

167

formed in the late fall of 1981. but it is the central element of this
study.

The topic of this study was the identification of children with
mild to moderate learning or behavior problems in a second-grade
classroom. The identification process for these children began when
the classroom teacher noticed children's behaviors that set them apart.
either educationally or behaviorally (or both). from the other children
in the class. The observations of the teacher in this study over the
course of one school year. leading to her making two special education
referrals. form the major findings of the study.

The primary question addressed in this participant observational
study had to do with the beginning of the special education referral
process. The overall research question I started the study with was:
mumsmmmmmmmmmcmAmnmm
lneeg.ef.epee1e1.eeeeetlen.nelpl This question remained constant
throughout the year. although the more focused questions that I posed
at the outset of the research did change as the fieldwork and the
school year progressed. (See Chapter III for the original research
questions.)

Three major factors influenced the teacher when she set children
apart for special education referral. These factors were intertwined.
but for the sake of a clearer presentation. the findings will be dis-
cussed as if there were three separate groups. The overlap of the
factors should be apparent. The three aspects are not mutually

exclusive. As with the nature of the research and the nature of the

168

questions. all are mutually constituted. These three factors were:
(a) the chilcfls interactional performance in the classroom. (b) the
teacher's observations and her practical reasoning about them. and
(c) the institutional procedures and practices involved in referring a
child to special education. Teachers and their students mutually
constitute environments as they interact on a face-to-face basis in the
classroom. The teacher will be prepared for the arrival of his or her
new class. He or she will have the needed materials and an organized
curriculum that he or she wishes (or is expected) to teach at the start
of a given year. In the school studied. there was a high rate of
stability; therefore. the teacher knew quite a bit about the children
before they walked in the door on the first day. Yet. the environment
is not entirely preset. Even though a teacher has all this informa-
tion. it is not until the children arrive that the patterns start to
take shape. (See Mrs. Meijer's comments about the influence of a
particular group of children in Chapter Id

In Figure 5.1 I have shown how the special education referral
children were set apart. The patterns of action and meaning are
constructed at the point where the teacher's observation and practical
reasoning interact with the interactional performance of the children.
This construction takes place in the context of the classroom. It is
also from within this area that children are set apart into various
groupings. such as the instructional groups for reading and math.
remedial groups for reading and math. target children. withit children.

the gang of boys. and special education referral children. to use some

169

of Mrs. Meijer's names. The two circles do not completely overlap
because the interactional performances of the children were not all
observed by the teacher; (See Spencer-Hall. 1981. for further
discussion of what goes on behind the teacher's back.) Also. the
teacher's observation and practical reasoning took in more than just
the events in her classroom. Any reasoning she did about her children
was balanced with what she knew about them. outside her interactional
day-to-day perspective. This included reports from former teachers.
the gym teacher. and the other second-grade teacher. who taught Mrs.
Meijer's class social studies. It included her knowledge of the
parents based on conferences and phone calls. and information outside
school from seeing the children in local stores or hearing about them

from their neighbors.

Setting Children

Student Interac-
tional Performance
in Classroom Context
(includes more than
is seen by teacher)

Teacher Observation
and Practical
Reasoning (includes
more than classroom
events)

 

Special Education
Referral

Figure 5.1: Mutually constituted patterns of action and
meaning.

170

WWW
Although not a new finding. the importance of the interactions

that occur on the first day and in the first few weeks of the school
year were an obvious factor in Mrs. Meijer's special education referral
decisions. Even before the first day of school she had expectations
for the children and had made some tentative groupings. but it was in
those first real face-to—face interactions that she actually began to
set children apart. She watched the children's performances in
academic activities and in procedural activities. such as following
directions. lining up. and filing completed papers. She was concerned
with how the childrenusacademic performance was intertwined with their
social performance.

I did not see how crucial the students' interactional performance
was in the early weeks of the school year until the year was well
underway. Once Mrs. Meijer referred some children for special
education and I started going back through the fieldnotes. I found
evidence of how they set themselves apart from the beginning. Mrs.
Meijer told me that she watched for the following behaviors on the
first day of school:

1. Did the child finish the assigned work?

2. Could the child stay on task?

3. Did the child show signs of fatigue?

4. Was the child copying from another child?

5. What types of questions did the child ask?

(FN's 9-9-81. p. 6)
I have no doubt that she used her answers to these questions to begin

forming pictures of each chilcPs interactional performance though we

did not discuss this list as such at the time. Even before the first

171

day of school. Mrs. Meijer already knew of children to whom she wanted
to pay close initial attention. Specific children were chosen as
helpers on the first day because of what she already knew about them.
She looked at the children who had been leaders in first grade as well
as those who were of concern to their teachers. In the case of Neil.
Mrs. Meijer felt that he was doing better than she expected him to do.
based on his f irst-grade teacher's comments. This may have been one of
the reasons that she never submitted his name to the special services
department. Besides Craig and Pam. the only other target child whom
Mrs. Meijer placed in her "has it. but can"t put it together" group was
Nedl. Craig and Pam were both referred for special education. 'There
was no evidence that Mrs. Meijer was surprised about either child's
behavior in the first few days of school.

Dorr—Bremmer(1982) found that "students play a collaborative part
in structuring the classroom environment in which they are expected to
learn and display what they have learned" (p. 460). This phenomenon
was readily seen in the class and teacher studied. The "delicate
interactional balancing act" spoken of by Erickson (1985. p. 44) was
upset in the room when the class did not start to work together. or
"jell." as Mrs. Meijer called it. She expected that at a certain point
in the year the class as a whole would move from the acquisition of
routines and expectations to the independent use of these skills. She
expected that the children would take these skills and move into the
heavily academic part of the school year with the interactional

competence they had gained from working and living together in the

172

classroom for two to three months. Mrs. Meijer's "big push" was from
January to spring vacation. When the patterns of action and meaning
did not begin to materialize as Mrs. Meijer expected them to. based on
her previous years of experience. her morale was also at its lowest
(see Figure 3.4. the rhythm of the year chart). This low point lasted
for about six weeks. all through November and up until the winter
holiday break. Her big academic push began after vacation. and by mid-
January the class seemed to be into a smooth routine. By Interview 9.
3-23-82. she was able to say that most of the children were meeting her
expectations.

Once the majority of the class got into the rhythm of the year.
Mrs. Meijer remained concerned about those children who continued to
set themselves apart. These children were out of step. They were in
the wrong place at the wrong time. They said the wrong things at the
wrong time. They could not put their completed papers in the correct
wire basket. These children were not in tune with Mrs. Meijer's
expectations for their interactional performance. Without a doubt it
was Craig who set himself the furthest apart. He was the only child in
the room to obtain a special education identity. He was to end up
being placed into a class for the learning disabled. st.problems were
ubiquitous. He had social and academic problems in large groups. in
small groups. during seatwork. in peer interactions. and in teacher-
student interactions. No other target child so fully fit this perva-
sive pattern of incongruity nor so upset the delicate interactional

balancing act in the room.

173

As I showed in Chapter III. the school year had its ups and downs.
its own rhythm if you will. for Mrs. Meijer. At the point in the year
when Craig's and Pam's problems stood out the most. they were both
referred for special education. They were referred at the time of the
year when Mrs. Meijer was most concerned about the class not jelling.
There is not enough evidence to say firmly that a teacher's referral
decisions are made at low points in the school year. There may have
been other factors involved. but the evidence does show that the two
children were referred at the time of the year when the class was not
"jelling" for Mrs. Meijer. Further. when Mrs. Meijer reconsidered
Steve and Joe for special education referral. she was pleased with the
class's progress. She did not refer either boy.

I continued to go back to the data to try to decide what had made
Mrs. Meijer refer Craig and Pam. but no other target children. for
help. I believe that these children's overall interactional
performance had as much to do with the decision as any characteristic
of learning disabilities or other mild handicapping condition.
Successful interactional performance in Mrs. Meijer's class included:
knowing what to do and when to do it. the ability to start work
independently. and following directions. As stated in the previous
section (see Figure 5.1). it is in the constructing of patterns of
action and meaning that teachers identify problem students. Problem
children "point themselves out" like Craig did when he went up for
scissors at art time when it was not his row's turn. stayed seated when

all the other children had lined up to go home. sat in the path of

174

everyone the day he had to sit on the floor for rocking in his seat.
and poked his head in front of the flashlight beam after Mrs. Meijer
had told them if they did it one more time. that would be the end of
the science experiment.

The patterns that Mrs. Meijer looked for when she was trying to
decide whether to refer a child for special education or not are
summarized in Figure 5.2. The child's focusing ability has to do with
the way the child is able to process the information that is given.
both verbal and written. She looked at their interactional performance
across a variety of classroom events. Her observations from the first
days and weeks of the school year were crucial when she formed her
first group of target children. These factors were tempered by her own
perception of the chilcPs needs and of the services available in the
school district. The interactional performance of a student influences
"educational gatekeeping decisions and so students' educational
careers" (Dorr—Bremme. 1982. p. 11). I will come back to the gate-

keeper role of the teacher in the section on identification.

Children's Children's
"focusing" cognitive
abilities abilities

\ /

PATTERNS OF ACTION AND MEANING

Children's interactional
performance in
classroom events

Figure 5.2: Patterns of action and meaning in setting
children apart for special education referral.

175

MW

The interactional performance of the children in the classroom was
inextricably bound with Mrs. Meijer's observations and practical rea-
soning about her class. As was pointed out earlier in this chapter.
not all of the teacher's practical reasoning is based on the interac-
tions she sees. She does not even see all the interactions in the
class. Teachers' grounds for decision making may emerge from the daily
observation and reflection in which they engage. Yet little is known
about how teachers actually pay attention in their own classrooms and
make sense out of what they are seeing. As a result. little is known
about the role that these ways of seeing play in a teacher's decision-
making process. Mrs. Meijer's special education referral decisions
were based on the sense she made out of the interactional performances
of the children in her classroom.

Mrs. Meijer's early observations led her to make practical
groupings among her children. The ramifications of these invisible
groupings are discussed in the next section. She used these groupings
as reference points. or family resemblances. to draw upon as she
thought about the children at the beginning of the school year when
there were so many unknowns. There is so much going on at one time in
a typical second-grade classroom that it is impossible for a teacher to
pay attention to every detail.

In the discussions of Mrs. Meijer's perceived ideas about the
source of each of the three target children's problems (see Chapter

IV) I touched on. but did not develop. the idea that her referral

176

decisions may have revolved around her perception of the source of the
child's problems. Mrs. Meijer looked at Pam's problems as an "inner
distraction." Craig's problems were a combination of an environmental
distraction and his own inability to put all the pieces together in a
holistic sense. an interactional distraction. Neil's problems were
viewed by Mrs. Meijer as being a result of his parents' inability to
parent. more of an outer distraction. She said that the parents
figured in both Craig's and Pam's difficulties. but they were not
judged to be major factors in either of these two children's cases as
they were in Neil's. Mrs. Meijer did not base her referral decisions
on any one perspective of the source of a child's problems.

As Mrs. Meijer observed her class and tried to make sense out of
what she saw. she also looked at the difficulty of the curriculum that
lay ahead for these children in this school district. She knew of the
district's expectations because she had been teaching in the district
for at least seven years. (Refer to Chapter I for her comments on how
hard school would get in the years to come in this district.) She also
knew that few children in Pawnee School would move out of the district.
It was a very stable neighborhood. For the "doesn't quite have it"
children she saw a long struggle with school. always the "C" students.
but apparently special education was not the answer for this group of
children. For the "has it. but can't put it together" children she
thought there was hope of success if they could be assisted in their

attempts to put schooling all together. A knowledge of what was

177

awaiting the children in the years to come was a factor outside the
classroom context to be taken into consideration by Mrs. Meijer.

Teachers are guided by theories of perception and categorization
when interpreting students! classroom behavior (Mehan et al.. 1982).

In the special education referral study previously cited (Mehan et al..
1982; Mehan et ah» 1983; Mehan. 1984). Mehan and his associates
compared teachers' accounts of student behavior with the actual
videotaped incidents of student difficulties in class. The teachers
saw the problems of the students stemming from within the students.
particularly in their ability and psychological states (Mehan et al..
1982L The»teachers were attributing the sources of problems to
personality attributes of the children over situational factors.

The attributional process is part of a teacher's ongoing system of
social perception (Palmer. 1983). A teacher's informal labels are
based on ability and effort attributions. Achieving a special
education identity gives a child a formal label. and "formal labels are
an attributional antecedent indicating a history of failure" (Palmer.
1983. p. 425). Weiner (1976). in his attribution studies. found that a
student's effort and ability as perceived by the teacher. combine
interactively to influence the teacher's giving of rewards and punish-
ment. Mrs. Meijer's referral of Craig and Pam to special education
could be viewed as a reward given to them for their effort and denied
to Neil because of his perceived lack of effort and ability. I have
already pointed out that Mrs. Meijer viewed special education as a

chance at success for a certain group of her students. Evidence does

178

not support the conclusion that her referrals were made out of a sense

of frustration with the child.

Ween:
The identification of mildly handicapped children in Mrs. Meijer's

class began with her creation of practical categories that included all
the children in her room. The first categories were general: children
having problems and children not having problems. She soon began to
refine these categories. The children having no problems were left
alone at the beginning. while the children having problems became the
target children. This group of eight children was further divided into
the "has it. but can"t put it together" group and the "doesn't quite
have it" group. There were two other problem children who were not
labeled until later in the year. One of these children had problems
with adjustment to a new school. and the other child's problems were
termed "developmental" by Mrs. Meijer. Later. the children with no
problems. or benchmark students. became the "extra bright. really
withit" group of six children. At times she referred to three of these
children as being intellectually superior to the others in the room.
but this group was not clearly seen as being discrete. The other ten
children in the class were never given a practical group name. so I
have called them the "normal" second graders. See Figure 5.3 for a
diagram depicting Mrs. Meijer's practical categorization of her class
resulting in one student achieving a special education identity in the

1981-82 school year.

