.
1
.
1
.
1
.
.
.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

V

.

.

.

1

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

_
.

.

.
1

.

.
.

.

.

1
.

-

1

-

.
1

-

.

1

1

-

.
.

.
.

I
I

.
.
.

,
.

.
.

a

1
1

.
.

n

:

.
.

.
-

.
.

.
.

1
.
.

1
.
1
1

.
.
.
!

1
1
.
1

.
1
3
.
.
.
.

1
,
1
1
.

.
1
1
.
.
.
.

:
,
1
.

:
1
1
1
-

1
.
1
1
.
1
1
1
’

.
.
.
.
.
E
1
1

1
1
1
.
1
.
.
.
1
.
l

1
1
.
“
.
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
-
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
(
1
1
1
.
-
.
.
.
.
u
.
.
.
.
r

.
1
1
:
1
.
.
1
.
:
-
.
w
.

J
m
u
L
a
n
n
n
.
1
r
-
.
.

.
1
.
-
.
.
1
1
.
1
1
1
~
1
1
.
1
.
1
.
1
.
-

.
.
.
.
.
.
C
-
.
1
.
.
.
1
.
1
.
.
.
.
1
.
1
-
-
.
.
.
.
.
,
1
1
1
1
.
L
.
.
.
.
1
1

.
.
.
u
.
.
.
n
«
n
.
.
.
r
.
.
.
-
m
.
.
.
.
.
1
.
n
.
n
.
1
.
u
.
.
-
u
.
1
1
1
1
-
.
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1

.
1
1
.
t
1
h
1
fl
1
.
1
.
.
u
»
.
9
1
1
r
.
1
1
.
1
-
1
.
1
1
.
!
.
-
1
.
.
.
1
.
-
n
.
:
1
.
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
.
1
.
.
.

1
1
1
.
.
.
1
1
.
.
.
.
1
.
1
1
.
.
.
1
:
1
.
1
1
.
1
.
1
1
3
3
.
1
1
1
..
1
.
-
1
-
1
.
1
|
1
1
3
1
.
-
.

'
1
.
.
1
1
1
1
.
1
.
1
7
1
1
!
1
“
P
1
!
1
1
.
1
.
.
.
1
.
I
3
.
-
1
.
.
.
[
.
.
1
-
-
1
.
.
1
.
‘
.
.
.
.
1
1
1
.
“
.
.
1
J
1
.
u
1
1
0
k
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.
0
.
)
.
'
3
1
.
1
1
1
1
.
6
5
.
1
.
1

  1
.  
 
 

l
-
1
V
1
'
1
V
1
I
1
.
.
1
1
'
¢
1
.
A
.
1
l
.
.
.
1
‘
.
1
1
.
1
a
.
1
n
.
v
1
-
u
.
’
.
l
.
‘
.
1
.
.
1
-
.
1
’
1
v
l
1
‘
.
l
1
.
l
l
.
1
‘
-
l
'
1
1
1
1
-
1
1
.
1
.
1
l
.
-
.
.
.
.
}
.

.
.
.
1
.
7
:
1
1
-
.
.
.
1
1
1
1
.
.
h
1
1
.
1
h
.
l
-
.
v

1
1
-
1
1
1
1
u
.
.
1
1
.
1
.
1
1
.
.
1
1
.
.
.
1
.
.

.
-
.
.
-
.
1
.
1
1
.
.
1
.
1
1
.
1
;
1
1
-
1
-
.
.

 

.
.
.
.
.
w
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

 

.
1
1
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
r

.
.
-

.
1
.

t

.
1
1

.
.

 

.

l
l

.

.

.

1

1

c

.

.

,

.

E
l
i
-
4
1
1
1
1
4
3
1
1

.
.
.
n
.

.

.
l

.

.

.

L

.
.

.
.
.
-
.
.
.

.
.
.
-
y
r
.

.
5
1
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

h

1
1

7
"
.
I
.
'
.
'
R
§
‘

1
1
1
.
1
1
1
$
.
1
1
1
.
2
1
.
1
.
1
1
.
.
.
.
1
.
1
.
1
-

O
1
!

.

.

.

.

.
1
1
1
1
”
.

.

.

1
1
.

1
-
.
-

1

1
1
.
f
.
1
.
.
.
.
!
.
.
.
.
.
1
.

.
1
1
.

.
.
.
.
.
1
1
1
H
1
1
1
.

1
.
1
-
.
u
1
1
1
u
h
.
1
.
.
:
.
.
w
.
v
.
.
d
h

{
.
1
.
1
.
.
-
1
.
1
-
.
1
.
.
1
.
.
(
1
1
.
-
.
1
.
1
1
1
.
.
3
.
1
.
1
1
:
.
.
1
.
.
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.
1
-
.
.
.1
.
1
.
.
.
1
.
1
1
.
1
.
1
-
m
1
.
1
a
1
1
.
n
.
.
1
1
.
1
1
1
.
1
.
.
.
.
1
-
1
r
1
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.
1
1
.
.
1
.
1
1
.
3
1
.
.
.

.
-

.

1
1
.
1
.
1

1
.
1
.
.
.

1
.
.

1
.
1

1
1

1
.
.

1
-
1
1
1
-

1
1
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
u

1
1
1
1
-
1
1
1
1

1
.
1

3
1
1
.
1
1
.
1
1
1
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
!
.
1
1
1
.

.

1
1
.
1
1

.

1
1
.
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
.
.
.
1
.
.
1
1

1
1
.
1
-
-
.
.
-

.
.
.
.

.

.

.

.
.

.

.
1

-

1
1

1

I

1

.
1

1
3

1

1
.
.
'

Q

E

“
u
1

1
h
“

I

5
"

n

i
-
1
.
.
.
1
.
L
.
.
1
.
1
u
1
.
1
1
.
1
1
.
.
1
.
.
.
.
1
.
a
.
.
.
1
.
1
1
.
.
1
.
.
.
.
1
u
1
.
.
.
1
1
u
u
n
l
1
1
.
’
1
.
1

.
1
1
.
.

.
s
.
1
l
!

1
1
1
9
1
1
1
1
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.
1
1
1
.
.
.
1
.
1
1
1
1
1
.
.

1
H
1
-
t
-
“
.
-
f
l
u
v
1
s
l
l
1
1
1
)
l
l

I
1
1

1
1
.
.
1
1
1
1
1
9
\
1
‘
1
l
1
.

1
1
.
.

1
1
1
:
1
1

.

1
1
1
"
.
.
.
)

¥
.
:
u
u
h
n
l
.
.
.
l
u
1
'
|
1
l
s
I
.

.

1
h
i
t
.
.
.

1
n
1
1
1
1
-
.
.
1
1
.
1
.
-
1
.
1
.
1
-
1
1
.

.

1
1
1
-
1
1
1
1
.
.

1

1
1
1
1
-
1
.

1
1
.
1

.
.

.
.
.
-
.
1
1
.
.
.
.

1
1

.
.
.
.

.

-
1
»
.

1
.
.

2
1
.
.
.
.
)

1
1
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
.
.
1
I
.
1
-
1
1-
1
n
.

 

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
1
1
2
1
"
1
\
1
‘
1
.
1
.
-
u
.
1

1

£
1
.
0
1
;

I
r
v
l

R
"
.
.
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
.
.
1
1
.

.
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
“
;

1
.
1
.
.
.

‘
1
1
!
!
.
I
I
I

_

_

_

.

.
.

,
.

1
:
1
.

5
.
1
1
.

.

.
.
.

.

.

.
.

.
.

:

.

,

.

.

.

.
-

.
.

.

.

1

.

p

.

.

.

w

.
.
.

.
.

u

.

.
.

.

.
.

.
.
.
:

2

.

.

.

.

.

.
.

T

.

.

.
.

.

-

.

c

.

.

.

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
.

.
2
.

.
.

1

.
.

.

.
.
.
.

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

T

.

.

.
I

.
1
1

.

.

-
c
t
1

1

.

.

.

|
l
|
l
~
O
o
J

.
n

0
1
1
.
1
1
-

.

.
1

.
1
!

.

£
1
1
.
.

.
-

F
1

1
‘
1

1
'
1
.
.
.

1

C
a
$
.
1
.
“
}
“
1
!
1
:

1

1
|
.

I
!

1

.
-
.
.

U
.

.
0

I

1

.

4

.
I

.
.

I

I

v

$
4
1
1
h
,
M
u
d
?
1
1
1
1
’
.

1
1
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
.
”

.
-

l

1
1
1
.

' .31;

.
.

.
1
O
1
1
-
1
1
.
1
1

.
1

1
3
.
1
.

1
1
.
1
1
1
1
.
4
1
1
%
.
»
1
3

.

.

.

A
.

1
3
1
1
0
.
.
.

F
l
i
r
t
-
I
L
!

I

.

-
.
.

1

.
1

1

-
1

.
1
1
1
.

.
1
1
1
.

.
.
I
l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i
n
1
1
-
.
.
.
7
»

1
0
.
1
0
“
.
.
.
“
1
9
‘
1
-
3
1
‘

.
.
.

l
l
.

.
.

1
1
,
-
.

.
.
.

1

-

0
1
”
.
.
.

u
n
l
i
t
-
d
.
.
.
-

’
v
.
1
l
.
.
l
l
.

.
.

2
.
1
.
1

.
1

I
‘
0
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

u

.

1
1
.
1
.
.
.
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
.
.
-
.

.
1
1
.
"
q
‘
1
1
.
1
fl
Q
m
F
r
1
1
1
-
v

1
1
"

.

.

.

.
.
.
l
.
l
-
d
.
l
1
b
1
.
.
‘
.
W
1
1
.
n
.
.
?
.
.
!

v
.

.
-
-
V
.
1
I
1
|
.
.
l
.
l
.
'
.
.
.
’
1
V
.
u
.
v
.
‘
.
o
1
v
l
.
1
.
.
I
1
d
.
l
.
fl
§
h
1
1
1
I
l

.
‘
h
n
w

{
I
I
-
.
1
.
»

1
.
.
.
”
.
l
‘
m
t
m
n
¢
f
1
r
l
¢
.
.
l
.
r
n
.

.

1
.
0
1
.
1
1
:

1
.
.
.
.
.
-

.
.
n
.
.
.
1
.
1
1
r
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
.
1
!
.
1
1
.
1
.
.
:
1
1
5
1
4
1
1
9
.
.
1
.
-
-
.
.
.
.
.
d
l
s
i
.
1
1
m
-
b
1
.
1
!
1
1
1
4
.
.
1
1
1
3
0
€
£4
.
3
1
.
1
.

.
1
1
.
”
.
.
.
5
.
.
.
»

.
4
.
.
.

:
1

«
.
.
.
.
.
.
J
H
.

.

,

.

1
.

1

-

.

.
.
.
.
.
1
.

«
.
.
.
-
1
.
.
.
.
.
.

.

W
.
.
»
.
.
fi
m
fi
h
h
r
F
t
u
i

.
1
.
L
.
.
1
n
.
.
.
.
.
1
-

.

-
-
.
.

.
.
.
.

P
1
1
1
9
1
3
1
.
m
1
.
.
.
.
.
W
J
.

,

.

1
.
.
.
.

v
.

:1
1%.

I1

11.

I
‘-

11

.
.

1
.

i
d
e
a
-
1
.
1
.
.

a
1
“
.
.
}
.

.

.

L

.

.

.
.

4
0
5
1
1
.
1
1
.

.
1

1

.
1
1
.
.
.

5
1
.
1
.
.
.
.
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
.
1
1
1
1
.
.
1
.
1
"
.
.
.
.

h
.
.
.

.

1
.
1
1
1
1
.
-
1
1
.
.
-
1
.
1
1
1
1
.
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
s
u
1
1
1
.

1
.

.

-
.
)
.
.
I
L
I

”
#
1
1
.
.
.
.
.
“
1
1
1
b
.
W
:
.
1
.
1
l
w
fl

.

.
a
.
.
.
.
2
-
9
1
1
W
!

.

.
I
|
I
V
I
A

.

.
1
1
.
o
.

1
.
3
.
0
.
1
.

.
I
n
c
l

.

J

.
.

.
1
.
.
.
"
1

L
6
.
.
-

.
.
.
.
-
.
1

.

-

.
.

.
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
-

1
1
4
1
-
.
1
1
3
1
u
1
5
1
1
:
j
1
F
.
1
5
.
}
fl
1
.
1
.
.
1
:
1
1
.
!
.
1
1
.
1
1
1
.
1
1
.
.
.
.
.
-

.
.
-

.
.
.

1
.

.
.
.
.

l
l
.
‘

.

1

.

.
.
A
r
l

(
1
-
1
1
1
-
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
.

.

1
.
-

1
-
r

.

,

.
.

.
.

.

.

.

1
1
1
I
1
?
1
.
.
.
.
!
r
“
-
.
1
3
1
1
.
“

F
.

1
9
1
0
.
“
.

:
1
.

i
f
n
i
v
fl
.
l
.
l
n
.
x
'
.
Y
:
.
1
.
-

'
1

c

.

2

.

.

1
.

I
.
-

.
.

.
.

L
i
c
d
‘
p
i

1
r
!

r
1
1
6
.

.

2
-
.
.
.
»

.

.

.
2
2
1
.
.
.
)
3

.

.
.
.
.

p

.
.
.
:

1

.

.
l
!
a
.

1

.
t
v

.
1

.

-
1
3
6
.

«
J
R

7
.
3
.
5
.
.
.
.

1
-
1
5
9

u
.
.
.

V
o
.
.
.
.
r
.
.
.
.
d
h
1
.
.
a
.
.

1
.
9

.

H
e
.
.
.
“

.

.
,

.
1
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
.
.
.

.
.
.
“
.
A
W
3
:
.
3
3

_

,

.
.
.
.
.
.
u
1
.
w
1
fl
n
m
x
m
n
w
w
z

.

.

.
.
.
r

5
.

.
.
-
d
n
l
z
h
v
r
.
.
7
.
1
.
d
1
.
1
1
.
a
.
5
.
v
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
p

a
r
r
.
.
.

.
x
-

3
.
1
.
.
.
.
"

.

-

.
.

1
.
5
9
1
.
.
.
.
»

I

.

.

4
1
.
.
.
.
.
1
.
.

.

«
.
1

1

1
.
.
.
.
.
.
fi
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
-
.
.
u
.
.
~
1

.
1
1
.
.
.
.
1

I

.
.
.
n
v

.
1
1

U
n
i
fl
u
m
l
i
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1

“
.
3
“
1
n
.
u
“
.
.
.
.
n
l
u
v
w
fl
.
.
.

.
3
2
.
.
.

1

.

1

.
.

.
.

.
W

.

.

.
.
1
1
1
.
4
.
.
1
-
_
.
-
.
.
.
.
1
.
“
3
1
1
.
.
3
.

.
.

I
.
-
.

1
.

S
r
fi
y
d
h

5
.
1
.
.
.
-

.

.
w
.
.
.

.

.

.
.

_
.

.
.

,

.

.

v

.
.
.
.
.
-

.
p

.
.

.
.

.

$
1
3
1
.
.
.
.

_

.
.
.
.
.
.

.

.

fi
d
«
é
L
fi
a

.

.
.
.

I

.
1
1
1
9
.
.
.

1
.
1
»
.
.
.

-
.

3
.
.
.
.
5
.
.
5
s
.
l
3
u
.
t
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

h
r
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

“
$
0
.
.
.
.
“

1
.
.

.
.

.

1

.

.
.

.
.
.

I
n
”
.
1
1
.
;

I

l
l

.
.
.
.
.
1
1
M
1
.
.
.
?
»

.

.

.

.

L
.

.
.
.
-
.
1
1
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
1

L
.

.
.

.
.
.
-
.
.
X
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
.
.

«
a
.
.
.

.

.
.
.
u
.

.
.
E
.

l
t
d
fi
u
fl
l
t
u
n
o.
.
m
n
.
.
1
.
.
.
t
1
.
1
a
.
fi
1
.

1
3
:
1
1

.
.
.
-
.
.
.
»
.
.
.
fi
fi
y
-

1

z

.

.
.
.
,

M
4
.
.
.

-
.
.
-
£
3
.
4
1

1
1
.
.
“

1
.
.

.

-

.

fl
.
n
r
.
.
.
.
.
p
n
1
1
1
n
f
a
.
.
r
u
u
.
n
u

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.
.

-
1

.
1
2
.
.
.
.
1
1

0
.
0
.

1
1
.
.

7
.
.
1
.
.

.

.
.

.
1

.
1

r
.
.
.

.
1
1
9
1
.
.
-

.
.
.
1
1

1

-
n
1
1

-
H
.

.

1
1
1
.
1
1
1
1
.
1
1
1
.
“
.
.
1
-

.
1
1
.
.
.
.
h
.
l
.
.
I

1
1
.

1
.
1
3
.
1
1
.
1
1
.
1
1
»
.

{
b
f
l
n
fl

"
M
I
.

1
.
1
.
.
.
-

1
1
1
.
-
1
1

.
1
.
.
.

.

.

.

1
.
1
!
.

.
I

1

1
t
.

1
1
1
.
r
1
-
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
-
1
1

.
-

1

.
1
.

1
1
1
.
.
1
.
-
1
1
1
.
.
1
1
1
.
1
1
.
.
1
1
.
-
1
1
.
1
.
1
1
u
.
.
.
.
1
.
-
1
.
.

.
.
1
.
.
-
1
.
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
0
.
.
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
-
1
.
1

.
1
.
.
1
1
1
L
.
.
"
1
.
.
-
.
!
!
J
1
1
.
-
.
-
1
.
.
3
-
n
;
.
1
.
.
.
2
1
.
.
.
:
1
1

1
.
1
1
.
1
6

.
1
1
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
?

-
1
.

.
1
1

.
1
1
.
.

.

#
4
.
1
1

.
.

1
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
”

“
t
o
m
u
n
fi
h
s

1
.
.
.
.

1
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
1
.
.
.

1
1
1
.

.
-

6
1
.
.
1
.
5
.
1
.
F
.
.
5
.
1
1
.
-
.
-
3
.
.
.
.
3
-
:
1
.
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
1
1
1
3
.
&
.
I
,

.

.

.
1
.
1
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
¢
.
n
n
5
.
1
.
1
.
.
:
.
1
-
,
h
.
.
.
1

.

"
I
.

v

.

.

.

.

.

.
.

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
.

a

w
.

.

2

5
1
.
1
1
”
:
i
r
r
i
u
v
l
r
z
h
f
o
v
c
l

b
r
i
g

fl
i
r
t
-
fl
a
n
.
.
.

1
.
.
.
.
W

.
1
.
.
.

.

E
1
1

.
1
1

 

.
n
fl
.
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
1
1
.
.
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.

.

-

a
u
r
a
-
N
.
-
.

1
.
1
1
.
1
.
3

-

.
.
.
.
.
.

.

.
.
.
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
1
1
.

.

.

.
.

.

.

.
.

.

.

.

.
1
.

r

.
1
1
1
1
.
h
u
l
o
r
»
.

“
W
i
n
-
1
4
5
1
1
.
1

.

1
n
.

.
.

.
.
1

.
1
.
r
.
3
-
.
.
.
.
.
d
.
H
)
-
.
H
0
;
1
1
..
.
.
1
.
1
.
1
-
1

.
.
.
.
1
.

1
-
.
.
.
.
.

1
1
.
.
.

1
.
.

-
.

.
9
1
.
.
.

1
1
1
1
-
1
1
1
.

.
1

1
1
1
1
1
;

.
.
I
u
.

.

.

1
.
1

.

.

.
0
1
.

.

1

,

.

1
.
1
1
1
.
.

.
1
1
.
.
.
.
P
n
l
1
1
.
J
1
1
1

.
.
.
-
1
.

1
1
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
v

.

I
L
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
v
1
1

.

1
1
1
1
1
.
1
.
1
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
1
1
1
.
1
.
.
R
-
.
$
.
o

1
.

1
.
1
1
.
1
1
.
1
1
.
7
1

.
5

3
.
.
.
!
!
!

1
.
1
:
.

.
.

’
1
.

1
A
1
I
1
.
1
1
1
"
.
6
.
v
.
1
-

.

1
8
1
1
1
5
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
-
1
.
1
.
a
.
m
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

a

.

.

T

r
.

J
u
m
-

 

.
.

.
.

.

,

.

.

,

.

.
.
.
1

.
.
.
-
f
u
n
!

1
1
-
1
.
2
1
3
1
.
.
1
“

.
1
1
1
1

.

.
.
.
-
5
3
.
1
-
1
.
.
.
-

1

.

.
.
1
.
-
1
.

.
.
.

.
.

.
0

.
.
.

1
.
1

n

.
1
9
1
:

.
.
.
-
.
1
5
1
1
?

.
-
1
.
.
.
.
.
1
.
.
fi
.
1
1
.
.
.
.
.

.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
n
.
.
.
.
-
.

.
1
:

.

.
1
1
1
1
.

.
.

.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
J
,

.
1
1
fl
1
4
a
fl
fl
v
o
o
o
l
n
h
u
n
.

.
a
.
n
a
l
.
4
.
1
.
.
1
.
.
.
1
.
1
.
1
.
2
.
1
.
-
;
)
1
-
J
5

t
i
l
-
l
)
:

.
0

.

.
.

.

.

.
.

.

.

n

.

.

“
.
1
.
.
-
.
.

.

.

.
.

.

,

.

1
'
1
"
!
1
1
.
x
-
.
l
.
.
.

2

.

.
.
1
1
1
.
I
1
.
1
.
1
1
.
.
-
1
”
“
-
.
.
1
1
.
1
-
1
1
.
1
1
.
1
-
.
.
-
1
.
1
1
.
1
0
-
!
.
1
o
-
.
-
1
.
.
a
n

.
.
.

.

1
1
.
1
1
.
1
1
.

.
-
.

.
-
1
.
h
.
u
.
fl
u
.
.
h
.
u
!
1
1
w
m
h
.
9
u
.
1
fl

.
1
.
.
.
2
.
1
5
0
5
-
9
1
.
.
»
.
1

4
.
.
.

.

1
.
1
.
3
-
'
1
1
.
!
3
1
.
5
1
1
:
.
.
:
.
.

3

1
.
1
1
.
:

,

.

.

r

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

e

.

A

.

.

.

.
.

.

.

.

.
.

.
.
.

1
1

1
1
.
1
1
.
.

.
1
.
.
r
.
.
.
r
.
!
.

1
1
0
1
.
.
.
?

.
.
.
.
1
:
.
-
.
.
H
.
.
v
.
.
.

.
.
.
-
g
i
g
o
l
o
.

  

1
2
2
.
1
.
.
.

(
i
.
t
.
.
.
.

5
.
.
.
»
.
.
.

.
I
I
L
W
.

1
.
-

1
1
.
.

.
.

g
a
l

.
.

.
.

.
.

.

a

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

o

.

y

,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

_

,

,

.

.

.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.

_
.

.

.
.

.
.

.

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
.

.

.

,

.
.

,

.

.

.

.

.

.

-
.

«
.
.
.
.
.
.

h
w
m
w
w
w
m
w
fi
fi

.

.
.
.
.
.
.
u
.
.
.

.

W
W
.
W
a
d

.
.
.
.
5

f
a
.

.
.

m
u
v
fi
w
a
n
fl
h
.
.
.
u
.
.

.
.
.
.
u
.
.
.
.

.
.

.

V

.
.

.

2
1
.
.
3
.
.
.
1
4
.
.
.
5
.
.
.
.
.
£
7
.
1
h
.
.
.
.

.

.

.

E
m
.

m
u
n
-
.
5
.
.
.
w
a
x
-
“
.
9
1
.
.
.
.
u
fi
g
w

.

.

:

.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
.

.
.

1

.

.

.

.

i

.

.

.

.

.
.

_

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
-

.

.

f

o

I

.

.

.

i
n
.

 

.
.

.
.

_
.

.

.

.

.

.
1

.

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

p
.

.
.

.
,

 

.

.

.

.

.

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

_
.

.

.

.
.

.

.

.
.

.

u

.

.

.

.
.

.
.

.

.
.

.

.

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

s

.

.

.

.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.

.

.
.

.

.

,

.
.

.

.

.
.

.
.

.

.

1

.

.

.

.

a

.

.
.
.
:

.
.

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
,

.

.
.

.

.

.
.

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
,

.

.
.

u

.

.

.

.

,
.

L

.

.

.

.
.

H
.

.

.
.

.

.
.

.
.

.

.
.

.
.

.
.
.
.

.

.
.

.

.

.

.
.

.
‘
E
I
.

1
1
.
.
1
.
.
.
.
.

.

.
,

1
.
.
.

.
.

.

,

.

.

f
a
.

1

.
u

git.

.
.
.

.
fl
N
.

.
_

"
I
.

”
1
.
1
.
.

r
.
.
.

1

.

.

1
.
.
1
.
r
x
§
h
.
l
u
.
m
.
w

.
.

l
i
n
e
;

.
.
-
.
.
.
a
m

.

.

-

.

$
1
2
.
.
.
.

,

.

.

,

.

.

1
.

.

.
.

.
.
4
.
1
c
:
.

,

,

.

_

,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

v

;

.

.

:

-

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

,
.

.
.

.
,

.
u
.

 

1
.
.
.
1
.
.
5
.
2
.
.
.
k
u
fl
.
w
M
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

M
u
m
m
l
y
-
.
.
.
.
.

s
u
n
k
”
.

.
1
.
.
.

.
1
.
.
.

.
3
1
1
.

.
.

.
I

.

.
.

I

.

.

,
-

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

,

.

.

v

.

,

.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
.
.
.

f
.
i
.
.
fl
}
.
W
.
i
.
1
n
N
.

.
.
.

.
1

.

.

.

.

.
.

3
1
.
1
.
.

.

1

.

.
.
.
.

.

.

.

.

_

.
.
.
.
.
7
.
.
1
.

1
1
4
1

.

.

.

.
2

.

.

.
.

.
-

.

.
M

k

z

.
.
.

.

h
r
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.

.

x

v
.
1
.
.
.
n
9
f
.
.

.
.
.
1
5
.
.
.

'

-

.

.

.
.
J
U
1
fl
.
l
t

.

o

.

1
.

1
.
A
,
.
.
W
J
M
?
M
u
.
m
.
.
.

.

.

C
.
.

.
n

.
-

1

.

.

1
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.

1
.

.
.

.

A
.
.
.

.

.
.

.

.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.

i/\

llll‘lllill!lllllllllljlllI

31293017165

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

RETHINKING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS TO

LEARN:

A CASE STUDY OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN SPECIAL

AND GENERAL EDUCATORS

presented by

Margaret A. Lamb

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Ph.D .

degree in

Teagher Education

l

/

.

 

Maia, profess“

Date

Jib/414 /€ /f1 7"]—

/ /

’

MSU i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

0-12771

 

 

LIBRARY

Mlchlgan State

Unlverslty

 
  

PLACE IN RETURN BOX

to remove this checkout from your record.

To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE

‘|

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

57'”?! 2 E 2300

Pn’u-

*"

ll

_

‘

,.—-.‘

 

FEB 0 3 2002

 

 

050i

'02

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 
  

 

1198 chlRC/DathpGS—p.“

 

RETHINKING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS To LEARN:

A CASE STUDY OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN

SPECIAL AND GENERAL EDUCATORS

By

Margaret A. Lamb

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to

Michigan State University

in partial fiIlfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1997

Copydghtby

Margaret A. Lamb

1997

ABSTRACT

RETHINKING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS TO LEARN:

' A CASE STUDY OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN

SPECIAL AND GENERAL EDUCATORS

By

Margaret A. Lamb

This study tells the story of three teachers: Lyle (a veteran science teacher), Holly (a

novice science teacher), and (Jane, a special education teacher) and their collaborative efforts

to develop a science curriculum for all students including those with disabilities. All three of

the teachers were members of Hart High School, a Professional Development School (PDS)

affiliated with Michigan State University (MSU). Hart High School was involved in two

simultaneous reform efforts: the merger of students with disabilities into general education

classrooms and the restructuring of teaching and learning in core academic subjects forall

students with the support ofMSU and PDS resources. Evidence suggests that the school has

achieved some success in fully including special needs students in general education

classrooms which exceeds the national norms. Data indicates that students with disabilities

are selecting more challenging advanced college preparatory courses in increasing numbers

and maintaining an average grade point.