179

.m~_ ecom c_ >u_ucuob cchumuaoo .mhuoam m mcbuuuo "m.m 0L:m_m

 

 

 

 

Nuz _nz .uz
>h.hzmo.
ooceomum ovum—a zo_h<u:om
uoz “M”////.4<_ummm
Nuz Nuz Nuz
muz muz _mecowo¢ .om .mcecmom co_umu:om
u;m_cm .ucom ace Low oouom _m_uoam ecu
meexN oouomcmh name uoz ooceomox

 

 

 

< <

 

 

 

 

o_uz .uz - muz .nz
meoomuw Eo_90um >uw LocuumOh 50—30;;
mucuoaum occuom leaumz\_mucoE a. u>mz u. use u.cmu .mco_u05w
xemszucom .mELoz :ao_o>uo uu_:d u.cmooo yam .u. an: \u205umamo<
Suz i biz .
c2228 .23 .2 E825 $8.3

 

:Nuz
mN— EOOm c_ coco__:u __<

180

I previously referred to the regular education teacher as
occupying the position of gatekeeper (see Chapter I). determining who
gets referred for special education. The teacher is a gatekeeper
because he or she makes the decision about which children to refer in
his or her classroom. There are some instances in which parents (as in
Panfls case) or the principal ask for special services for a child. but
usually it is the classroom teacher who brings a child to the attention
of the specialists when a mild to moderate learning or behavior problem
is suspected. When Mrs. Meijer was acting as a gatekeeper. she looked
at the child's ability to learn in her classroom. Not being able to do
the classwcrk was only part of the concern. She looked at the inter-
active way the child fit into her class. ‘This included academic and
social aspects. as well as how the child handled the materials and the
curriculum.

Mrs. Meijer carefully considered the opportunities for extra help
within her district. She knew what services were provided for children
needing special education and she knew the people providing the serv-
ices. The evidence supports that her referral decisions were heavily
influenced by her perception of the available services in the Seneca
School District. This consideration of the extra help available.
although it had little to do with a child's particular difficulties.
was an important factor when it came time to decide whether to refer
the child to special education or to keep the child in general educa-
tion. Both Craig and Pam had been formally referred for special educa-

tion by the beginning of November. 'The referral process time span

181

varied only slightly for the two children. Other target children were
considered for referral. but the process was never set in motion for
anyone else that school year.

The reasons for Neil and Steve not being referred for special
education may have had as much to do with each boy's previous school
history as with the difficulties each was encountering in second grade.
They had both been referred. but not placed. in earlier grades. To my
knowledge. the other target children--Joe. Mary. Pam. and Craig-~had
not been referred previously. Joe and Craig received remedial reading
assistance. Joe also received speech therapy. Of all the target
children. only Pam and Neil were not already getting some type of
special help in school. To my knowledge. only Pam and Neil were
receiving help outside school. Pam was being seen by a pediatrician.
Neil by a psychologist. The three children from the "doesn't quite
have it" group were looked at as referral candidates throughout the
year. but none for the persistent amounts of time as the "has it. but
can't put it together" children. Mrs. Meijer identified Steve on the
second day of school as a candidate for extra help. Joe was mentioned
on September 21 as being the next child to be tested after Craig and
Pam were done. She said that Joe would need help if he was to go on in
school. He was never referred for special services. Mary. on the
other hand. was never mentioned as part of a group being set apart
until January (see FN's 1-14-82. p. 5). but Mrs. Meijer. in interviews.
had expressed concern for Mary‘s progress on many occasions before

January. Mary and Steve. along with Craig. were the only children in

182

the room not reading at grade equivalent or above by the end of the
school year. as recorded on their group reading tests (see Appen-
dix J).

The strong link between the children who were actually referred
and Mrs. Meijer's perception of the district's services was one of the
most striking findings. ‘There has been criticism of those in special
education for often giving a child a label (such as L0 or E1) that just
happens to be equal to the type of classroom that has space available
in it at the time of the placement meeting. For example. there may be
space in the LD class. but none in the E1 class. so the child is
labelled LD even though the problems are more emotional. Decisions
about placement are often based on the availability of spaces in cer-
tain classrooms rather than on finding a program that meets a childhs
unique learning or behavioral needs. regardless of the label placed on
the child (see Mehan et aL» 1983. for further discussionL The stated
intention of P.L. 94-142 is first. to decide what the child's educa-
tional needs are; second. to decide what type of program will best meet
those needs; and third. to decide on a label for the child. This study
provided evidence that regular educators refer children who they think
will qualify for existing services.

Mrs. Meijer felt strongly that the LD resource room program at
Pawnee School would benefit Craig. She apparently did not feel.
however. that there were any special services available for her slow
learners. the "doesnFthuite have it" children. Even though they were

unsuccessful with second-grade work. they lacked the needed ingredients

183

to be considered learning disabled. What these needed ingredients were
was never clearly defined. but the practical names of the two informal
problem groups seemed to indicate that cognitive ability was a strong
factor for Mrs. Meijer. She thought Craig and Pam were capable of
doing better. They both had all the pieces of the puzzle; they just
could not make the puzzle go together. She thought that Mary. Steve.
and Joe were doing the best they could because they did not have the
ability to do much better. Mrs. Meijer never believed that Pam was
learning disabled. She did not use the word in reference to Pam as she
did with Craig. She saw a needy little girl and wanted to get some
help for her. even after being told ahead of time that Pam would not
qualify. The counselor told her that Panfls achievement scores were too
high for her to be considered for LD placement. The IEP meetings for
Craig and Pam were held on March 3. 1982. The next day Mrs. Meijer
told me. "There wasn't real action on either one. According to state
guidelines they're performing their basic skills well enough to be
uncertifiable" (FN's 3'9-32. P- 3)-

Craig and Pam did not fall within the school district's parameters
for identification as learning disabled. The district had a learning
disabled category. but the decision of the placement committee that
Craig was not learning disabled in March did not coincide with Mrs.
Meijer's classroom determination that Craig was learning disabled.
Wittgenstein (1958) talked about the type of category that is possible
and useful. but is imprecise in its boundaries. This category has

formal boundaries. but they may not coincide with the actual everyday

184

usage of the term. The category "learning disabled" seems to be the
type of category that Wittgenstein was describing. The building team
was using the district's definition of learning disabilities (see
Appendix A). but Mrs. Meijer had a different definition of learning
disabilities that she was using based on her years of teaching
experience.

There were two critical points in the year for special education
referrals in Mrs. Meijer's classroom. The first was in late October-
early November. at the getting-down-to-business time of the year.

Craig and Pam were both referred during this time period. Mrs.
Meijer's second crucial point was in late January-early February. after
her big academic push had gotten underway. No children were referred
at this time. but she strongly considered Steve as a candidate. On
February 9. Mrs. Meijer told me that he would be next now that Craig's
referral was completed. On February 23. she said. "I don't know what
to do about Steve. I don't know whether to try to refer him before
spring break or what" (FN's 2-23-82. p. 3). Although she never
referred Steve. it appears that the disappointment of Craig not quali-
fying for L0 services initially had much to do with her decision. Mrs.
Meijer was also pleased with the way the class was moving along at this
point. and this may have been a factor. ‘The big academic push was a
time of the year when she evaluated the children closely. thus making
it a likely time for referrals.

Mrs. Meijer considered more than the list of behavioral descrip-

tors on a special education referral form when she was deciding whom to

185

refer for special education services. She took into account an
"ensemble of items which mutually support and determine one another"
(Gurwitsch. 1966). Mrs. Meijer's special education ensemble items
consisted of (a) having the fundamental cognitive ability to perform
adequately. (b) not being able to put the pieces of learning together
into a whole that equalled success in school. (c) displaying frustra-
tion at not succeeding in school as opposed to being unaware of one's
difficulties. (d) not being able to manage the interactional demands of
the classroom. and (e) having parents whose actions were not detrimen-
tal to the child's growth. The last item is stated tentatively. It
would be necessary to return in future years to see if this pattern
really did influence her decisions. With Neil it seemed important. but
it must also be noted that in May Mrs. Meijer told me that she had
changed her mind about Neil's ability. She felt he was doing the best
he could. She did not see existing services in the district meeting
his needs. so in his case the ensemble of items that kept him from
being referred for special education was stronger than the ensemble of
items mentioned above. The evidence supports Mrs. Meijer's change of
Neil's family resemblance over the school year. At the end of the year
he more closely resembled a "doesn"t quite have it kid" than a "has it.
but can't put it together kid."

Mehan et al. (1983) found that educational decision makers make
placements into special education by "available category after having
reduced the range of alternatives at an earlier time" (p. 286). The

construction of a special education identity begins when the classroom

186

teacher makes the initial referral. I believe that the data from this
study support the idea that a teacher's referral decisions are par-
tially determined. whether consciously or unconsciously. by the per-
ceived availability of services in the school district.
1W

W
W

Wen

There are implications of this study for preservice education.
Focused observation in differing types of classrooms needs to be
started early in the training program. Observation should be augmented
with guided discussion of selected pieces of videotape showing how
children's interactional performances can lead a teacher to categorize
children. Written vignettes such as the ones contained in this study
could also be used as a basis of discussion for the videotape interac-
tions. the actual classroom observations. and as a stimulus for pre-
service teachers to begin writing their own vignettes of classroom
events. These written stories could be a starting point for the school
district c00perating teacher. the university field supervisor. and the
preservice teacher education student to look at the social interaction
in a classroom and to discuss the teacher's role in the construction of
student status. be it a special education identity or otherwise. (See
Erickson & Wilson. 1984. for further ideas on the use of recorded data
and for sources of obtaining videotapes of classroom interactions such
as those described in this study. See Shultz. 1983. for further ideas

and implications of the use of ethnography in educational settingsJ

187

An example of preservice training in another occupation will be
used to illustrate the importance of the field experience. In Ihe
Beauty .91 Ethnemethedelegx. Mehan and Wood (1975) described how a
rookie policeman follows a veteran cop around the neighborhood as she
or he does the beat. Learning how to fie the beat is accomplished when
the rookie spends a great deal of time with her or his teacher.

The rookie would learn to see and feel as his teacher showed him.

He would learn how to.de the beat. how to use what partial set of

rules he was told. and most importantly how. in the day-to-day

work at the scene. to generate new rules as previously unmet

situations arose. (p. 77)

After reading what Mehan and Wood had to say in the previous citation.
I wrote myself the following theoretical note. (See Schatzman &
Strauss. 1973. Chapter 6. for a discussion of the writing of field-
notes.)

In order to de the beat. may not a rookie teacher have to be

actively taking part in the day-to-day work at the scene? It may

only be possible for teacher educators to impart a "partial set of
rules" to preservice teacher education students. If this is the
case. this partial set of rules must be based on events. practices
and procedures most nearly approximating what a teacher does. The
teachers chosen by teacher educators to teach the rookies to do
the classroom beat must be exemplars of sound pedagogy. The
students need intimate first-hand knowledge of the classroom
scene. Participant observation seems an ideal tool for accomp-

lishing this end. (TN 2-7-82)

Moving from selected pieces of videotaped classroom interactions to the
real "beat" of a classroom would put preservice "rookies" in a context
where their observations would be more meaningful because there would
be a past. a present. and a future time frame within which specific
instances (such as the videotape selections) would take on a collective

meaning.

188

Another important implication of this study for preservice teacher
education has to do with the way the findings speak to the need for a
teacher preparation program that gives preservice teachers an awareness
and understanding of individual difference and of the need to adapt
their teaching to each chilcfls unique needs. There may be no one best
way to do this. Some~institutions of higher education offer course
work in "mainstreaming" techniques or in "exceptional children." Some
institutions may have designed their core teacher preparation course
offerings around multiple-perspectives or heterogeneous-groupings
approaches that take into account ethnicity. race. class. and gender.
as well as exceptionalities in an integrated fashion. Whatever the
approach used. I think that it is imperative for teacher training
programs to require some coursework that specifically addresses the
needs of handicapped children in regular classrooms. Preservice
teachers should be taught how to distinguish between different types of
problems in the classroom and what to do about teaching these children
effectively once they are identified. Prospective regular educators
need to learn how to teach children to succeed in school who are in
need of more than a traditional textbook approach. Perhaps such a
focus would reduce the number of referrals to special education of
hard-to—teach children as opposed to handicapped children who are in
need of very specialized methods or materials.

Teacher educators have recognized the importance of the beginning
and of the closing of a school year for some time. as evidenced by the

typical requirement that student teachers take part in either the

189

opening or the closing of the school year in which they do their
practice teaching. regardless of the university calendar. Another
regularly occurring teaching phenomenon that was apparent in this study
was the overall rhythm of the year. beyond its opening and closing. I
suspect that this phenomenon is not unique to Mrs. Meijer and the
particular group she taught in the 1981-82 school year. In this case.
there are implications of the finding for preservice education.
particularly as the rhythm of the year relates to the identification
and referral of children to special education. There are times of the
year where learning disabilities are going to stand out more than at
other times. As Mrs. Meijer's focus changed from checking to see that
the children knew the rules and routines to checking to see if they
could complete the academic tasks assigned them. several children set

themselves apart from the group as a whole.

Winn

There are implications of this study for inservice education. The
videotapes made in the course of this participant observational study
(as well as those from similar projects) could be used to help inserv-
ice teachers look at the ways teachers set children apart into differ-
ent groups in their classrooms.

There are many experienced teachers with little or no knowledge of
how to teach special education children. Up until a few years ago it
was uncommon to find a general education teacher training program that

mandated a course in the characteristics of exceptional children. let

190

alone in how to teach mildly handicapped children in the regular class.
This policy is changing slowly as a result of FhL. 94-142. There are
now 21 states that require at least one course. or are in the process
of requiring a course. in working with exceptional children (Ganschow.
Weber. & Davis. 1984). I suspect that Mrs. Meijer is not unique in
referring children who she felt met existing special education services
in her district. This being the case. it would seem appropriate for
both preservice and inservice general educators to be made more aware
of the classroom manifestations of mild to moderate learning or behav-
ioral problems. One way this could be done is for a consultant to use
selected pieces of videotape that show the target children's interac-
tional performance. (See Erickson & Wilson. 1984. pp. 39-52. for
suggestions on the use of videotape of everyday life in schoolsJ

A suggestion for the use of the videotapes was proposed by Mrs.
Meijer herself. We were having a viewing session (for technique. see
discussion in Chapter III) as we watched Craig on a videotape that I
had made earlier in the day. Mrs. Meijer said that the school psychol-
ogist could learn as much about a child by watching the videotapes as
the psychologist did in her classroom observations (Viewing Session 3.
12-8-81L Mehan and his associates conducted viewing sessions with
teachers who had referred children to special education. They asked
the teachers to stop the videotape to make comments about the children
they had referred. (See Mehan et al.. 1982. for the specific
instructions given to teachers in the viewing sessionsJ This method.

although time consuming. could prove useful to educators carrying out

191

systematic assessments of a target child's learning environment. It
would be best if the viewing sessions were done as an accompaniment to
actual classroom observation. The pieces of videotape could be used to
focus on the fine details of a particular child's behavior. but on
their own they would not provide the outsider with a fully contextual-
ized look at the chilcfls interactional competence in the classroom that
is necessary to understand why the child became a referral candidate in
the first place. Year-long participant observational studies are more
appropriate for some types of questions than for others. The insights
that have been gained from Mehan's study of teacher decision making
(Mehan et al.. 1982; Mehan et al.. 1983; Mehan. 1984) and from this one
can be used to inform practice and as a basis for further study.
Perhaps recent calls for recognition of the importance of the
teacher's need to reflect and write about his or her own practice
(Clark & Florio et al.. 1982; Erickson. 1985) will contribute to a
stronger professional image of teachers and give sanctioned recognition
to the importance of their thoughts. Through writing down his or her
thoughts about a particular child as a case study. or vignette. of the
referral child. the teacher may come to a fuller understanding of the
child and the classroom. This written document could be shared with
outsiders such as those making systematic assessments of a target
child's learning environment. administrators. fellow teachers. and
others interested in the fine details of life in classrooms. This
document could serve as an opening point of discussion in building team

meetings when children having difficulties are discussed. In effect.

192

the classroom observations. the viewing sessions with carefully
selected pieces of classroom interaction. the written reflections of
the child's teacher. as well as the more traditional referral documen-
tation--test scores and a school psychologist's summary--would be used
by the gatekeepers in an Individualized Educational Program Committee
meeting to "triangulate" (Gorden. 1980. p. 12) the information about a
particular child before giving that child a special education identity.
This written documentation of a teacher's observations and practical
reasoning could help to combat the feeling of powerlessness that has
been noted in the role of the teacher (Lanier 8. Little. 1985; Mehan.
1984). Additional uses of such written documentation will be discussed
under the pol icy implications of this study.

Hargreaves (1979) felt that by collecting and analyzing the com-
ments of teachers it would be possible to uncover the teacher's common-
sense knowledge about what he or she does. Through the collection and
analysis of teachers' comments by supervisors. researchers. or fellow
teachers. they are helped to make use of their own observation and
practical-reasoning skills at a much earlier point in their teaching
careers. Experienced teachers may make use of research findings about
teachers' common-sense knowledge by "uncovering and reconstructing"
their own common-sense knowledge (Hargreaves. 1979. p. 81).

An area that was identified in this study as needing further
study is the pervasiveness of the practice of regular class teachers
referring those children for special education for whom they feel there

is an available program in the district. Poor academic achievement was

193

not Mrs. Meijer's sole criterion for referral to special education.
This may have been a result of her experience with other handicapped
children over the years. or she may have had a deeper understanding of
special education children. This is not known. It has been estab-
lished that she did not perceive the resource room as a place for
children with emotional problems or for those who could have been
labeled as educable mentally impaired or "slow learnersJ'

This study points to the need for special educators to be aware
that regular educators may be making referral decisions based on their
perceptions of existing special education services within their dis-
tricts. These perceptions may or may not be correct. It is the
responsibility of special educators and support staff (such as the
school psychologist or teacher consultant) to communicate to regular
educators the importance of looking at the individual child and his or
her needs as opposed to looking at how the child will fit into existing
programs.

It would seem that this is an appropriate time. a decade after the
passage of Pd“ 94-142. to reopen the discussion about the policy that
has come to be known as "mainstreaming." placing a handicapped child in
the "least restrictive environment" for that child. When the Education
of All Handicapped Children Act was implemented in 1975 there was a
great deal of financial support for inservice activity to prepare
regular educators for receiving the handicapped child in their classes.
The financial support for such effort is almost nonexistent today. and

most districts regard mainstreaming as a natural part of their

194

existence. Now is the time to start looking at the programs and serv-
ices and to reopen staff dialogue as to their effectiveness. Since
1975. a great deal has been learned on both sides (regular and special
education) about how to work with handicapped children.

Ten years ago teacher educators were preparing special education
teachers to go out to the schools and "educate" regular teachers about
the handicapped children they would be having in their classes. No
longer does a special educator. in most cases. have to go out and teach
regular educators about specific handicapping conditions. Most
teachers think they know a learning disabled child. for example. when
they see one. While this may or may not be the case. what is needed is
to correct faulty conceptions and to talk about effective ways to
identify and educate the handicapped child in the regular classroom.
This is particularly true in buildings that have little staff or
administrative turnover. and consequently have become used to certain
ways of doing things. Teacher educators have a responsibility to
prepare their undergraduate and graduate students for this expanded
role. The faulty conceptions. if they are such. held by regular
educators about whom to refer to special education may be partly a
result of the referral process itself. Other researchers previously
cited have pointed out the need to change current identification and
placement procedures.

The type of identification process that I am proposing will
require a greater amount of time than most current processes. This has

important implications for all involved in the referral process. as

195

well as for the school district official responsible for paying the
salaries of the staff. It becomes all the more important that other
measures are attempted before a child's case is taken to the building
team for an official meeting to decide if a psychoeducational evalua-
tion is necessary.

A different approach to the issue of making appropriate referrals
to special education while at the same time meeting the needs of all
students with learning and behavior problems was tried by Graden and
her colleagues (Graden. Casey. & Christenson. 1985). The dual systems
of regular and special education service delivery were maintained by
Graden. but the focus of the special educator becomes one of providing
indirect service to handicapped children through consultation and
intervention with mainstream teachers rather than providing direct
service to handicapped children. Graden et al. set up a model to:
first. reduce the members of inappropriate referrals and placements
into special education. and second. make the actual special education
team decision-making process more relevant to instruction because the
model builds in a step whereby classroom interventions must be tried
before a referral is made to special education. This step provides the
team with a data base upon which to draw during decision making. ‘The
model is "an ecological model of viewing student problems in the con-
text of the classroom. teacher. and instructional variables as well as
student variables and of attempting appropriate educational interven-
tions that are not focused solely on the child" (Graden et al.. 1985.

p. 379). I believe this model offers a feasible and appropriate way to

196

proceed with special education reform at this time. It is an improve-
ment over what is currently happening in most schools. yet it is not
as radical as the proposal of Stainback and Stainback (1984). to do
away with the dual system of regular and special education. Nor is it
as likely to receive only lip service. without the necessary financial
backing. as happened in a program developed and implemented by Wang
(Wang & Reynolds. 1985).

Graden et a1. (1985) implemented a prereferral intervention system
in six schools over a three-year period. They judged the model to be
successful. in varying degrees. in four of the six schools. They
identified system- as well as building-level factors that affected the
success or failure of the model. At the system level the factors
were: administrative support (both verbal and visible). provision of
adequate resources by the district (the personnel and the time for
consultation). system-level pressures to test and place children in
order to receive reimbursement for special education students. a
concern on the part of teachers and administrators for the impact of
decreasing numbers of children in special education on resource
allocations. a general resistance to change. and the highlighting of
system-level and school-level problems (curriculum and teaching)‘that
are brought out by the consultation model being advocated by the
researchers.

The building-level factors affecting success or failure of the
model were: the high demand on the consultant's time; some of the

regular education teachers felt threatened by the model; the

197

consultants were not all adequately prepared; by working with classroom
teachers on interventions to be used in their classrooms. the consult-
ant removed the "quick cure" the teacher formerly had if the child was
placed into a special education program; and finally. the model was
successful in buildings where there was a strong. internal impetus for
change on the part of the staff. While these factors may seem logical.
they are not always considered before school districts attempt to
change current practice.

Some of the questions raised by the present this study that may be
addressed in further studies are: What types of children do other
early elementary grade teachers in suburban schools refer to resource
rooms? Are learning disabled children the only mildly handicapped
children in suburban resource rooms. or are there children with other
special education labels. such as emotionally impaired or educable
mentally impaired in these rooms? 00 suburban elementary school teach-
ers differ from urban or rural elementary teachers in referring chil-
dren to special education? The practice of referring children to
special education based on the perceived availability of services. if
found to exist across a range of teachers in a range of settings with
differing socioeconomic and racial groups of children. would have

broader policy implications.

MW
There are implications of this study for school district policy.
Recently. suggestions have been made that would require a "systematic

examination of the child's learning environment and the nature and

198

quality of the regular instruction received" before a student is
referred or assessed for special education (Messick. 1984. p. 5).

Wang and Reynolds (1985) pointed out. "A basic problem for all
students is that general education programs have been insufficiently
adaptive" (p. 4981. They applauded the efforts of Heller et a1. (1982)
and the National Academy of Science Panel on Mental Retardation. but
pointed out that the panel failed to discuss the issues involved in the
implementation of their own recommendations. To carry out systematic
examinations of a referred child's learning environment. increased time
to do the observation. increased money to compensate individuals for
the additional time to be spent on each case. and the very real possi-
bility of increased resistance on the part of regular educators to
being "systematically evaluated" by an outsider would be necessary.
The effect of such recommendations may be that regular educators would
stop making referrals altogether to avoid the observations. The
intended goal of the NAS Panel's recommendations was to reduce inap-
propriate referrals. particularly of male.lninority children. who are
overrepresented in programs for the mentally retarded.

Numerous studies of the identification of handicapped children
have concluded with a call to change the way special education is
currently funded (Gerber. 1984; Mesinger. 1985; Wang & Reynolds. 1985;
Ysseldyke et al.. 1983). Wang and Reynolds held special education
funding policies responsible for the discontinuance of the total
mainstreaming program they developed. despite its success. for both

children--in terms of achievementr-and teachers--in terms of positive

199

attitudes toward the model. The Adaptive Learning Environments Model
(ALEM) was set up to meet the needs of a broad range of students within
a regular classroom setting. full-time mainstreaming. as opposed to
children being pulled out of the regular class for special education
(Wang & Birch. 1984).

There has been a major shift in federal incentives to classify
handicapped children since Mehan did his study of the special education
placement process in the 1978-79 school year. The focus of special
education has shifted from "moral imperative and growth to fiscal
efficacy and retrenchment" (Crowner. 1985. p. 58). Many states are
moving away from a "search" for handicapped students toward decertifi-
cation of somerhandicapped students. or at the least. to stem the
rising numbers of children being identified. particularly as learning
disabled. (See the "masses are burgeoning" article by Algozzine.
Ysseldyke. 8. Christenson. 1983). Even as the nation's schools as a
whole are undergoing declines in overall student enrollment. the per-
centage of students labeled learning disabled has continued to climb
(Gerber. 1984).

I think that participant observational research techniques could
be used to conduct systematic examinations of a learning environment
(Messick. 1984). Some ideas for the ways that this type of research
could be used to inform district policy follow. One. it could provide
an opportunity for longitudinal studies of teachers. of children (for
example. following the careers of children established in the early

grades across school years and across classrooms). of particular

200

institutional events (such as referring children for special education
programs). of particular classroom activities or events (such as
"worktime." Florio. 1978; or "first circle." Dorr-Bremme. 1982; or
"getting the floor." Shultz. Florio. & Erickson. 1982). or of curricu-
lum (such as implementation of a new program. textbook series. or
remedial procedure).

Second. participant observational studies. such as this one. can
provide'a school district with a link to higher education that could
serve both the district and the institution. By the nature of the
techniques involved. the district has an opportunity to have a
researcher-in-residence rather than a researcher who comes in. does
some observing or testing and then leaves. rarely to be heard from or
seen again. with the possible exception of the presentation of a write
ten report. In participant observational studies. the researcher goes
back to the participants to share the findings. These findings are
then discussed and the participants have a chance to say. "Yes. thatfls
exactly what I meant." or "No. I wasn't thinking of that at all." This
allows for greater insight on the part of all involved. The institu-
tions have field-reaction to their conclusions. and the reactions of
the participants can be used to guide the implementation of research
findings into practice. something that is sorely lacking from much of
the research on teaching that has been done.

Third. studies such as this one can provide a school district with
a document that would initiate a discussion of an institutional

procedure such as how children are referred for special education. It

201

may provide the opportunity for an experienced staff to carry out a
self-study of an issue of curricular importance. such as the adoption
of a new textbook series or the implementation of a new curriculum. I
feel that this type of study could be the basis for teachers to start
feeling more valued. One possibility might be that teachers who chose
to participate in such self-study would be given credit toward master
teacher status or merit pay if the district is exploring. or is
involved in. such moves to upgrade the status of a teacher. The cur-
rent fear of many experienced teachers is that merit pay or master
teacher status will be based on the test scores of the children in
their classes. If this practice were to come about. the consequences
to public education and to the role of the teacher could be devastat-
ing. As an alternative. or in addition to process-product types of
measures of teacher effectiveness. participant observational research
as a basis for self-study would be an alternative way of deciding merit
pay over the award of such. based on the pre- and posttest scores of
children in a teacher's classroom.

Another implication of this study that affects school district
policy relates to the way the teacher identified the children to refer
for special education. I believe this study has shown that the
identification of mildly handicapped children is not simply a matter of
balancing the child's performance with a list of behavioral character-
istics on a referral form. Referral is not a clear-cut. rational act.
As the year progressed. I had the opportunity to observe the social

construction of a special education identity. A better understanding

202

construction of a special education identity. A better understanding
of the ways teachers decide whom to refer to special education is
needed before they can do a better job of identifying mildly handi-
capped children. In effect. this would entail an understanding of the
social construction of problem student status on the teacher's part.
This type of understanding is needed across the scope of teacher educa-
tion: regular and special educators. administrators. preservice teach-

ers. and teacher educators themselves.

Wm
Was

The findings from this study point toward taking a closer look at
how teachers socially construct a special education identity for
certain children. I use the term "social construction" to mean that
the teacher does not refer a child to special education because of some
inner attribute that the child brings with him or her to the classroom.
Nor is the child referred for special education because of some inner
perception of the child that the teacher brings with him or her to the
classroom. Rather. the child is referred for special education in the
interaction of the two. as they are socially constructed. Mehan et a1.
(1983) described this as "individuals acting together in organized
contexts to create and maintain the link between behavior and cate-
gories such as 'special education student"' (p. 141). The organized
context in this case is a classroom.

It may be that the social construction of a special education

identity is beyond the ways of seeing of most experienced teachers.

203

Not only may it be beyond their ways of seeing. it may be beyond their
ways of thinking about what goes on in their classrooms. This is not
to say that teachers are incapable of using alternate ways of seeing.
but to enable them to see their classrooms differently may not be a
simple matter of teaching teachers to look at their classrooms in a
different way. They must understand them in different ways. Shulman
and Carey (1984) recently stated that educational researchers have
Inoved beyond thinking of man as a.rationa1 being. They further
suggested that educational researchers have moved beyond thinking of
man as boundedly rational. Researchers are starting to think of man as
a collectively rational being. 'l-iuman rationality. whether bounded or
not. is practiced in the context of social exchange and human interac-
tion" (Shulman 8. Carey. 1984. p. 515).