The question this study addresses is: what resources-environmental, as well as, moral

and intellectualucontribute to a school's capacity to support students with special needs? In

addressing the question, I examine the professional knowledge and pedagogical reasoning that

characterize the three teachers (Lyle, Holly, and Jane) involved in transforming the general

education cun'iculum to include all students. Further, I discuss in detail the beliefs that appear

critical, if teachers are to address the needs of all students and thereby teach with a moral

purpose. Finally, I address the environmental resources that seem necessary for teachers, like

Lyle, Holly, and Jane not only to restructure, but reculture a school towards a moral ecology.

Lastly, I describe some of the pitfalls that may await those who embark on similar journeys

of reform.

Dedication

This study is dedicated to my husband, Bruce, who has been steadfast and loyal in

supporting me in the pursuit of this doctoral degree. His devotion to me and his belief in my

ability to realize this dream sustained me through this process. The study is also dedicated to

my sons, Brian, Jeffrey, and Christopher, who are a continuing source of inspiration and

encouragement. May my accomplishment serve as an example of self-determination for you

in the pursuit of your goals and dreams throughout your lives. Finally, this book is dedicated

to my parents, Donald and Margaret Krupp Jarnrog, who instilled in me a thirst for

knowledge and the pursuit of excellence.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people have contributed to this Study and the completion of this dissertation.

First, and foremost, the members of the project, Lyle, Holly, Jane, Sally, Karen, and Ann

made an outstanding contribution. Thank you all for giving your time to participate in this

study and for allowing me the privilege of studying your thinking and learning from you. Our

ideas come from engagement with the ideas of others; I am gratefiil to you for making my

ideas possible in this dissertation.

A special tribute to my egalitarian partner, Bruce, who readily assumed the major

responsibilities of our household and parenthood so that I could have the time necessary to

study and write. I extend a Special acknowledgment to my sons, Brian, Jeff and Chris for

their understanding of my absence during some Special moments in their lives that I missed

in the completion of this doctoral degree.

I wish to acknowledge two very special women, Dr. Martha Karson and Dr. Carol

Levin, who were a great source of inspiration. Thank you for nurturing and supporting me

through the trials and tribulations inherent in this process. I would also like to thank Kathie

Thomas for her support and technical assistance in the publication of this document.

Finally, a special thanks to the members of my committee for their encouragement and

expertise in the completion of this study. Lastly, a very special tribute to my mentor, Bill

vi

McDiarmid, who has been an incredible intellectual resource for me throughout my doctoral

program. Your teaching has inspired me and your questions expanded my thinking and

helped me find my own voice. With your thoughtful suggestions and reflections, this study

is a contribution to research on the development of teaching and learning for all Students in

particular Students at-risk and those with disabilities.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1

Introduction ......................................................... 1

Purpose of Study ...................................................... 2

Setting of Study ....................................................... 3

Profiles of the Participants ............................................... 7

Evidence of Effectiveness of Full Inclusion of Students’ with Disabilities at Hart High . 15

Importance of the Study ............................................... 19

Research Question .................................................... 21

Chapter 2

The Debate About Educating Students with Disabilities ........................ 22

Equity and Rights .................................................... 26

Current Special Education System ........................................ 27

School Restructuring and Inclusive Education ............................... 28

Theoretical Frameworks of this Study ..................................... 38

Chapter 3

Methods of the Study ................................................. 45

Description of Data Sources ............................................ 51

Data Analysis ....................................................... 55

1. Teacher Fastwrites ................................................. 51

2. Fourteen Collaborative Conversations ................................... 51

3. Hypothetical Case Studies ............................................ 52

4. Vidotaped Interview of Teachers’ Analysis of the

Hypothetical Student Case Studies ..................................... 53

S. Unpublished Papers ................................................. 53

6. Researcher as Instrument: My Knowledge of these Teachers

and Hart High as a PDS ............................................. 54

Limitations of the Study ................................................ 59

Chapter 4

Environmental Resources .............................................. 61

CATEGORY 1: Creation and Utilization of Professional Development Time ........ 67

1. Wednesday Morning Collaboration ..................................... 67

2. Collaborative Partnerships ............................................ 71

3. Time for Team Teaching ............................................. 73

viii

CATEGORY II: Connecting Human Resources ............................. 77

1. General Education Teachers .......................................... 77

2. Special Education Teachers/Consultants ................................. 86

3. Counselors ....................................................... 90

4. Administrators and Their Leadership Role ................................ 93

5. University Personnel ................................................ 97

Category III: Cultural Components Fostered by the PDS Partnership .............. 99

1. Elements of a Professional Development School ........................... 99

2. Mission Statement of Hart High School ................................. 104

3. Teacher Generated Decision Making Model ............................. 106

Conclusion ........................................................ 1 10

Chapter 5

Teacher Beliefs ..................................................... 112

CATEGORY I: Beliefs About Classroom Practice ........................... 115

l. Beliefs About Learners ............................................. 115

2. Beliefs About Teachers’ Roles ........................................ 127

3. Beliefs About Curriculum and Assessment ............................... 144

CATEGORY II: Beliefs About the Structure of Educational Systems ............ 153

1. Beliefs About Systemic Change ....................................... 154

2. Beliefs About Organizational Structure ................................. 164

Conclusion ........................................................ 172

Chapter 6

Intellectual Resources ................................................ 176

CATEGORY I: General Pedagogical Knowledge ........................... 179

1. Knowledge of Theories and Principles of Teaching and Learning .............. 180

2. Knowledge of Diverse Learners ....................................... 193

3. Knowledge of Principles and Techniques of

Classroom Management and Behavior .................................. 202

Principle 1. Student Participation Was Expected ............................. 205

Principle 11. Student Responsibility ...................................... 217

Principle III. Collaborative Effort for Behavioral Issues ....................... 219

CATEGORY II: Subject Matter Knowledge ............................... 223

CATEGORY III: Pedagogical Content Knowledge .......................... 231

CATEGORY IV: Pedagogical Reasoning ................................. 235

1. Adapting ........................................................ 235

2. Tailoring ........................................................ 239

3. Inquiring ........................................................ 246

4. Reflecting ....................................................... 249

Conclusion ........................................................ 25 1

Chapter 7

Implications and Conclusion ........................................... 253

Summary and Implications ............................................. 253

ix

Implications of Findings About Environmental Resources ..................... 255

Implications Regarding Human Resources ................................. 259

Implications for Developing Cultural Resources ............................. 262

Implications Regarding Teachers’ Beliefs About Classroom Practice ............. 265

Implications Regarding the Beliefs About the Structure of Educational Systems ..... 270

Implications Regarding Intellectual Resources .............................. 273

Conclusion ........................................................ 276

Epilogue .......................................................... 277

APPENDIX A

TEACHER INTERVIEW FOR COLLABORATIVE INQUIRY PROJECT:

CASE STUDY SCOTT ............................................... 281

APPENDIX B

TEACHER INTERVIEW FOR COLLABORATIVE INQUIRY PROJECT:

CASE STUDY JESSICA ............................................. 285

APPENDIX C

TABLE 8-1 Summary of Data Analysis of Teachers’ Beliefs ................... 289

APPENDIX D

TABLE 8-2 Summary of Intellectual Resources ............................. 290

APPENDIX E

TABLE 8-3 Summary of Environmental Resources .......................... 291

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................... 292

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1-1

Numbers and Percentages of Students with Disabilities Electing One or

More Advanced Classes in Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and

Foreign Language

TABLE 1-2

Cumulative GPA Grades 9 to 12 of Students with Disabilities at Hart High

School

TABLE 1-3

Cumulative GPA Grades 9 to 12 of Students with Disabilities Electing One

or More Advanced Courses

TABLE 1-4

Graduation Rate of Students with Disabilities at Hart High School

TABLE 4-1

Environmental Resources

TABLE 5-1

Categories of Teachers’ Beliefs

TABLE 6-1

Intellectual Resources

TABLE 6-2

Lyle’s and Jane’s Changes in Theoretical Frameworks

TABLE 6-3

Principles and Techniques of Classroom and Behavior Management

TABLE 8-1

Summary of Data Analysis of Teachers’ Beliefs

TABLE 8-2

Summary of Intellectual Resources

TABLE 8-3

Summary of Environmental Resources

xi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Introduction

"We need to do more than repair Special education; we need to transform general

education" (Jorgenson, 1997 in press, p. 14). This quotation by Jorgenson epitomizes the

work of general and special educators at Hart High School. The teachers at this high school

Spent seven years endeavoring to transform general education to better address the needs of

all students, including at-risk Students and those with disabilities.

While the quest to

transform general education and improve the learning of all students is both noble and just,

the question underlying this vision is: What does it take to initiate and achieve this

transformation?

In the fall of 1987, the superintendent of Hart Public Schools and a recently hired

Director of Special Education committed to a district-wide initiative to include students with

mild disabilities in general education classrooms. AS a result, students with mild disabilities

had been mainstreamed in regular education at Hart High School for nearly seven years at the

time of this study. This meant that special education teachers had to change their service

delivery to these Students from segregated small group settings to integrated settings in

general education that involved team teaching.

A year later Hart High School formed a partnership with Michigan State University

(MSU) and started the process of becoming a Professional Development School (PDS).

1

2

Educators involved in a Michigan State University affiliated PDS are committed to teaching

and learning for conceptual understanding for all children and to inventing a new institution

with educational professionals committed to lifelong learning (Holmes Group, 1990). Thus,

since 1989 general and Special educators, as well as administrators, at Hart High School have

been involved in two simultaneous reform efforts: the merger of students with disabilities into

general education classrooms and the restructuring of teaching and learning for all with the

support of MSU and PDS resources.

Purpose of the Study

Hart High School offered a unique setting and an unusual opportunity to explore the

intersection of these two reform initiatives as they related to students with disabilities. Many

questions are yet to be answered about what exactly it takes to transform or restructure

general education classrooms to meaningfully include students at-risk and those with

disabilities. Committed to the implementation of both of these restructuring initiatives, Hart

High School provided the opportunity to investigate the process of implementing these two

reforms, their interactions, and their effects on classroom practice.

According to Fullan (1991), implementing any new policy requires changes in three

areas: beliefs, curriculums, teaching methods. Thus, one area to be studied was the change

that evolved in general and special education teachers' beliefs, curriculum, and practice as they

worked collaboratively to integrate at-risk students and those with disabilities into regular

classrooms. Further, Hart High School as a Professional Development School received an

infusion of both human and fiscal resources to restructure their school and the curriculums

to improve teaching and learning for all Students. Consequently, this setting provided an

opportunity to examine how teachers used these additional resources to create an inclusive

3

high school that supports the needs of all students. Therefore, the purpose of this study was

to investigate, through analysis of a small group of general and special educators'

collaborative conversations, the changes in teachers’

beliefs and practices under dual

reformsnmainstreaming and restructuring--as a PDS. Also, with the addition of human and

monetary resources through the PDS, another purpose was to determine the role of

environmental resources in supporting changes in teaching practice to educate students with

special needs in general education classes.

Setting of the Study

The school is Situated in a community of 20,437 people near both the state capitol of

Lansing and Michigan State University. The proximity to this University made Hart High

School a natural choice as a site for a Professional Development School. This partnership

was formalized in 1988 after several meetings between Hart teachers, administrators and

MSU faculty. During the 1993-94 school year, Hart High School enrolled 927 students and

achieved an overall attendance rate of 93%. Special education personnel served 83 students

(9% of the student body). The faculty and staff included three administrators, 50 teachers,

three counselors, four Special education teachers, and one social worker. The 1993 -94 Annual

Report to the State of Michigan described Hart High School as having a tradition of progress

and innovation. Hart High School faculty made at least 35 presentations at state and national

professional conferences during the 1993-94 school year. Teachers in collaboration with their

MSU colleagues produced fourteen papers on their joint work in the school, eight of which

were published in a book entitled, Alternative Assessment (1993). In January 1993, the high

school launched a four-year restructuring project in the amount of $560,000, written by the

author and a graduate student, to create coalitions with community members and agencies to

4

address the needs of Students with disabilities and those at-risk. The school earned the

Michigan Exemplary Secondary School award for the second time since 1989, as well as the

US. Department of Education's designation as an Exemplary Secondary School (1993).

This profile offers evidence to support the statement that Hart High School has a

tradition of innovation. The fact that the high school faculty made multiple presentations at

state and national conferences and wrote and presented fourteen papers with their university

colleagues is extraordinary. Further, they gave two staff members the responsibility to write

a proposal for a federal restructuring grant which was funded for over a half a million dollars.

Naturally, Hart High School's affiliation with Michigan State University and the teachers' and

University associates' research efforts greatly enhanced the school's capability to secure a

federal restnrcturing grant. In other words, the school's growing reputation as a Professional

Development School committed to innovation and changes in teaching and learning was a

major factor in accruing additional research monies to continue the restructuring efforts.

These achievements are atypical of public high schools across the country, and they

indicate a school environment that has fostered new organizational structures and

opportunities for collaboration both among school Staff and with university faculty. Further,

these achievements illustrate an institution that is developing a moral ecology as described by

Sirotnik (1990), i.e., one committed to inquiry, generation of professional knowledge, and

individual empowerment to change the institution.

After five years as a PDS, Hart High School evolved a culture that facilitated grass-

roots innovations and a strong sense of professionalism and collaboration between teachers,

interns, MSU faculty, and administrators. Two questions arise: what conditions fostered

teacher collaboration, and what human and fiscal resources were critical in supporting the

5

evolution of this culture?

In 1985, when Hart Schools began mainstreaming students with disabilities in general

education classes, the special education teachers began teaching in the low-track classes. As

an additional support to classroom teachers, the district and teachers' union agreed to weight

Special education students enrolled in general education classes. This meant that a student

with disabilities was counted as two Students on the class roster, effectively lowering the class

size from a limit of 30 to 28 and so on. Thus the district not only made a verbal commitment

to mainstream or include students with disabilities in general education, they made a

significant financial commitment as well. Hart Public Schools is the only system in the county

that has made this type of financial commitment to support the inclusion of students with

disabilities. In fact this kind of support is atypical of school districts throughout the state and

nation.

The district initiative to mainstream students with disabilities in general education

fostered collaboration between general and special education teachers at Hart High beginning

in 1996. Through these collaborations, members of the special education department and

teachers in science, mathematics, English, and social studies began questioning the intellectual

value and, to some extent, the morality of offering various tracks or levels of classes within

their departments. Of greatest concern were the content, teaching methods, and the level of

learning in the middle-track classes and the fundamental classes (low-track) offered to

students at-risk and those with disabilities.

Consequently, once the PDS affiliation with MSU was established in 1988, teachers

in the core subject areas who were supportive of the PDS initiative, were interested in further

6

examining their curriculum, pedagogy, and in mentoring pre—service teachers from MSU.

Teachers and university faculty jointly developed inquiry projects that examined several

aspects of teaching and learning for all students. Their respective MSU student-teaching

interns participated in these projects. Some teachers in the math and science departments

designed projects with university faculty focusing on the development of curriculum and

methodology Specifically to address the needs of at-risk and special education students. Two

special education teachers were equally interested in this work and became involved in these

projects.

After five years of sustained effort to restructure teaching and learning to better meet

the needs of all students in science and mathematics, the PDS funded a Collaborative Inquiry

Project for one year. The funding supported one hour of release time for myself and a quarter

time research assistant for a year. The research assistant's role was to assist in data collection

and organization and to review various journals for current research articles related to this

study, such as, teacher collaboration, teacher beliefs, systemic change. The purpose of the

project was to explore what general and special education teachers had come to know about

supporting students with special needs in inclusive classrooms. Two science teachers (a

veteran and a novice) and two mathematics teachers (a veteran and a novice) formed the

general education components of the collaborative inquiry team in this study. The two special

education teachers (one of whom is the author) involved in each of the department studies

and the high school social worker completed the membership of this team. Following is a

detailed description of the participants in this project.

Profiles of the Project Participants

1. Profile of the Author

A brief sketch of my background seems necessary to provide the reader of this study

because of the multiple roles I played in Hart High school and in this research project. At the

time of this project, I served as a special education teacher at Hart High School working

collaboratively with the members of the Collaborative Inquiry group regarding the progress,

issues, and concerns of students with disabilities on my caseload. While I was a doctoral

student in Teacher Education at Michigan State University, specializing in Teacher Education

and Learning to Teach with a cognate in Special Education, I began working as a special

education teacher at Hart High School in 1992 after three years of doctoral studies. Since

my area of research interest was the merger of general and special education and Hart High

School faculty was actively engaged in restructuring their curriculum for all Students and

Studying their work, Hart High was an ideal setting for me to teach and continue my doctoral

studies.

The first year at Hart High I worked with Sally, the veteran math teacher in this study,

on a PDS math restructuring project that focused on the development of an Algebra

curriculum based on conceptual understanding for students at-risk and those with disabilities.

A second PDS project in which I participated for several years was the development of a

Global Studies curriculum. Again my interest in this project was the construction of a

curriculum based on the development of critical thinking Skills and problem solving regarding

global issues for all Students including those with disabilities. For three years I was a member

of the Global Studies teaching team that consisted of a social studies teacher, a media

specialist, and a university professor in social studies.

This project culminated in the

8

publication of the curriculum with chapters on alternative assessment, addressing the needs

of diverse populations, student outcomes, and teacher collaboration as a method for

curriculum development (Little, et a1, 1996).

In the spring of 1993, I wrote a PDS proposal to form a Collaborative Inquiry team

of special educators and science and math teachers to discuss what we had come to know

about including students with special needs in general education classes after five years of

restructuring classroom practice. The analyses of the conversations of this team are the

primary data for this dissertation. During the summer of 1993, I coauthored, with another

graduate student, a proposal for a federal restructuring grant through the Office of Special

EduCation Programs to include Students at-risk and those with disabilities. The focus of this

grant was the creation of a school-agency-community coalition to develop a transition system

for all Students, especially those at-risk and with disabilities, to assist them in preparing for

their transition from school to adult life. In the Spring of 1995, I became the director of this

project and currently serve in that position at Hart High School.

I came to Hart High School as a veteran teacher with 23 years of classroom

experience. The first ten years of my teaching career were in elementary education. Three

of those years I was a Title I reading and mathematics teacher. My experience in this capacity

inspired me to pursue a Master's Degree in Special Education with certifications in both

Learning Disabilities and Emotionally Impaired. After completing this degree I Spent one year

as special education teacher consultant in a high school.

Then I was hired by Hart Public Schools as a middle school teacher in a self-contained

program for students with severe learning disabilities.

I taught two years in this setting,

developing interdisciplinary units of study incorporating social studies, science, and English.

9

Students developed their reading and writing Skills through these units. After two years the

program was discontinued and the students were mainstreamed in general education four

hours a day. I taught reading and English in the resource room two hours a day and then

team taught in general education in reading and English the remainder of the day. I continued

in this position until 1989 when I requested a two-year educational leave to pursue my

doctoral studies. Between the years of 1989 and 1992, I was a full-time Instructor in the

Special Education Master’s Degree Program at MSU and a doctoral student in Teacher

Education.

Although I was a firll participant in the Collaborative Inquiry Project, I decided against

being one of the main subjects in this dissertation for several reasons. Since the focus of my

research and staff development experiences in my doctoral program for the past five years

was facilitating teachers in the restructuring of curriculums to meet the needs of all students,

I was concerned that these experiences might diminish the credibility of the Study, if I were

one of the main subjects. Further, I was most interested in researching what teachers in a

Professional Development School, focused on restructuring teaching for all students, had

learned about including students at-risk and with disabilities in general education. Given that

the other veteran teachers in this study had been affiliated with the PDS since its inception and

I joined the faculty three years afier this partnership began, they had several years more

experience in redesigning curriculums in this context.

In addition, I thought it might be.

difficult acting as both the researcher and the subject in a dissertation.

Profiles of the Members of the Collaborative Inquiry Project

The general education teachers and other special education teacher involved in this

project were selected on the basis of their PDS projects, which focused on the restructuring

10

of their science and math curricula for students in low-track or fundamental classes. Typically

students enrolled in these courses had mild learning or emotional disabilities or were at-risk

of dropping out of school because of chronic academic failure. All of the teachers in this

study were active members of the PDS who wrote about their work and presented frequently

at state and national conferences with their university colleagues.

The novice teachers in the project were student interns from Michigan State

University at Hart High School and were active in the Math and Science PDS projects. The

novice science teacher (Holly) was the student intern of the veteran science teacher (Lyle),

while the novice math teacher (Karen) was actively involved in the curriculum restructuring

in the mathematics department at Hart High, she did not work directly with the veteran math

teacher (Sally) in her classroom. The school social worker was selected to participate in the

project because of her active role in collaborating with all of the project members on issues

and concerns regarding various students with disabilities and their learning and behavioral

needs. Further, Since she worked individually with many of these students on motivation,

school success, and their feelings as learners she could offer the group her sense of students'

perceptions on inclusion. In sum, I identified teachers and support personnel for this project

whose areas of interest were the development of curriculum and methodology in their subject

to address the needs of at-risk students and those with disabilities.

While all of the participants’ voices are incorporated throughout this study, I selected

three members as the main focus of the study, Lyle, Holly, and Jane because they collaborated

and team taught in the PDS science project to restructure the curriculum to meet the needs

of all students. Following is a brief description of all of the participants.

Lyle

l l

Lyle was a science teacher at Hart High School for twenty-seven years. He had a

Bachelor's and Master's Degree in biological science from Michigan State University.

In

addition, he had spent several summers learning at the biological stations at Gull Lake and

Beaver Island in Michigan. He had primarily taught biology, zoology, botany, genetics, and

human physiology. He had also taught low-track biology and general science classes as well.

Lyle had co-taught a science methods course in a teacher education program at Michigan

State University. He had nine years experience team teaching with special education teachers.

He spent several years working collaboratively in a PDS science project with Jane (see below)

which focused on restructuring biological science classes for all students including those with

disabilities. He coauthored with Jane several published and unpublished papers about their

project and presented them at state and national conferences with university colleagues.

Given his years of teaching experience of students with and without disabilities in

various settings and the focus of his PDS curriculum restructuring project, he was selected

as one of the main subjects of this study. His longevity as a science teacher at Hart High and

his active involvement in the PDS science projects were additional factors in my selection.

Jane

Jane was a special education teacher for nearly twenty years. She had a Bachelor’s

Degree in Elementary and Special Education with a certification in Developmental

Disabilities. She received a Master's Degree in Vocational and Rehabilitational Counseling

from Michigan State University in 1979.

In 1986 she received an additional teaching

certification in Learning Disabilities.

12

She was a teacher at Hart High School Since 1985. Thus, she was involved in the

initial stages of integrating Special education students in general education classes and team

teaching in general education.

Further, she was an active member of the Professional

Development School since its inception. Her primary focus was in the PDS science project

with Lyle to restructure biological science. She team taught with Lyle for several years as

they worked to restructure biological science. She was selected as a main focus of this study

because of her wide range of experience in teaching students with various disabilities and her

involvement in both the special education and general education reforms initiated at Hart

High.

Holly

At the time of this study Holly was a novice science teacher with one year of teaching

experience at Hart High School. She received a Bachelor's Degree in Biological Science and

Secondary Education From Lyman Briggs School at Michigan State University in 1992. She

was enrolled in the Academic Learning Program in the College of Education at MSU. She

was Lyle's student intern the year before she was hired as a science teacher. She was at Hart

High School for nearly five years as a preservice teacher and a student intern. She was

actively involved in Lyle's and Jane's PDS project to restructure biological science. During

her years of experience She worked with students with various disabilities in the low-track

classes and then in heterogenous classrooms.

She was selected as a main focus of this study because of her experiences in working

with students with disabilities and her involvement in the PDS science projects at Hart.

Further, I felt it was important to have a novice teacher as a one of the main subjects of this

study to represent a more typical membership of a high school science department.

In

13

addition, I was interested in finding out what if any differences existed between novice and

veteran teachers in their professional knowledge regarding teaching students with special

needs.

Sally

Sally was a mathematics teacher with nine years of experience in teaching fundamental

(low-track) math and Algebra I. She had a Bachelor's Degree in Mathematics and a Master's

Degree in Secondary Education from Michigan State University. She had seven years team

teaching experience with Special education teachers in the low-track/fundamental math course

whose membership was students at-risk and those with disabilities. Her main focus in the

PDS was the restructuring of the math curriculum at Hart High in particular the development

of an Algebra curriculum based on conceptual understanding for all students.

1 team taught with Sally for almost two years in fundamental math and Algebra I and

was involved with her in restructuring these curriculums. We coauthored an unpublished

paper of our work and presented it at a national conference. We team taught a Mathematics

Methods course for Masters’ Students in special education at MSU. Sally has continued to

write, publish, and present her curriculum work in Algebra at various state and national

conferences. Given this range of experience, she was an ideal candidate to participate in the

Collaborative Inquiry project. However, I felt it was better to have the three main subjects

of this study from the same content area.

Karen

Karen was a novice mathematics teacher with one year of teaching experience. She

received her Bachelor's Degree in Secondary Mathematics Education in the Academic

Learning Program at Michigan State University. The year prior to this project, she was a

14

student intern Shared by several teachers in the mathematics department at Hart High School.

She interned for two hours with an Honors Algebra teacher, one hour with an Algebra I

teacher, and one hour with a Transition Math (low-track) teacher. While Karen did not intern

with Sally, the veteran math teacher in this study, she was an active member with Sally in the

Mathematics PDS restructuring project, which included curriculum development, data

collection and analysis. These experiences made her a viable member of the Collaborative

Inquiry project. However, of all the members in this project, She had the least amount

experience in teaching at-risk students and those with disabilities given that most students

with disabilities were enrolled in the Transition Math Course (low-track). Consequently, She

was not chosen as a main focus of the study.

Ann

Ann was the school social worker in the Collaborative Inquiry project. She had a

Master‘s Degree in Social Work from Michigan State University and had a great deal of

clinical experience in working with students with disabilities and their families. Ann was at

Hart High School for nearly fifteen years. Thus, she brought a historical perspective to the

project, having seen the changes in support services for students with disabilities at Hart High.

She was a resource to all members of the project team in supporting students with disabilities

in their classes. While She was at Hart School only part time, which limited her involvement

in the PDS projects, she was tangentially involved through her collaborations with the other

project members about students with disabilities enrolled in their classes.

A portion of her day was spent working with students individually on their academic

and social problems and experiences at Hart High. Thus, She offered the Collaborative Inquiry

group a different student perspective. While the perspectives she brought to the group

15

conversations were invaluable, she was not selected as a main focus of the study since the

emphasis of this study was on teacher--as opposed to social worker--knowledge.

In sum, the members of the Collaborative Inquiry project were selected because of

their identified interests and effort in restructuring teaching and learning in science and

mathematics for students at-risk and those with disabilities. The members of the science

restructuring project were selected as the main focus of this study primarily because I was

personally involved in the mathematics project. Since my involvement in the science project

was limited, I felt I might be more objective in analyzing their data.

Evidence of Effectiveness of Full Inclusion of Students' with Disabilities at Hart High.

Many claims are posited on the effectiveness of the changes I describe in this Study.

To substantiate the effectiveness of the changes requires that I present evidence on the

changes and on the performance and success of students with disabilities since this study.

One measure of these changes is the course selections offered students at Hart High

School. During the last eight years of restructuring, general and special education low-track

(remedial) science, mathematics, English, and social studies courses were eliminated, as well

as all special education classes. Presently, all sophomores are scheduled in Biology, Algebra

1, American History, and English 10.

A measure of the effectiveness of the environmental and classroom changes is the

number of students with disabilities who have taken advanced courses during their junior and

senior years, courses beyond those required for high school graduation. Table 1-1 below lists

the percentages of advanced courses selected by students with disabilities from 1994 to 1997.

Advanced courses in mathematics include geometry, algebra II, pre-calculus, calculus, and

probability/statistics. The science department offers Chemistry, physics, and human genetics.

l6

Comparative political systems, sociology, psychology and world geography are available in

social studies.- The English department offers advanced courses in creative writing, journalism,

and literature. Foreign language courses in Spanish, German, and French are included in

these data as they are not required for graduation and are part of the college preparatory

program.