One far-reaching policy implication that I can foresee is the
elimination of our current dual service delivery system for the mildly
handicapped. In Figure 5.4 I present a model that shows how this might
comerabout. Regular educators are currently responsible for some
segments of a mildly handicapped child's education. and special
educators are responsible for others. Preservice educators should be
taught to look for the way that special education identities (as well
as other identities. e.g.. giftedness) are socially constructed.
Practicing regular and special educators should also be presented with
this way of looking at children through advanced coursework and/or
inservice education. Classroom interventions could be designed that

would increase a child's chances for success in the regular classroom

204

without the need for a child to be given a special education identity
(label) and to be removed from the regular class. Special and regular
educators could work together within the classroom context to eliminate
the need for a separate service delivery system for the mildly handi-
capped. Children would not need to go to pullout programs; the serv-
ices would be part of their regular classroom experience. It is beyond
the scope of this paper to go into this point further. but it certainly

forms a research agenda for future endeavor.

Social Construction Theory as a Basis
for Looking at Student Progress
in Classrooms

Regular Preservice Special
Educators Educators Educators

IDENTIFICATION OF MILDLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

Intervention for the mildly handicapped

l

Elimination of dual service delivery systems
for the mildly handicapped

Figure 5.4: A social construction model.

205

Wat
According to Erickson (1985). the interpretive approach to

research on teaching is both a "close analysis of fine details of
behavior and meaning in everyday social interaction" and an "analysis
of the wider societal context . . . within which the face-to-face
interaction takes place" (pp. 6 8 7). While I did not consciously set
out to examine life outside Room 125 in this study. indirectly it could
not be avoided because Mrs. Meijer was influenced in her special educa-
tion referral decisions by what she knew about her school and her
district. The aforementioned suggestions for the identification of
mildly handicapped children in schools could well have broader ramifi-
cations.

Looking back. I now wish I had not been so careful to avoid asking
Mrs. Meijer direct questions about special education. I consciously
stayed away from discussing special education or the meaning of its
terminology. such as what is a learning disability. because I did not
want to prejudice the results of the study. I did not want my focus on
the problem students to be Mrs. Meijer's focus as my study was only
part of a larger study of Teachers' Practical Ways of Seeing (see
Chapter III for details). If I were starting over. I would have gone
to the placement (IEP) meetings for Craig and Pam with Mrs. Meijer.
She described the team meetings as if she had little part in the
decision-making process. I should have asked her more direct questions
about her involvement in the building team meetings rather than simply

asking her what happened. I found out that a researcher can ask the

206

anthropological question. "What's happening here?." receive an answer.
and still not know for certain if that is what is really happening.
Unlike my classroom research. where I had varied pieces of evidence to
check and cross-check against each other. I had only one side of the
story about the team meetings. Another possibility would have been to
interview the members of the team. such as the psychologist and the
resource room teacher. because both of these people had been involved
with classroom observations and testing of the two children who were
referred for special education.

To give the results of this study of one second-grade teacher a
broader perspective. future research could address such questions as:
Do other early grades teachers recognize Mrs. Meijer's practical
groupings of children? Do other teachers! individual methods of
grouping children result in similar groups with similar family
resemblances? Do other regular education teachers of children with
mild learning and/or behavior problems make similar distinctions
between low achievers? Do they have a "doesn't quite have it" group
and a "has it. but can't put it together" group? Do their special
education referrals also come from the latter group? Do other second-
grade teachers consider what they feel to be the source of the childus
problem before they make a referral?

Mrs. Meijer spent a great deal of her time thinking about.
planning for. and working with her "has it. but can't put it together"
children. What are the implications of all the extra attention that

this group of children gets in a classroom? Other studies have found

207

that teachers spend more time with "high risk" children (Parker.
Larsen. 8 Roberts. 1981) and "low achievers" (Wang. 1981) than with
other children in their classes. I did not look at my data in terms of
how much time Mrs. Meijer spent with any one group of children. I was
able to go back to Pawnee School the year following the study. in
November 1982. I recorded the children's grade equivalent scores on
the Stanford Achievement Test of October 1982. a year after they had
entered Mrs. Meijer's class. I divided the scores into Mrs. Meijer's
practical groups to see if there were any obvious group differences.

As can be seen in Figure 5.5. the "has it. but can't put it together"
children (Craig. Pam. and Neil) all showed a year or more of academic
growth. The "doesn't quite have it" group ranged from no growth to
nine months of growth. The extra-bright children ranged from no growth
to 1.5 years of growth. The average children ranged from .2 to 1.8
(the highest gain score) years of growth in their grade equivalent
scores. The "has it. but can"t put it together" children made very
good progress on their basic skills as measured by the Stanford Test.
Craig. the one child to gain a special education identity. ranked
eighth out of 22 children on the Stanford Test in terms of his progress
in Mrs. Meijer's room.

The findings of this study clearly fit with the growing national
debate over what to do about the increasing numbers of children being
referred and placed into special education programs. particularly in
the area of learning disabilities. While I do not see Mrs. Meijer's

referral of two children for special education as excessive. the ways

208

 

 

HAS IT. BUT CAN'T’EUT IT DOESN'T QUITE HAVE IT
TOGETHER CHILDREN (X = 1.1) CHILDREN (X'= .43)
Craig 1.3 Steve .9
Pammy 1.0 Joe .4
Neil 1.0 Mary 0

THE AVERAGE CHILDREN (X’= 1.15)

 

Jimmy 1.8 Blake 1.4 Carrie 1.1
John 1.6 Royce 1.4 Jason .4
Becky 1.5 Karen 1.2 Judy .2
EXTRA BRIGHT. REALLY
WITHIT CHILDREN (X = .88)
Donald 1.5 Paul .4
Andrew 1.4 Elizabeth 0
Jessica 1.1 Sarah NA (absent on
second day of testing
10-81)

Figure 5.5: Gain score grade equivalent growth from 10-81 to 10-82.
Stanford Achievement Test.

she decided which children to refer gave evidence that referral was a
serious undertaking for her. The cases of the two children she
referred illustrate the dilemma faced by many regular educators when
they look at students who are not meeting success with the traditional
materials and teaching methods. Mrs. Meijer felt that Craig was a
learning disabled child and that he would benefit from the one-on-one
resource room model used at her school. Mrs. Meijer did not feel that
Pam was a special education candidate. but she felt that Pam needed
some help to be able to succeed in second grade. It is not clear from

the data whether Mrs. Meijer was. in fact. asking the building team to

209

give her some ideas to help Pam succeed. I noted one suggestion given
to Mrs. Meijer by the school counselor. This was to provide Pam with
an "office" in which to work. It was never tried in my presence.

The dilemma faced by a regular educator when trying to decide which
children to refer for special education appears to stem from a lack of
understanding as to the purpose of the building team on the part of the
teacher. ‘The purpose of a team referral needs to be made clear to all
involved: teachers. administrators. and support staff. The purpose of
the team needs to be evaluated and reiterated on an annual basis at a
minimunn The high rate of referral to placement (73%; Algozzine et
al.. 1983) could be viewed as evidence that teachers are making approp-
riate referrals of children to special education. such as Craig. What
is disconcerting about this picture. however. is the concomitant
increase in percentages of children being identified as learning dis-
abled nationwide. The rapid and continuing increase in numbers of
learning disabled students being identified casts doubt on how "approp-
riate" the children were in the first place. but the blame certainly
does not rest entirely with regular educators.

Currently. there are few ways for a regular education teacher to
get help with a student he or she is concerned about other than to
refer the child for special education. Even then. unless the child is
found eligible. the teacher rarely receives any suggestions to help the
child succeed in school. There are a number of promising models being
implemented across the country. but these are few and far between and

have met with mixed responses. as previously discussed. If the

210

classroom teacher goes ahead and refers a needy child (but not one she
or he sees as needing special education such as Pam). the teacher runs
the risk of being discounted as a diagnostician by the team. and perhaps
the teacher's referrals of children such as Craig will not be taken
seriously. The teacher also risks getting a reputation for not being
able to teach children who learn differently. or as a complainer. who
tries to find other placement for hard-to-teach children. These
concerns are legitimate and must be taken into account by those
responsible for formulating and articulating the purposes of the team

meetings to the staff.

we

The reader must now decide if the results of this study make sense
in light of her or his own experience. That which is familiar about
this classroom as a result of the reader's own school experience should
provide the reader with the shared culture of schooling needed to
interpret my findings. Even though the reader was not in this particu-
lar second-grade class. there most undoubtedly was. or is. a classroom
somewhere that can be called to mind. The reader must decide to what
extent Mrs. Meijer is like or unlike other second-grade teachers. The
reader must also decide if the researcher has clearly presented her
case and to what extent it seems credible. While many of the points
raised in the discussion of my findings are of a local nature. meaning

that they are most important to Mrs. Meijer and the children in her

211

room. the broader concern of the identification of mildly handicapped
children in the regular classroom has nonlocal implications.

This study points to the need to examine further the pervasiveness
of the practice of making referrals based on the classroom teacherus
perception of the available services within the district. This study
of one teacher's observation and practical reasoning concerning the
referral of children to special education services suggests a need to
find a better way of looking at children in classrooms. one that takes
into account the ways in which getting a special education identity is

socially constructed.

APPENDICES

212

APPENDIX A

DEFINITIONS OF LEARNING DISABILITY, EMOTIONAL

IMPAIRMENT, AND EDUCABLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED

213

214

STATE OF MICHIGAN DEFINITIONS

Rule 340.1713' Specific learning disability defined

Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of
the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using
language. spoken or written. which may manifest itself in an imperfect
ability to listen. think. speak. read. write. spell. or to do mathematr
ical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual
handicaps. brain injury. minimal brain disfunction. dyslexia. and
developmental aphasia. The term does not include children who have
learning problems which are primarily the result of visual. hearing. or
motor handicaps. of mental retardation. of emotional disturbance. or of
environmental. cultural. or economic disadvantage.

Rule 340.1706 Determination of emotional impairment

The emotional impairment shall be determined through manifestation
of behavioral problems primarily in the affective domain. over an
extended period of time. which adversely affect the person's education
to the extent that the person cannot profit from regular learning
experiences without special education support. The problems result in
behaviors manifested by one or more of the following characteristics:

a. Inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal
relationships within the school environment.

b. Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal cir-
cumstances.

c. General pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression.

d. Tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with
personal or school problems.

Rule 340.1705 Determination of educable mentally impaired

Rule 5 (1)‘The educable mentally impaired shall be determined
through the manifestation of all of the following behavioral character-
istics:

a. Development at a rate approximately 2 to 3 standard deviations
below the mean as determined through intellectual assessment.

b. Scores approximately within the lowest 6 percentiles on a
standardized test in reading and arithmetic.

c. Lack of development primarily in the cognitive domain.

d. Impairment of adaptive behavior.

215

(2) A determination of impairment shall be based upon a
comprehensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary evaluation team which
shall include a psychologist.

(3) A determination of impairment shall not be based solely
on behaviors relating to environmental. cultural. or economic differ-
ences.

Source: MJehJean Special £51m Rules. as amended August 13. 1980.
P.A. 451. 1976.

APPENDIX B

BEHAVIOR RATING SCALE--TEACHER'S CHECKLIST

216

217

Case Coordinator Teacher

 

ELEP-IEIITAEY SCHOOL

School Team Referral

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date
Student Grade____.___Birthday
Parentis) Address
Home Phone Work phone - Father/Mother
Family Physician
Check appropriate areais) of concern
Academic Social Physical
Health Emotional Other

 

 

 

Description of concern

 

Additional information related to the concern (i.e.: CA60,4previous teacher)

 

“hat other services is the child receiving?

 

What type of assistance are you reguestino?

 

Parents were made aware of this referral on

 

Teacher's signature Date

 

Principal's signature Date

 

 

Copies: Parent
Tsacher (CABO)
Principal
Case Coordinator
Special Education Office

218

1‘. ‘ii'IMlI SI'III I‘NINI III\ II I
Ilkli III‘I '\ IIII‘t I~I I'i

Child's .‘~.’11*if'____-_fi_h -_-_______ II.|it'

 

(.ch . \gzx', _ 7 'l‘INII'IIt‘I'

 

cilia __ ._ __ yrs m ”1111’fo

 

 

 

 

 

 

-——————--—v- “"V ' "‘ ' ' -""‘” - ‘ "_" ‘ '
‘ ‘ ‘ . .. --..-- ---
' '-. \‘Iu II -- ‘I .1
---—...- _ ~..—_. - 'T — - - - ...--_ ___- ___ -—- ._ — . ..-—___ -_- ._
‘ 1
_ . ‘t’ ' I» I
T———-——-."r" ‘-~-r -‘ ~ ,~ -- —- - -—-<-- ——--- —- - —--—-~—<
,1 [1| ‘ II\ \ Kl \ .Jl
_ __.__ --- ., . - _ - --- _
. , .... - _, 'I , 1.. , “" "' ’_ " "' 'I‘ -
I. 3.; ". .IIv 1.. .'I' '.II. \lllini‘

 

.I I‘ \I ..l '- iI . -'l‘I ‘I‘:II‘(‘I .I"'-II\-I.II II‘II .- . I

 

 

 

 

 

. 7 III I. . I
7.2...” --- , -_ ., ------ -..--- ...- ..----.- -..... -- -
l ...: lt'i‘ ‘11. i' '1 Hi IIIHI‘

--__... -_ . - —- » . - -—«~~—.—- -——-—--—-«- -—-——--- ——-—- ——--.———.o_—1L.-

.‘_ ..‘f ~( ~‘ ‘.-. -' 1~ 1'1 1‘ .IIIIIIQ

,__., -- .. ..- - ,. ---.---__ '**"-'""'“-'----—-'-"i

.I . III: I I I:

:‘w‘ -~--_ "“ ' ‘ ‘ "‘ ’“—-— _ _ ‘ ' -..—_—

I I . ‘1' , ZI' ‘II..(‘.\I

‘ - -- ___- —-- _ _ .-..-- ———- --— -—--————..-4

 

 

 

 

_ , .. . , _,. -_

I . o . ... ..., ‘

, _ .. .-,.!;. ‘ . . I.I'.'II.11I\I‘I.I"-”I
I

. ..I. 1.3.1.; ' “-

 

 

Luff: .iI 1‘. L.: l. .vE—I'I'It II:]I_I‘___ .

 

 

 

 

 

4.111 1.1‘.:- .r In. ;-:I:.iI.
.- ;w I'.'. '.‘.I...II It'iit'Is-riniixlx
' ’ I -‘ . v 1.1:. I~
1‘ l I..II. i-- Im' I‘l. iIIL' IIIIL
—‘_‘ T . ‘ ’-fi' “ '. ’-| “" —‘—---.'---‘ ---‘-'——"_ -'.---1
. I~ - ., I ... '~ LilLII 1.111111};
._ ' ' ' ' ', ' , 'I '1 ' '~"" ' "' ""W— "—"——"-"
. I It I I k H l I .Il‘III

 

I
I 111'” {II iIIL‘ lIIlIIliL‘

 

 

 

- -..— -_ . --- --. _-——.

l
'| '.~ I""" 1‘ - in III" \I‘IIK\IK7II\RIIKL
. I'.I“‘Ii_ lliII I.Itl>~ (ITIHIII'II III

 

 

 

. C, I)
.. I : i It - Ia
'. ful I't.‘.Ill liIlvITI.IL1\_all()lII‘II._II
..II‘I.’.11C ..T II‘ I' Il‘ls t‘I'llfit‘ IL‘\(I
.’I\. II :-.-.~t> 5;'-.'.I I. _ II__III_.I LIIL IIImts‘s—ts sunIIIIIh IUlleIl

 

 

.' . l'<-.-.~' f'lngt-I's or ui.'..t\1tts to (Olllli

 

___ _ 'T'T-J' —- -..-~—

37 .ziI'Iio tn tIf.I_‘.\ .‘l IIIETIIF‘I'IgIII't IEILI'DILOI‘HIIII

 

 

 

77:5- Iatttl< IiII -\‘. OIJCI 1.II(II Slic—Iiljli‘

 

 

 

'-. "tilirIJ tux-”mu .7...Ivm Imitis

 

 

5.1-f“ _- IVS—i: |_ -_« avid II 5* II I :tIt _III I_\__ II_ :4 III -\.IID\...IN\I(‘ITIII( III
'I':. I ..iei'ilv.‘ $1‘.III\I,‘- I..:l'.'Ii “>3 1. III'I:

 

 

 

___- _a--.---_--—-.- .- - _— ._- ......

_'. .::.' '1 Ix-tIEI s... m. I .>\II-i_I-I)IL‘S

 

 

 

 

'2‘“. I;:_\ ,I:-.'I']\ t\ll. ll‘ll;|."

 

--..v_——-<.. - --—

. I‘nt's Intuit]; III. IJT'WIIthI lam]:

 

 

..‘_I~' {(IIIIII\L.III.Il.-_—i1;:I\kll :I “153‘“ illltIlIillV dilutimn»

371.27.” ~~' n—Tz; U‘ I ”In I I IIIIt (111 St I I ___-.-._-___..._.__

 

 

 

 

 

77...}? II_Ht_ “Irwin :I— ll III.| IIIIII’li'Ii-o-I-Iu ls _.
.11. w: :.“1\III \x" I Z. Imi .Im >2 not I 1111\I1

 

 

 

 

l . .-»._~.~‘ii.jz stir-(:47 1111(11 11ml. ___-

 

219

IN SCHOOL SCRII‘NIIJC IIH'IITII

Teacher's Checklist
Page 3

SOCIIILXIJIOTIOKII. I \1: 11111 :1 :5

 

___- __-_— _ -fiu -——-- -.—

__YI .s No

 

 

__.-_ -..-___ - ___—~.. -~—-. -
fl *—_

 

1. "Plea-.5 up" (“.'1\".I\'

 

 

 

.. v» ‘ .— ’ .‘7 —fi.’—_ --.—....
_. (III-r k'.I>II‘. I-.I..-II 11mm

3. I:.‘I~' 111.“.‘1' I'I.I.II' I'I-mz I.‘II,~‘IIII‘\‘

 

___—___.--__.,-_._. --.—. _ --
c —

 

’T‘”"—;_“—,"_.‘T"—"-"" ,. ‘ -..-.._..__... ‘ -’_- ‘ ""‘__“"’——-‘I“
-.. .IINJIJh OI.II‘I>
/ a -—~~—--—-——————_ --.‘ -.— - . —— .— - -..-_____r.-__qL.—. .—
I> .It';.1.:.‘. II.
‘—"—'_..‘._.“T-'."—_.—_" '—"""‘-' """V" ‘-‘"—-"‘—“‘“—"“'__
I‘ II II I. \II ..'III'. INITIIK'I' .IIII.I;II‘\II‘
-.. . -.-..-1...._-.. , , . . . --.- .-----..-.--._ .. --
(Inna. ‘.'.?‘Ir 11.11.: ~:III\ .
_7 2" _..,..-:“-, V ' ". ' ll 2" V.V—‘.V ' “I. ‘ '- ~‘I ‘-‘-~ _- -_. 1“. ’_-—-- --
‘- .«TII...°I.II.. .I_I..1I'_ II'.I MILIIIIII
-_ _‘-_--._._____- -

 

I

 

Ir—

 

 

 

 

 

 

:I. 1'451'11i". 11 1.11.29“: 1. :..:_I:I.fi\' Il‘ .IfIIII1\',"I’II\I.Ilk‘-I"”OIL—U7:TIrt—-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A.
—‘- ...-- .._..v_‘ 'T--—‘ -——-—-‘ . -—- --« ——-——— —— -_____.,- .—_.——- -.-—.--}— -
, ..z...1'::.II I .
y” —r--——V-'—_-——— .. -—- -—~— ‘ -' — -— - .— _,__ ———- --'—-- —.’ < ---
I. I: ‘III:: .-".II 'I‘.I..\
, ....._-_..__,.__.----_ .--- . -- - .,.- ._,. ---- _____..._--- ..-_-_.___ ----
, .. .., 1 ‘
Jun l‘\‘..' 11:31.,‘II‘! .II‘. 1' 1‘ I\! \.\‘:\k
.____..——-fi—-——-. A-a —‘—. ....-. _. _ ‘ - ___—___ ___—_——— —1. _..-
. .yo ¢ - n _ . .
i 0.. ..1..».. I . I
. . ' III:1:I'I- I
- _ __ , ----_ ... ..- -_ - -. --.- - . -__. .. ___._.-----....... -- ._
.. .- . , l . .
\.‘.I L‘ f .I~.I.| 11‘} ’~\‘:I'II
--— -—'fi——w‘-—vr'- ' .-. — - - , - * ,_._- - -..... - - ---— ..... —-~——— ->-————o————--— ._
1 ‘ U
o ‘1 'xk.I\‘ \
,.:-"“;'.‘)”.-TT‘I. .". .,;I'I':.1 <~III:.£II(II|\‘
--._._.__- .. --- .. , , .. . . ..- . ..--.._,._ ._._-....--__..--
.11:‘.:UI.?-.-I "“- PIIII\I.'~,I'.I_I'I'L‘11.:.1‘.Y (II ('IIIIL‘I‘5
—_-_—-—L—-—._——- V — _ . --_4. - l ”___- .. .._-._..-——.. - ..-__- .-.—...
“ 9
-V ‘-.I 5 \II l _\
..-... -...‘ ..-..- _- '... ‘ - ....___....—..—u.
_I IIIIII‘ . 11': 1m {7111)
"-~‘r""‘ - - - ..-- ___..-“ _
-I . (1' 1.1’. .‘IIII
W‘“ ~- “ "‘ ' " ‘_"."‘ __ --
_ . 'I‘ ‘1 ~ .IIIIII. 1x
7': Vfi "— ‘ _‘ ' -—’—_' -
_.‘. . I ;' ..IS .1 {90"
—.- _-_-__f...--._‘---- .7 '7 _-,_-__ +7
-.. :'.'"I"’.‘ 2.31: Inf? IIIIIIII~-IIIII
-—;- -—'——.-—-_'"'—T" ‘ ' J'-- ’-‘P‘° -— —-—---— —-——

 

 

. H-— - dF-_—_—- . -

 

 

> _ 1:11 ..11 'I 1.: ;I:'.‘1.I‘I-III_.I I111 >017? II'V :I.‘IIIIII(‘I1
.- .. .--..._ ,..- - ___-
.11. 21.1.2» Y.' :1}... .111; 5111111le .IIII.I1'I'1‘.

 

 

 

- ’. 11.1.27; to :‘I.Ij.‘ ‘I'.'IIII I-I.I-.“1‘ .‘IIII.II'I.‘II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”ET—141s I 1:717:17 II :FXI- \"I.II-I-IIQ:L".\IH—--- -
j. I- I. r \ 111101 .1? ”II:{XIII—ITITWIITI‘711‘11—Emf1-I’IITI-IW ‘
“ II 11“ 013.. I \‘ITI‘TI—JI—vv- ‘ _‘—-—- '
7'.- . I511: 01‘ 1‘.«":~.I_I~‘ . 5173.1”. 1717-1:551‘11 -
2... 2:? < 0711. 1‘ ..fi—IIITIT

7 7.7—2? :11 I 11::11-_ 7: 1:3 17:?1—‘I1—1—UIX —

7' a”ITTTTfffit7fip:;§fi3?I<.hihhvn hIth011awnDom '
I'IM .1.3III‘.<

7?. 311'i0< t" T.‘IIT\ 171.21.111'1‘ W

.5. 3.”-7.371171% to TIFF—1'7I-fiII’IIILII'.TII_I—I_.I”11I.II —
:‘:..—-.r-.TS.I—\I-I.O C-‘vl‘m II SCIIUO I- --
13. I k .; 1717.11 131' ‘1‘...7..*:I'I‘IITI-II_'II':” - '

 

 

.. 5.11.01 fiC I:\'.'II‘ Igor-OITII’C‘me , Of (IOgSI '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J}. .'.--I.'LII‘ 51111.5, In {1.1.11 I'.I.'I.'IimI-:

‘I”»“-"“-."—""‘"—'IT.T" " 1' '- ' -

«... Il‘l‘fiI II‘II -- (II.\‘I>

I".‘SIT’-I.‘II‘.I I.-.::.~‘ III I'.I;.I.II'II In property

.- o. I. :1I\'I:‘~":, 1nd. II.‘\’ In .511 III. oppositv

_ -»——— fi'fi--.‘ -— - - -- - r -..-.- .-.—-r—-—-—---~o ——o————-—-o-.— --—-
. I I. IEK~I\II -

 

1X Sf‘li'VL SCR‘LIXI‘

 

 

 

~ R

‘\I

IN}.

220

H II' xl\ r\ ‘ ‘! l'f ‘~‘: . .
3' _\1..r121l11\h.\‘ ]\1H(_‘.,
. , - --— -—.- ---... -~—— -- - - -- ~—-—— —-- -——- ...- —--— -~—-—-—- - - < - . ‘ < ~ c ‘ . [..—
—~~—-—-‘r*-.—r.—.—— ,"f 13' ' ' ~"'.'\—— "‘ ""~'- ——-* “-—-" ~ ‘ ‘ -— ""7
}, PERLMV“ 1\‘-1\Al. “_ ;,'?".' l K I\ ,“L {K '.I\\
___ . -,- ._._,_-_- _. ‘ - .7 .__-r__- _- _,___._----a-__‘-._ -. .._._
U “rij‘\ ‘0: :x:.:. \IIIHI' :
T Hwi‘ rum? 1"}:‘t u"
___” __ __ V 3 . -- V; 3;...— ,___--_7- .___,H ,‘D -. 2%---- .---
. . .1 mm“! ~. . “‘1', .ntnul.21u2\. ~11h~~t11nt1 n1.
. ;:.\ t it]?
' \ .. ‘1-0,‘ g
’— - ' - -—‘— .- -- v-‘>---v —----->——~ ~- ————~—.1———.——-— -- ~—-v<- -. .~
~ .~ k ... ‘- . : ::~.H\ w, pnnl‘ uh Skit-'2 i. law I
, - - -- . -'--‘ .*- > ' v V‘ ,7 *r- —‘-——-.~v—v-q—-— .. -V-~ - -------~ -——--' ' t --‘ “
. Iflb‘fJ ‘\ t. '.‘. . h l\ :i H ‘ . g
a . #‘— - — —- ‘— — ,- —— - v v- —— <. v — - - .. ___ ~—- -... ——-c~—— '" — A ‘ - — f .— u a— l
. 1 1
. . \x, .32. u 1. !'\. 21‘ J. I"! ..\.. . '
”__f ' "1"" "-" ' '"' ”_—‘—" ' "' ' -" ‘P"_~——"-' " ‘ ..— .' "'.
I. I I ~|k;|‘\ I I
- — ~- —— -« - —-,— ' - - - ___.-- -- -——~- —--- ——-———--~—- .- '- ---——1
I . .. Hun]. '. ' - x 1‘1. "‘11'3‘ I
»‘ :w‘, "T ‘ '
—;. ¢~ -- ~ -~—~---- -~—~—»—~—--~--~-~-~+-\-
.. ‘ . ~ g
~ Ti, ‘ \ _, H ' ' "_’ " """"'"" “M -_ _‘__._'.__._ ‘T
_ ,. - __W._-_.”_______.,-_.-.-_- ___“. __ .A ._.-.~.,___, _
5 ‘ ' . g
* f'f.‘ f.‘ ‘ ~33: I \ ' ' “W“ "" "" “" "* t‘ '—"‘
. . :_.__’.'x_- _ \ . “K. __ ._ , -.- ..-- _ ___..__.__._. - - ‘—_| ‘ "1",

\0

   
  
 

in [1;] my '.

APPENDIX C

PROJECT PERMISSION LETTER

221

222

September 9. l98l

Dear Parents.

This year I will be participating in a study of teachers that is being
conducted by University. The director of the
StUdy 15 9 Ph.D.9 Of the
at the university.

 

 

The purpose of the study is to learn more about teachers' ways of
paying attention to. and thinking about. daily events in their
classrooms. Findings from the study will be used to develop new
methods for educating beginning and experienced teachers.

During the study my classroom will be visited by observers who will
take notes on what happens during classroom activities. Periodically
the classroom will be videotaped. I will view the tapes with

and his staff and will be interviewed about my observations and
thoughts on the daily events that were taped. The contents of the
tapes and the identity of all those who appear on them will be kept
confidential. The tapes will not be broadcast--they will be shown only
for research and teaching purposes. and no real names will be used in
any reports written about the study. Two types of videotaping will be
done: general shots of the whole classroom. in which individual stu-
dents will appear only as part of the total class. and more individual-
ized shots focusing on particular children from time to time. In the
second type of taping. a wireless microphone will be worn by the child
to record his or her voice. Past experience is that children enjoy
wearing the microphones; they do not find them uncomfortable or embar-
rassing to wear.