TABLE l-l Numbers and Percentages of Students with Disabilities Electing One or

More Advanced Classes in Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and Foreign

Language.

 

Students Electing

1994

n=17

1995

n=16

1996

n=19

1997

n=l8

 

One Advanced

7/17=41%

10/16=63%

13/1 9=68%

16/18=89%

Course

 

Two Advanced

0

0

1/19=5%

3/18=17 %

Courses

 

Three Advanced

2/l7=12%

2/16=13%

3/19=l6%

1/18=5%

Courses

 

Four Advanced

0

2/16=13%

2/l9=11%

2/18=11%

  
 

Five-Nine Advanced

3/16=19%

 

5/17=29%

2/19=11%

7/18=39%

Courses

Courses

 

 

 

 

Table 1-1 above illustrates that, since 1994, students with disabilities at Hart High

School are electing advanced courses in the core academic subjects at an increasing rate over

the last four years.

While 41% elected one advanced course in 1994, the percentage

increased to 89% in 1997. Whereas 29% elected multiple advanced courses in 1994, this

increased to 39% in 1997.

The 1994 Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reports that 27% of high school students

17

in all disabilities categories spend more than 50% of class time in regular education academic

classes (16th Annual Report to Congress on Implementation of IDEA, 1994). Twenty-six

percent of students with learning disabilities (which is the largest category of exceptionality)

are included more than 50% of their time in regular education academic courses (Table 3.2,

p.80). Enrollment in advanced academic courses is not mentioned. According to this report,

Involvement in regular education classrooms influences the performance of

students with disabilities negatively, for several reasons. First, it was the

inability to succeed in regular education settings that qualified many students

with disabilities for special education originally. Second, regular education

classrooms have higher student-to-teacher ratios than special education

settings, a fact that potentially reduces the amount of individualized attention

students with disabilities might receive there. Third, although most Students

with disabilities received some kind of accommodation in regular education

classrooms, the support most frequently reported was the monitoring of the

student by a special education teacher. Direct support to the student was less

common. (16th Annual Report to Congress on Implementation of IDEA,

1994, p.79-81)

Thus, the data in this report indicate that most high school students integrated in

general education classes have a negative experience and imply that limited accommodations

in these settings are a part of the difficulty. "Many students without disabilities find the

regular education classroom a difficult environment in which to succeed. For Students with

disabilities, the problem can be exacerbated by the lack of appropriate accommodations" (16th

Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of IDEA, p. 81).

The conclusions reached in this national report raise another question: What academic

impact has inclusion in general education had on students with disabilities at Hart High

School? One way to measure this is to examine the cumulative (GPA) of students with

disabilities.

18

The 1994 Annual Report on IDEA (IDEA, 1994) states that students with disabilities

who completed four years of high school earned a cumulative GPA of 2.3 (Table 3 .7, p. 92).

Table 1-2 depicts the status of seniors with disabilities from 1994 to 1995 at Hart High

School

TABLE 1-2 Cumulative GPA Grades 9 to 12 of Students with Disabilities at Hart High

School

 

1994

n=17

1995

n=16

1996

n=l9

1997

n=18

 

 
  

2.2

2.3

2.1

2.1

 

 

 

Table 1-2 indicates that students with disabilities after completing four years at Hart

High included in all general education courses maintain roughly the same GPA as students

with disabilities nationally, of whom only 27% are enrolled in general education more than

50% of the time. A related question iS what impact has enrollment in advanced courses had

on students’ with disabilities GPA.

TABLE 1-3 Cumulative GPA Grades 9 to 12 of Students with Disabilities Electing One

or More Advanced Courses

 

1994

n=7

1995

n-10

1996

n=13

1997

n=16

 

 
  
 

2.5

2.3

2.2

2.2

 

 

Table 1-3 provides evidence that even the students with disabilities enrolled in

advanced courses at Hart High still maintained the same GPA as the national average, which

is based on the majority of students (73%) enrolled in general education classes for less than

50% of their day.

19

What about the graduation/drop-out rate of students with disabilities nationally and

at Hart High School? According to the 1994 Report on IDEA (IDEA, 1994) approximately

30% of students with disabilities who had been enrolled in 9th through 12th grade failed to

complete their secondary schooling or, in other words, have a graduation rate of 70%.

TABLE 1-4 Graduation Rate of Students with Disabilities at Hart High School

 

1994

n=17

1995

n=16

1996

n=19

1997

n=18

 

 

16/17=94%

 

14/16=88%

 

18/19=95%

 

 

18/18=100%

 

As Table 1-4 indicates, the graduation rate for students with disabilities at Hart

exceeds the national average by more than 20% even when students are firlly included in

general education. The drop out rate at Hart ranges from 3-7% and is Significantly lower than

the national average of 30%.

Based on the above data, full inclusion of Students with disabilities at Hart High

School is not having the negative effect that most secondary students with disabilities are

reported to be having nationally. In fact they are maintaining the same GPA as the national

average for secondary students with disabilities despite the fact that they are enrolling in

advanced courses in increasing numbers. What accounts for these differences at Hart High

School? What resources at Hart High provide support for Students with disabilities to be fully

included in general education with the outcomes described above? These are the questions

I pursue in this dissertation.

Importance of the Study

AS Stated earlier, in the late 19805 Hart Schools promoted a Special education reform

to include students with disabilities in general education classes. At Hart High School the

20

special education reform intersected with the curriculum restructuring reforms for all students

fostered by the PDS initiative. The wedding of these two reform initiatives, i.e., the

intersection of inclusion for special education with curriculum restructuring in general

education is now being promoted by Pugach and Warger (1996) as a promising way to foster

inclusive education. Interestingly, the work of Lyle and Jane and other members of Hart High

School’s science department is represented in a chapter of the Pugach and Warger book

(1996) to exemplify restructuring the science curriculum to include all students. Kugelmass

(1996) argues that reconstructing general education curriculum is a vehicle for fostering

systemic inclusion. Jorgenson (1997, in press) calls for the transformation of general

education curriculums to include all Students.

The Significance of this study is that the Hart teachers in 1989 began the

transformation ofcurriculums and the inclusion of at-risk students and those with disabilities

seven years before educational researchers promoted this approach as a way to create

inclusive schools. Consequently, the student findings described above this study has much

to offer both general and Special educators as they work to restructure curriculum and

support students with special needs. In particular, it suggests that certain resources--

environmental as well as intellectualuare critical to teachers' abilities provide all Students,

especially those with disabilities, challenging opportunities to learn subject matter in depth.

Other educational researchers have called for the cultivation of the moral purpose in

teaching, i.e., making a difference in the lives of individual students (Fullan, 1994). Sirotnik

(1990) and Fullan (1994) call for the reculturing of schools to support a moral ecology in

which faculty are committed to inquiry, generation of professional knowledge, and change

agency to restructure schools for social justice. The resources of the Professional

21

Development School supported the majority of Hart High School faculty in making this

commitment. ‘ThiS study will analyze the resources teachers with moral purpose draw on to

make a difl‘erence in the lives of individual students, especially those with disabilities.

It will

also describe how the opportunities for teachers with a moral purpose to collaborate, inquire

and reflect together provide them with a collegial group, who can collectively foster a moral

ecology that supports students with Special needs.

Research Question

The question this study was designed to address is: What resources--environmental

as well as moral and intellectual--contribute to a school's capacity to support students with

special needs?

In addressing this question, I examine the professional knowledge and pedagogical

reasoning that characterize teachers involved in transfomIing the general education curriculum

to include all students. Further, I discuss in detail the beliefs that appear critical, if teachers

are to address the needs of all students and, thereby, teach with a moral purpose. Finally, I

will address the environmental resources that seem necessary not only to restructure, but

reculture a school toward a moral ecology. Pugach and Warger (1996), and Kugelmass

(1996) provide a framework to develop an inclusive school through the transformation of

curriculums by general and Special educators. This study of Hart teachers will provide some

flesh to their outline by describing the resources that are necessary for schools to transform

cuniculums and the school culture to support students with Special needs. It also describes

some of the pitfalls that may await those who embark on similar journeys of reform.

CHAPTER 2

THE DEBATE ABOUT EDUCATING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

In order to understand the nature of the reforms at Hart High SChool, a knowledge

of how the debate over inclusion has unfolded in the last decade is necessary. During this

time a fissure has developed between members of the special education research community.

One Side argues that the segregation of students with disabilities is an issue of civil rights and

social justice, hence they advocate for inclusion and posit that the restructuring of general

education is necessary to improve the learning of all students. The other side Stresses that

maintenance of a continuum of services is necessary to. address the individual needs of

students with disabilities and argue that the reformation of general education to meet the

needs of all students is improbable. Following is a description of this debate and the issues

presented by both sides.

Gartner and Lipsky (1987) in the first critical review and analysis of the 1970

implementation of Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act,

illuminated several moral and ethical concerns regarding the emcacy of segregating

handicapped students fi'om their peers in view of the diminishing academic expectations and

requirements that are made in their behalf. As a result many Special education professionals,

extremely dissatisfied with the ways in which policies of the Special Education Law have been

implemented called for the dissolution of the dual system of special education and general

education that exists. They argued convincingly for the need to merge these two entities in

22

23

public schools and universities (Gartner and Lipsky, 1987; Sapon-Shavin, 1988; Stainback

and Stainback, 1985; and Will, 1986).

Their underlying assumption was that students

considered mildly mentally impaired, learning disabled, or emotionally impaired, i.e., mildly

disabled would be better served in general education classrooms than in segregated settings

in special education. They proposed collaboration and team teaching between general and

special education teachers as methods for accomplishing this merger.

The position of these authors in the 19803 fueled a debate in the field of special

education about how best to serve all students with disabilities that continues today. In fact

through this debate the terminology has evolved with new interpretations of the Special

Education Law and research findings in the field.

Ferguson (1996) ofl‘ers a detailed

description of this evolution that serves as useful background information.

In the late 19703 "mainstreaming" emerged as a reform to incorporate remediation

support into the general education classroom because special educators began to question

separate classes for students with mild disabilities, or those "nearly normal.” In addition, this

reform was afirmed as new interpretations of the Special Education Law were issued

emphasizing the "least restrictive environment,” i.e., students with disabilities are to be

educated with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent possible, as a first choice. Further,

there was a call for persons with disabilities to be able to function in the mainstream of

society. According to Ferguson (1996), this practice did not question, however, the

underlying assumptions about disabilities as something that needed to be repaired with

different curriculums and teaching. Instead, the discussions about mainstreaming were about

where and by whom this remedial curriculum Should be offered.

24

Integration was the next reform initiative in the early 19903, which was edged with

more of a social and political discourse than mainstreaming. In this reform, the civil rights

fiamework was utilized to address the segregation and discriminatory exclusion of students

with severe developmental disabilities from their neighborhood school. Unfortunately, this

initiative lacked a programmatic definition to replace exclusion, which resulted in many

difi‘erent interpretations of integration most however sustaining. students’ segregated

experience. In many schools the word "integration" was merely exchanged with the word

"mainstreaming.” These reform initiatives have been commonly referred to as the Regular

Education Initiative (REI), i.e., an effort to service Students with disabilities in regular

education. For the most part students with disabilities have been educated based on a deficit-

rernediation model with a continuum of support services ofl‘ered in difi‘erent locations. The

continuum of services includes the following:

Consultation Services: This support is the minimum of support provided by

a special education teacher to a student with a disability and their general

education teachers as needed. (least restrictive)

Resource Room: This support is offered to a student with a mild disability

for one to three hours of their school day and replaces a class in general

education. For example, students with dimculties in reading and writing are

often " pulled out" of a regular English and placed in a special education

English class for remedial instruction in their deficit areas. (moderately

restrictive)

Self-Contained Classroom: This support is offered to a student with more

moderate to severe disability. Their instruction in all subject areas is in this

Special education classroom with the same group of students. Sometimes this

service is referred to as a Basic Classroom Program because the curriculum

focus is primarily on basic skills instruction or firnctional skills, like cooking,

laundry, cleaning etc. (most restrictive)

The program for students with disabilities is determined by an Individual Educational

Planning Committee (IEPC) comprised of the special education teacher, the parents, an

25

administrator, other service providers (social worker, counselor, speech/language teacher)

and sometimes the student. Usually the committee matches the student to one of the services

on the continuum to fit the deficit and the type of disability of the student. One purpose of

providing a continuum of support is to over time, reduce the amount of Special education

services in a student's program once their academic and social Skills are closer to their grade

level. Unfortunately, the consequence of this continuum is that the integration or

mainstreaming of students with disabilities is never realized because the members of the [EPC

felt that the student's skills are never quite strong enough to function in general education

(Gartner and Lipsky, 1987). Thus, once a student is programmed for a particular service on

' the continuum, it becomes self-perpetuating. According to the 16th Annual Report on the

implementation of IDEA only 27% of high school students with disabilities spend more than

50% of their day in general education many of whom were referred in elementary or middle

school (IDEA, 1994).

This practice precipitated the concerns articulated by Gartner and Lipsky (1987) and

others cited earlier and a call for the dissolution of the dual system that perpetuated

segregation. As a result of the attempts to mainstream and integrate students with disabilities

into general education, a new emphasis on "the least restrictive environment" and education

with nondisabled peers "as much as possible with necessary supports and services" clauses

of the Special Education Law were affirmed by the courts and the call for educational

inclusion was initiated. Inclusion proponents challenged the educational community to offer

the continuum of services in the general education classroom. Unfortunately, the initial

inclusive practices resulted in the "dumping" of students with disabilities into general

education without support to them or their general education teacher. Even when the

26

supports were incorporated into general education, students with disabilities "seemed in but

not of the class" (Ferguson, 1996, p.24). They frequently worked in small groups by

themselves, with a paraprofessional, or a special education teacher in the back of the room

on assignments loosely connected to the classroom activity or assignment.

A decade later Lipsky and Gartner (1996) updated their 1987 article and continue

their argument that students with disabilities should not be educated separately fiom their

peers. They indicate that inclusion of students with disabilities can provide all students with

an education that is "both individual and integrated" (p.762). In their 1996 article, Lipsky and

Gartner call attention to the consequences of legislation in special education Since 1987

around four central issues: equity and rights, the current special education system, school

restructuring and inclusive education, and the remaking of American society. Their timing

of the issue is particularly salient since they have led the charge in questioning the

implementation of the special education law and calling for subsequent reform of this policy

initiative for ten years.

Equity and Rights

In education, the terms "equity" and "rights" have often been used in relation to the

education of minority groups including women and the poor. Typically, it has not been used

to discuss the education of students with disabilities because society views the treatment of

students with disabilities in a medical context requiring special treatment in a separate

education system. One central question in the inclusion debate is whether it is a civil rights

issue as disability rights advocates assert. Some, like Shanker (1994), the late President of

the American Federation of Teachers, see no connection to civil rights and argue that Afiican

American children were eager to learn, which is far different from some students with

2 7

disabilities who disrupt classroom learning. Frank Laski (1994), a leading special education

litigator, counters Shanker's position by citing Supreme Court Justice Marshall's conclusion

upon reviewing the record of social exclusion of individuals with disabilities that their

segregation rivaled theworst of Jim Crow laws. Lipsky and Gartner (1996) contend that,

Special education plays a sorting role, both for those consigned to it and for

those students who remain in general education. It limits expectations of the

former, and gnarls the attitudes of the latter (p.766).

Current Special Education System

While the Special Education Law 94-142 and its successor the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1990) in many ways have succeeded by guaranteeing

access to public education and supporting more than five million students with disabilities, the

outcomes for many students are dismal. According to Kohler (1993) the outcomes for

Students with disabilities transitioning to adult life have not improved significantly in the last

ten years. Past and present data indicate that students with disabilities drop out of school at

a rate between 30 and 80%. The unemployment rate for persons with disabilities is the highest

of any groups, i.e., two out of three are not working and only two in ten work fiill time

(Lipsky and Gartner, 1996). These unemployment statistics have serious economic implication

for all Americans given that more than 50% of students with disabilities are learning disabled

who, by definition, are of average or above average ability. Further, the National Longitudinal

Transition Study of youth with disabilities

(Wagner, D'Amico, Marder. Newman, &

Blackorby, 1992; Wagner et al., 1991) found that 19% of all adolescents with disabilities had

been arrested two years after school and a rate of 37% for those who dropped out.

Therefore, Americans are supporting either through public assistance or the penal system a

large group of people with the intellectual capability to be productive members of society.

Another concern with the implementation of IDEA is the variability of placement

28

patterns by disability groups among the fifty States. The proportion of Students with learning

disabilities who are placed in general education settings varies from 0.3 percent in Iowa to

93.3 percent in Vermont. Students with mental impairments ranged fi'om 0.28 percent in

New Jersey to 74.7 percent placements in regular classes (1995, Seventeenth Annual Report

to Congress, Table ABZ). Thus, the place of service for students with disabilities varies

greatly across the nation, in Spite of the fact that all states operate under the same Special

Education Law.

Problems with the funding of special education also exist. The cost of special

education annually between federal, state, and local contributions is 20 billion dollars (Lipsky

and Gartner, 1996). This translates into 2.3 times the average cost of $5,266 per pupil of

educating a student in general education (CBC, 1994). Not 'only are the costs enormous, but

the ways in which these funds are allocated and used is problematic. Schools' firnding levels

are determined by the number of students identified with disabilities and their placement in

segregated settings. Thus, the rules for allocation of funds reward overidentification of

students with disabilities and promote more restrictive placements regardless of the "least

restrictive environment" clause in the law.

School Restructuring and Inclusive Education

The special education system as currently designed consists of programs largely

separate from, fiequently parallel to, and occasionally intersecting with general education.

Thus, the national reform initiatives have greatly ignored students with disabilities. In fact,

the National Council on Disability, in a review of eight major reform initiatives put forth by

the federal government between 1990 to 1992, found that only two of them included Specific

2 9

references to students with disabilities (Lipsky and Gartner, 1996). However, the Goals

2000: Educate America Act (PL 103 -227) incorporates students with disabilities. Ignoring

students with disabilities in these reforms sends two powerful messages: that their education

is irrelevant and that they cannot achieve. Conversely, inclusion of these students confirms

the educational system's responsibility to educate all students and that they are accountable

for their academic outcomes as well. Some states (Kentucky and. Kansas) are focusing

reforms on the overall system by combining reform initiatives like general education school

restructuring and inclusive education, much the same as Hart High School did in 1988.

In spite of the fimding practices in special education favoring segregated settings,

inclusive practices have expanded from 267 districts in 1994 to 891 districts in all fifty states

in 1995 (National Study on Inclusion, 1995). The definition of inclusion has evolved over a

very short period of tirne—fi'om the late 19805 to the present. Ferguson (1996) in her research

on inclusive education has found that schools in the United States are somewhere on a

continuum between the following ways of thinking about inclusion.

«Inclusion as a special education reform aimed at moving students with

disabilities, especially those with moderate and severe disabilities, from self-

contained classrooms, with services and supports needed to achieve effective

social learning outcomes, to:

«Inclusion as a process of meshing general and special education reform

initiatives and strategies in order to achieve a unified system of public

education that incorporates all children and youths as active,

fully

participating members of the school community; that views diversity as the

norm and maintains a high quality education for each student by ensuring

meaningful curriculum, effective teaching, and supports necessary for each

student (Ferguson, 1996, p.17).

Lipsky and Gartner (1995) found in their National Study on Inclusion including all 50

states the following outcomes of inclusive practices:

30

«Both general and Special education teachers report that academic,

behavioral, and social outcomes for Students in inclusive classrooms are for

the most part positive.

«Teacher participating in these programs report development of new

instructional strategies and a sense of a team effort.

«Inclusion programs and school restructuring efforts are having a significant

impact on each other.

«Students with varying disabilities and degrees of severity are being included

in general education.

According to Lipsky and Gartner (1996), the development of inclusive education

programs for many districts has been connected with broader restructuring efl‘orts, as was the

case at Hart High School, the site of this study. Villa and Thousand (1993) in their study of

thirty-two school sites found that administrative support in the form of setting a vision for

teaching and learning all students, providing time for professional development and teacher

collaboration, and securing financial resources to support the development of inclusive

classrooms was key. Lipsky and Gartner (1996) have found in their review of inclusive

practices across the country that the focus of the teacher collaboration should include the

development of alternative assessments, cunicula adaptations, implementation of cooperative

learning strategies, and peer tutoring. Both parental involvement and supports for stafi‘ and

students in the form of problem solving teams were also listed. Berres, Ferguson, Knoblock,

and Woods (1996) in their book on inclusion report similar components for creating inclusive

schools. Jorgenson (in press, 1997) offers guidelines that incorporate these same elements

for creating inclusive schools.

Naturally, the reforms in special education Since the late 703, mainstreaming and

integration (the precursors to inclusion) have encountered fierce debate. Critics of these

31

reforms have expressed serious concerns about reintegrating students with disabilities into a

system that was unable to address their needs in the first place. According to Zigmond and

Baker (1990) once mildly disabled students are integrated into general education settings,

classroom teachers cannot conduct "business as usual.” Business as usual for many students

prior to their qualification for special education services has meant chronic failure and

frustration in general education classrooms. Fuchs and Fuchs (1991) describe mildly disabled

students' history in general education settings as one in which they had chronic trouble and

academic failure and therefore were referred out. Students are generally referred for special

education services not only because of their behavioral and/or academic difiiculties, but

frequently because of general education teachers' unwillingness and/or inability to teach these

children.

Obviously, then in order for the re-entry of mildly disabled students into general

education classrooms to be successful, staff development opportunities for veteran teachers

faced with teaching mildly disabled students are necessary to develop their confidence and

abilities to teach more diverse learners. Also, the training of preservice teachers needs to

incorporate experiences with diverse populations including Students with disabilities.

Additionally, the nature of the practice of teaching in general education must change,

otherwise the reentry of students with mild disabilities will be a repeat of the same experience

that triggered their referral for special education initially, i.e., academic failure.

This is

precisely the kind of reform that inclusionists like Ferguson, et a1, (1996) and Jorgenson (in

press, 1997), and Pugach and Warger (1996) are advocating: professional development time

for general and special educators with the support of the principal to restructure teaching and

learning for all Students, particularly those with disabilities.

3 2

Ferguson (1996) posits that systemic inclusion as prescribed is neither easy, nor a

quick fix; rather, it is an evolutionary process. Although Fuchs and Fuchs (1995) agree that

general education classrooms can be made more accommodating, "there are limits on just how

resourceful and responsive the mainstream can become" (p.524). They indicate that they are

not the sole source of doubt about the capability of general education to respond to the needs

of students with disabilities as several national organizations representing the disability

community hold this view too. Both parent and professional groups like the Learning

Disabilities Association, the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, and the

Division of Learning Disabilities of the Council of Exceptional Children Strongly support the

continuum of special education services. Further, these organizations view the movement

toward full inclusion as a threat to the capability of schools to provide an appropriate

education to every individual with a disability. In addition, they believe that parents of

Students with disabilities need to have placement options for their children.

Fuchs and Fuchs (1995) delineate what is "special" about special education:

individualized instruction, smaller classes, and more highly trained teachers. Besides program

placement the IEPC develops an individualized education plan, IEP, establishing goals and

objectives for the student's area of needs. The ratio of students with disabilities per Special

education teacher in the nation is approximately 15 students (Fuchs and Fuchs, 1995).

According to the National Center on Education Statistics, approximately 55% of special

education teachers have Master's Degrees as compared with 40% of general educators. All

of these factors seem to indicate a higher quality of instruction in special education

classrooms.

33

Fuchs and Fuchs (1995) indicate that outcomes for students receiving special

education services are mixed. They base this on a meta-analysis by Carlberg and Kavale

(1980) of fifty independent studies of special education resource rooms versus regular classes.

They concluded that for students with mild mental impairment special classes were

significantly inferior to general education placements for this population and superior for

students with behavior, emotional and learning impairments. Sindelar and Deno (1979) had

similar findings in their review of 17 studies on the efl‘ectiveness of resource rooms.

Additional reviews by Madden and Slavin (1983) and Leinhardt and Palley (1982) do not

agree in all respects with the findings of Carlberg/Kavale and Sindelar/Deno, but all four

studies agree on one major point that for particular students Special education programs

promote greater academic achievement than do general education classrooms (Fuchs and

Fuchs, 1995). However, all four of the studies mentioned above were conducted in the late

19703 and eariy 19803. Thus, the researchers reviewed studies on the effectiveness of special

education programs in the 19703, which was just after the passage of the Special Education

Law (1975) and prior to the reforms of mainstreaming and integration of the late 19703 and

the restructuring reforms promoted for general education. The question is whether these

same results would hold true today. Further, all of the studies reviewed were elementary

programs. Would these findings be similar for secondary students with disabilities?

The strongest argument that Fuchs and Fuchs (1995) offer for the maintenance of

separate special education programming is the individualized instruction based on student

need offered in these settings. They cite their research findings on encouraging general

educators to adopt individualized instructional strategies as very discouraging. They found

34

that general education teachers make mostly group adaptations rather than individual, which

are very minimal adjustments and do little if anything to support their needs.

In 1985 the Division of Innovation and Design (DID) of the Ofice of Special

Education Programs (OSEP) funded a series of projects to develop model programs that

would identify instructional, administrative, and organizational Strategies for providing special

education services in general education classes to students with learning disabilities. The

firnding of this research was consistent with the Regular Education Initiative philosophy of

the department and the eflicacy of the model programs were to be based on students'

academic outcomes. Zigmond, et al (1995), recipients of these grants, report their findings

of data from three different elementary multi-year studies in the states of Pennsylvania,

Washington, and Tennessee in rural, urban and suburban contexts. In each of these studies,

students with learning disabilities were provided reading instruction in general education

classes restructured to accommodate their needs.

Each of the sites developed a model for changing:

1) the conditions in general

education classrooms that necessitated referrals to special education, 2) the return of students

with disabilities from Special education services to general education, and 3) the

accommodation of students with disabilities more effectively in general education. In all three

sites the university members initiated the reform effort with the schools. The models were

jointly developed by volunteer general and special education teachers and school

administrators.

The results of the studies were mixed. Over the three projects, 54% of the students

with learning disabilities achieved gains in excess of one standard error of measurement. This

also means that 46% did not make this gain. Further analysis revealed that students with

3 5

learning disabilities who made average or better gains difl‘ered by site (33% for Pittsburgh,

23% for Washington, and 64% for Vanderbilt) averaging 37% across sites. There are several

ways to think about this data. One way according to the researchers is that overall 63% of

students with learning disabilities did not achieve average or better on these reading tests.

Another way is to consider whether it is reasonable to expect that students identified with

difficulties in learning to read would be expected to make an average or better gain than their

nondisabled peers. An additional consideration the researchers offered was whether students

with learning disabilities would start to catch up with their peers who are achieving at an

average level. A comparison of their fall and Spring reading test scores was made. The

'

results of the sites differed with 53% (Pennsylvania), 38% (Washington), and 62%

(Tennessee) of LD students gaining ground on their peers. Thus, overall 61% of the target

population had moved up in their standing, the other 39% stayed the same or lost ground.

The researchers interpret these findings as disappointing and that " general education

settings produce achievement outcomes for students with learning disabilities that are neither

desirable nor acceptable given that these three projects invested tremendous amounts of

resources, both financial and professional" (p. 53 9). In the authors' opinions their studies did

not answer the question of how best to provide services for students with serious learning

disabilities, even though 37% achieved average or better gains and 61% moved up in their

standing.

There are other questions to ask of this study: With the merger of the general and

special education resources in these studies what were the outcomes for nondisabled students

with low reading scores? How will the additional training for general education teachers in

accommodating students with special needs in reading impact their referral rate for special

36

education services in the future? What were the impacts on students with disabilities socially

and emotionally in terms of their self-esteem as related to receiving instnrction with their

peers, rather than in a segregated setting in the Short term? in the long term? What

implications, if any, does this study have on teaching secondary students with disabilities? In

the final analysis Zigmond et al. (1995) conclude that their research evidence confirms that

there are no simple answers to where appropriate and effective services for students with

disabilities should be delivered. Further, they conclude that their studies provide no basis for

the elimination of the continuum of services and no basis for asserting that satisfactory

outcomes can be achieved for students with disabilities in general education settings. They

do not, however, mention that the findings of their study offer support for servicing some

' students with learning disabilities in the "least restrictive environment," namely the general

education classroom.