If you have any questions about the study or if for some reason you do

not want your child to be individually videotaped during it. please
call me here at school at .

Sincerely.

(Teacher's signature)
Public Schools

 

APPENDIX D

FIELDNOTES FOR FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER IS, 198]

223

:A0

:03 OPENING

:06

:IO OPENING
ACTIVITIES

 

:ll

:I3

224

Day II Friday Sept. 25, I981

T arrives. Seemed a little disappointed with her parent
turnout. Pammy'snrmu Neil's parents, Carrie's parents,
couldn't remember about John's parents-~if they came.
Gail's did not come. T comments about the black circles
under eyes (Neil, Pammy, Carrie). Mentioned that she
learned last night that Neil and his younger swim an hour
every night in a swim club.

Children all arriving. Boardwork for today:

 

 

 

 

l. letters-A,B,C Word Bank

2. Mighty Math skating skiing
3. Spelling-p. h swimming sledding
h. Math-red 9-l0, yellow 37-38

5. Journal

Neil says: ”Oh, word bank....Great."

0N (T still in hall with Elizabeth's mother) [Kids just
visiting. Midget cars seem to be the big thing for the
boys now.]

I. Hot lunchers-Fri. is spaghetti day (T, Paul, Jessica
at tissue box).

Jessica asks T if today is a popcorn party. She says yes
for those that earned it. T tells them that there is a
letter to go home today about some testing in October
that is very important.

2. Pledge

T asks Gail to pass out handwriting paper and Karen to
pass out Mighty Math papers.

:16 HANDWRITING T starts explaining how to print capital A. "Push

 

:2l

down,” ”Two down strokes"”and then across” (T walks
around checking their guide letters). T tells John and
Neil to blow noses, ”lots of snuffies today." Pammy and
Sarah get up to blow too. T tells them capital 8 should
not have a ”loopy" in the middle and she shows them on
the board what she means. (T tells John to blow his nose
again, but he just wipes it. He still is not blowing.)

Craig, "Are we going to go all the way to 2 again?”

T asks him what is on his boardwork for today and says
that's all he should be concerned with. She demonstrates
C and walks around observing guide letters. (T gets
Kleenex box and puts a stack of them on both John and
Neil's desks.)

9: 33 JOURNALS

9

9 :23 BOARDWORK
EXPLANATION

9 :3l

33323

9:140

225

T goes over directions to Mighty Math. Goes over what
they are to do, subtraction. Becky is already working.

 

SPELLING

T is doing an example on the board because many didn't
appear to understand about the coins.

T directs them back to boardwork list. Tells them to
take out their spelling books. Has Stacy read the direc-
tions and then has kids read what the pictures are so
that there will be no misinterpretations, e.g. it's a
gate, and not a fence.

T tells them to put their spelling book in the tub she
has placed back there today, not overflowing the basket.
Tells them to sign the top of the page now.

T changes names of math groups. (Snoopy group is now the
Red group and Woodstock is now Yellow group.) MN (T had
told me earlier that she planned to do this because the
kids in Woodstock group were getting confused about what
group they were in.)

Tells kids to rip out the appropriate math pages for
their group. Then tells them that when they put their
math book away, they should get out their journal. They
are to open up to the front of their journal.

Tells them that their date should start on the next line
after her initials. She puts an example on the board:

 

 

 

 

Craig asks, "Where do you put it, because i don't have
any space? T tells them they have to write two sen-
tences today. Tells them that the word bank is on the
board. They are to write about one of these sports.

T gives them a two-sentence example for herself.

T tells them to stack up their assigned pages in reverse
order. She goes through how to stack with them. Asks
them if they have any questions about their morning seat-
work. John asks about the word tobbaganing. Tells them
she'll be calling for Spelling groups first and then be
meeting with reading groups.

Several children already take their completed handwriting
paper up to the wire baskets. T is getting boxes with
Spelling materials out. Calls her first group. Donald
comes up and gives T his spelling folder from Monday.

(He had taken it to his desk.) T explains how to do the

9:“7 (at desks)

9:50

9:52

10:00

l0:l0

l0:l0 READING
GROUPS

226

graph and how today they'll have the same words as Monday.
She mentions studying them at home. T, "Did you all bring
your half sheets?” (None of them did.) Group is: Steve,
Jessica, Paul, Blake, Jimmy and Mary. (Steve forgot his
pencil and has to go back to get it.)

Craig turns around to ask Judy a question, and she tells
him to ”do it yourself." He next asks Pammy and she

tells him, ”I can't tell you.” (It is Mighty Math that he
is asking about.) T still giving the Spelling test to the
first group.

0N--Many children already on journals and that's their
last seatwork assignment (Donald, Elizabeth, Sarah, and
Joe).

First Spelling group is finished and returning to their
seats. Paul says, ”Oh. That was tiring.” T calls next
group. This group remembers to get paper and clipboards
without being remineed, except Neil. T explains graph to
them. (Each child's # correct from Monday pretest is
graphed.)

Lowest group: Craig, Royce, Joe, Karen, Carrie, Elizabeth,
Becky, Neil, Pammy, and Judy.) (0N--Donald is all finished
with his work. He wants to go to listening table. Seems
unsure if he's permitted as it's so close to the spelling
groups. He looks toward T several times but she doesn't
acknowledge him, so he goes ahead.) Kids in spelling
groups are distracted by Don's record. It's on the wrong
Speed. No, it's"Fox in Sox"--high Speed. Jessica comes
back to join Donald.

T sents this group back and calls up the last group
(Donald, Sarah, Gail, Andrew and John). She shows them a
sample of how their paper is to be set up. (Steve just
sitting at his seat, but work is still on it. Mary is
standing and looking around, rest of the kids not in
spelling are doing seatwork, except Jason, who is at lis-
tening table.) Pammy still on Mighty Math. ON (Large
crowd at listening table now interfering with the last
spelling group.) ON-(Neil didn't seem to notice that he
had been moved to a different spelling group today.)

Craig is all excited as he's finished all of his seatwork.
T sends last group back and gets herself ready for read-
ing groups.

T calls Webs and Wheels group back. Circus is topic
today. ON-(Pammyfihas a terrible cough today. She uses
her number line for math. Craig is now working on work
from the Not Done side of his folder.) Royce on math
worksheet.

 

l0:

l0:

l0:

l0:

l0:

l0:

l0:

ll

ll:0h

ll:05

20

25

37

AZ

“5

A7

:00

FILM

227

Steve comes by to tell me that he's just done his last
thing. Craig comes over for help on a worksheet. Pammy
now asking Craig for help on a math problem.

(Knock on door) Class is going over to Mrs. Field's
(other second-grade teacher) room with their snack to
see a movie.

”Bread and Jam for Francis,” introduced by Mrs. Field.
T leaves the room. Mrs. F. goes to her desk, corrects
papers.

Mrs. F. leaves room for a minute. Several children
notice her absence.

Kids are putting fingers up in front of light. They
don't know that Mrs. F. has slipped back in the room.
She tells them that this is kindergarten and first-grade
behavior, not second grade.

Back in Room l25. T with WsW group again. Has to inter-
rupt to talk to ”boys at listening center.” ON-(All
appear to be done with seatwork except Gail and Pammy.)

T calls Secrets group back. They meet on the back carpet
today. They are reading orally today. T shows them about
paragraphs.

T glances at Craig, Jason and Blake, who are discussing
how long it takes to get to Cedar Point. The W&W peOple
are doing their workbook page now.

T puts character names up on board for Secrets story:
Juanita, David, Sara. She gives them a question to read
to find out. ON-(Jason anticipating Rainbows being
called up next and is trying to get Blake to go over by
the listening table so they can use it when the Rainbows
people leave.)

T tells Secrets which workbook page to do. (Craig comes
over and asks me how many pages of writing l have.)

T tells Pammy that the reading teacher will be here soon
so she'd better get going on her reading.

Rainbows gets called up to table. Too many for the table
so 1 has them meet at the carpet. They read aloud in
their group. Secrets doing their reading and worksheets.
ON-(Pammy reads audibly during silent reading.) ON-(Becky
is making a picture that says: ”I love you Mrs. Meijer.")
T calls out to Andrew, Paul and Donald to do their own
work. They were talking at their seats. She reminds
Rainbows not to "clip off their endings." Says these are

ll

ll:

ll

ll

ll

:l2

l6

:20

:25

:30

228

just as important. They are reading a play. T assigns
parts. Craig asks to be a troll, but T tells him that
he's already read and that Sarah is already chosen as
troll.

Pammy coughs. T looks up, hearing how bad it sounds.

Play Still going on with Rainbows. Other kids are quietly
working or at listening table. T reminds the group of the
picture clues as they read.

Dismisses Rainbows with no workbook page today. Paul,
Andrew and Donald back asking T a question about their
worksheet that they can't figure out.

T says they are waiting for the reading teacher and sug-
gests that some may want to take their bathroom breaks
now. T asks Royce to sit down and tie his shoes, then
watches to see if he can do it correctly. T asks if any-
one has papers to be initialed. Craig says, ”I do.“

(T tells me she's stalling.)

Still waiting for the reading teacher. She's here. Sev-
eral kids say, ”Here she comes.“ T notices Andrew and
Jimmy horseplaying. Says to Andrew, "i don't want to see
that again, or you will have discipline meted out.”
(0N--About the strongest statement I've heard her make.)

APPENDIX E

STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, CLASS PROFILE

229

230

STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST
Primary I, Form A
10-81, Grade 2

CLASS PROFILE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade equivalent Subtest Stanines 1 2p}, 4 5 6 7 §_9
3.3 Vocabulary 8 JIlu
2.6 Reading A 3 10 9
2.8 Reading B 12 9
3.0 Reading Comprehension 12 9
3.2 Word Study Skills 8 13
2.5 Math Concepts 2 13 7
2.9 Math Comprehension 12 10
3.5 Listening Comprehension 11 11
3.1 Total Reading 11 10
2.7 Total Math 1# 8
3.# Total Auditory g 7 15
3.0 Complete Battery 12( 57%)9(43%)

Number of children
scoring in each

range.

*Test taken on 10-1. 10-2, 10-5, 1 student absent on 10-2, therefore
some numbers total 22 and some 21 for the stanine counts.

APPENDIX F

CLASS LIST

23l

Name

 

Jimmy
Paul
Sarah
Steve
Carrie
Mary
Pammy
Judy
Andrew
John
Karen
Neil
Gail
Jason
Doria
Elizabeth
Jessica
Blake
Craig
Sue
Joe
Donald
Becky

Royce

232

Room lZS Children

 

Practical Grouping

 

Average

Extra bright, withit

Extra bright, withit

Doesn't quite have it

Average

Doesn't quite have it

Has it, but can't get it together
Average

Extra bright, withit

Average

Average

Has it, but can't get it together
Average

Average

Average

Extra bright, withit

Extra bright, withit

Average

Has it, but can't get it tagether
Average

Doesn't quite have it

Extra bright, withit

Average

Average

APPENDIX G

STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, COMPLETE BATTERY TOTALS

233

234

Stanford Achievement Test8
Complete Battery Totals

 

Child Age (Yr-Mo) Stanine Range
Jimmy 7’7 6 3'9
Paul 7-11 9 7-9b
Mary 7-8 6 5‘7
Joe 7-5 6 4-7
Sarah 6-ll NA 5-7
Donald 7-h 8 5'9
Carrie 7'9 7 “'8
Steve 8-8 5 4-8
Pammy 7-5 6 5-7
Becky 7'3 5 4'5
Gail 7'5 7 6-8
Judy 7-2 8 5'9
Andrew 8-0 9 7-9b
Jason 7-l 6 5-8
Blake 7'2 6 A-7
Royce 7-l 6 3'9
Karen 7'3 5 3‘3
Neil 7-l 7 6'9
John 7-0 8 6'9
Craig 8-0 5 3'7
Elizabeth 7'9 9 7"9-b
Jessica 7'3 6 5‘8

 

aTests taken lO-l, lO-2, and 10-5-1981.

b= and above.

APPENDIX H

CRAIG'S REFERRAL FORM

235

236

Case Coordinator Teacher

 

ELEMENTA RY SCHOOL

School Team Referral

Date November 2, 198l

 

 

 

 

 

Student Craig Grade 2 Birthday
ParentIs) Address
Home Phone Work phone - Father/Mother

 

 

Family Physician

 

Check appropriate area(s) of concern

 

Academic Social Physical

 

 

 

Health Emotional Other

 

 

 

Description of concern

 

academics below grade equivalent
difficulty with memory tasks, understanding directions

Additional information related to the concern (i.e.: CAGO, previous teacher)

 

referred as a first grader
No Spring follow-up was deemed necessary

What other services is the child receiving?

 

Remedial reading

What type of assistance are you requesting?

 

Test and follow-up for memory (short term) and listening skills

Parents were made aware of this referral on November 5. I98I

Teacher's signature Date

Principal's signature Date

 

Copies: Parent
Thacher (CAGO)
Principal
Case Cbordinator
Special Education Office

237

IN SI'IIIXII. SI'III'I'NIN: III\'I1I
'I't‘111I11‘1".S ('lu‘t II 1'1I

Child's flint: Craig ”IN-flow. S, l98l

--..-..—.

 

 

C1'.’:.I-.‘ 2 .'\_‘.;C__ ‘ 'I't'li‘ht‘l' He'Jer

- _ao-1---o

 

 

N0
_'11'"1'1n11:. 111111111115 \T-S 110 gmnzcr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,1, 1:-~.--T~ 1.101.! - 11717.37?“ """"""""""""""" '""‘-”""T ’ 7 1
j. F-SI11..'71;1_.71—-_IT.711'l-"—'""""""‘"""‘

7, 'ITS; :‘1‘11‘11zz11‘:Sf111—1'ITS—T’_mw I - I“ _-._--._. { _{
7.757171771717131 711‘71'1131137'11‘11‘ 1111'1'1T1IS—W‘TW" ”M" ' "" "T" ‘" TZ L'—‘ -
'5 "7 2'1” -7‘1fiT‘TTTlh—Shirhl'h$311717.117161111 11117 .- " ' 1” ' "'~_—”I ' H '

T," ”1 1' '1711'13115'131‘111; ' “M T" “"T’ T "" ' "" "“‘ 'J Z;

‘ "_“1” —TTT11’ S11 717'— 1111111S "_T'" ‘TM'H "'T" "“"" ‘J
T—ET..ZTSL—ST11 I~111.11|1¢11:——”-—"" —'""*'-"° __T "

7.1 ""1 "":‘S"_1—1.1'1—1’T1—1"1‘11____:"_: _"_""‘ — --__ TT"'_""‘I J
F271;»: i711“: {11111 ‘_L__I .-.-_:.'-_'_:"_’_-__- —-
_I_I_.___1i_;.S_ ___1_:_:___1‘1_111‘.;' Ski 1 1S “___. -- .- ___ V

 

 

1'..'. 1.13.111 (CDT 1‘1‘1‘1': 1: ”11113.1(; 111111'1 C “a
1.7. L" .TS' 11‘1“. 1"-.‘:It1.‘:‘- 111101 ‘.11I1 I1I11‘1 ‘

 

 

 

 

‘ k U1
1—‘T-"TTTCT—F'TJ—H'F‘TTE'T""'th '—‘T' 2-..._._ fi'T-"—-_ J
.'. I 1111‘ \ \II I. I.I‘I\ >‘;'\:-‘\‘I1\ IIk LII-I‘M“ j
1,. 831115 [1211'1‘S11:_. 1S1111Il\ V

 

 

if". ..""I\L.‘II‘\II\I\.-'1I\“\IIIkIILI‘/l\\)ILI\

,- ___ .- --- --.—_.—.‘-—_ ._ _4 ___—___- ~-——---—o-—.~_-c———

I‘

 

1'. 111‘;:'t.S' I= ‘111- :_1\_1_ 1:11:15

 

'l_.\'.°—i-I.1S‘"1f:1:111111\_.SI 11 1111.: 011 I 11‘ I101

 

 

 

 

WK

li'. 1'1".'1'S‘-.'.S '.-.‘11.' .S —!1'_’1_'11'1.S' 1.'__TI11111-.111111__1'

 

 

 

II .1.:1'11.‘-~‘T*Ii‘i—.I 1111' in II: 111‘ ‘111 —- —

.—-—-.-—_ . _---.-—_.-. _—.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__ ,_ _- I
..-|. I:1:.:::_1_1__.1'II 1111: 1__0 1111 111111110 J
1/

.'-. ."111‘S 1‘11-3‘ 111:1 iu— (1111‘ 1"1111'S110111I-111u‘

 

 

2.7. first chnll I‘1S1L 1'1.11I1 1.1115 tI1101111l1 III [

 

IJ.I-..“.I-.—l.;.il:i recall I17: 11-‘1I1fi1' Iklt‘IS II11'011-11ITTIT—.

 

 

. ,-—-rT*rr-'“".—T‘T' “'-
_11 1...)..111t .S1.IIIS l011' 1'1‘ 111 IC\LI_

-..—__—

 

 

-_’I:. 171111.315 Spot‘ll'it .1111111: L'tit‘ [11“‘0LLS'S-L‘S St‘1'111111ul_'_\ known

 

-.'. IISr'F71112c‘1‘5 01' 011101d0'11ccS to 1011M

 

3:. 111:.1’110 to 111.11 . I1111'n11 11111110111pmpmti011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2v. (Lt‘tS‘ ILITKIS'OIIT 0.1 011Tc1 1.l1c11 .1111-T__11_1_111
3U. I'111c‘11\'1011'115 .S1_t'll1111; 1.11111.
SI. I‘ll" __I_I_.S tho .S'.'t‘.1 ‘ _-.1_011I 11.071111‘11‘111 11:11-S' 111.S'.11'1'.1SS1L1111'1111 /

 

:,:.— L1‘11I'. 1S1S' S1111l‘1—1IS'T'_..:1W1._S11_LMIjinn

 

 

 

 

-._.—.— U"S-~r.- ,. I V, . \-
‘.__._—L.......‘1 111.111 S1'1_1-'111 111_S)II.1|1I1_.S__. “.4

 

 

 

"ll. (‘0?!) "CIOI. L‘lde" IL‘\L‘I

 

 

I

 

 

HS ’1 IS \KSS

5:). .'-\II‘ lqlx-‘IIK'IILI II

 

311. '11; 1S- :11..:'1110 S11.l_l:111_1-S

 

 

___— ____.———--. ...—--

1‘.‘ ‘.S' 1111191111141111' 111t11111101l.

1-1S':o:1111St11_I1111 1'11011 :1 SC] 11‘s nI :;1_1’11I11111'}‘ 1Ii1‘1‘1'tW‘11S

 

 

 

B

 

 

 

'I'L‘J. 1I11--.S _n__ot _l__1101-. I111 .1111 “Hit on Soil _ | l J

___—_— ~fl -—

 

 

11—11'._'IT -S' 1101 I.1‘_1__‘1. _J____c'lt_ :1111l 117111 _011_ _0“""l|111\'

 

II. .S. 11‘1_S'_1.111‘11_1_1.~101!:—l)11t does not |_1_11'1,S'l1

 

 

 

 

 

 

IE. 1137511131 S1111t 1.1111011 “mi 1 I

 

 

238

IN SCHOOL SCRIINIXC HHVIIL

TL:1chcr' 5 Checklist
Page 3

SOCUIL/DIOTII‘XU. I‘I:I_I._ \II‘I} S_

 

NO

___YI :S m FI'II‘! 1:1'1‘

 

 

 

 

"Flour-S 11p. (:1111

 

 

J

 

 

(NC-S 0.1.5. I'. _ITLI' '11 117-:17-

'JI I454

I

II‘IIIIj ‘5 OI .IS—

 

I)“ -~---——-- --_— -.--_"_‘

.‘1111: 1‘1"1‘-~ 1:111? 11‘; 1I11‘1‘ 1I II'I: I 11111

I IIIIII‘I IIII‘I' III1II:‘IIIsI‘.1II-I\

1 "1. 11:11:1‘11 _:-..1.1':11 ”I51“. _1‘.I" I11I1.1\1111‘
'.:. II1S111311'11-1'. .S': 11'11'.1:1'1.j1' I11 .11111111'/'I111II11'1‘ OII11'1'ST11'
TiIIIIII'I

«Au,
4

.-....-.....-...o.-_--.-.-

 

“3‘1 In SI ___ILSKTL I1 I. II .LII‘II‘lIIIIS - ’.‘"“-'-—-—--._.._

—..--- —__ ___—- _—--——-—

. I: IIII‘I.I111..“.\ _ _ —---‘.-j
.-.--1.--
--._---__-_.._..-__- .1.-

 

1/

 

1/

 

 

-..b

J

 

 

 

 

 

.‘I- I:1'..1.II‘.111.: '.1‘I;::'.'11.'1':'

Z‘T"—_.' .".—'.-’ "'1' ‘7 ’—.""“‘_— “’—"'
.1 I1...11I11‘11-.- «III. 11.1.2..;-S

""1 11"".—"—,_'-.',.‘-_.‘-"‘.—‘ "I "" ”".‘"f“‘"‘"

J- I1‘L'S' 11:.1‘11‘1 ..‘I.."1'.I- I"I..‘1I \IIka

 

 

SSS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.7—. I'1".:.1"1111 c1__::-.'.. S11111111'111S'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'I'I. SI‘UJIIC I15! I:‘ (11:0I TIIL‘ “Wu—1'11, OI- (IOgSI ----
“II III -“ ”12:10 I‘ncml 1'1'111‘UL‘I1S '-
JZ‘. 111-1'315' 11171—2711111'71‘“ J -1
T3. IWLTI‘TTIH 1'1'1-13111 tn pm1c1t1‘_

 

.3."'.11 1.111' 1::‘1. _1_1;111"1111 1111I1‘ the Opp__'n.SitL‘

-m-~v~‘ow-——— - - -<----- —-————--_..—_—

 

 

 

 

 

“"5; 01'} -_ j-‘.‘7-I.'-:I--;I3 -__--:_f'—m.,( _-
i '_-__-‘L.§"1’_‘_‘__"‘.‘S_--------”- .. ___-___. _ . . J
. ‘11.“.21 INC S .f 1:1‘SI I1I‘ II‘I ‘S1'IIIII‘I -.— --.—- . “N.”— -_—.—--—l—. 1 -—-— ”—

-‘f.’ 111:. 11 J W ";__-:-:'_.-‘_"”."—‘ ----..- ,1 ‘
__"__-__'...'_'1_-:”1_7_‘_;‘1‘-1“.1:1_17'12:1-~'11'1.'11 S‘ 1111.. 1(111S J ‘
-:;:_:._.I:£_'_12_‘_II_'ZIJAL'-IEII_ I_‘_‘-'-’_':‘ " - “£351" T” “I “if" .1
.1.1'1 -"S ('11 IV. 11 1
377—1 .711 '1' — 11.11.77 1111 1. ‘1 1‘ -_._. I
TIT—"I. 1: (fir-7:: 1 111'1T_-— J
.3. 1*.(5'7: .711- i- 11 1111111 TS'—— ..- J ‘
- 7. 1:12'3—‘1'3—1777: 1:1 I11 _ — ‘ M - "_— J _
...-1‘ _- 77,177: 113:1—1—1171—11511fi1111 J
:7... {_I‘—I 171173-1111; 111 ‘1 '_1'_1E1_11_"1( 1771' S11 Flt-111' 111‘171'7T11‘S J -.--
:11. .1.: T1117??? “! ’1'1 :1 11‘11111'11—‘1I1111I11fln .-- J "7
:7. 11'-.11"1'S‘ 11‘ "111-'71 131.711.111‘1' 1'I11_l-I1111 I
:3, I425 111' {III—:11“ TiI .II‘. II Ln' II II-‘zk‘II J -
:53. 131C7~5 111101 37"1n"1fi111 1'01un11 I, u111C1 1| _IniTITT 4J1! '
13!. I)1;1S 111112'1‘ 1I1I:1 J -.
731-1—mW1—‘1-1‘0-27—1'1'I-771—1I .11 _1_‘ ”:31 1 I1I—1'1'11 J .
Tiff—1:71 170-1711717111? 1‘1‘11 J
71.71._I.i?I I11::117h1m1‘1I‘I';.1"1'101;111T_J -
511. >1:~t1717—1777511'7II'jTIEIIITIS' JUIIIILH 111 IIIC‘ cluSSroom I
77.3‘—_I'1'1':71"—1T1"S_“ — (
7I1. ITI-T":*C‘.‘1 1" TAII‘II‘ 21' 11‘I1I‘1‘ V
1".._—-I1’-1"'1"1:.‘7S‘—7T1'311T 111--11“. I11 1 1' 11715171 J '
z'.':.-._r."1-..-I_1I to 1‘ '2‘:1 11‘ S1111‘0I J _-
_ -.-- 7 ___.-- -

I

l

I

?

... 1!".1L'"I1 11 '\I31.‘

__ _- —---.—~——“-—-.

 

239

IN SCHOOL SCRI‘IXHC HI‘ 3' 1

7 k"!\"1(‘!"\' ("twp 1'. 1 1st

Rift 3

l?l‘-‘111'F‘Jfli1£fl;l\1?l\i- *1 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, NO

NO
- <1 r~::srie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l. H‘h‘b ‘J'x‘wdlz‘u: :“.ntx~l‘i'!lt~‘- (lust 1U le‘x‘ '— - I‘-— at —
___... :— "-——.-_———-’-“ - O --.—-... -— - ___—.-. - -, .--—--1 .-—— _____
-. 8.11371» :mxwxxl LE». L] It 1117; L
F. (13%.» pczx‘xl H‘jvl‘k‘i‘k‘l‘fffi l -
’,'——",’" ’“ t‘_-'—""— ’ i '— f " ‘ . ‘ ~ . — ""'- _‘~.’ ' ‘ '5' "—"“‘- ' -—‘-‘ ‘_-—’-—‘ _“ "
.. l:.:~ .1 gum}. we! 1;. ~.ll~]v, .IIIILUIMmy, smutnuzmn,
__“_~_2 11:} mm: _ ------ - _ ____ _____-_ ____ __ ’_ -- ,_n 'L _ -
.3. 1": \ " ‘I‘H l4
7"“:: 'T—fll "7‘: ‘ v— ‘ ,f‘fv-f—f-‘n'xr . ». . r, . \ ---- — - '- '-J' -

, , - \.. ~1.‘-.~‘ .I.A.....:x\.m\s, NV“ cm thmm II‘I. | l
' \Z M 11. ’a- l; ‘2 Fayre :02" :n‘t in: uw‘ -°__ __ ’ !'—" hi " ’-
-—-——_- ——- — --- -‘ - ——--—.--.—-.'—-"—----—— ————-— --f~—'-—'-‘--q -
___v 143:9};"19 -- ‘51-.1'L‘" 11:13:21"__________--_.- 1 4______-
3' ‘2" 1 hulk“ ’ i J
—7 -'— - --j-+-——- ---_v -' ~-'“ ’--—‘+—!—.— ~—-—-————--—-——-— -- ---——1
1" I'I il'JiIL‘» an 'I'. |\‘.1~l\‘l, M‘IIH‘AI i :41
—,~,- --—-. - -— ~—-— —-- - ~—~ - < - -—~-—--~——~— ——-»--—-—-- ——-¢- ¢ - -
I: 'Sx‘J. \e t ' ; '
1___\.. 1..---. ,7 .-., __ - .-_ -_-.._--+-.. Jr! -
i.- .._.. 4. - ‘2-._:__- _-\ - ‘E \_ — —— ~——————-————~-—-——- ———---— T’D— -—Lq-———-—-- '
—- _— \- ‘ 5‘ :l V'i l' . {at-l " \" ’(\\ --- v-—-— —-~ ---_‘ --’ ___-1 --J—J _-. -
--_-____.‘_‘___‘_‘ _;- ' ‘ _; "_‘L- _-_ __-__ - 'fl._{_ _

 

APPENDIX I

THE CANDY PAGE

240

24]

m . ow Candy Wrappers

Please help the candy Merger nady For Valonthe's Day. Put each candy in the box in
alphabetical arder.