The issue of the continuum of services is at the center of the debate between

proponents of the status quo and the inclusionists. The initial interpretation of a continuum

of services as described earlier in this chapter tied the service to a place or location in the

school separate from general education or out of the home school. According to Ferguson

(1996) the proposal to eliminate the continuum of services (Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger,

Edelrnan and Schattrnan, 1993) are interpreted by a few (Fuchs and Fuchs, 1994) as a call to

eliminate the services themselves. In actuality Ferguson, Willis, Boles et al., 1993; National

Association of School Board Educators, (NASBE), 1990; The Association for Severely

Handicapped, (TASH), 1994, have emphasized the necessity to separate the services from

places and instead make the full continuum of services available to all Students labeled or not.

In fact, full inclusion should not mean the elimination of services, but rather encourage

general and special education teachers to share their expertise for all students as they did in

3 7

the Zigmond et al., (1995) study.

An additional aspect of the debate on inclusion is around the issue of all students

with disabilities spending all their time in general education (Stainback, Stainback, and

Moravec, 1992). Researchers skeptical of the feasibility of the inclusion of all students often

cite extreme examples of medically fragile and dangerously violent students to call into

question the concept of inclusion (Kauflinan, Lloyd, Baker, and Reidel, 1995). Kaufinan and

Hallahan (1995) in their book, The Illusion of Full Inclusion, raise a concern about the need

for students with visual and hearing impairments to have separate instruction in Braille,

Orientation and Mobility, and signing. Ferguson (1996) in response to these issues argues

that offering extreme cases in this debate misses both the point and the potential of

restructuring both general and special education to better address the needs of all students.

She contends that in inclusive schools some students for some parts of their schooling, might

spend more time than others in certain settings. However, all students should have the

opportunity to learn in a variety of places, in both large and small groups, and in community

locations. Ifthis were the norm that all Students learned in a variety of settings and locations

with various approaches to learning, than no student would feel segregated or singled out.

This has not been the case with the implementation of a continuum of services. Historically,

when students with disabilities have been placed in self-contained programs, resource rooms,

or segregated schools they end up being in a permanent placement (Gartner and Lipsky,

1987)

The debate about how to best service students with disabilities and where continues.

More research is needed regarding the development of inclusive schools and long term

38

student outcomes. In particular, more research is needed at the secondary level where a

paucity of studies exists regarding outcomes of service delivery to high school students with

disabilities. Fuchs and Fuchs (1995) express serious doubt that general education teachers

can and/or will address the special needs of students with disabilities integrated in their

classrooms, while inclusionists Berres, Ferguson, Knoblock, and Woods (1996); Jorgenson

(1997 in press); Lipsky and Gartner (1996); Pugach and Warger (1996); and Thousand and

Villa (1995); call for collaboration between general and special education to develop practices

to better address the needs of all students especially those with disabilities. A major question

to pursue is what resources contribute to a school's capacity to support Students with special

needs in inclusive settings? That question is the focus of this study that examines what

resources general and special education teachers at Hart High School drew on to restructure

teaching and learning for all students, in particular those with disabilities.

Theoretical Frameworks of This Study

Several theoretical frameworks developed by Fullan (1991 and 1994) proved usefirl

in organizing and framing the results of this study at the classroom level and at the

organizational level. Fullan (1991) states that the implementation of educational change at

the classroom level involves changes in the practice of teaching. But what precisely does this

mean? This is a difficult question to answer given that innovation or change in a classroom

is multidimensional. According to Fullan (1991) there are at least three elements to address

in changing classroom practice:

1) the implementation of new curricula or the revision of

curricula, 2) the development and implementation of new teaching strategies and methods,

and 3) changes in teachers' beliefs, i.e., the underlying assumptions and theories that support

the decisions they make in their classroom.

3 9

He stresses that all three components are necessary because taken together they

represent a way of achieving the goal. "Change has to occur in practice along these

dimensions in order for it to have a chance of affecting the outcomes" (Fullan, 1991, p.37).

In addressing the question of this Study at the classroom level, teachers' beliefs, changes in

curriculum, and changes in teaching methods surfaced in the teachers' conversations about

their experiences in addressing the needs of Students with disabilities. Thus, this theoretical

framework was usefirl in framing the data of this study.

For change at the classroom and school organizational level Fullan (1994) ofi‘ers

another theoretical framework. "Managing moral purpose and change agentry is at the heart

of productive educational change" (Fullan, 1994, p.8). As Goodlad, Soder, and Sirotnik

(1990) studied teacher education they began to see the moral imperatives embedded in

teaching in a post-modem society. Goodlad (1990) illuminated four moral imperatives for

public schools today.

The first moral imperative is furthering critical enculturation. The school is the single

public institution in our country designated with enculturating youth into the principles of

democracy. The second moral imperative is providing access to knowledge. Again the

school is the only societal institution given the responsibility to provide youth with

experiences with all subject matters. According to Goodlad (1990) all teachers must be

attentive that no belief or practice limits any student's access to knowledge. The third moral

imperative is developing an effective teacher-student connection. Teaching must encompass

more than the teaching of subject matter it must also include sensitivity to the human qualities

of their students. The fourth moral imperative is practicing good stewardship, i.e., teachers

4 0

must be actively engaged in the renewal process of the institution. Sirotnik sums up these

moral imperatives in the following Statement.

I

i

The implications of moral commitments to inquiry, knowledge, competence,

caring, and social justice go further than curriculum and classroom

experiences.

They go to the very heart of the moral ecology of the

organization itself (Sirtonik, 1990, p. 298fl).

Fullan (1994) emphasizes that the building block of these moral imperatives is the

individual teacher with a moral purpose, i.e., committed to making a difference in the lives

of individual students. However, he elaborates further that "one cannot make a difference .

at the interpersonal level unless the problems and solutions are enlarged to encompass the

conditions that surround teaching" (Fullan, 1994, p. 11).

In other words teachers are

mediators of both‘educational change and sociefal improvements. They are Change agents

with a moralipurpose.

Fullan (1994) defines change agentry asan awareness Of the nature of Change and the

change process. The question is what are the elements of change agentry that the individual

and the cUlture of the institution embOdy? Fullan (1994) delineates four elements that will

build greater individual and organizational change.

i

-

i

' The first element of change is vision building. DevelOping a vision at the individual

or institutional level {means examining and reexamining one’s purpose for being a teacher,

thereby Continually bringirigthis purpose into consciousness. By articulating one's vision for

the future it calls into question elements of dissatisfaction with the organization whether at.

the classroom or institutional level. The development of personal vision with a moral purpose

is the route to organizational change toward a moral ecology.

4 l

The second element of change is inquiry. According to Pascale (1990) "inquiry is the

engine of vitality and self-renewal" (p.14). The development of one's personal purpose is

dependent on engaging in conversations with other educational professionals to gather

develop professional knowledge, discuss dilemmas of practice, and the elements of the

organizational structure. Inquiry is characterized by the internalization of norms, habits, and

techniques for continuous learning. It is an unquenchable thirst for further knowledge.

The third element of change is mastery. According to Fullan (1994) people must

practice their way into new ideas not merely think them and talk about them. Mastery is both

an outcome and a process. Senge (1990) describes mastery as approaching one's life as a

creative work. One in which the individual is always clarifying what is important (purpose,

vision) and continually learning to see the reality of the context or Situation. The ability to be

efi‘ective at change mastery is essential asa personal habit and in relation to specific reforms

(Fullan 1994).

The last element for effective change is collaboration. Personal learning is dependent

on collaboration. At both the classroom level and the institutional level people need to

interact with each other to achieve their goals and objectives. Collaboration involves the

ability to form peer relationships, partnerships and work as a team. Having the skills to

collaborate is necessary to make change in any organization or institution.

In sum, the four elements of vision building, inquiry, mastery, and collaboration are

necessary for teachers to implement change at the classroom as well as the institutional level.

When wedded with the moral purpose of teaching these elements of change operationalized

at both the classroom level and the institutional level have the possibility of fostering a school

with a moral ecology. Fullan's (1994) theoretical framework connecting moral purpose and

4 2

change agentry is at the heart of restructuring initiatives proposed by the inclusionists in

Special education. The call to restructure general education to better meet the needs of all

students including those with disabilities requires teachers with both a moral purpose and a

commitment to change. Thus, in analyzing the data of this study to respond to the question

what resources are necessary to support students with Special needs in inclusive settings this

second theoretical framework developed by Fullan was ideal. These are the skills of teachers

acting as change agents to ensure that the moral imperatives of a post-modem society as

suggested by Goodlad (1990) described above are embedded in the culture of public schools.

A third theoretical framework was used by the author to analyze and organize the data

on teachers' intellectual resources. Wilson, Shulman, and Reichert (1987) developed a

beneficial framework for this task. Their model of the professional knowledge base of

teaching includes seven components, three of which proved usefirl in this study: general

pedagogical knowledge, subject matter knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge. The

authors define general pedagogical knowledge as the knowledge of pedagogical principles not

bound by topic or subject matter. In this study it includes the theories and principles of

teaching and learning, knowledge of diverse learners, and knowledge of principles and

techniques of classroom management and behavior.

Schwab’s (1964) definition of subject matter knowledge was used by Wilson,

Shulman, and Reichert (1987) to define this concept. It encompasses knowledge of ideas,

facts, concepts, and syntax of a discipline and their relationships. Subject matter knowledge

also includes an understanding of the syntax of a discipline, i.e., the process for generating

and testing knowledge. Pedagogical Content Knowledge as detailed by Shulman (1986)

43

includes the knowledge and understanding of the process of teaching a topic as well as the

knowledge of the methods to teach the topic.

Pedagogical reasoning is a process described by Wilson, Shulman, and Reichert

(1987) details the seamless process that teachers cycle through in their practice of teaching.

There are six steps in the process: instruction, evaluation, reflection, new comprehension,

comprehension, and transformation. Transformation consists of four subskills:

critical

interpretation, representation, adaptation, and tailoring. The last two subskills are critical for

both general special educators in considering how to accommodate students with Special

needs. Adaptation involves fitting a representation of a concept to the characteristics of

students in general. Tailoring is modifying the concept to the specific characteristics of a

Student. Tailoring is the heart of moral purpose and central to successfully including students

with disabilities.

The three elements of the theoretical model of the professional knowledge developed

by Wilson, Shulman, and Reichert (1987) were critical in identifying what intellectual

resources teachers draw on to support students with special needs in general education.

Further their process detailing pedagogical reasoning provides a beneficial framework for

special and general educators working together to think about their process of teaching in a

circular way and provides them with a language for transforming their teaching to address the

needs of individual students.

In conclusion, the theoretical frameworks developed by Fullan (1991, 1994) were very

beneficial in describing the processes of change that evolved at Hart High School as a

Professional Development School toward a culture with a moral ecology. Further, Wilson,

Shulman‘s and Reichert's (1987) model for professional knowledge was useful to categorize

44

and organize the kinds of knowledge that is necessary for general and special educators to

support students with special needs. Further their process for pedagogical reasoning provides

teachers with a language for drinking about and discussing ways to support the Specific needs

of individual students.

CHAPTER 3

METHODS OF THE STUDY

Description of Research Methodology

One of the challenges that I faced as both a researcher and a teacher at Hart High

School was how to study the professional knowledge base and thinking of my colleagues,

who themselves were action researchers. The educators who participated in this project, as

members of a Professional Development School, were accustomed to creating studies in

partnership with university faculty, i.e., developing the questions and methodology, and

conducting the data analysis. Given that the nature of my daily interactions with these

teachers was collaborative, for me to attempt to step back and play the role of an outsider in

a research project with them would have been dificult, if not impossible. Further, as a Special

educator at Hart High I was deeply engaged in both improving the teaching and learning of

special needs and at-risk students and in reconfiguring the culture to make collaboration the

norm. On this basis, the research model chosen to study our work needed to be collaborative.

Thus, adopting a traditional research approach with a clear delineation between a researcher

and subjects with this group of teachers in this setting seemed both illogical and inappropriate.

Since this study examined the professional knowledge they developed partly through their

own research studies, their input into the design of this study was both necessary and

valuable.

4S

46

Two research methodologies proved useful in thinking about the design of this study

and the data analysis. The Collaborative Inquiry Method, developed by Peter Reason,

provided a beneficial model, given my interest in including my colleagues in designing the

study. Naturalistic Inquiry Method as described by Lincoln and Guba (1985), also proved

helpful as I organized my data analysis. The collaborative or co-operative inquiry

methodology designed by Reason (1988) was the model that most closely aligned with the

ways in which the members of this group were accustomed to conducting their research.

Given that all of the members of the group used the processes of collaboration and inquiry

in their projects a research methodology that incorporated these components would be the

most suitable. According to Reason (1988) Co-operative or collaborative inquiry is research

that is with and for people rather than on people. Thus, this method is a way to research, in

which all those involved contribute to both the creative thinking involved in designing the

study, i.e., deciding what is to be studied, how it will be studied, and making sense of the

data, and also contribute to the action that is the subject of the research.

Project group members participated in all phases of the research except making sense

of the data. Since the analysis of the data for this study involved a major time commitment

and I wanted to utilize the data for my dissertation, I took the sole responsibility, with the

group's permission, for analyzing the data and reporting the findings in this document.

I shared with the group Reason's (1988) description of both the Stages of group

development and the stages of collaborative inquiry. According to Reason, groups tend to

evolve through three Stages of group development.

4 7

513;; The group nwds to come together and to nurture and help individual members feel

that they are safe and that they have a place in the group. There needs to be ways in which

people can get to know each other and feel comfortable with each other.

While all of the group members knew each other, the backgrounds of the various

members were not known to each other. Consequently, the first two sessions were devoted

to each member describing their educational background and other elements of their personal

life as they chose. To assist the group in coming together and feeling comfortable, I held the

first session at my home over dinner. Subsequently, several group meetings took place over

lunch at school and members took turns bringing snacks and beverages for the group at each

meeting. The sharing of food was a source of comfort and seemed to revive all of the group

members at the end of their hectic school days, which was the time for most meetings.

m; Struggles in the group may develop into opposing subgroups. The atmosphere may

become argumentative and various group members may vie for control of the group.

However, if all the members feel included then this dissension will not threaten the group

members and their work. At this Stage, a group facilitator must allow and encourage differing

Opinions, help people listen, and find ways to reach consensus.

The participants in this group were experienced in the collaborative process. Therefore, there

was never a division of the group members or a tone of argumentativeness. However,

members often expressed different viewpoints and at times disagreed with one another (some

of these instances will be described in chapter four).

Although this was a collaborative inquiry group, it did not mean that all members

participated in identical ways or to the same degree. Members played various roles at

differing times. I was designated by the group to serve as the facilitator and organizer of the

project work. This meant that I arranged the meeting dates, time and place. I organized the

agenda with the groups' input, facilitated the conversations, and served as the time manager.

These were the only designated roles; other roles were jointly shared by the group. All

48

members took turns in clarifying the inquiry and reflective processes of the group, managing

the distress that various members expressed about their work, and validating group members'

contributions.

Stage 3, If participants can successfully negotiate stage two, this opens the way for a firlly

collaborative relationship. If the group can embrace members with differing points of view

then each member can feel that they hold a unique place in the group and offer their individual

contribution. Thus, the group can engage in its work in a mature way, drawing fully from the

contribution of each member.

Since the members of this group were experienced in the group process and voluntarily

participated in this project, they were prepared to establish a fully collaborative relationship.

Further, because they were dedicated professionals committed to improving all students'

opportunities to learn, they brought—a mutual commitment to the group. Evidence of their

ability to firnction at stage three is presented in chapter four.

In addition to the stages of group process Reason (1988) identifies four stages in the

development of a Collaborative Inquiry:

Stage 1. Participants discuss and agree what it is they wish to research; what ideas and

theories they hold, what kind of research action they will undertake to explore these ideas.

Stage 2 Participants implement research action agreed upon in Stage One. This may include

self-observation or reciprocal observations of other members of the inquiry group.

Stage 3. Participants become firlly immersed in their research. They encounter each other

in their world directly, opening themselves up to novel experiences and discerning what is

actually happening.

Stage 4, Participants reflect on their experiences and attempt to make sense of it. This

involves revising and developing the ideas and models with which they entered the first stages

of inquiry, even discarding them as necessary.

The essence of this model is a conscious, self-critical movement between experience

and reflection, which develops through several stages as ideas, practice, and experiences are

4 9

systematically honed and refined (Reason, 1988). The participants in this project experienced

all four of the stages described above during their fourteen collaborative conversations

(detailed in the next section of this chapter). During the first five weeks of the project the

group met weekly for approximately one and a half hours after school. During these group

conversations, project members discussed what they wanted to study in this inquiry group and

how they wanted to conduct the study (stages one and two).

All members agreed that they wanted to share and discuss their work in restructuring

curriculums to support at-risk Students and those with disabilities, ask questions of each other,

and reflect on their progress to date. In the second session I presented the group with several

questions to frame our conversations. After much discussion and some modifications, we

agreed on the following four questions to guide our subsequent discussions.

1. Given that Hart High School's faculty has six years of experience with

mainstreaming students with mild disabilities, what are the beliefs of general

and special education teachers about these students' capabilities to succeed,

i.e., to learn what the majority of the class can learn, in general education

settings?

2. What are the teachers' beliefs about this reform initiative to mainstream

students with disabilities?

3. What modifications and

adaptations

to

their

curriculum,

teaching

methodology, forms of assessment, and social organization of their

classrooms, if any, did they make to ensure the success of Students with mild

disabilities in their classrooms?

4. How successful are students with mild disabilities in their classrooms based

on their perceptions, the students' grades, and their post graduation plans?

As the facilitator of the group, I reminded the members at the beginning of each meeting of

these questions. In addition to discussing these questions in the collaborative conversations,

the group agreed to two other methods of Studying these questions. Regarding the first two

50

questions stated above on teachers' beliefs the participants decided to complete a fastwrite on

this question This data was submitted to the research assistant in a sealed envelope to ensure

that no one reviewed the statements in advance of the group conversations. The research

assistant was a college student enrolled in the special education teacher education program

at MSU. She was firnded through the PDS to assist with data collection and organization and

for researching recent journal articles related to our work, i.e., collaboration, teacher beliefs,

teacher knowledge.

Further, upon my suggestion, the group decided that case studies of two hypothetical

special education students with questions about curriculum, methodology, and classroom

organization would be an interesting way to discuss their individual strategies to include

students with disabilities in their classrooms. They were familiar with the use of case study,

as this was used in many PDS projects to discuss changes in practice and teachers' dilemmas.

I wrote the case Studies that profiled two typical students with disabilities (See Appendix A

and B). Each member's responses to the case studies were videotaped by the research

assistant (Stage Two).

Stages Three and Four of the collaborative inquiry process were implemented in

conversations six through fourteen. These were the sessions in which the participants opened

themselves up by describing and listening to one another’s experiences and dilemmas in

supporting students with disabilities in their classrooms. The last six sessions in particular

provided all members the opportunity to inquire and reflect about their professional

knowledge when they viewed individual members' videotapes of the case studies.

In sum, the participants in this study adopted the major components of Reason's

(1988) collaborative inquiry method for studying their professional knowledge and beliefs that

51

developed as they restnrctured their curricula to better meet the needs of students’ at-risk and

those with disabilities. The only research activities in which they were not involved was

analysis of the data and writing up the results.

Description of Data Sources

I draw on five data sources in this study, several of which I mentioned briefly above.

1. Teacher Fastwrites All of the project participants completed a fastwrite on the first two

guiding questions for the group conversations about teachers' beliefs regarding students with

disabilities capabilities to succeed in general education and their beliefs about the reform to

mainstream or include these Students. Prior to the conversation during the fifth meeting all

members submitted a twenty minute response on these questions to the research assistant.

These written statements also provided baseline data on each individual's response beliefs

before the group began discussing the questions.

2. Fourteen Collaborative Conversations The group members participated in fourteen

collaborative conversations as a part of this Study from the last week of October 1993 to last

week of May 1994. The conversations, ranging in length from one hour to three hours,

averaged one and a halfhours. All of the conversations were audiotaped and then transcribed.

I chose to use an independent transcriber because I wanted to eliminate the possibility of my

bias influencing the transcription of these conversations. The transcriptions of these fourteen

conversations were one of the major data sources for this study.

Attendance at each session varied. This is understandable given the major time

commitment involved in participating. Nevertheless, all seven members were present for 7

of 14 of the conversations, Six members were present at 4 of 14, five members were present

at 2 of 14, and only four were present at 1 of 14. However, with one exception, all members

5 2

were present for the collaborative sessions at which the videotaped interviews of the

hypothetical case studies were discussed. These sessions provided some of the most salient

data. The teachers on which I focused for my analysis--Lyle, Holly, and Jane« were all

present in 10 of the fourteen conversations and they were all present in the last six sessions

for discussions of group members' videotaped interviews of the case studies.

3. Hypothetical Case Studies One way that the group decided to capture their professional

knowledge and skill in supporting students with disabilities in general education classes was

by using hypothetical case studies as prompts. At the group's request, I developed two cases

that were based on many Students with mild disabilities that I had taught. The Scott case

study described a boy of average ability with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder. He

had difficulty completing tasks and his accuracy was limited because he rushed to complete

his work. The Jessica case study profiled a girl who possessed strong social Skills, but faced

difficulties in reading and writing. The case studies struck the project teachers as realistic

representations; several made comments about their authenticity. They asked if they were real

students or commented that they had students just like Scott and Jessica.

The one-page descriptions of the students were followed by twelve questions that

incorporated elements of the guiding questions the group decided to frame their

conversations. Some questions asked about teachers’ beliefs about teaching students with

disabilities and their capabilities for success in general education. In addition, other questions

asked about curriculum modification, accommodations, assessment, and classroom

organization. The last questions dealt with who was responsible for teaching this Student.

The complete case studies are included in Appendices A and B.

53

4. Videotaped Interview of Teachers‘ Analysis of the Hypothetical Student Case Studies

All members of the group (including myself) participated in an individual pre-and post-

interviews about the two hypothetical students conducted by the research assistant. Each

teacher made an individual appointment with the assistant during January or February 1994.

After the teacher read each of the case studies, the research assistant asked them the twelve

scripted questions about the case. These interviews were videotaped. The same procedure

was followed for the post-videotaped interviews. However, only the pre-interviews were

subsequently shown to the group members and discussed in the collaborative sessions. The

post-interviews conducted after all 14 collaborative conversations were concluded were not

Shown to the group members.

The videotapes of each pre-interview were shown during the last six sessions of the

collaborative project. After viewing the videotaped group members queried the interviewee

about their responses. These conversations were audiotaped and then transcribed. These

conversations provided a great deal of data about teachers' methods of supporting Students

with disabilities in their classroom.

5. Unpublished Papers Two unpublished papers written by the project members were used

as data sources in this study. Although they were not submitted for publication, they had

been presented at national conferences. Lyle's and Jane's paper was a transcription of an

interview conducted by Helen Featherstone at MSU. The interview consisted of a three-way

conversation about restructuring the science curriculum and the teachers' approach to

including students with disabilities. This paper detailed the evolution of their beliefs, their

curriculum, teaching methods, as well as perceptions and feeling of the students' with

disabilities about being included in heterogeneous classrooms.

54

The second paper was written by Sally and me about our experiences in restructuring

the fundamental ,math class to engage at-risks students and those with disabilities in

mathematical reasoning and problem solving. Specific examples of the development of

mathematical reasoning in students with disabilities were described in this paper. In addition,

the paper detailed the school environment necessary to support teachers' in taking the risks

entailed in reform efforts.

6. Researcher as Instrument: My Knowledge of These Teachers and Hart High as a

PDS A major source of informal and unsystematic data has been my knowledge of these

teachers and their work, the role of special educators and the system of special education, and

Hart High as a PDS. AS mentioned in the last chapter, all the decisions that researchers make

in any study involve trade offs. A researcher who is also a teacher in the school under study

limited objectivity in the classical sense. The trade off, however, was a more intimate, day to

day knowledge of the teachers and events in the school. Further, as a faculty participant in the

PDS, I could provide an insider view on the human and fiscal resources that were available

or not to support the restructuring efi‘orts of teachers at Hart High. Therefore, my prolonged

engagement with the faculty and involvement in the school establishes a trustworthiness in

terms of the data.

AS a special education teacher at Hart High I worked closely with Lyle, Jane, and

Holly, collaborating and problem-solving on behalf of the Students with disabilities that were

my caseload responsibility. I had many opportunities to visit their classes and observe their

individual tutoring sessions with my students. Through collaborating with them about the

special education students on my caseload, I learned first hand about their curriculum

accommodations, alternative assessments, and classroom modifications to address the needs

55

of students with disabilities. AS a special education teacher, immersed in the reform initiatives

at Hart High, I experienced personally the dilemmas and tensions of managing the legal

mandates and educational responsibilities of this role. Further, I played a part in many PDS

projects working with English, history, and mathematics teachers on restructuring their

cuniculum and teaching methods to address the needs of all students. In addition to my role

as a faculty member, I also served on the PDS school council which reviewed proposals for

projects and made decisions about funding. All of these experiences allowed me a front seat

view of the change process at Hart High School. Therefore, my various roles at Hart High

brought to this study a more intimate and richer account of the restructuring efforts of the

teachers and administrators at Hart High and their struggles than an outside researcher could

document.

Data Analysis

The naturalistic inquiry research model, described by Lincoln and Guba (1985),

provided several useful methods for inductive data analysis. Inductive data analysis is a

process designed to uncover embedded information and make it explicit.

Guba and Lincoln (1985) identify two sub processes that are necessary for inductive

data analysis:

unitizing and categorizing.

Unitizing involves identifying single pieces of

information or units that can stand by themselves. Categorizing is the process in which units

of data are organized into categories that ofi‘er descriptive information about the context from

which the units were obtained. According to these authors this process has been detailed in

full by Glaser and Strauss (1967) as the "constant comparative method.”

This method involves sorting units into temporary categories on the basis of similar

or "look-alike" characteristics. AS elements of these temporary categories accumulate, the

56

analyst develops a "rule" that determines the basis for inclusion/exclusion decisions about

elements in the category. The rule is subject to continuous refinement as new data are

reviewed for inclusion or exclusion. In the final analysis all of the elements in a category must

meet the definition of the final rule. For example in the second read of the collaborative

conversations, I identified two units, one of which was "teachers' beliefs about classroom

practice" and the other was "beliefs about the structure of the educational systems.” Upon

firrther analysis the unit of beliefs on Classroom practice was subdivided into three categories:

"beliefs about learners,” "beliefs about teachers' roles" and, "beliefs about content and

assessment.” The rule was that any statement regarding beliefs about learners was placed in

that category; references or statements about teachers' roles were placed into a second

category. Each belief category was further subdivided into Specific beliefs about learners,

teachers' roles, content and assessment. (See Appendix C for a detailed listing of these

categories and subcategories of teacher beliefs).

Guba and Lincoln (1985) also recommend triangulation of data as a way to build the

credibility and validity of one's data. Triangulation involves collecting multiple sets of data by

different methods that then can be cross referenced or compared and contrasted for

corroboration. For example, in this study data regarding teachers' beliefs about learners were

collected by several methods. Teachers submitted a written statement about their beliefs,

teachers talked about their beliefs in the collaborative conversations, and embedded in the

interview about the hypothetical case studies were questions about teachers' beliefs. These

three data sources were compared to establish the consistency of their beliefs. In addition,

my own knowledge based on my daily work and collaborations with these teachers, provided

another source of data that enabled me to validate data from other sources.

5 7

I analyzed fourteen collaborative conversations multiple times. As a first step, I read

all of the conversations and recorded general themes that surfaced in each conversation. The

second step was to distill the 30-50 page conversations into a mini summary of 10-12 pages.

Each of these mini-summaries was subsequently reduced to a one-page summary of the major

themes of each conversation. This allowed me a quick reference for each of the conversations.

I then read and reread the mini-summaries to identify units of teacher knowledge, such as,

general pedagogical knowledge, subject matter knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge,

and pedagogical reasoning as defined by Wilson, Shulman, and Richert (1987). I referred to

the original transcripts of the conversation as necessary when developing units and/or

categories. The two other data sets (belief statements and videotaped interviews based on

the case Studies) were read and reread to further inform the units of teacher knowledge.

Once all of the data were unitized, I undertook the next process, categorization. For

example, the unit of data on general pedagogical knowledge was analyzed into three

categories based on the definition of pedagogical content knowledge described by Wilson,

Shulman, and Richert (1987). These three categories were: knowledge of the theories and

principles of teaching and learning, knowledge of diverSe learners, and knowledge of

principles and techniques of classroom behavior and management. Each of these categories

was analyzed and further refined. Thus, the category "knowledge of the theories and

principles of teaching and learning" was subdivided further into three subcategories: theories

about teacher as teller or facilitator, theories about directions for class assignments, and

theories about cooperative learning (see Appendix D for a complete listing of the categories

and subcategories of this data).

58

My personal knowledge of the setting enabled me to identify the environmental

resources that teachers used to support their restructuring efforts. I identified three categories

of resources: professional development time, human resources, and cultural components

fostered by the PDS partnership. Again these categories were subdivided firrther.

For

example, professional development time was firrther divided into Wednesday morning

collaboration, time for collaborative partnerships, and time for team teaching. (See Appendix

E for a complete listing of the categories and sub categories of this data).

Finally, in order to create a profile of the beliefs and knowledge of the focal teachers,

I summarized, in detail, all of their dialogue in each of the collaborative conversations. Thus,

I created a profile of Lyle's comments in each conversation so that I could readily cross

reference his individual comments in the conversations with his written belief statements and

his videotaped interview based on the two student case studies. This summary of Lyle's

contribution to each conversation allowed me to analyze his data for consistencies and

inconsistences and to look for patterns in his data. Further, these summaries allowed me to

develop a holistic picture of each focal teacher's beliefs and teacher knowledge.

In sum, by using Lincoln's and Guba's methods of data analysiS--namely, unitizing and

categorizing the collaborative conversations, their written belief statements, their videotaped

interviews based on the case studies, and their unpublished papers--I was able to make explicit

the teacher knowledge and beliefs that they developed through their restructuring efforts in

their PDS projects. In the following chapter, I begin to describe what I learned from this

analysis. Specifically I will discuss in detail the environmental resources, teacher beliefs, and

intellectual resources that contributed to these three teachers' capacity to support Students

with special needs.

Limitations of the Study

59

This study has several limitations. First, the study focuses on three teachers and the

intellectual resources and beliefs they developed overtime in support of teaching students

with special needs. Such a small sample raises questions about the generalizability, credibility,

and dependability of the findings. Second, Hart High School represents an exceptional site,

raising further questions about the generalizability of the findings. The intent of the study,

however, was less to produce generalizable results and more to learn about the teacher

knowledge, reasoning, and beliefs that are fostered by the infusion of human and fiscal

resources and by a school organization and culture designed to promote professional

development through collaboration, inquiry, and reflection.

Finally, the fact that the researcher of the study was also a colleague of the subjects

may compromise her objectivity and, therefore, the credibility of the findings. I did, however,

take several measures to moderate the bias. For example, I hired a research assistant to

collect the teachers' written belief statements and conduct the videotaped interviews based

on the student case studies (See Chapter 3). In addition, I employed a transcriber to transcribe

all of the audiotaped conversations to ensure that the transcripts were as close as possible to

the original conversations.

All decisions in any research project involve trade-offs. In this case, the loss in

objectivity was compensated for, at least somewhat, by the gain represented by my familiarity

with the context. As a participant in the reforms of Hart High, I brought to this study

extensive knowledge of the classrooms of the focal teachers, the role of the special education

teacher, the evolving culture, and the transforming organization of the school. Further, as a

participant in the collaborative conversations featured in this study, I was aware of the

6O

interactions and collaborative "knowledge construction" of the other members of the group.

Such "thick, rich" knowledge of the context seems critical to the dependability of case studies

such as this.

CHAPTER 4

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

"Strong

partnerships

will

not

happen by accident, they require

new structures, new activities, and a

rethinking of the internal workings

of each institution." (Watson and

Fullan, 1992, p.219)

Educational reformers argue that changes in teaching for more efi‘ective learning of

students at-risk and with disabilities requires major transformation in the culture of the school

(Lipsky & Gartner, 1996; Fullan, 1994; Berends, 1992). Reform efi‘orts that focus on the

environment that support these changes in a sustained way are likely to foster the moral

purpose of teaching, i.e., teachers committed to making a difi‘erence in the lives of individual

students (Fullan, 1994). The development of this purpose or belief that a teacher is

responsible to teach all students is especially critical in the development of inclusive schools

that seek to educate students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment namely,

general education settings. However, while the basic building block or the foundation of

moral purpose in a school is the individual teacher, moral purpose must go beyond making

an individual difference to making a difference in the institution (Fullan, 1994). Thus, changes

in the environment that facilitate teacher inquiry and collaboration provide teachers with the

opportunity to examine their beliefs, curriculum and methodology in relation to all students

and conjoin the moral purpose of teaching with change agency.

61

62

Educational reformers interested in creating inclusive schools by merging the teaching

resources of the general and special education systems to better meet the needs of all students

have many questions about facilitating this reform initiative. One critical question to examine

is what resources contribute to a school's capacity to serve students with special needs in

inclusive settings? This particular question is the focus of this study. It evolved out of the five-

year reform efi'ort at Hart High School, as a Professional Development School (PDS), to

restructure teaching and learning to better meet the needs of all students. Just prior to this

period, the Hart School District hired a superintendent and a special education director

committed to a district-wide initiative to include students with mild disabilities. So, a second

reform in special education was being implemented at Hart High School: i.e., the inclusion

of students with mild disabilities into general education classes. This Special education reform

was effected at Hart High School by both general and special education teachers through

experimentation in team teaching and curriculum development. Thus, the restructuring

reforms in general education fostered by the amliation with Michigan State University (MSU)

as a PDS and the Special education reform to include students with disabilities in general

education intersected at Hart High school. Together these reform efi'orts fostered a new

culture that supported both general and special education teachers to work collaboratively to

restructure teaching and learning for all students. Consequently, teachers' commitment to

making a difi‘erence in the lives of individual Students was expanded to making a difference

in the organization itself.

The collective restructuring efforts of several science, mathematics and special

education teachers during the last five years prompted the development of a PDS

Collaborative Inquiry project to examine the teacher knowledge and beliefs generated by their

63

individual PDS projects. The question of this study evolved from this collaborative inquiry

about the joint efi‘orts of these educators to rethink their curriculum and their practice to

better meet the needs of students’ at-risk and those with disabilities.

As discussed in chapter one, the next three chapters of this dissertation will tell the

story of these two reforms at Hart High School by addressing the following question:

What resources contribute to a school's capacity to serve students with special

needs in inclusive settings?

This study will argue that certain environmental and intellectual resources are

necessary to facilitate reform efforts in teaching and learning, although they are not suficient

in themselves to develop inclusive educational settings which support the needs of Students

with disabilities in the regular classroom. This chapter will argue that the establishment of

Hart High as a PDS provided the school with both human and fiscal resources that were

critical in supporting the teachers in this study to collaboratively examine their beliefs and

practice. Through this examination, they developed ways to support the needs of Students

with mild disabilities in general education classes leading to the creation of a new culture. In

addition, these resources were utilized to fund projects that supported them in efi‘orts to

restnrcture their curriculum and teaching. Although systematic data collection documenting

curriculum change was not a part of this study, my experience with these teachers in their

classroom and their writings and publications describing their curricular changes convinces

me that this was the case. Lyle and Jane wrote and presented at conferences several

unpublished papers about their restructuring efforts in science. In addition, the student case

studies from their classroom were a main focus of a chapter in the book, Curriculum Trends,

Spfiifll Education, and Refom Refocusing the Conversation, edited by Pugach and Warger

6 4

(1996). Sally and Karen, the mathematics teachers in the Collaborative Inquiry team, have

recently published through MSU an abstract entitled, “Developing a Network of Algebra

Teachers,” about their work in restructuring Algebra for all students.

Further, this chapter describes the collaboration between the math, science, and

Special education teachers in this study and argues that their conversations and the shared

understandings, knowledge, and values they produced constituted another human resource

that they used to continue the grth of their professional knowledge. While human and

fiscal resources were a positive force in school restructuring, they also simultaneously set in

motion a countervailing negative force. The chapter will also discuss the jealousies and

tensions that could develop in any institution around the infirsion of resources to foster

change. Albeit, as Sizer (1996) has reported, restructuring of this nature leads to the

development of stresses and petty jealousies within faculties.

Chapter 5 argues that the belief systems of the teachers, including the moral purpose

of their teaching, was galvanized through their collaboration and that these beliefs are the

most critical component for Special and general education teachers to develop in order to

create inclusive educational settings. The data presented will illustrate that the moral purpose

of teaching for these teachers is based on their beliefs that all children should have access to

the knowledge in all subjects and their role is to foster the learning of all students regardless

of their special needs.

Chapter 6 discusses the teacher knowledge that this group of general and special

education teachers working collaboratively developed in their individual PDS inquiry projects

and argue that these resources were critical in supporting the teaching and learning for all

students, in particular those with special needs. In sum, this study will argue that certain

65

environmental resources were critical in fostering the collaboration between general and

special education teachers that led to the development of both an educational belief system

with a moral purpose and the intellectual resources necessary to support the needs of students

with special needs in inclusive settings. Collectively these efforts worked to create a new

institution and culture with a moral ecology that promotes the teaching and learning of

students and ensures access for all students to all subject matter knowledge.

The quotation by Watson and Fullan (1992) at the beginning of this chapter claims

that dynamic relationships do not occur by happenstance. They develop with changes in

structures, new activities and a reframing of the internal operations of an institution, all of

which are promoted by the infusion of additional human and monetary resources. These

resources simultaneously sow seeds of discontent as well. The profile of Hart High School

presented in the introductory chapter characterized this school as a Professional Development

School in a dynamic relationship with Michigan State University. The focus of their joint

efforts was to change the internal operations of the school as well as the structures and

activities in the classroom toward a greater conceptual understanding for all students.

AS stated earlier, the special education reform to include students with disabilities in

general education fostered an interest in collaboration between these teachers and intersected

with the curriculum restructuring reforms for all students fostered by the PDS initiative. The

wedding of these two reform initiatives, i.e., the intersection of inclusion for special education

with curriculum restructuring in general education, is now being promoted (see Pugach and

Warger [1996], Berres, Ferguson, et al. [1996], and Lipsky and Gartner [1997]) as the means

for better addressing the needs of all students. Further, the conjoining of these reforms

fosters the development of schools with a moral ecology (Goodlad, Soder, and Sirotnik,

66

1990) devoted to developing democratic principles, providing access to knowledge, building

stronger student/teacher relationships and continuing the renewal of the institution. The

question this chapter will discuss is, What environmental resources contributed to the school's

capacity to support the needs of all Students including those with disabilities?

In exploring this question, the author parsed the data on environmental resources into

three categories: professional development time, human and cultural. These categories are

primarily to assist the reader in focusing on the dimensions of a particular environmental

resource. They need to be viewed, however, as intertwined and in a dynamic interaction with

one another. In other words, the creation of more professional development time increased

access to human resources that led to changes in the culture.

All these environmental

resources continually interacted over time to create a new institution and school culture.

TABLE 4-1 Environmental Resources

 

CATEGORY 1:. PROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENT TIME

 

1. Wednesday Morning Time for Collaboration

2. Time for Collaborative Partnerships

3. Time for Team Teaching

 

CATEGORY II: CONNECTING HUMAN RESOURCES ~

 

1.

General Education Teachers

2.

Special Education Teachers

3.

Counselors

4.

Administrators and their Leadership Role

5.

University Personnel

 

CATEGORY III: CULTURAL COMPONENTS FOSTERED BY THE-PDS ‘

~

'

 

 

 

1.

Elements of a Professional Development School

2.

Mission Statement of Hart High School

3.

Teacher Generated Decision Making Model

 

67

To what support in the form of professional development time, human, and

cultural resources do general and special education teachers have access, to address the

special needs of Hart High students’ at-risk and with mild disabilities?

CATEGORY 1: Creation and Utilization of Professional Development Time

This category describes the types of professional development time that were a critical

environmental resource in Hart High School for developing strong. partnerships between

teachers, counselors, administrators and university faculty to rethink the workings of their

institution to support all students including those with special needs. The creation of this time

- was possible largely through the fiscal resources that accompany a university/school PDS

partnership. While access to professional development time is critical in fostering

restructuring, it is not the time alone that creates the change. Rather, it is both the availability

of the time and how it is utilized. AS a PDS, Hart High had access to university faculty who

were active partners with the school in planning and implementing the agenda for this time.

The guiding principles of a PDS, discussed later in the chapter, provided the school stafl‘ and

university faculty a common intellectual fiamework for their collaborative restructuring work.

1. Wednesday Morning Collaboration

One resource that was available to both Hart High School faculty and collaborating

university faculty was a common professional development time every Wednesday morning.

Hart High School in their restructuring efforts as a Professional Development School (PDS)

redesigned their schedule in 1990 by Shortening the time between classes and starting ten

minutes earlier each day to create a three-and-a-half hour block for their project work.

6 8

Generally, the first half hour was devoted to faculty meeting time followed by two 90-minute

blocks for collaboration on department projects and for interdisciplinary projects.

The development of this time created an opportunity for teachers and administrators

to collaborate with university faculty about curriculum, pedagogy, classroom organization,

school reorganization, and teacher education. In essence, through the creation of this time,

all educators had the possibility to become a resource to one another. During the 1993-94

school year, there were 12 PDS projects developed by the Hart High School and Michigan

State University faculty. Most high school faculty were involved in at least two projects, one

in their department and one of their choice that was interdepartmental. All faculty members

had the opportunity to develop and submit a project for funding by the PDS monies.

However, the lack of availability of university personnel to afiiliate with the elective subjects

such as, business, foreign languages and fine arts left some high school faculty out of the loop.

This meant that the majority of projects funded were in the core curriculum of math, science,

English, and social studies. This inequity in firnding served to sow the seeds of discontent

regarding the PDS partnership in part of the faculty.

On some Wednesdays, the entire morning was utilized to Share progress and

publications of the PDS projects and to address issues of concern to the entire faculty such

as new scheduling Options, writing across the curriculum, and student outcomes. In addition,

time was devoted to debate these issues and reach a consensus through the decision-making

model. (This model will be discussed in detail later in the chapter.)

Obviously, the creation of a two-and-a-half hour block for collaboration each week

was a major change in the organizational structure at Hart High School. The establishment

6 9

of this block of time on a weekly basis for faculty, administrators and MSU personnel to

collaborate was a critical resource for all. In particular, it was a valuable resource for special

educators to illuminate issues regarding students with disabilities in their conversations with

general educators and promote their reform initiative to include these students in their classes.

It gave all faculty time to think about and discuss the changes in their teaching and students'

learning and how they might do it better for all students.

A critical part of the reorganization was an expectation set by the principal that the

faculty redefine how they spend time together during Wednesday morning. He took a strong

position that this time was for faculty and administrators to develop their professional

knowledge, rather than for grading papers, preparing class materials, or managing the school.

He not only set the expectation but modeled this change by becoming a firll participant himself

in several inquiry groups. This administrative leadership was another critical resource that

faculty drew on in their restructuring efforts. (This issue will be discussed more fully later in

the chapter.)

The creation of this time each Wednesday allowed faculty to collaborate both within

and between their respective departments on projects they had jointly developed with their

MSU partners. Over the years, this professional time became a critical resource for faculty

to inquire, reflect and discuss changes in their practice. The faculty used this time to compare

their experiences and discuss different ways of thinking about teaching, assessment,

curriculum and methodology in relation to all students. Finally, it was time when support for

teachers from colleagues, administrators, and MSU faculty was clearly demonstrated.

7 0

Such explicit support is arguably necessary to continue to take the risks in changing

one's practice. Featherstone, Pfeiffer and Smith (1992) report in their study of a group of

teachers releaming to teach mathematics the value of a support group that cares about the

trials and tribulations involved in creating new ways of teaching. This kind of group support

encourages teachers to ask questions and take further risks in their classrooms leading to

critical changes in practice. It is worth noting that all of the members of the Collaborative

Inquiry group (the subjects of this study) engaged in numerous projects on Wednesdays

interacting with other educators to rethink their practice, their curriculum and student learning

and assessment.

In sum, all Hart faculty had the opportunity to engage in professional development

with their colleagues and university faculty each Wednesday morning. This time created

access to one another; thereby allowing each person the possibility to act as a professional

human resource. Consequently, the weekly collaborative time was a critical environmental

component for teachers to have sustained conversations with members within their

department as well as other departments and with university colleagues about teaching,

learning, assessment, and new organizational structures to enhance the learning of all

students. It was an especially vital resource for special educators to utilize as a means to

foster sustained conversations about including Students with disabilities. Sizer (1996),

developer of the Coalition of Essential Schools, confirms that serious reform requires time

for people to think and interact about their work. Pugach and Warger (1996) and Berres,

Ferguson, et al. (1996) in their call for curriculum reform jointly developed by general and

special educators imply the necessity for professional time for teachers to collaborate.

2. Collaborative Partnerships

71

While: the. weekly university/school collaborations were important, the daily

collaborative partnerships supported by the human and fiscal resources of the PDS over five

years, were a very critical environmental component that contributed to Hart's capacity to

serve Students with special needs. These collaborative projects in the core subjects between

teachers, student interns and university faculty were critical in fostering the development of

a curriculum and pedagogy in science, mathematics, English and social studies to enhance the

learning of all students including those with special needs.

The PDS human resources were in the form of university faculty in science education

interested in fostering the national science fiameworks that emphasized science for all

Americans, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), (1988).

Similarly, the university mathematics educators were concerned about implementing the

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards (NCTM) (1989) which focused on

developing mathematical understanding for all students. Thus, university faculty were built

into these projects as collaborators/teachers to jointly develop with the Hart teachers new

ways of teaching and learning in these core subjects.

The PDS fiscal resources in the projects provided general education teachers with one

hour of reallocated time each day to develop new curriculum, new assessments, and to

collaborate and reflect on their practice with other project members. While special education

teachers were not provided with reallocated time, they utilized their planning time to

participate in these collaborations. As was mentioned earlier, the opportunity for special

educators to participate with general educators and university faculty in restructuring

72

curriculum and methods was the ideal place to foster classrooms in which students with

special needs would be supported. Pugach and Warger (1996) propose this very model of

curriculum reform as an ideal way to restructure teaching and learning for all students and

create inclusive schools. According to these authors, "By shifting the focus of collaboration

to the curriculum, the opportunity to contribute to the general improvement of schooling is

increased. Together with general education teachers, special educators can directly support

the creation of a more challenging, motivating curriculum for all students" (p. 37).

In addition to a daily planning hour, many projects periodically planned whole days

for teachers and university faculty to develop curriculums, to write about their work, and to

present their products at various conferences. Special education teachers were included in all

of these efforts. Graduate assistants were fi'equently supported by projects to collect and

analyze data. The substitute teachers needed to release teachers were paid through PDS

monies. Many projects planned time during the summer for all of the project members to

continue data analysis and curriculum development and analyze their year's work. This was

an opportune period for teachers and university faculty to spend time reflecting and planning

their firture work as both were unencumbered by teaching responsibilities and, therefore, able

to firlly focus on their projects. Funding for summer work was provided by the PDS monies.

In sum, the combination of the access to professional development time and the

sustained collaboration between school and university faculty, who were focused on

restructuring curriculum, and teaching and learning, created a more inclusive school for all

Students. Through these sustained exchanges, faculty had the opportunity to examine and

reexamine their vision and engage in continuous learning about their practice. Through these

experiences, they not only reflected on their teaching practice, they implemented changes in

7 3

their practice generated in their collaborative reflections creating an ongoing cycle of inquiry,

practice and reflection In this regard, teachers and university faculty worked to "behave their

way into new ideas, not just think their way into them" (Fullan, 1994, p.15). While the PDS

provided the fiscal resources to create some of this time, it was the nature of how the time

was spent between school and university faculty that made the difference.

3. Time for Team Teaching

In 1986 when students with disabilities were fully included in general education

classes, Special education teachers and general education teachers began developing teaching

teams in core subjects to support students with special needs in the general education

classroom. As the teaching partnerships developed, the special educators' role in the

classroom slowly evolved fiom an assistant, who modeled study Skills and worked with small

groups of students, to a planning partner and co-teacher. When Hart High became a PDS, the

team teaching partnerships between general and special education were strengthened even

more through the intensification of inquiry with the university faculty and the joint

development of PDS curriculum projects.

In addition, new teaching partnerships between Hart teachers and university faculty

developed. Team teaching involving Hart teachers and university faculty became

commonplace in both settings, i.e., university members taught lessons in high school classes

and high school faculty taught components of MSU methods courses. Special educators

participated in university methods courses as well. They shared with pre-service teachers

strategies for teaching students with Special needs in inclusive settings. Consequently, the

collaboration between the school teachers and university faculty occurred much more

74

frequently than Wednesday mornings. In some cases, it was a daily part of the teaching teams'

schedules; and in other cases, it was a series of informal conversations over the lunch period

and after school. MSU student interns participated in these conversations and in the

implementation of curriculum units designed collaboratively.

The nature of these team teaching/collaborative relationships between public school

and university faculty is best described by the Hart High School Global Studies Team in the

Cunigulum Handwok they published. They wrote the following about their three-year group

experience, "It's not university-based norms; it's not school-based norms; it's our group's own

set of norms about what we're doing and why we're doing it" (Little, et a1, 1995, p.26). As

a member of this group, I experienced the lines between public school and university faculty

as seamless. The group developed an identity of its own. Similar partnerships evolved in the

math, science and English projects. These team teaching arrangements in the PDS projects,

which included special educators, helped foster a set of beliefs, a restructured curriculum and

methods to support the needs of all students.

However, even though team teaching was an ideal opportunity to foster inclusive

classrooms to support Students with special needs, the commitment to team teach with

general education teachers created tremendous stress on special education teachers given the

complexity of their role. Their role in a secondary school has expanded greatly in the past five

years as more and more students with varying disabilities with difi‘ering degrees of severity

were included in the regular classroom. The expansion of their role as a team teacher and

collaborator without the addition of human resources was a real barrier to participating in

restructuring efforts such as the PDS.

'7 5

As a special educator at Hart High and an active member in PDS projects, I wrote an

unpublished paper about the tensions and dilemmas of a Special education teacher in a PDS.

All of the special educators at Hart High operated as both a team teacher and a consultant.

While team teaching afi‘orded a great deal of support to some general education teachers and

some students with disabilities, it offered a minimum of support to others. Herein lay one of

the tensions. Thoughtful participation as a member of a teaching team meant daily interaction

with a teaching partner and the class, as well as several hours of planning each week.

However, only 4 or 5 students with disabilities were enrolled in the team taught class.

Although, the at-risk students scheduled in the class were the beneficiaries of the additional

support provided by the Special educatOr as well. Consequently, the special education teacher

Spent one hour daily and several hours of planning supporting only one fifth of the 25 students

on his/her caseload. Ifthe special education teacher diminished the amount of time Spent in

the teamed class to consult with other general educators instructing the other 20 students on

caseload, then he/she became a part time member of the teaching team. This meant that he/she

played a lesser role in thinking about the curriculum and methodologies in the teamed class.

So the special education teacher was constantly playing "catch-up" on what was taught and

how students were progressing in the teamed class or how the other students on caseload

contacted on a more limited basis were progressing in their classes.

Thus, special education teachers constantly navigated between the positive feelings

of team teaching and involvement in PDS projects and the gnawing feeling of limited contact

with the other students on caseload and their general education teachers and the possible

negative effects of this choice. The special educator had to weigh the short term benefits of

addressing the needs of 25 students with the possible long term benefits of investing time in

7 6

the development of new curriculum and pedagogy in general education that supported the

needs of students at-risk and those with disabilities.

These tensions were exacerbated firrther by the divisiveness they spawned between

the members of a special education department. If a special education teacher chose to invest

more time in the PDS restructuring projects, some special education colleagues viewed this

as neglectfirl of the 25 students on caseload. If one chose to be involved in the PDS projects

on a very limited basis, then general educators and administrators perceived the special

educator as marginally interested in restructuring or resistant to change.

Some of this tension was eventually alleviated by fiscal resources provided by the PDS

for one hour of reallocated time for one semester for each of the special education teachers

to collaborate with general education teachers on curriculum development. However, this

support was not forthcoming until the fourth and fifth year of the PDS partnership for two

reasons.

First, it was difficult to find a certified Special education teacher to work one hour a

day, and second, the PDS initiatives were primarily focused on restructuring the core subjects

and therefore the majority of resources were used to support subject matter teachers.

The addition of any new policies and/or programs only serves to broaden the

dimensions and complexity of the special education teacher's role and responsibilities.

Little

wonder that the burnout rate for special educators is high, and the average tenure of teachers

in this position nationally is three years.

In general, all teachers feel deluged with the

continual "add-on-itis" of educational policies. Given these circumstances, the ability of

teachers in both general and special education to sustain lasting reform efi'orts becomes next

77

to impossible.

CATEGORY II: Connecting Human Resources

As stated in the last section, the establishment of Wednesday morning time and the

infirsion of fiscal resources to provide for daily collaboration and planning for team teaching

allowed general and special education teachers, counselors, administrators and university

faculty to become accessible human resources for each other. In the following section, I

describe the importance of fostering this accessibility and how it led to the development of

a new school culture and institution that supported the needs of all students including those

with disabilities.

1. General Education Teachers

There were 50 general education teachers on the faculty during the 1993 -94 school

year. As Stated in the last section, the establishment of a weekly professional development

time allowed teachers, administrators, and university faculty to serve as resources to one

another. During the first block of time on Wednesday mornings, teachers met within their

departments to discuss their curriculum, methodology and assessment. In the core academic

subjects university faculty and special education teachers were consistent members of these

department discussion groups, while administrators often rotated between different

department meetings. One consistent theme in the weekly department discussions was

supporting the needs of all Students by developing curriculum, teaching methods, and

assessments sensitive to their learning. Often they discussed various students that were not

being successful in their class with their colleagues seeking their input and suggestions. In

7 8

these conversations, special education teachers were a valuable resource in assisting teachers

to think about ways of accommodating students with reading and writing difficulties.

Frequently they volunteered to visit their class to observe a student or group and make firrther

suggestions and/or to teach a particular skill to their whole class or a small group.

The second block of time on Wednesday often focused on issues such as tracking,

methodologies like cooperative learning, or organizational structureslike block scheduling.

These discussions were interdepartmental and usually included one or more university faculty

and interns, as well as an administrator.

These conversations gave faculty members

opportunities to discuss topical issues and share their teaching philosophies and beliefs.

Frequently teachers would bring case studies from their classrooms with particular questions

about teaching a concept, difiiculties with cooperative learning or alternative assessments as

a focus for the group conversations. Again group members would volunteer to come in and

observe and offer additional insights or co-teach a lesson. These collaborative teaching

Situations that evolved naturally through teacher discussions on Wednesday served to develop

greater trust and respect for teachers' craft knowledge, thereby breaking down the barriers

that often exist both within and between departments in high schools.

The Collaborative Inquiry project was one such group that evolved out of a mutual

interest to discuss what a small group of teachers had come to know about supporting

students with Special needs in inclusive classrooms. Through years of collaboration during

Wednesday mornings and team teaching, the members of this group had developed a sense

of trust and readily used each other as resources to discuss dilemmas in their practice. In the

Collaborative Inquiry discussions, they brought their individual resources, i.e., their

7 9

knowledge, skills, and dispositions, that they developed over time through their PDS projects

that collectively created a group resource for them to discuss, revise, and refine their beliefs,

their curriculum and their methodologies. It is through this interactive process that changes

in practice evolve and what Fullan (1994) means in describing change as a process, not an

event.