 

   
   
    
   
   
 

 

\: ,— °' -- n‘x» , -~’ ~ -
I
o ’ " I
; '\1-\ ‘1 ' '
I
‘.~ .I \J 3‘ \sl ‘- 5" ,
‘ w
- \g o . -9" - ‘~ '3‘.
\ '\ © ‘\
1 ,' ~‘
.\ a .
’0. - ‘ 9 . '-'. r..- ‘n' ‘
K": \ J ' ' \. \ 3 . '
\d ‘ a .' ‘ w V

‘-— ..--.---" \H.--—--—~—-

 

 

I. ..-- I O '- - —. ’ - '- . -O ' .-I
‘. r' ."—"'.‘,.AS£S 5"?!“90'0 I-‘HQW' {-8
n u- Q. ~—— - —- —. v- u - - .

__ w—W— _r w

O'nflu back aFWSpapcr wrdeLVa‘enhnpoembsomconcyoubve Use 019W
words in the candy box;

«I‘d—‘1'

love
(5.4/v '

«LOP-m

mm m ( 53

(.32.; L -

«M ”W" «833»?
\F‘V “um ’\ A}

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX J

END-OF-THE-YEAR READING TEST RESULTS

FOR INFORMAL GROUPS

21:2

2A3

End-of-Year Reading Test Results
‘for InfOrmaI Groups'

 

 

 

Gates-McGinitie, Form A Gates-McGinitie, Form B
5-8l (end of lst grade) 5-82 (end of 2nd grade)
Vocabulary Comprehension Vocabulary Comprehension
Paul 3.7 3.7 “.7 3.6
Andrew 2.8 3.7 5.6 5.2
Elizabeth 2.8 3.7 3.3 3.5
Donald 3.7 3.2 5.6 5.2
Sarah 2.5 2.7 3.5 h.3
Jessica 2.h 2.5 3.2 5.7
Craig 1.7 2.0 2.6 1.8
Pammy 2.7 3.1 3.7 3.6
Neil 2.5 3.2 2.8 5.3
Steve 2.h 1.9 3.0 l.8
Joe 3.0 1.8 5.6 3.5
Mary 3.6 2.l 3.6 2.2

 

 

REFERENCES

2M}

REFERENCES

Algozzine. 8.. Christenson. S. L.. & Ysseldyke. J. (1982). Probabili-
ties associated with the referral to placement process. .Ieagher
Education and MRI Education. 5. 19-23.

Algozzine. 8.. & Korinek. L. (1985). Where is special education for
students with high prevalence handicaps going? ‘Exgaptignal
.thldnfin. 51. 388-394.

Algozzine. 8.. Ysseldyke. J.. & Christenson. S. (1983). An analysis of
the incidence of special class placement: The masses are burgeon-

ing- Mimi 9i Special Educatiim. .11. 141-147.

Becker. L. D. (l976). Conceptual tempo and the early detection of
learning problems. immal oi Leaning Disabilities. 9.. 433-442.

Brophy. J. E. (1982). Essence on the Wag miles! and

.Iaaghen expectations (Research Series No. 119). East Lansing:
Michigan State University. Institute for Research on Teaching.

Cantor. N.. & Mischel. W. (1979). Prototypes in person perception.
Winfieerimennlfimialfisxsmim. .12. 3-52.

Cantrell. R. P.. & Cantrell. M. L. (1976). Preventive mainstreaming:
Impact of a supportive service program on children. .Excsntional
.thldnen. 42. 381-385.

Christenson. 5.. Ysseldyke. J.. & Algozzine. 8. (1982). Institutional
constraints and external pressures influence referral decisions.

Embassy in the meals. 12. 341-345.

Christenson. S.. Ysseldyke. J. E.. Wang. J. J.. & Algozzine. 8. (1983).
Teachers' attributions for problems that result in referral for
psychoeducation evaluation. .lounnal.oi.Educatienal.Beseanch.

16: 174-180.

Clark. C. M.. & Florio. 5.. with Elmore. J. L.. Martin. J..

Maxwell. R. J.. 8. Metheny. W. H982). WM 111

mawmmmmmmm
.119 classrooms (Research Series No. 104). East Lansing:
Michigan State University. Institute for Research on Teaching.

2&5

246

Clark. C. M.. & Yinger. R. J. (1979). Teachers' thinking. In

P. Peterson & H. Walberg (Eds.)..Beseateh.eh.teaehihg (PP- 231'
263). Berkeley: McCutchan.

Cole. M.. & Traupmann. K. (1980). Comparative cognitive research:
Learning from a learning disabled child. .Eneeeedings.ef.the

.1919. Minnesota Sumnesium en Child Qeuelenment. 1.4.. Hillsdale.
NJ: Erlbaum.

Crowner. ll (1985)..A taxonomy of special education finance.

Exeentienal .QDJJALQD. 5.1. 503-508.

Dorr—Branme. D. w. (1982). Behaflng and making sense; Creating seeial
in the classroom. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion. Harvard University.

Dunn. L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded-—Is much
of it Justifiable? Exeentienal thienen. 35. 5-22.

Emmer. E. T.. Evertson. C. M.. & Anderson. L. M. (l980). Effective
classroom management at the beginning of the school year.

Eimentarx Scheel ieuthal. 811. 219-231.

Erickson. F. H979). .Qn standatds ef descrietiue ualiditx in studies
91.91assnggm activity (Occasional Paper No. 16). East Lansing:
Michigan State University. Institute for Research on Teaching.

Erickson. F. (1985). Qualitative research on teaching. In

M. C. Wittrock (Ed.). handheelsefteseanehen teaching (3rd Ed.).
New York: Macmillan.

Erickson. F.. & Shultz. J. (l977). When is a context? Some issues and
methods in the analysis of social competence. .1nst1tute.£en

.Qemeanatixe human Deueieument. .1. 5-10.

Erickson. P.. & Shultz. J. (1982)..Ihe.qunsele£.n§.gnifikfifinfini.599111
.1ntenaetien in intenxiews. New York: Academic Press.

Erickson. F.. & Wilson. J. (1982)..Audiexisual.dggumentation.gf.exeny;
.day life in 59119211: A mm mm (Research Series No. 125).
East Lansing: Michigan State University. Institute for Research
on Teaching.

Florio. 8. (1978). Leanninghewtesetessheelshnfihmmbxfl
intenaetienihaisindengarienifltstgtadeslassnm. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Harvard University.

Ganschow. L.. Weber. D. 8.. & Davis. M. (l984). Preservice teacher

preparation for mainstreaming. ,Exeeetienal.§hildten. 51.
74-760

247

Geertz. C. (1973). lbs interpretation of cultures. New York:
Basic Books.

Gerber. M. M. (1984). Is Congress getting the full story? .Exgeptignal
.thJJLQD 1 SJ: 209-224 .

Games. L. A. H979). SeeialintenaetienanuseeialiuentiMAsiudx

.ef.tue.kihdenganten.ghildnen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Harvard University.

Gorden. R. L. (1980). lnterxieuingiitnateghteshniguehahdtaciiss
(3rd Ed.). Homewood. IL: The Dorsey Press.

Graden. J. L.. Casey. A.. & Christenson. S. L. (1985). Implementing
a prereferral intervention system: Part I. The model. .Exgentienal
.thiursh. 5.1. 377-384.

Graden. J. L.. Casey. A.. & Bonstrom. O. (1985). Implementing a pre-
referral intervention system: Part II. The data. .Exgeptienal
Childnen. 5.1. 487-496.

Gurwitsch. A. (1966). Studies in phenomenology and psychology.

Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

Hall. R. J.. & Keogh. 8. K. (1978). Qualitative characteristics of
educationally high-risk children. .Leanning.Qisabilitx
Quantenlx. .1. 62-68.

Hargreaves. D. H. (1979). A phenomenological approach to classroom
decision-making. In J. Eggleston (Ed.). league:

in .1319 W .8 mm .91 We London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.

Heller. K. A.. Holtzman. W. H.. & Messick. S. (Eds.). (l982). Elaging

ebiidtenihsnesialedueatien. Astuteguieheeuitx.
Washington. DC: National Academy Press.

Hobbs. N. J. (1975). Ihe futures of children. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Hymes. D. H. (1972). Introduction. In C. Cazden. V. P. John. &

D. Hymes (Eds.). Eunetienseilaneuageihtheslasstgm. New
York: Teachers College Press.

Kavale. K.. & Nye. C. (1981). Identification criteria for learning
disabilities: A survey of the research literature. .Leanning

Disability gum. 9.. 383-388.

248

Keogh. 8.. & Becker. L. D. (1973). Early detection of learning
problems: Questions. cautions. and guidelines. .Exgeptignal
m. 59.. 5-ll.

Keogh. B. K.. Tchir. C.. a Windeguth-Behn. A. (l974). Teachers' per-
ceptions of educationally high risk children. .lgunnal.gi
Leannihg Disabilities. 1. 367-374.

Lanier. J. E.. & Little. J. W. (l985). Research on teacher education.

In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.). hanubeek .ei teseanch .en teaehing (3rd
Ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Levine. H. G. (l984). "Taboos" and statements about taboos: Issues
in the taxonomic analysis of behavioral restrictions among the
New Guinea Kafe. In L. L. Langness & T. E. Hays (Eds.).

.enIhLQnalggx.in.1h§.high.xalleys. Novato. CA: Chandler &
harp.

MacMillian. D. L.. & Meyers. C. E. (l979). Educational labeling of
handicapped learners. In D. C. Berliner (Ed.). Bexiew.ef Leseaneh
.in.edueatieh. 1. Washington. DC: American Educational Research
Association.

Martin. E. (l978). Preface. In M. Reynolds (Ed.). Eutunes.ef.eduea:

.Iien.£er exeeptienal students. Reston. VA: The Council for
Exceptional Children.

Mehan. H. (1981). Social constructivism in psychology and sociology.
IbeQuanteflxflensJettereftheLabenaterxeisqnnahatiuehuman
.Qegnitien.3_.7l-77.

Mehan. H. (1984). Institutional decision-making. In B. Rogoff &

J. Lave.Euenxdaxsegnitien:ItsdeueJenmentihseeia1sentext
(pp. 641-666). Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.

Mehan. H.. Hertweck. A.. Combs. S. E.. & Flynn. P. J. (1982). Teachers'
interpretations of students' behavior. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.).
.Cemmunieating in the elassnggm. New York: Academic Press.

Mehan. H.. Hertweck. A.. & Meihls. J. L. (l983). Handicapping the
hanuisabbsmnesisienmakihgihstuuentsiedusatienaleaneens
(Department of Sociology Report). San Diego: University of
California.

Mehan. H.. a Wood. H. (1975). Ihe reality of ethngmethgdelggy.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Mesinger. J. F. (1985). Commentary on "A rationale for the merger of
special and regular education" or. is it now time for the lamb

to lie down with the lion? .Exceetienal.£hildnen. 51. 510-512.

249

Messick. S. (l984). Assessment in context: Appraising student perform-
ance in relation to instructional quality. .Edueatienal
Besearshec. .13.. 3-8.

Palmer. D. J. (l983). An attributional perspective on labeling. .Exgep:
.IiQnal.thlޣeh. 42. 423-429.

Parker. R.. Larsen. 5.. & Roberts. T. (l981). Teacher-child interac-
tions of first-grade students who have learning problems.

EJenentanx Ssheel .LguLnal. 81. 163-171.

Public Act 198. The Michigan Mandatory Special Education Law.
revised l977 and superseded by Public Act 451 of 1980.

Public Law 94-142. Education of All Handicapped Children Act. .Eedenal
.Begisteh. November 29. 1975. and revised August 23. l977.

.in all Amenieais.sehegls. Reston. VA: Council for Exceptional
Children.

Rosch. E.. & Mervis. C. B. (l975). Family resemblances: Studies in the

internal structure of categories. .ngniti e Esyghglggy. 1.
573-605.

Rosenthal. R.. & Jacobson. L. (l968). Eygmalign 1n the glassnggm.
New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston.

Schatzman. L.. & Strauss. A. L. (1973). Eield.nesea£eha Strategies
.19: a natuna1.segiglggy. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Shulman. L. S.. & Carey. N. 8. (1984). Psychology and the limitations
of individual rationality. Implications for the study of reason-
ing and civility. Beuiew ef. Edusatienal Beseaneb. 5.4. 501-524.

ShultZ: 3- (1983: April ll). Etbheguebxinedusatienalmpjisatiens
.12: teacher education. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Educational Research Association. Montreal. Canada.

Shultz. J.. Florio. S.. & Erickson. F. (1982). Where's the floor?:
Aspects of the cultural organization of social relationships in
communication at home and at school. In P. Gilmore & A. A. Glatt—

horn (Eds. ).Qhfl.ecehihandeuieiseheeisflhnmmnh¥md
‘edugatign. Washington. DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Spencer-Hall. D. A. (1981). Looking behind the teacher's back.
Elenentatx Ssheel ieuhnal. 8.1. 281-289.

250

Stainback. W.. & Stainback. S. (l984). A rationale for the merger of

special and regular education. .Exeebtibnal.flhilflteh. 51.
102-111.

Telford. C.. & Sawrey. J. (1981). lhe.exgeptignal,1ndiyidual (4th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Thurlow. M. L.. Ysseldyke. J. E.. & Casey. A. (1984). Criteria for
identifying learning disabled students: Definitional problems

exemplified. Embeiegx in the 551199.15. 2.1. 349-355.

Wang. M. C. (198l). Mainstreaming exceptional children: Some instruc-
tional design and implementation considerations. .Elementany
Debeel leunnal. bl. 195-221.

Wang. M. C.. & Birch. J. W. (1984). Comparison of a full-time main-

streaming program and a resource room approach. .Exgebtienal
, 5.1, 33-40.

Wang. M. C.. & Reynolds. M. (l985). Avoiding the "Catch 22" in
special education reform. .Exceptienal.§hildnen. 51. 497—502.

Weiner. B. (1974). Achieuement metitatien and attribution them.

Morristown. NJ: General Learning Press.

Wittgenstein. L. (l953). Enilgsgphigal luxestigatigns. Oxford.
England: Basil Blackwell.

Ysseldyke. J.. Algozzine. 8.. & Epps. S. (1983). A logical and empiri-
cal analysis of current practice in classifying students as

handicapped. .EXQQDIIDDRI.thld£§n. SQ. 160-166.

Ysseldyke. J. E.. Algozzine. 8.. & Richey. L. (1982). Judgment under
uncertainty: How many children are handicapped? .Exgebtienal
W) 5.8.: 531-534 .

Ysseldyke. J. E.. Algozzine. 8.. Richey. L.. & Graden. J. (1982).
Declaring students eligible for learning disability services:

Why bother with the data? Leaching Disability Duantenlu. 5.
37-440

 

MICHIGAN s
ilHllIWliiHll‘
3129

TATE UNIV.

I! III “Ii
65

LIBRAR

31068 8981

IE

S