In the analysis of the collaborative conversations of this group numerous examples

emerged which illustrate how the group itself became a resource for the members to discuss

the dilemmas of their practice. One dilemma that was a recurring theme in several of the

conversations was the membership of the cooperative learning groups. Lyle, the veteran

science teacher, in one of the first group conversations was Struggling with his beliefs about

heterogeneous groups and the impact of dysfunctional Students in some groups.

Lyle:

I‘ve been a strong proponent of heterogeneous cooperative groups for

a long time. I am at the point where I am going to start pulling people

out of groups and saying you're gonna start group seven and you're

gonna have some buddies here in a minute. Because these people I'm

pulling out are detrimental to their groups. I've given them eleven

weeks to come around and they're Still detrimental. They absolutely

take the group backwards and the other members are writing to me in

their journals saying get me the hell out of here I can't learn anything.

Peg:

So you're gonna put all the detrimental kids together?

Lyle:

See, I don't want that to happen, but I also, I've got some really good

kids that ought to be going like crazy and they're being held back and

that's not right (Coll, 11/15/93, p.2-3).

At this point I share with Lyle a " dud group" strategy that other teaching teams have

used. They place the few students who are disengaged and nonproductive (usually these

8 0

students are at-risk and often have disabilities) in one group and sometimes a leader emerges

and they start to take off or they stay "duds."

Lyle:

Out of those a leader emerges and away they go. And it depends on

whether they want to sink or swim at that point and I've never done

that before and I swear that I'm gonna experiment with it. I'm ready

to do that.

Karen: The dud group thing works with sophomores pretty well, in my

experience. But junior kids see right through it and they would just as

soon screw off because they know if they screw off in another group

they're gonna get a bad grade anyway. And everyone in the room

knows why they are all in the same group. It's just another excuse for

them to fail.

Lyle:

So what do you do? What do you suggest you do with that group?

Leave them heterogeneous?

Karen: I don't know because I feel very strongly against, always giving kids

who have high ability the responsibility for making sure that

everybody gets done what they're supposed to be doing (Coll,

11/15/93, p.4).

While the group did not resolve Lyle's dilemma for him, it did provide him with a

resource to discuss his concerns and to hear how others were thinking and dealing with the

dilemma of students in cooperative groups who limit the productivity of their group. He

continued to use the collaborative group as a resource for thinking about this issue as he

revisited this tOpic in the next collaboration.

Lyle:

Remember I talked last time about considering putting them to work

in groups. The kids that just absolutely wouldn't do it, put them in

groups. I wanted to report on that because I've done that now for a

couple of weeks. They've made two presentations in front of the class

and in every case they made very good presentations considering what

they would have done if they were the low man on the totem pole in

another group. These so called dud groups, I've put the challenge up

to them. I said, OK, you people have told me that you have been

working in these groups and yet your group members say you are not.

81

My observations are that you are not. You guy now, let's see you

produce. And they got up, they had posters, they made good

: presentations, they learned something. The only thing that bothered

me was their quiz grades still didn't come up. But that means we have

to look at alternative assessments, that's really not the issue. I think

they learned a whole lot more.

Jane:

But you know one of the things we found out in our study, Lyle, was

just all that social stuff that's going on for those kids and I think it's

scary for them to be working with other kids who they think are

smarter and that never say "hi" to them in the hall and "now you (the

teacher) want me (a dud) to work with them. "

Ann:

Well, doesn't that say something about the questions we still have

about this strategy. Because it's my understanding that you know,

we're all into heterogeneous groups and all the pluses, but sometimes

the research doesn't really say for sure that's the best thing to do. We

need more research.

Lyle:

That's right. But having seen it both ways, and it's too soon to talk

about it, I think that heterogeneous classes are the way to go, but

maybe not heterogeneous cooperative learning groups necessarily.

You've got to match up more than just ability, you've got to match up

personalities and leadership qualities, attitudes and values. I mean it's

really complicated in how to pick groups. When I first talked about

cooperative learning groups a couple of years ago in a project the

university member of our group definitely said that they had to be

heterogeneous and kids had to have assigned roles and very structured

and I mean that just blew these kids away. It was just not how they

were going to learn.

Holly: I agree, I don't like it that way (i.e., very structured roles for group

members) either. (C01,. 11/29/93, p. 14-15).

In this exchange Lyle revisited his dilemma about cooperative learning with the group

and shared how his plan to try a dud group with these Students had worked. While in this

instance he served as the catalyst for this topic, clearly all of the group members used the

group as a resource for thinking about this issue. This issue resurfaced in the session on

3/21/94 in which the group viewed Lyle's videotape of the case studies of Jessica and Scott.

82

After viewing his tape, Sally queried Lyle about his ambivalence about whether he believed

that placing Jessica, an LD student, in a heterogenous group was a good plan.

Lyle:

I'm up and down about how to do my cooperative learning groups.

I've tried three difi‘erent ways in tenns of grouping them and assigning

roles and I'm not totally convinced that you ought to assign roles. I

also think I have more success with them if I don't group them, if I let

them group themselves.

Sally: One of the concerns I have about not grouping them he'terogeneously

is that you have the tracks they would be in anyway reconfigured in

your classroom. Ifyou've got heterogeneous classrooms, but then you

let them work with whoever you want to, then you've got the LD kids

all working in one group and the Honor Society kids working in

another group.

And so they're right back to tracking in the

cooperative learning situation (Coll, 3/21/94, p.2)

Lyle "totally agrees with her that is what happens." He went on to tell her about the

dilemma he had with the students in his dud group and how when he grouped them together

they became productive.

(Sally was absent in the sessions in which Lyle shared his

fiustrations on this issue with the other group members.) Lyle admitted, "You're right; it was

tracked big time, but they had more success than they would have the other way. "

Sally: One thing that I do that seems to work better is I construct their

groups, but I tell them that in this project there are some roles that I

can see and as soon as they get together they should decide who is

going to take which role.

One of the ways that I understand

cooperative learning is that it doesn't make sense unless the project

takes a variety of skills. And so if you have projects that incorporate

a variety of skills where they can actually do that and group students

for that purpose then that would maximize them being able to learn in

a less threatening atmosphere because they're not being held

accountable for each spelling error, because someone else could help

the with that. And at the same time they're seeing it modeled. So

when I think about people doing math, or doing science or anything,

it seems like there's a secretary, and there's the leader and there's an

assistant and there's all these different people with a variety of skills

and perspectives working together.

‘

83

I just had this thought about cooperative learning groups. There's

more than one way to do them. And it seems that maybe for different

subject matters, things are different. It also may be that some variety

where sometimes they get to pick a group and sometimes they get

assigned a group. It might be that in one class the assigned groups

work well and in another class you get a different mix and that doesn't

seem to work. I think the fact that you're kind of experimenting and

trying different things is important and that's what you really need to

do.

Lyle:

The mix of students in a group is so important. So it makes it difi‘erent

every time you start it over.

Peg:

So you can't really develop a hard and fast rule about how you're

gonna do it?

Lyle:

NO. I've read Cohen and I've worked with Tom Bird on this in our

cooperative learning inquiry group. I've gone the gambit. And I still

lose Sleep over it, 'cause I feel guilty about letting them do it the way

they are. Just because it isn't cooperative learning. So I've got to

decide.

But isn't good teaching putting your own ways together? Taking all

that you know, like for example, I do a lot of therapy, and I never

follow so and 30's therapy. I probably have 20, 30, 40, or 50 in my

head and I mix them all together and come up with my theory.

Lyle:

See I was feeling pretty good about this group of duds until Sally said

something very important and that was it isn't really a heterogeneous

classroom, if I‘m allowing them to homogeneously group themselves.

I mean, so I've gotten them all within the same four walls but they're

still back to the same old same old; the special ed kids in a group and

the honors kids in a group.

Peg:

But maybe within the semester it's a series of experiences, like Ann is

saying.

Sometimes homogeneous; sometimes heterogeneous.

Sometimes you construct the group and sometimes they do. It's a

blend of these.

Lyle:

Yeah, I know it is.

84

Sally:

It works better to a greater or lesser extent with different classes

(Coll, 3/21/94, p. 15-16).

At the end of this conversation spurred by Sally's questions, Lyle revisited his

dilemmas over the use of heterogeneous grouping. On the one hand, he wanted to include

all types of kids in a group. On the other hand, he wanted to facilitate the learning of all

students. The conflict arose when a few students were impeding their groups because of their

individual issues about learning. At times the moral purposes of teaching collide. Lampert

(1985) described Lyle's dilemma as a choice between equally undesirable alternatives and

suggests that educational research and theories are limited in their capacity to assist teachers

in solving particular problems. Further, she suggested that teachers have many contradictory

aims in their work and resolutions are rarely simple.

There are several major points in this example. Based on Lampert's observations that

teachers face many contradictory goals in their daily practice, it follows that having the

intellectual resources of other colleagues accessible in the school is critical. Also, the addition

of students with disabilities to general education expands the range of heterogeneity and

intensifies the complexity of teaching even more.

Thus, there is tremendous value in

connecting the human resources of general and special educators in a school environment to

discuss and deliberate the issues inherent in creating inclusive classrooms.

Second, these passages illustrated the necessity of a school environment to facilitate

and support this type of collaboration in order to create a school that will support the needs

of all students. Without this group resource in the environment, it would be much easier for

teachers to say, "I have tried cooperative learning and it doesn't work for all kids," or "I've

tried including kids with disabilities in my class and it doesn't work; some kids can't learn in

85

a regular class." However, with the accessibility of these teacher collaborative groups in a

school environment, all educators have a resource to Share their dilemmas and discuss them.

Further, they can draw on the intellectual resource and the emotional support of others who

are experiencing these same tensions in their own classes to help resolve some of these

dilemmas. Each of the group members ofi‘ered difierent ways of thinking about this issue and

possible ways for him to ameliorate his conflict, while maintaining his beliefs.

This

collaborative group has achieved the essence of Hargreaves (1994) description of a

collaborative culture.

Collaborative cultures can extend into joint work mutual observation, and

focused reflective inquiry in ways that extend practice critically, searching for

better alternatives in the continuous quest for improvement. In these cases

collaborative cultures are not cozy, complacent and politically quiescent.

Rather they can build collective strength and confidence in communities of

teachers who are able to interact knowledgeably and assertively with the

bearers of innovations and reform.

Finally, in order to create and sustain this type of culture, it is clear that collaborative

groups need to be ongoing throughout the year. This group met every other week for an

hour and a half after school and in other groups large and small throughout the last five years.

Note that Lyle's dilemma with the "duds" was ongoing from November through April, his

thinking about how to resolve this issue shifted. He used this group as an intellectual

resource to assist him in thinking about the tension that arose between his beliefs. Lyle's

experiences depicted in the above passages, gives substantive meaning to Fullan's (1991)

comments about the change process, "Real change represents a serious personal and

collective experience characterized by ambivalence and uncertainty" (p.32).

8 6

Thus, the excerpts from the collaboration between general and special educators

evidence how creating a collaborative school environment and using the human resources to

support these interactions, educational professionals can work toward creating an

environment that supports the needs of all students. Without opportunities for sustained

collaboration between general and Special education teachers the inclusion of students with

disabilities in general education could be a return to a learning environment in which they have

had limited success.

2. Special Education Teachers/Consultants

The very nature of the special education teachers role in a school is to act as a

resource to teachers and students. Hence, one name for a special education service is a

"resource room." While the special education teacher is a critical component of a

collaborative partnership in a school developing an inclusive culture, it is an involvement that

exacts a high price given the multi-dirnensionality of their role. Following is a brief description

of the nature of the special educator's role in a secondary school to assist the reader in

understanding the complexity of their role and the additional burden that restructuring

initiatives create.

Hart High School had four full-time special education teachers/consultants to assist

faculty in addressing the needs of 83 students with disabilities during the 1993 -94 school year.

The students certified in special education include several categories of disabilities: learning

disabled (largest percentage), emotionally impaired, mildly mentally impaired, hearing

impaired, physically impaired, health impaired (includes attention deficit/hyperactive disorder,

AD/HD), autistic, and speech and language impaired. Within each of these disability areas

87

there is also a range of mild to severe in terms of the degree of disability.

This list illustrates

the number of disabilities that the special education teachers must be familiar with in order to

successfully plan a program for each student. Frequently they confer with consultants for low

incidence populations, such as visually and hearing impaired, concerning their educational

program.

One major responsibility of the special education teacher. is the development,

implementation and coordination of up to 25 students' programs, called their caseload. In an

inclusive school, the Special education teacher plans students' programs in collaboration with

general education teachers. Thus, they need to consult frequently with the Students' general

education teachers about their academic progress, the nature of their disability, and the

accommodations legally prescribed in their Individual Education Plan (IEP) to be successful

in school. Usually, the IEP stipulates weekly consultation of 15-30 minutes with either the

student or their teachers. In Michigan special education teachers can be assigned 25 students.

High School students commonly have six teachers. The demand on the Special education

teacher's time to consult with nearly 150 teachers is enormous. In addition, they serve as a

resource to administrators, counselors and general education teachers when major issues and

concerns arise with students with disabilities or high risk students suspected of having a

disability.

Another responsibility for the special educator is compliance with the rules and

regulations of the federal and state mandates for special education students. The statutes

require an annual review of every special education Student's Individual Education Plan. This

involves arranging an Individual Educational Planning Committee (IEPC) meeting with the

8 8

student, parent, general education teacher and any other support services that are a part of

the student's program (social work, speech/language, etc.) While the law requires an annual

meeting, if a student needs a change in program, an IEPC must be held to discuss the changes

and then document them in writing.

Every three years, the law requires a complete reevaluation of the student's disability

areas to redetermine their eligibility for special education services. The special education

teacher is responsible for some of the academic assessment and a classroom observation. All

of the members of the evaluation team (school psychologist, special education teacher, social

worker etc.) meet to review their findings and discuss their recommendations for the student's

program. Then the special education teacher arranges a time and place for the IEPC with the

student, parents, and classroom teacher.

In addition to the annual review and the reevaluation of students receiving special

education services, the special education teacher plays a major role in the assessment of

students referred for an evaluation to determine their eligibility for special education services.

The referral process for students suspected of having a disability is quite similar to the

reevaluation process. All of the arrangements for annual reviews, reevaluations, new referrals

and the documentation of these meetings are made by the special education teacher at Hart

High School without the benefit of secretarial support. Annual monitoring of the

implementation of these procedures is a part of the state guidelines and a school district's

Special education fimding is linked to firll compliance with these procedures. Thus, in Hart

Schools compliance with these procedures is taken very seriously. The last paragraphs have

detailed how the very nature of the special educator's role is acting as a resource to teachers,

8 9

counselors, administrators, students, and parents in the development of educational programs

for the success of students with disabilities. The question is how did the greater access to

school and university personnel on Wednesday morning enhance their role as a human

resource further? The district initiative to include students with disabilities in general

education settings, rather than segregating them in special education classes, changed the role

of the Special educator fi‘om classroom teacher to collaborator with general educators. While

this greatly added to the complexity of their role, the intent of this collaborative relationship

was to jointly develop curriculums and methods to accommodate students with disabilities in

their classrooms.

Hart High's partnership with MSU as a PDS and the creation of a block of time each

Wednesday provided special educators with a natural opportunity to firrther collaborate with

general educators and university faculty in redesigning teaching and learning for all students

including those with disabilities. Hence, the two special education teachers in this project

viewed the PDS projects as ideal opportunities to further implement the special education

reform to develop a more inclusive school, Strengthen team teaching with general educators

and further restructure curriculum, methodology, and alternative assessments.

However, as discussed earlier, given the complexity of their role this participation

caused another set of tensions for the special education teacher: balancing the demands of

their role with the additional responsibilities of a teaching partnership. Also, their commitment

to restnrcturing created a fracture within their department. Often the other two members of

their department felt that their commitment to work so intensely with general education

teachers resulted in them underserving the students on their caseload. Further, given that the

9 0

PDS provided a trickle of resources over five years to SUpport special educators efforts in

curriculum restnrcturing, these same members felt that the cost/benefit ratio was negligible.

Consequently, Peg's and Jane's commitment to the PDS initiatives were viewed as a need for

personal, professional gain, rather than a desire to address the Special needs of students. By

making the commitment to support the restructuring efforts of general education teachers,

Jane and Peg experienced the same internal contradictions about their practice and the needs

of their students as Lyle describes about his classroom practice in the previous section.

In sum, the special education teacher's role is one of consultant, collaborator, team

teacher, irnplementer, and interpreter of the rules and regulations governing special education

services. Thus, by design special education teachers are a major environmental resource to

teachers, administrators and counselors. In Spite of the tensions created, they are a critical

resource in collaborating with other faculty to facilitate their thinking about the special needs

of students with disabilities as they jointly develop inclusive programs. In like manner, the

general education teachers, administrators and counselors serve as human resources to special

education teachers in their efforts to develop programs that foster success in regular

classrooms. The ability of all professionals to become human resources to one another was

possible through the creation of weekly professional development time. The collective group

effort that ensued to restructure teaching and learning to support students with special needs

is a key environmental resource for all professionals in creating an inclusive school.

3. Counselors

Following is a brief description of the role of the high school counselor and how it is

enhanced through participation in collaborative groups.

In 1993-94 Hart High School

9 1

employed three firll time counselors and one part-time counselor through a PDS project. The

primary responsibility of each of the high school counselors is to schedule over 300 students

for their classes and oversee their high school program. A second responsibility is assisting

Students in identifying colleges, securing financial aid, and writing letters of recommendation.

In addition, the counselors spend some time with teachers and students helping to resolve

behavioral issues that interfere with the classroom climate and student learning.

On some occasions, they schedule a meeting (called a "staffing") with a student and

their parent/s and all of the students' teachers to address issues and concerns that impact a

student's performance throughout the school day. While the counselors spent some of their

time addressing the needs of individual Students with teachers before Hart became a PDS, this

afiiliation offered the counseling department additional personnel support from MSU fi'eeing

up additional time to work with teachers. This extra time was spent discussing the needs of

particular students and collaborating with various projects groups in their restructuring

efforts. Providing counselors with some time to engage with teachers in the process of

redesigning cuniculum and assessment helped them gain a broader perspective of the

Struggles that both teachers and students experience in making changes in teaching and

learning. This collaborative experience enhanced their ability to counsel students struggling

to be successful in school and to describe to parents the intent of these restructuring efforts.

In this regard, they were a supportive resource to both students and faculty in the school's

efforts to redesign the curriculum and instruction at Hart High.

Frequently, counselors attend the Individual Educational Planning Committee (IEPC)

meetings to discuss Special education students, giving their input regarding the student's

92

program and progress toward high school graduation. Thus, the counselors are a resource

for faculty, students, and their parents to assist in addressing the issues and concerns that

impact a student's success in school and their fixture. Given their involvement in the

restnrcturing projects, they were very aware of the faculty's efforts to support students with

special needs in general education. Thus, they could offer an additional perspective to parents

on how students with disabilities would be accommodated by general education teachers in

terms of curriculum and assessment.

Lyle, Holly, Jane and the other members of the collaborative group viewed the

counselors as human resources available to assist them in their efforts to better include

students’ at-risk and with disabilities. They often worked with the counselors to schedule a

staffing for students in their class that were having a great deal of academic and/or behavioral

difficulty. They mentioned frequently in their collaborative conversations that a team effort

is necessary to address the academic and behavioral issues of many students. The staffing

often included both the counselor and the school social worker, whose primary responsibility

is serving the needs of students with disabilities.

In sum, both general and special education teachers had access to counselors to assist

them in addressing the particular academic and behavioral needs of individual students. When

necessary, counselors would arrange Staffings with teachers, students and parents to jointly

address concerns. Counselors often attended IEPC meetings on Students with disabilities.

The expansion of counseling support firnded by the PDS increased the counselor’s availability

to engage with teachers about individual student issues and to participate in restructuring

projects. The increased frequency of collaboration between counselors and teachers was an

93

important human resource in helping both groups of professionals to continually address the

learning of students with Special academic and emotional needs as they redesigned their

curriculum and assessment methods through their PDS projects

4. Administrators and Their Leadership Role

Administrators were another human resource available to all stafi‘ at Hart High School,

not only as the managers of the school, but as educational leaders. Throughout the history

of Hart High School, two administrators, a principal and an assistant principal, were

responsible for the operations of the school. The principal was responsible for overseeing the

curriculum of the school, evaluating teachers and the overall operation of the school,

including the budget. The assistant principal was responsible for the enforcement of the

attendance and discipline policies of the school district.

In 1988 with the establishment of Hart High School as a PDS, the role of the principal

began to change from manager to educational leader. In an interview with Ted Downs, Hart

High Principal, he reported that this role change was fostered by his participation in an

administrative inquiry course at Michigan State University focusing on the principal as an

educational leader. He explained that during this three-semester seminar, administrators from

local school districts met weekly with an MSU professor interested in developing a process

for principals to examine their leadership style through case studies. According to Ted, a

second purpose of the course was to identify linkages between theory and research in school

administration with the "craft knowledge" of practitioners. He reported that these seminars

impacted his thinking about educational leadership, as did his weekly participation in the PDS

projects with teachers and university faculty. According to Ted, "The seminars helped me

94

understand the complexity of leadership in that sometimes an identical decision may work well

in one instance, but not work well in the next instance, though it appears that all of the main

variables are the same. Subtle variables can change the organizational or the individual's

reaction." Thus, his role as the principal expanded. He was not only responsible for the daily

Operation of the school, but for coordinating and supporting the development of the PDS

projects and facilitating the partnership between the school and university.

The principal played a critical role in supporting the faculty in their efforts to

reorganize the school and change the nature of teaching and learning at Hart High School.

He set the expectation that everyone participate in professional development and personally

encouraged reluctant faculty to become involved and to Share their ideas.

The role of the principal as both school manager and educational leader became

unmanageably large. Consequently, a third administrative position was developed in 1990,

that of a Staff development coordinator, which was partially firnded with PDS monies. This

administrator served as Hart High School's liaison with the MSU Site-coordinator and was

responsible for overseeing the work of the PDS projects and expenditures. The major

responsibility of this administrator was to support the efforts of university and school faculty

to change teaching and learning at Hart High School for all students. With two administrators

focusing on the recreating of Hart High School as a new educational institution and fostering

an expectation of commitment to changing teaching and learning, inquiry into practice soon

became an established norm supported by the majority of teachers.

By setting this expectation for restructuring and supporting the teachers taking the

risks to change teaching and learning, the principal and assistant principal became one of the

9 5

most important human resources for the teachers in this project. The support of the

administrators, as instructional leaders, is a necessary component for teachers to sustain the

effort to examine their practice together and restructure their teaching and students' learning.

How did administrators support faculty in these efforts? The administrators provided

support in many ways. For example, the principal worked with the Board of Education and

the community to garner their support in changing the high school schedule to create a block

of time for professional development each Wednesday morning.

Both the Board and

community were informed annually of the PDS projects and their outcomes. Students and

parents were surveyed each year about the impact of the schedule change and the results were

made public. Over the years, Sizeable majorities of both students and teachers have reported

a positive impact of this change.

Administrators were available to discuss innovations in practice and classroom

Structures with teachers, parents and students. They participated in staff development by

attending the PDS project meetings during collaborative time. Their participation served a

dual purpose: supporting faculty in their restructuring efforts and informing them of the

substantive nature of the teachers' work. This knowledge was immeasurably important in

responding to parents' questions and concerns about the changes in teaching and learning

taking place in the classrooms at Hart High School. For example, when parents called the

principal concerned about their students' frustration that teachers did not answer their

questions directly, but instead responded with a series of additional questions for the class to

consider, the principal was prepared to respond to the rationale behind the constructivist

method of teaching and learning and support the teachers' effOrtS. In like manner, when

parents called with questions about the inclusion of students with disabilities or special

96

education teachers team teaching in general education classes the principal could answer their

questions with evidence that the teachers in this school were committed to developing

teaching and learning in all subjects for all students' success. This type of administrative

support was a critical environmental and human resource for both general and special

education teachers to rely on in their struggles to develop new teaching practices. Further,

administrators encouraged and facilitated teachers and MSU faculty to write about their

restructuring efforts and to present at state and national conferences.

They supported visitations by other teachers and administrators from the state and

region. Wednesday mornings often included 10 to 15 visitors each week, who sat in on the

project meetings.

Visitors were asked by the administrators to be observers of the

collaboration, rather than participants. By defining the role of visitors in this way, the

administrators protected project members‘ collaborative time from the intrusion of questions

by the weekly visitors. A debriefing session was held by the administrators and a variety of

teachers involved in the PDS projects at the end of the collaboration time for the visitors to

ask questions about their observations and share their perceptions of the projects. The weekly

visitations from other schools validated the importance and significance of the restructuring

efforts of Hart's faculty. Furthermore, the follow-up debriefing sessions with the visitors not

only were informative for the visitors but served as public acknowledgment of Hart's teachers

efforts at restructuring by the school administrators.

Administrative support for the development of new curriculum and teaching methods

was an important human resource as this type of work intensified the uncertainty for teachers

concerning the success of their daily practice a (Floden and Clark 1987). Lamb and Bethell

97

(1992) discussed this issue in a paper presented at a national conference. They indicated that

in order for teachers to take the necessary risks involved in changing their teaching, "the

environment of the school must be both desirous and supportive of change, and the norm of

the school should be one of inquiry and reflection about the nature of teaching and learning

and issues of equity and excellence" (p.11). Within a collaborative environment committed

to change, teacher experimenters can be supported by their colleagues who are engaging in

these same or Similar endeavors. As discussed in the previous section, collaborative groups

are valuable environmental and intellectual resources for teachers to draw on to sustain their

efforts at innovation. Efforts to change teaching and learning are not impossible in more

traditional environments. However, as the level of fiustration and uncertainty escalates during

this process, teachers' feelings of isolation and vulnerability are intensified (Lamb and Bethell,

1992). According to (Powell, Farrar, and Cohen 1985), historically, efforts at change without

support have lead to the dissolution and abandonment of reforms. Thus, the administrators

were a very important resource in supporting all faculties’ efforts to develop an inclusive

school responsive to students’ needs.

5. University Personnel

The PDS partnership with MSU provided educators at Hart High with other

significant human resources: university faculty, graduate students and preservice interns. The

addition of these human resources to Hart High School's Wednesday collaborative time was

an important source of both questions and new ways of thinking about teaching, learning,

assessment, subject matter and organizational structures from outsiders' perspectives. They

provided access through conversation and publications to the latest research in all of these

98

areas. They were a source for inquiry and reflection in both the development and

implementation of PDS projects. The preservice interns contributed enthusiasm, energy,

curiosity and their own thoughts about teaching that often inspired the veteran educators.

Their presence in the classroom provided teachers with additional support in facilitating

learning and frequently additional time to collaborate with other colleagues when they

assumed the primary responsibility for teaching. Unfortunately, Hart High School never had

access to a university faculty member from the department of special education. The special

education department at MSU consisted of only six faculty members that severely limited their

participation in the College of Education's PDS initiative.

In sum, the teachers, counselors, administrators, and university staff at Hart High

School jointly developed a culture of collaboration and consultation in which all members

were viewed as valuable human resources in the restructuring of teaching and learning for all

students and the creation of a new institution. The administrators, reinforced by the

partnership, set an expectation that the professional development time on Wednesday morning

would be time for the development of professional knowledge. The majority of the faculty

supported this emphasis and enforced it through peer pressure by personally encouraging

those who found it difficult to participate. Further, the administrators participated firlly by

collaborating with school and university faculty on their PDS projects and Sharing and

supporting their efforts with the Board and community, thereby becoming human resources

as well. Through the efforts of all these human resources working collaboratively, a school

climate of inquiry and reflection about teaching all students became established norms at Hart

High School. This collective effort was a critical environmental resource supported by both

9 9

human and fiscal resources provided by the PDS partnership that all faculty could utilize to

better address the needs of all students.

CATEGORY III: Cultural Components Fostered by the PDS Partnership

Both the partnership with MSU and the creation of a block of professional

development time fostered a collaboration among all of the professional resources at Hart

High that led to the development of new cultural components with the school.

1. Elements of a Professional Development School

AS detailed above Hart High School became a Professional Development School

(PDS) in 1988 after several meetings between university and high school faculty and

administrators. Two questions arise regarding this affiliation: What is a Professional

Development School and what impact did it have on the culture of Hart High School to

become more responsive to students with special needs?

Professional Development Schools evolved out of the efforts of nearly 100 American

research universities committed to "making our programs of teacher preparation more

rigorous and connected--to liberal arts education, to research on learning and teaching, and

to wise practice in the schools" (Preface, p.1, Holmes Group, 1990). The intent of this

initiative was to create collaborative partnerships between university faculty and public school

teachers and administrators to develop a school culture committed to the development of

novice teachers, the continued development of experienced teachers and for the research and

development of teaching. Six organizing principles form the backbone of a PDS:

1. Teaching and learning for understanding,

2. Creating a learning community,

3. Teaching and learning for all students,

100

4. Life-long learning by teachers, administrators, and teacher educators,

5. Thoughtful inquiry into teaching and learning, and

6. Inventing a new institution.

In a report of the 1995 Review of PDSS affiliated with Michigan State University

prepared by Judge, Carriedo, and Johnson, 1995, this movement is characterized as a creation

of the school reforms of the late 19803. According to the authors of this report, the PDS is

to be a partnership between the university and public schools. AS implemented by Michigan

State University, the PDS had a strong emphasis on renewal for both the schools and the

university, the development of good teaching practice and research on K-12 learning, teacher

preparation, and school organization and leadership. In addition to these three areas, two

other components were strongly emphasized at Hart High School: teaching and learning for

all and creating a community of learners. In fact, the PDS principle of teaching and learning

for all students was the principle that connected the special education reform to include

students with disabilities in general education to the PDS initiative. This principle legitimized

Hart High Special educators' perspective on the importance of thinking about students with

disabilities in the restructuring of teaching and learning in the general education reform.

Further, the emphasis on creating a leaming community for all, thoughtfiil inquiry on teaching

and learning and life-long learning linked to inventing a new institution promoted teachers as

change agents in developing a moral ecology in their school committed to supporting the

needs of all students.

Based on the data presented in the previous sections, the creation of this collaborative

partnership between MSU and Hart High School had a significant impact on the culture of

the school. This new partnership was a source of human and fiscal resources for the school

101

and a site for the university to train preservice teachers in a setting that fostered professional

development for all.teachers. AS mentioned in the description of Hart High School, in 1990

the school day was restructured to create a block of time each Wednesday for professional

development through collaboration between school and university faculty. The focus of these

collaborations was an inquiry about teaching, learning, subject matter, methodology and

teacher education for school and university faculty. These inquiries yielded numerous

presentations by teachers and university faculty at conferences as well as several joint

publications funded with PDS monies. Thus, the change in the culture of the school worked

to create teaching professionals inspired to speak and write about their efforts of restructuring

their practice and for whom inquiry into teaching and learning was an integral part of their

work.

Over the years as a PDS, teachers assumed responsibility for creating a new institution

by developing their own research projects with their university partners and Student interns

and in some cases writing their own proposals for grant monies. The six principles of a PDS

and other national standards were used to frame the inquiry projects jointly developed by Hart

teachers and university faculty. The science department utilized the standards in the report,

"Science for All Americans" (AAAS, 1989) as a curriculum guide and the mathematics

department referenced the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards (NCTM,

1989) as their guide. Both the PDS principles and the curriculum standards provided a

common language for discussing issues about teaching and learning for the Wednesday

morning collaborative time. The participation of special educators in the collaborations

1 0 2

emphasized the necessity of thinking about all children including those with disabilities in the

restructuring initiatives.

Hart High School also provided a professional climate for the development of

preservice teachers. After 5 years as a PDS, Hart High School was profiled in the January

11, 1993 issue of US. News and World Report in a cover story entitled "The Perfect School:

9 Reforms to Revolutionize American Education."

In this article Hart High School is

described as a clinical school in which student teachers and entry-level teachers learn the latest

teaching methods with experienced teachers in the classroom. According to the article, "The

teacher-training program at Hart sends a strong message to beginning teachers that they are

entering a profession with high standards" (p.26). Both Holly and Karen (the novice teachers

in this study) were student interns at Hart School. Holly interned with Lyle in science and

Karen with various mathematics teachers. They spent Wednesday mornings discussing the

teaching of science and mathematics for understanding for all students with veteran teachers

at Hart and MSU colleagues involved in the PDS and continued these conversations

throughout their daily teaching. According to Darling-Hammond (1995), these collaborative

experiences for preservice teachers can develop a frame of learning that is ongoing, collegial,

integrated and child-centered as well as develop the sense that learning to teach is an ongoing

process.

In sum, the relationship with MSU as a PDS had a Strong effect on Hart High School

as an institution. This partnership provided the school with human and fiscal resources that

helped to develop a climate that was committed to facilitating teacher responsibility and

leadership, fostering the development of novice teachers, and creating a new organization

1 0 3

that was devoted to the teaching and leaming of all students including those with disabilities.

Within this climate many teachers, university faculty and preservice teachers jointly examined

curriculum and methodology and experimented with new ways of teaching subject matter,

organizing classrooms, and assessing students' learning. Hart High in many ways met the aim

of a PDS as defined by Darling-Hammond (1995) "to transform the entire educational

enterprise by changing teaching, schooling, and teacher education simultaneously" (p.90).

However, not all Hart teachers were firlly vested in this partnership. In part because

it is more difficult for some people to take the risks necessary to make changes in their

practice. Also, for the first three years of this partnership, the fiscal and human resources

from the university were concentrated in four departments, namely the core subject areas.

This inequity in the distribution of resources and the notoriety that the teachers in PDS

projects achieved led to the development ofjealousies and a fracture between teachers who

taught required courses and those who taught elective courses. Faculty meetings and Staff

lounge conversations were laced with complaints about the "favoritism" shown to teachers

in the PDS projects and that extra time for collaboration was really to create the substance

for the "dog and pony Shows" put on by school and university faculty at national conferences.

Over time these feelings and divisions grew, diminishing the intensity and pace of the

restructuring. The 1995-96 Annual Education Report of Hart High School substantiates

these issues, "With five years of effort behind us, the novelty of the PDS has worn off; the

introduction of resources for improvement can create stresses in our school, including

concerns about equity in recognition and access to resources and support."

2. Mission Statement of Hart High School

104

An examination of a school's mission statement can provide insight into an institution's

philosophy and beliefs. Hart High School faculty and administration jointly developed a

mission statement in 1990-91. This development came after two years as a PDS. These two

years gave the faculty at Hart High a good deal of reflective experience in collaborating with

university faculty about teaching, learning, and the organizational structure of their school.

According to Fullan (1994), the reflective experiences of an institution taken collectively are

critical because a shared vision emerges from the dynamic interactions of organizational

members. Hart's vision taken from the school's 1993-94 Annual Education Report is as

follows:

A rapidly changing world requires a new kind of education. Hart High School

as a Professional Development School is dedicated to preparing students and

educators for the changes that lie ahead. We will provide exemplary

education for all our students, support growth for the professionals in our

school, and foster the development of the entire educational community

through the study of practice and the generation of knowledge. We accept as

a starting point for our work the six principles for designing a Professional

Development School proposed by the Holmes Group.

The activities and efforts of the Hart faculty as measured by the inquiry projects they

developed and the joint papers and presentations they annually produced with their university

colleagues indicates that this statement truly stands as a serious commitment by the faculty

of this school.

The vision building process is not static, but is ongoing and continues to evolve as the

organization changes. Vision building is the examining and reexamining of the purpose of

teaching (Fullan, 1994). Several years later, Hart's faculty developed four target area goals

for the North Central Accreditation process. These goals provide firrther evidence of the

1 0 5

school's continued growth and the faculty's commitment to creating a new institution in which

all students can learn. During the 1993-94 school year, the faculty engaged in lengthy

discussions to develop Specific target area goals as part of the North Central Association's

Outcomes Accreditation process. The four student outcomes are:

1.

Students will be able to transfer knowledge and skills gained in one situation to

another.

2.

Students will be able to actively participate in a constructive discussion, both

articulating their own ideas and learning from others.

3. When faced with important issues and decisions, students will actively seek

information to gain multiple perspectives and develop strategies for resolving

issues.

4.

Students will be able to create a piece of writing, revise it, and explain why the

revisions represent an improvement.

These Student goals are consistent with both the principles of the PDS and the national

curriculum standards. Student construction of knowledge through the processes of inquiry

and reflection permeate the goals, which are central to the PDS principles for teachers.

Darling-Hammond (1995) in her research on PDSS found that the experiences of curriculum

development and team teaching fostered learning by teaching, doing, and collaborating (i.e.,

inquiry and reflection) simultaneously in both teachers and students. The development of

these goals offer additional evidence that the culture and the climate Of the school was one

of a faculty committed through collaboration to create a new organization that promoted high

standards of professional knowledge for beginning and experienced teachers and high

expectations for all students. Further, the public display of this mission statement and the

student goals stand as a constant reminder of the new institution for veteran and new faculty,

106

for visiting professionals, parents and students. Thousand and Villa (1995) in their book

entitled, Creating Inclusive Schools. claim that building a common vision that is committed

to teaching all students is a critical step in creating an inclusive school environment.

3. Teacher Generated Decision Making Model

AS stated earlier in this chapter the decision in 1988 for Hart High School to become

a PDS in partnership with MSU was a joint decision made between administrators and a core

of high school teachers. After three years of restructuring efforts and collaboration about

creating a new organizational structure teachers wanted to create a formal process for

deciding issues that impacted the entire school. Many of them had spent a great deal of time

discussing differing forms of school organization. They wanted to move even more toward

Site-based decision making and away from the top down management that existed for many

years at the high school. Darling-Hammond (1995) in her study of PDSS found that the focus

on facilitating the reconceptualization of teaching and learning fosters new forms of teacher

leadership. This new empowerment liberates teachers to make decisions that shape practice,

as well as decisions that impact the institution and system. This was the case with a science

teacher very involved in the PDS initiative.

In addition to his professional development in school, he was enrolled in an

administrative course at MSU and decided to develop a model for making group decisions

in school settings for his course project. He shared this model with several members of the

faculty to get their feedback on his plan. He received a favorable response from his

colleagues and was encouraged by them to share it with the principal. The principal was

107

supportive of this group process for decision making. They worked together to refine the

model before a formal presentation was made by the science teacher to the faculty.

The model is based on majority rule that may be either a 2/3 or 3/4 vote decided by

a vote of the faculty based on their perceptions of the significance of the issue being decided.

Any faculty member or group may present a proposal to the entire Staff. The faculty may

approve the proposal immediately if appropriate, or it may choose to have the proposal go

through the review process outlined in the model when 20% or more vote for this procedure.

The Collective Decision Making Model has two phases. In Phase I, the total faculty

is divided into cross-departmental groups to review and study the proposal during the first

hour of Wednesday morning. Each group reports its findings to the total faculty. After the

presentations, the faculty may choose to vote on the proposal or with 20% or more of the

faculty vote, the proposal may be referred to Phase II of the model.

During Phase II, interested staff volunteer to form a subgroup to research and develop

various points of view on the issue and present their data to the faculty. The information is

discussed and debated. A one week period is allowed to informally discuss and reflect upon

the issue. At the next faculty meeting, the faculty votes on the proposal and either a 2/3 or

3/4 majority determines the outcome of the proposal.

After several hours of deliberation and discussion of this model, it was adopted by the

faculty. The model received strong support from the majority of faculty who wanted an

agreed upon process for discussing, debating and deciding changes in the school. However,

the faculty support was motivated by differing perspectives. The large faction of faculty

involved in the PDS wanted the process to maintain and protect the restructuring efforts of

1 0 8

their departments and the school to-date. The smaller faction of faculty that felt alienated by

this partnership supported this process to control the rate of change and protect the elements

of the traditional high school structure that were important to them. Many faculty wanted a

process that would eliminate the possibility of administrative mandates and formalize joint

decision making between faculty and administration.

Regardless of these differing motivations, the adoption of a group decision making

model is yet another measure of this high school's efforts to create a new institution. The

model itself serves to illustrate further the evolution of their roles from teachers as learners

to teachers as leaders and the creation of a school culture in which teachers take ownership

and responsibility in the joint governance of the school. With this process, faculty are

expected to play a leadership role in presenting new ideas and debating issues of concern.

Consensus is always the goal. Further, the consensus is a result of a process of inquiry and

reflection about the issue at hand. These principles are two of the PDS guiding principles.

The development of this model by a faculty serves as strong evidence that the culture of Hart

High School is one in which faculty and administrators work collaboratively to create a new

organization and all voices have a way to be heard.

Since its implementation, the model has been used often and has assisted in resolving

many issues and in supporting experimentation with some organizational changes. For

example, the faculty adopted a new method of administering the state proficiency tests based

on a proposal presented by a group of faculty members. At times proposals have been

rejected by the faculty, even those presented by administrators. Two years ago the principal

and a group of teachers presented a proposal to restructure the entire school schedule. A

1 0 9

variety of scheduling alternatives were intensely debated and discussed for several weeks.

When the vote was taken, the proposal was defeated by a small margin because the majority

of the faculty believed May was too late in the year to implement a new schedule for fall.

There are still ongoing conversations about development of a new schedule, although there

is still not a consensus for the change. The fact that this model is still utilized in 1996

indicates both the strength of the model and the investment the faculty has made in taking

responsibility for governing the school.

How does the implementation of this model serve as an environmental resource to

support students with Special needs? Given that students with disabilities at Hart High School

are at present fully included in general education, any proposal to create a separate special

education course or a separate diploma would have to be presented to the entire faculty for

discussion and then supported by the majority before implementation. A perfect example of

how this decision-making process was used was the debate about how academically talented

students would be supported at Hart High. A proposal was made to the faculty to eliminate

honors classes and instead incorporate an honors option in all classes so that any student

could have access to this option. After utilizing the process of the decision making model,

the faculty voted to eliminate honors classes and offer an honors option in all classes. Thus,

this group decision-making model provides an environmental resource for generating debate

about all issues including ways faculty will collectively support students with special needs

at Hart High.

In summary, the guiding principles of the Professional Development School and its

resources, the mission statement and the model for decision-making at Hart High that evolved

1 1 0

through collaboration and were implemented by the faculty are all important environmental

resources that teachers used to develop an inclusive school whose goal was to develop the

potential of all students.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this chapter has argued that the district's special education reform

coupled with the establishment of Hart High School as a PDS with Michigan State University

provided the school with both human and fiscal resources critical to developing its capacity

to support students with special needs in general education. These resources provided both

the time and the conceptual framework of a PDS for school faculty to participate in sustained

collaborative conversations focused ion the restructuring of teaching and learning to better

meet the needs of all students including those with disabilities. This attention to the teaching

and learning of all fostered the moral purpose of teaching, namely making a difference in the

lives of individual students. The fiscal resources created more professional development time

which increased access to the human resources within the school and from the university.

This led, in turn, to the building of Strong collaborative partnerships providing teachers with

an environment to examine their beliefs, curriculum, and methodology to better support all

students. Thus, in these partnerships, the moral purpose of teaching conjoined with change

agency and fostered new structures in the internal workings of the school developing a more

inclusive culture or moral ecology. However, as in any institution the infusion of additional

resources simultaneously created both positive forces toward change and negative forces to

repel change, forces that ultimately derailed progress toward the school's reform goals. In

spite of the tensions that the PDS partnership created for both general and Special education

111

faculty, most teachers invested in developing Hart High School's capacity to serve Students

with special needsin general education. While these environmental resources are necessary

to facilitate the reform efforts in teaching and learning to address the needs of students with

disabilities, they are not sufficient in themselves to develop inclusive educational settings.

Chapter 5 will argue that the belief systems of the teachers, including the moral purpose of

their teaching, were strengthened through their collaborations, and these beliefs are the most

critical component for Special and general education teachers to develop in order to create

an inclusive school culture with a moral ecology.

CHAPTER 5

TEACHER BELIEFS

"One's personal predispositions are

not only relevant but, in fact, stand

at the core of becoming a teacher."

Lorrie, 1975, p.113.

Some research suggests that beliefs are the best predictors of individual behavior

(Bandura, 1986; Nrsbett & Ross, 1980, Rokeach, 1968). Specifically, teachers' beliefs Shape

their perceptions and judgements and impact classroom performance (Ashton & Webb, 1986;

Clark, 1988). According to Fullan (1994) the individual teacher is the basic building block

of moral purpose in an institution. If Students with mild disabilities are to be successfully

included, then general education teachers must believe that they are responsible to teach all

students and that their moral purpose in teaching is to make a difi‘erence in the lives of

individual students. As discussed in chapter two, teachers must not only hold the belief, but

enact it by restructuring their teaching to facilitate the learning of all. Otherwise, the physical

presence of students with mild disabilities in regular classrooms will be "business as usual"

(Zigrnond & Baker, 1990), which has meant chronic failure and fiustration.

Therefore, a second step in addressing the question of what resources contribute to

a school's capacity to serve students with special needs in inclusive settings is "to understand

the values and beliefs of those who drive these processes" (Brousseau, Book and Byers, 1988,

p.33). The overarching thesis of this dissertation is that while certain environmental and

112

1 1 3

intellectual resources are necessary for inclusive practices, teachers' beliefs about students'

learning capacities and their own responsibilities to help all students learn are equally critical.

The last chapter described the environmental resources that supported collaborative

partnerships between general and Special education teachers that focused on restructuring

teaching and learning for all students. Through this collaborative process teachers had the

opportunity to examine their beliefs about learners, curriculum and pedagogy and to firrther

develop their intellectual resources to support students with special needs. According to

Fullan (1994) teachers with moral purpose need four basic skills to be effective change

agents: personal vision building, inquiry, mastery, and collaboration. In other words, teachers

who aspire in their teaching to make a difference in the lives of their students need to work

collaboratively on a continuous basis examining their own vision of school, persistently asking

questions about their practice and attempting to master new ideas and skills. Through this

type of ongoing collaboration the moral purpose of teaching becomes intertwined with change

agentry. Fullan (1994) defines change agentry as a conscious awareness about the nature of

change and the change process. These four elements of moral purpose were incorporated in

the PDS projects developed by Hart School and university faculty that led to the development

of a culture with a moral ecology.

This chapter will examine the beliefs of Holly (a novice science teacher), Lyle (a

veteran science teacher) and Jane (a special education teacher) that were strengthened and/or

evolved through their collaborative experiences. AS mentioned in the introductory chapter

these three teachers engaged in sustained collaboration in their PDS project to restructure

science teaching and learning for all students in their respective classes. They volunteered to

participate in the Collaborative Inquiry project with members of the PDS math project to

discuses what they had learned about supporting students with mild disabilities in general

114

education over the last five years.

In order to ascertain the teachers' beliefs in this study, I analyzed both their written

and oral communication for categories of beliefs. The first set of data was a Fastwrite

documenting their thoughts about the initiative to include students with mild disabilities into

general education settings. One way to address the issue of the validity of a belief statement

is to review other data to corroborate them. Thus, two other sets of data were examined for

evidence of their beliefs: transcripts of fourteen collaborative conversations and each project

participant's videotaped interviews of two hypothetical case studies of students with mild

'

disabilities. Analyses of multiple data sets provide a fuller picture of teachers' beliefs and

offset concerns about the reliability of their self reports.

Several questions surface from an examination of these data sets about general and

special education teachers' beliefs about inclusive practices.

.....What specific categories of beliefs are evidenced in this data?

..... What, if any, are the similarities and differences in the categorical beliefs

between general and special educators?

..... How do these teachers' beliefs about the merger of general and special

education compare with the discussion in the literature regarding this

educational reform?

In the analysis of the data five sets of beliefs emerge, which can be divided into two

categories: teacher beliefs about classroom practice and beliefs about the structure of

educational systems (Chart 1). The first three sets of beliefs related specifically to the teachers

and their practice in the classroom and are critical to support the needs of students with mild

disabilities in general education settings. The second category that surfaced in the data was

1 1 5

beliefs about the organizational structure of secondary schools and the educational system and

how these elements work to foster or inhibit inclusive practices. Following is an

organizational chart to assist the reader in understanding the data about teachers’ beliefs.

Table 5-1 Organizational Chart of Teachers’ Beliefs

 

CATEGORIES 0F TEACHERS'IBELIEFS -

'

'

 

CATEGORY I: BELIEFS ABOUT CLASSROOMPRACTICE

 

1.

Beliefs About Learners

2.

Beliefs About Teachers' Roles

3.

Beliefs About Content and Assessment

 

CATEGORY II: BELIEFS ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF EDUCATIONAL

-

SYSTEMS

.

 

 
  

Beliefs About the Organizational Structure of the School

1.

Beliefs About Systemic Change

2.

See Appendix C for a Listing of All of the Beliefs in relation to the subjects of the study.

Following is an analysis of these beliefs and their role in supporting the needs of

students with mild disabilities in inclusive settings. Each of the teachers in this study expressed

these beliefs either directly or indirectly in the data or exhibited them during my interactions

with them in the school setting in our work together.

CATEGORY I: Beliefs About Classroom Practice

1. Beliefs About Learners What beliefs about learners emerged in the data? Do

general and special education teachers hold common beliefs about learners?

A. Heterogeneous Classrooms

Holly, in her Fastwrite (FW) concerning the merger of general and special education

wrote that She believes in heterogeneous classrooms for several reasons. One reason she

offered is that in this type of class students have role models for appropriate behavior. She

1 1 6

indicated that when she taught in a "more homogeneous setting of lower level students, the

behavioral issues were my biggest concern" (FW, Holly).

She did not think that these

students ever had appropriate role modeling for behavior from other Students. "Without the

exposure to a true learning community where all are respected and everyone participates, they

fail to build their own" (FW, Holly). She ofi‘ered that in the science department they have

been teaching heterogeneous classes for several years and she noted a difi‘erence in the

behavior of lower level academic students. "The behaviors they once exhibited are no longer

acceptable (FW, Holly)"

However, Holly did Show some inconsistency in this belief. In a later conversation,

Holly talked about a gifted first grader reading on a fifth grade level.

She is required to do the first grade reading book. She's with kids

learning how to print and so I'm wondering like, there really is a

justification for letting her going ahead. She does the first grade work

in a rush and then she can read her book. So that's a problem too. I

see kind of both Sides. I see reasons why they separate (kids) and I can

see why they're doing that (keeping this girl in first grade). I don't

know if I have the answer. I don't' know if it's right or wrong and it

makes sense for a while there because it is a lot easier to teach with

kids that are probably grouped together. It's not right but it's probably

easier to just do one lesson plan..I don't know (Coll. 11/8/93 p.23).

In these instances Holly questioned her belief about heterogeneous classrooms.

Although she stated that homogeneous classes "aren't right, " she thought they might be easier

to teach. Ultimately though, she seemed to remain committed to heterogeneous classes on

the basis of a moral principle when She stated that homogeneous classes "aren't right."

Both Lyle and Jane held the belief that special education students benefitted from

heterogeneous settings. They wrote a PDS research project (1986-1991) with MSU science

education faculty to develop heterogeneous classrooms in Science by including students’ at-

1 1 7

risk and with disabilities in Biology. The basis for this project was their increasing moral

discomfort and frustration with both the academic and social experience for these students

in the firndamental (low track) General Science Class. The purpose of the project was to find

ways to include these students both academically and socially in all science classes offered by

their department. What did they say in the data about their belief in heterogeneous

classrooms?

Lyle in one group conversation gave a profile of a young man labeled Emotionally

Impaired because of his acting out behavior, who has been in a self- contained classroom fiom

early elementary until tenth grade.

He doesn't know how to act. He does not know what acceptable social

behavior is; not language, posturing, or anything at all to do with academics;

I mean he doesn't have a clue. He comes to school to talk about his car

crashes and his tickets (Coll. 10/25/93, p. 15).

Later in the conversation he reported,

Kids' attitudes about themselves and about school get in the way of

academics. This young man has a strong personality, so he really doesn't give

a candied rat's patoot about what anybody thinks about him (Coll. 10/25/93,

p. 18).

I asked Lyle if he had come to believe, after working with special education students,

that there was a real difi‘erence in their normalization and socialization and whether

mainstreaming give them more of an opportunity to develop positive social norms? Lyle

responded, "I agree, as long as we're doing something more than mainstreaming them, we've

got to do something special with them in our class in terms of teaching or we're also just

spinning our wheels" (Coll. 10/25/93, P. 15). In this statement Lyle, like Holly, indicated that

he believes students with behavioral difficulties can be better normed in general education.

l l 8

In his videotaped interview about the hypothetical LD students (Jessica and Scott),

Lyle firrther substantiated his belief about the benefits of heterogeneous groupings for both

students. When asked how he would approach teaching Jessica, he talked about placing her

in a heterogeneous cooperative learning group to assist her comprehension of biology since

reading is difficult for her, although he had some ambivalence about the construction of

cooperative groups as detailed in the last chapter. However, in his response about Scott, Lyle

stated unequivocally that:

I'd like to see him mainstreamed in a heterogeneous classroom. I don't think

Special education should deal with Scott alone. I don't think that would be

good for Scott. He needs to be out in the real world, instead of being pulled

out and dealt with in a special class.

Based on this data, both Lyle and Holly expressed the same belief regarding the value

of heterogeneous classrooms for students with disabilities, because it offered them role

models for more acceptable academic and social classroom behaviors.

Jane did not directly state her commitment to heterogeneous classrooms in the data.

Rather, she implied this belief in her Fastwrite and in her conversations. However, given her

sustained efi‘ort with Lyle to create heterogeneous classrooms in the Science Department at

Hart High School since 1986, there was little doubt about her belief. Jane's opening statement

in her Fastwrite was that she was "committed to this initiative (to include students with mild

disabilities in general education classrooms), although I have come to realize how complex

the issues involved are." What Jane emphasized in this written statement was that after her

experiences in the development of heterogeneous science classrooms, she was aware of the

complexity of the process of change.

1 1 9

In a conversation with Holly, Jane made a striking statement about the system of

special education, which supported her position that students were better served in

heterogeneous settings. In the conversation, Holly related an incident to the group about a

parent who wanted her student reinstated in special education because, in the parent's view

when, he stopped receiving services he began failing his classes. Holly said,

He is one of the brightest kids I have, if he remembers to bring his work he

does fine...he always gets an A or a B. Yet she wanted him back on caseload

like it was some magical thing that happens, this magical wand that all of a

sudden things will be taken care of if he's on a caseload (Coll. 5/9/94, p.33).

Jane responded, "I think we do build a false assumption that by sending students to

special education classes we're going to be able to cure their problem." Ann (the social

worker) jokingly added, "That's why I have the magic wand of special education" (Coll.

5/9/94, p.33). In this exchange Jane's awareness of the assumptions held by some parents and

professionals about the cure-all ability of special education gave some indication that she

believed they would be better receiving support services within the regular classroom.

Perhaps, one reason Jane did not directly state her belief in heterogeneous classrooms was

that Hart High School had mainstreamed Special education students for many years and she

was now more consumed with the impact of this reform on teachers' roles and the

organizational structure, than whether students with disabilities should be mainstreamed.

In summary, all three of the teachers gave evidence that they believed that learners

benefit from heterogeneous settings. While Jane implied this belief through her statements

about her commitment to the merger of general and special education, Holly and Lyle

indicated that through their experiences they believed that heterogeneous classroom offered

12 0

students with academic and behavioral difficulties role models for learning and social

interactions.

Some of the recent research in special education on the postsecondary status of

students with behavioral difficulties supports Lyle's and Holly's belief that heterogeneous

classrooms benefit these students. Jeffrey (1993) in his study of this population found that

they have not developed the necessary coping skills to resolve the ordinary problems that

occur with others everyday in the work place. He recommends that students with emotional

impairments be integrated in heterogeneous classrooms to experience appropriate role

models. Once students with behavioral problems are placed in segregated classes with other

students with behavior problems, they have limited opportunities to interact with students in

regular classrooms. Walker and Bunsen (1995) recommend in their study about the status

of youth with emotional disorders that they need to have access to integrated settings to

develop feelings of empowerment, decision maldng skills and conflict resolution. In reviewing

the recent literature on students with emotional impairments I was unable to find any evidence

to the contrary.

B. All Students Can Learn

Holly was the only teacher of the three that directly stated this belief. In her Fastwrite

she wrote that "all students can succeed in my science class. There is a role for everyone and

all different kinds of learning at different levels. The levels of understanding are

heterogeneous in any group. Therefore there really isn't any problem with teaching different

levels and at times all students need a little extra time and help."

1 2 1

Her statement in the videotaped case study on Jessica further confirmed her position.

"All students can be successfirl in my class. I have a student like her, he can listen and talk

through things. These are the techniques that will help her." Holly's statements in the two

different data sets indicated that she approached teaching her classes with the assumption that

all Students can succeed in her class and that she viewed students with disabilities as part of

the whole class, not as a separate group of learners with special needs.

Lyle and Jane did not express this belief that all students can learn/succeed directly.

One explanation for this was that given their years of experience in working with students at-

risk and those with disabilities they have come to believe that all students can learn and have

been examining this belief in more depth with a series of additional questions: 'What is the

role of the teacher in assisting all learners to access essential knowledge? How can subject

matter knowledge be represented differently to facilitate all learners' success? What

pedagogical methods seem to benefit students with special needs? These were the overarching

questions of their PDS project to restructure the teaching and learning of science for all

students. Holly worked with Lyle and Jane for two years as a student intern and had the

opportunity to begin teaching in a science department that was asking these questions about

their practice and about learners.

The way of thinking that evolved for Lyle, Jane, and Holly in their restructuring

efforts was initially one that focused on the different learning styles of students with

disabilities. Through their collaborations and classroom efi‘orts their thinking shifted to

thinking about all learners as having unique ways of learning not just students identified as

learning disabled. This change in their views of all learners describes an essential way of

12 2

thinking that is surfacing in the current literature on creating heterogeneous learning

communities. Ferguson (1995), a special education researcher studying inclusive classrooms,

writes that defining and creating integrated classrooms around a few students with disabilities

seems misguided because everyone focuses on this small group of students and their

differences, "rather than the whole group of students with various abilities and needs" (p.285).

This comment about thinking of the class as a whole group of students with difi‘ering

capabilities and skills parallels the thinking that Holly expressed in her Fastwrite and that all

three worked to operationalize in their classrooms though the collaboration in their PDS

project.

C. Student Responsibility I

Holly stated this position directly in her Fastwrite,

If a student attempts their homework and shows some level of understanding

in our class, I feel they do succeed and have passing scores. Ifa student does

not complete the tasks, ask for help, or Show signs of understanding they will

most likely not succeed, which I feel is no fault but their own.

She also made several comments in her videotape regarding Student responsibility.

About Scott She said,

If he doesn't do homework or try, that could hurt him. Everybody is

responsible to help Scott. He has to take responsibility for his disability and

his learning. We all need to help him become his advocate and help him be

responsible.

Holly demonstrated a consistent theme of holding Students’ accountable for their learning.

Lyle also expressed his belief about student responsibility for learning in the

videotaped case studies. With Jessica, he would talk with her about her responsibility in

biology class and Share his expectations with her and develop a contract. He said:

123

I would tell her I expect her to try all of the questions on the essays and to

come in for an interview. I expect her to keep her journal every day and to

use her lab partners to do the lab write up. I would encourage her to ask

questions in class and tell her that She is helping the class by asking questions.

I would give her feed back on her journals and commend her good efi‘orts.

Jane mentioned in her Fastwrite that with the mainstreaming of students with

disabilities into general education classrooms that the role of the learner needed to be

redefined. She elaborated on this position in the group conversations and in her videotaped

interview. Jane believed that students with disabilities need to learn to advocate for

themselves; i.e., self-advocate, in the classroom for the accommodations they need to be

successful, thereby taking more responsibility for their learning. In the conversation on

October 25, Holly and Jane had a discussion about ofi‘ering a structured study for special

education students. Holly indicated that she thinks it was a good option for special education

students to have some "down time" from an academic class in a structured study where they

can do their homework and get some help with it. Jane's response indicated that she felt

strongly about this issue. Jane said:

See, I just can't buy this down time idea. I know a lot of people say kids just

need a time to get down, but I just can't buy it. I do recognize that kids who

are in the mainstream need support and I don't think it's just the special ed

kids. I think that it's all kids. I’d rather that we think about how we can

provide that support to all kids because I think that all kids could benefit that

way. But we're trying to build a curriculum to help kids understand what their

disability is so that they can begin to talk about that with the general education

teachers. I don't think we do a very good job of that at all. And I'm just

coming to believe that if kids are gonna be successful in general ed they have

to be able to advocate and articulate what it is they need in order to be

successful. Because the bottom line is they really do have to be treated

difi‘erently because of the way they learn, I think (Coll., 10.25/93, pp. 21-22).

In this passage, Jane argued that students need to learn how to become advocates for

themselves in the general education classroom. They needed to be able to articulate what they

1 2 4

need, i.e., the accommodations that will promote their success in general education settings.

This was a new role for all students to take responsibility for their learning by sharing with

the teacher the ways in which they learn best, how they can demonstrate their knowledge and

the learning difficulties that they experience.

The responsibility of advocating for special education students included in general

education classrooms has belonged to the special education teacher consultant. As stated in

the last chapter there are two major reasons why students need to assume more responsibility

for advocating for their learning. One reason is simple logistics. Special educators have a

caseload of 20-25 students each of whom have six different teachers totaling 120 teachers for

special educators to consult with about the disabilities and acconunodations of their students.

Since special educators are team teaching with general educators, it is impossible for them to

be their students' sole advocate. A second reason is that the Americans with Disabilities Act

mandates accommodations in post secondary institutions and in the workplace, therefore it

is even more imperative that students with disabilities learn how to articulate the nature of

their disability and advocate for themselves.

In a conversation on 12/7/93 Lyle and Jane had an exchange about advocacy that

revealed Jane's thinking about changing her role as a special education teacher as well as the

role of the special education student. Lyle asked Jane about the time several years ago when

they team taught in Biology on a daily basis.

Lyle: We were talking about advocacy and I wanted to ask when you and

I teamed did you feel like you did quite a bit of that when we were in

the same classroom, I mean in terms of advocacy?

J ane: You mean teaching kids how to be an advocate?

Lyle:

Teaching kids how to be their own advocate.

125

Jane:

I don't think then I did as much as I try to do now. I was doing more

for them, rather than empowering them. And you know part of the

stress of this job and all of the different disability areas that are being

represented now is forcing me to think I can't do this any more and

then I think that I Shouldn't be doing it anyway. So the whole question

is how can we teach kids to do that? Ifwe do this only for kids with

disabilities though, are we just fueling the dual system (i.e., of general

and special education) by saying it's difi‘erent for them?

Holly: I was just thinking that all my kids need to learn how to advocate.

Karen: It's most critical for them, but it doesn't have to mean it's not

important for anybody else I would think.

Jane:

Right. Right. (Coll.12/7/93, pp.l7-18)

Jane was very consistent in her belief that students needed to take responsibility for

their learning, as evidenced in her videotaped conversation about Jessica and Scott. In

response to both case studies, Jane spoke directly about the students' role and responsibility

in managing their learning. In the case of Scott, whose major problem was his attention

deficit, Jane was asked who was responsible for helping him develop more appropriate

classroom behaviors? She emphatically stated, "Scott is responsible." When asked how she

would approach teaching Scott, Jane responded,

As a tenth grader, I would want him to learn to express to teachers what he

needs. Scott needs to get into his behavior and learn when his attention is

breaking down He must keep track of the behavior that signals his attention

is wandering.

In the case of Jessica, whose primary disability is in reading and writing, Jane indicated

that "Jessica needs to know more about her disability and to learn to use the computer as an

aid for her writing and spelling." When asked who was responsible to teach Jessica to read,

l 2 6

Jane said, ”Jessica is the key. If she is motivated to improve her reading then both general and

special education teachers need to work together on this."

Jane‘s responses in both of the case studies were consistent with her belief statement

that the role of the student needs to be changed in order for the merger of general and special

education to be successful. Their role, according to Jane, was one that entailed students

taking responsibility for their learning, that is developing self-determination. In these

passages’ Jane indicated that students with disabilities need to learn about their disability and

the accommodations that will facilitate their learning and then advocate for these supports in

general education.

In summary, all three of the teachers in this study expressed their belief in several of

the data sets that students need to assume some responsibility for their learning. Recent

research on developing self-determination in students with disabilities parallels Jane's views

about the changing roles of both the special educator and the student with disabilities. Fields

(1996), in her research in this area, writes that a commitment to fostering self-determination

challenges the traditional role of the special educator as a service provider to be redefined as

more of a consultant or facilitator. Fields (1996) fimher argues that this new role of facilitator

means that the special educator assists individuals with disabilities to become self-determined

and make decisions about their educational goals. The role of the student is to become

empowered and to take responsibility and set goals for his/her learning. These are precisely

the positions that Jane has articulated in her Fastwrite, collaborative conversations and the

videotaped interview.

Summary of Teachers' Beliefs About Learners

127

All three teachers througiout the data in this study identified fairly consistently three

beliefs they hold about learners. Both Holly and Lyle directly indicated in these data that they

believed students with disabilities can benefit fi'om heterogeneous settings, while Jane

indirectly made this point through her conversations about the benefits of including all

students. Holly stated directly that she believed all students can succeed or learn in her class,

while Lyle and Jane expressed this belief through their work in the science restructuring

project. Holding students responsible for their learning was clearly stated by all three of the

teachers throughout the data All three of these beliefs about learners inform teachers' moral

purpose for teaching. They provide substantive meaning to Fullan's (1994) definition of moral

purpose as making a difference in the lives of individual students. For these teachers moral

purpose has come to mean creating heterogeneous learning communities in which all students

have access to the same knowledge, restructuring teaching and learning so all students can

succwd and expecting students to be responsible for their learning. This set of beliefs about

learners is one crucial resource that contributes to a school's capacity to serve students with

special needs in general education.

2. Beliefs About Teachers' Roles

The beliefs about the teachers' roles in supporting students with disabilities in inclusive

settings added another dimension to the moral purpose of teaching that was also of critical

importance. In analysis of the data three beliefs surfaced: 1) the belief that teachers' roles

need to be redefined, 2) the belief that their role is to teach all students, and 3) the belief that

teachers need to hold high expectations for all students.

A. Redefinition of the Teacher's Role

128

HolIyWhen asked in her interview about the case studies of Scott and Jessica, "Who

is responsible for teaching them to read?" replied:

That's something I‘m worried about. Biology is important, but Scott and

Jessica still need to learn to read and write. They need to succeed in life. We

can read in groups and have each one learn fi'om the other. But all of us

(general and special education teachers) need to play a role.

Special

education teachers are here to help these students but that's not their only role.

They're here for all students. Special education teachers in the mainstream

help other students too and they can benefit from their help.

It is the

classroom teacher's job to teach reading and writing. I don't know if I can do

all of it.

It depends. Time is an issue.

I want them to get the biology

concepts, but they still need to learn to read and write. (Holly, Videotaped

Interview, Jan, 1994)

Holly made it clear that her role was to teach biology, but she also needed to develop

the literacy skills of her students. This was a redefinition of her role fi'om strictly a subject

matter teacher. However, Holly expressed some internal difficulty with accepting the

responsibility for the development of literacy skills along with teaching biology when she said

she was unsure if she could do it all. Balancing the time between helping them learn to read

and write and teaching them biology was a struggle. In terms of the special educator she

clearly stated that their role was to work in the regular education classroom assisting all

students.

Lylewrote in his Fastwrite regarding his thoughts about the initiative to merge mildly

handicapped students in general education settings,

Ifwe expect success with these students, the general education teacher must

receive regular support from special education. As much experience as I've

had with this situation (mainstreaming), every year presents different teaching

challenges and no matter how experienced we think we are with this

(initiative) we still need lots of support (Lyle, Fastwrite).

1 2 9

Lyle too expressed some internal struggle in redefining his role to meet the needs of special

education students. He indicated that even though he was experienced with mainstreaming

he still needed the support of a special education teacher.

Lyle discussed this belief further in both of the case studies. He argued for a team

effort for both Jessica and Scott including the special education teacher, the parent and the

student. Regarding Scott he said, "All of us have to work as a team. I would want a support

person fiom special education to help me with any special problem that might come up that

I am not trained to handle." About Jessica he said,

I like to use special educators as a reference to get advice on special education

students in general or about specific issues. That is their role to support us in

general education. Mine is to guide the daily classroom activities, assess their

progress, encourage success and help kids take charge of their lives.

In this passage Lyle framed teaching with a moral purpose as empowering students to assume

control of their lives.

In sum, both Holly and Lyle, believed that with the mainstreaming of special education

students that the roles of the general and the special education teacher were redefined to work

collaboratively in their classrooms addressing the needs of all students. Although both of

them clearly believed in inclusive practices, they expressed internal struggles in changing their

traditional role from a subject matter teacher to one that met the demands in the classroom.

What did Jane, the special education teacher in this study believe about the redefinition of

teachers' roles in this merger?

Janein her Fastwrite stated that general and special educators needed to redefine their

roles which included planning time to inquire, reflect and collaborate to "ask questions,

articulate our beliefs and develop problem solving teams."

1 3 0

Jane made comments in 9 of the 14 conversations about the need to redefine teachers'

roles and change their practice in order to merge special education students into general

education. In the first group conversation Jane spoke strongly about the need to rethink the

role of the secondary special educator, as a remedial teacher.

We're (high school special educators) really trying to think about how we can

build a cuniculum to help kids understand what their disability is, so they can

begin to talk about that with the general ed teachers. And I am just coming

to believe that if kids are gonna be successful in general ed they have to be

able to advocate and articulate what it is they need in order to be successful.

Because the bottom line is they need to be treated difi‘erently because of the

way they learn. I think a lot of special educators think that they still need to

remediate (Coll, 10/25/93, p.10).

This passage illustrated two ideas that Jane has about the changing role of the special

educator from remediator to one that assisted students in learning about their disability and

how to advocate for their needs in the general education classroom. Second was that they

work with general educators to assist them in developing ways "to treat special education

students difi‘erently because they do learn differently and therefore facilitate their learning in

integrated classrooms."

Jane also expressed the emotional dissonance she experienced in changing her role in

a team taught class with a general education teachers. In this part of the collaboration, I

related to the group a story regarding a very bright student with a learning disability, Missy.

She was so self conscious about responding in class that she never spoke above a whisper.

In this particular class all students had to give group presentations in front of the class. Missy

was expected to present with a group even though she was real nervous about getting up in

front of the room. Jane asked me,

131

Jane: How did you feel? Were you nervous for her? Cause I can remember

the first year students in Special Ed were getting up in front of the

class and I was a basket case. I mean it was so powerful for me to

tune into how I was feeling. I was scared to death for those kids. It

was kind of interesting, I thought.

Peg:

I just said to her that I knew she could do it, I know you're scared. So

is everybody. You don't have to do it by yourself. Write your part on

a card and you can have that with you. But I'm struck sometimes as

I team with other teachers who will say, even in group participation,

oh the Special Ed kids don't have to take a talking part. They can just

make the poster. I say we have to expect that they participate because

then we're contributing to that learned helplessness..We're giving them

permission.

Jane:

Uh. Huh. But when you think about it,

it's almost like enabling

thern...it's really an issue of risk taking, I think, for me, allowing them

to take a risk and protecting them fiom that for some reason, because

I think that's one of the issues in Special Ed is we pretend not to

enable them, we call it support.(Coll. 11/29/94. p.11-12)

In this exchange, Jane has identified the internal role conflict, i.e., encouraging

students' risk taking vs. protecting them from failure that she experienced when she began

team teaching in general education classrooms. While she has stated in several instances that

the role of the special education teacher needs to change, she also was very aware of the

internal struggle that this change evoked in her. This example was consistent with the

statement in her Fastwrite that she realized how complex the issues were in merging mildly

handicapped students into general education because of the dissonance one experienced in

changing their role. In addition, this statement also aflirmed her position that special

educators need to rethink their role in meeting the needs of their students.

Jane ofl‘ered more detail about her internal struggles than Lyle or Holly, because she

was having to make the most dramatic changes in her practice. In addition to relinquishing

1 3 2

her autonomy in her own classroom to team teach in general education, she had to now

redefine her role with both the general education teacher and the special education students

in this context. The redefinition of her role in relation to the needs of the special education

student was causing the most dissonance as evidenced in her videotape of the Jessica case

study. When asked, who is responsible to teach Jessica to read, Jane responded:

Jessica is the key. I have a dilemma of my own. She's been pulled out from

general education for years to work in the special education resource room on

her reading and she is still a poor reader. How do we get kids to work on

their reading in high school when they've tried and still can't? Is she motivated

to improve her reading?

The dilemma for Jane involved changing her role fi'om the traditional one of remedial

teacher in a special education classroom to supporting and facilitating learning in the general

education class. In the first collaboration Jane described her position about the role of the

special educator as a remedial teacher by saying:

I think that a lot of special educators think that they still need to remediate.

They think that every kid ought to be able to read before they leave school.

But I think that some of our kids have been down shifted so long. I just think

that we have to let some of the kids jump over hurdles because many of them

can think conceptually and this would empower them and then maybe they

would want to improve their skills, but they are in so much pain about their

basic skills that they have just burnt out on trying (Coll. 10/25/93 p. 10)

In this passage Jane articulated her thoughts about the special educator defining

his/her role as a remedial teacher. Yet in her interview she said that Jessica's reading problem

presented a dilemma for her. This seemed to indicate that while philosophically she believed

that the role of the special educator needed to change from remediator to facilitator of the

students' learning, internally this shift still posed a dilemma for her when a high school student

with a learning disability was still reading several years below grade level. How does the

1 3 3

special educator address these issues when they were team teaching in general education

classes? In my own conversations with Jane about this issue she behaved that one way to

resolve this dilemma of teaching specific reading skills to students at the high school level was

to ofi‘er an elective reading class jointly taught by an English teacher and a special education

teacher for all students interested in improving their decoding and comprehension skills.

In summary, all three of the teachers in this study believed that their roles as educators

needed to be redefined with the merger of special education students into general education

classes. Both of the general education teachers believed that the role of the special educator

was in the general education classroom, team teaching and working with all students and

collaborating with them concerning the individual issues of students with disabilities.

All three of them also expressed the internal struggles they experienced in redefining

their role to support the needs of students with mild disabilities in general education

classrooms. Jane, the special education teacher expressed the most dissonance because her

role was more radically redefined in the merger in terms of both the location and the nature

of her work. According to Fullan (1994) these internal struggles are part of the change

process that teachers of moral purpose experience as they examine and reexamine their role

as a teachers and their purpose in teaching.

What does the literature have to say about the redefinition of teachers' roles in

inclusive settings? Villa and Thousand (1995) in their book,

in

In 1

iv

h

1

support the beliefs of the teachers in this study that general and special educators must work

together to create inclusive schools. They recommend that general and special educators

combine their resources in team teaching arrangements. Team teachers in collaboration bring

1 3 4

their "unique instructional expertise, areas of curriculum background and personal interests

together to provide a richer learning experience for all students" (Villa & Thousand, 1995,

p.72). Dianne Ferguson (1995) in her experience in developing inclusive practices, writes that

if inclusion is ever going to mean more than the mere integration of students, than special

educators must change their tactics "with new kinds of practice in which groups of teachers

work together to provide learning supports for all students" (p. 285).

While there is support in the literature for changing the role of the special educator,

there is not consensus. Fuchs and Fuchs (1995) argue strongly that by specialness is meant

that instruction for children with disabilities takes place in resource rooms and self-contained

classrooms. In the article "Special Education in Restructured Schools," Zigmond, Jenkins,

Fuchs, Deno et al. (1995), based on findings fi'om three different multi-year studies, conclude

that the continuum of special education services must remain. According to these authors the

primary role of the special educator is to teach in special education classrooms, rather than

team teach in partnership with general educators.

One must note however that the Zigmond et al. study was conducted at an elementary

level, as are the majority of the studies regarding the delivery and impact of special education

services. The findings from these elementary studies conducted are often generalized to

apply to secondary settings. Even though the nature of secondary schools, i.e., the adolescent

student population and their needs for social acceptance, the focus on subject matter, the

emphasis on preparation for adult life all point to different considerations in developing

supports for high school students with mild disabilities.

1 3 S

The real question is how an educator enacts their moral purpose, i.e., making a

difference in the lives of individuals.

Obviously, some special educators believe moral

purpose is best represented in more segregated special education settings. Goodlad, Soder,

and Sirotnik (1990) argue that teachers with moral purpose "must be diligent in ensuring that

no attitude, beliefs, or practices bar students fiom access to the necessary knowledge" (p.49).

Frank Laski, a leading special education litigator, cites Justice Thurgood Marshall, who after

reviewing the extensive history of social exclusion of individuals with disabilities concluded

that their segregation paralleled the worst excesses of Jim Crow (cited in Laski, 1994).

Undoubtedly, given the dissonance in the special education literature about how students with

disabilities are best served in schools, the debate about the role of the special education

teacher is far from being resolved.

B. Responsibility to Ensure that All Students Learn

This belief was not directly stated by these teachers in the data rather it was implied

throughout their writings, conversations and in their daily practice. The fact that all three of ,

the teachers expressed a strong belief in heterogeneous classrooms indicated a belief that their

role is to teach all students. All three of the teachers also discussed at length how they

addressed the needs of all students in the general education classroom.

For example, Holly described how she accommodated differences in learners in the

following comments,

On individual assignments I give everyone the same written form. Often the

average or below average students have difficulty expressing themselves well

in essay form. Therefore, I usually give make-up tests in oral form. If a

student has trouble on the first attempt, they usually can express themselves

to me orally (Holly, FW).

1 3 6

In this writing Holly indicated that she was aware that many students needed

alternative ways to demonstrate their knowledge and she was willing to offer them that

opportunity.

Lylein his videotaped discussion of the case studies of Jessica and Scott said that both

students nwded to be in general education settings and that there needed to be a team efi‘ort

between the students, the science teacher and the special education teacher to develop a plan

to meet the needs of both students. While he would not alter the science curriculum for Scott

or Jessica, he would accommodate their learning by given them more time to complete written

assignments and alternative assessments like oral interviews.

Janein an exchange with Holly about ofl‘ering special education students a structured

study emphasized the need to think about all kids. She said, "I do recognize that kids who

are in the mainstream need support and I don't think it's just the special ed kids. I think that

it's all kids. I‘d rather that we think about how we can provide that support to all kids because

I think that all kids could benefit that way" (Coll. 10/25/93).

Further evidence of Lyle and Jane's commitment to teach all students is found in their

unpublished paper (1989), a transcription of an interview on their project to detrack the

science department by eliminating the low level science classes and to create heterogeneous

classes for all students. Lyle states:

I have always been uncomfortable with the label we put on the students that

learn at a different pace or with different techniques. For many of them they

are "identified" as slow learners at a young age and are subjected to "different

treatment" for the rest of their school days. They become a separate sub

culture and, just by the mere fact that they are given "special attention,” they

carry a stigma around with them for the rest of their lives.

I had seen too

many students eligible for support services falling or floundering in the tracked

situation. Though there were two teachers in the room, we weren't able to

1 3 7

provide enough individual conversations, role modeling, or leadership in lab

settings to impact students the way we thought they could be impacted in

heterogeneous settings (p.5).

Jane states in the same paper the following about her commitment to

inclusion.

I wanted students to work and learn in a diverse group just like they will after

schooling is finished. I wasn‘t thinking solely of the special education students

either. All students can benefit fiom diversity.

These comments offered evidence that both Lyle and Jane are committed to teaching all

students in heterogeneous settings. Another indicator of their commitment is the fact that they

developed this study, the inclusion of students at-risk and mild disabilities into biology classes,

as a project for their work in the Professional Development School. Holly, as Lyle's intern

from Michigan State University became a member of this science department and therefore

participated in this study. Later she was hired as a science teacher at Hart High School, hence

she was a part of this study to gradually eliminate low track science classes and include all

students in biology.

In conclusion, all three teachers in this study demonstrated a firm belief that their

responsibility was to teach all students. Perhaps, the strongest indicator of this belief was that

none of these teachers throughout the data and in my professional experience with them over

the last five years have ever expressed an unwillingness to teach any student regardless of the

nature or severity of their disability. Further, the alternatives and accommodations that they

provided for students identified for special education were available to all students in their

class. Their goal, as teachers, was to foster and facilitate the learning of all students.

1 3 8

The special education literature on inclusive practices emphasizes that one underlying

belief necessary for creating inclusive schools is the belief that teachers are responsible to

teach all students. Falvey, Givener and Kimm (1995), in their chapter about inclusive schools,

write that restructuring education to establish meaningful standards for each student requires

a belief that each child can learn and succeed and that effective teaching and learning results

from the collaborative efi‘orts of all teachers united to foster the success of all students. Many

special educators, however, remain doubtful that general education classrooms will ever

become responsive enough to effectively meet the needs of students with disabilities (Fuchs

and Fuchs, 1995). Undoubtedly, the debate regarding where students with disabilities are best

served will continue for the next decade.

C. Importance of High Expectations

Both Holly and Lyle were very direct in their belief about high expectations, while

Jane emphasized the need for teachers to find ways to foster students' success.

Holly, in several conversations stated the high expectations she held for all students.

...,ra-

In the conversation on 11/29/93 the group was discussing the idea of how classroom teachers

contributed to special education or other marginal students' "learned helplessness" by

lowering their expectations. I shared with them an experience I had while teaming with a

general education teacher, who said the special education students didn't have say anything

in the group presentations they could just make the poster. Holly responded:

I can't get over the idea of telling someone they can do a poster and don't have

to read or say a part, that just blows me away! Everybody in my class has to

verbally say part of the group presentations, I can't imagine that. In my class

every week they get a participation grade and to me that's the warm body in

class, doing your job, asking questions, taking notes, and working in your

group. And that's a portion of your grade by the end of the term there's

139

probably a 100 points, that's not the whole grade but it is a part of it (Coll.

11/29/93 p. 12-13).

Holly shared with the collaborative group her internal struggles with holding students

to high expectations.

It's also hard because you have these expectations and they immediately turn

off because they just don't think they can meet them, or it's scary because it's

gonna be too hard. And that kind of stuff comes out you know. I want always

to have the same expectations and then you can be a little more picky with

their work once you get it in front of you...But I don't like when they turn ofi‘

and then I figure they didn‘t turn in the assignment and my expectation was

that they do it..so I go over and check with them. Why didn't you do it? Are

you going to do it next time? Can I help you with it? And they still don't do

it and then they're failing. What can I do? Is it that they just don't care any

more? If I lower the expectations they are still not probably going to do it.

(Coll, 5/9/94, p.9).

This passage exemplified the ambivalence Holly had about her belief to hold high

expectations for all students. She was fiustrated because the students weren't turning in their

assignments and she could see the outcome-failure. She offered them encouragement and

yet stayed her ground, realizing that probably if she lowered her expectations they still

probably wouldn't do it.

Like Holly, Lyle expressed the need for teachers to hold high expectations for

students. He made this point several times during the conversation on 2/7/94

Everybody's a little different, but I still say we've got to demand a little more

out of them and let them know they have to at least try their best. And a lot

of these kids aren't even coming close to their best because we're not asking

them to do it in the lower grades. (p. 10)

Later in this same conversation, he said he tells students:

I give them an option. I say you don't have to come to this class. If you're

signed up for Zoology right now and if you don't want to be a part of this

140

class then you have the option to go down and go someplace else. But you're

gonna work, if you're gonna be in here. You don't have a choice (p.20).

Three months later he stated strongly during the collaboration on 5/9/94:

I think that a lot of special education kids come in to classes with low

expectations of themselves and then on top of that if the teacher reinforces

that by having low expectations for them they are defeated right away. We

ought to let them know that we have high expectations for everyone and that

we don't intend to 10 let them stay on this even keel. Like they‘ve reached all

of the skill levels that they're ever going to reach in their life and by the time

they're in 10th grade, even though they may not improve very much we still

should expect them to improve. If you don't expect them to get better they

won't get better. (p.9)

Later in this conversation, Lyle revealed that he was inconsistent about high

expectations. He admitted to the group that one of his:

biggest shortcomings is that a lot of us in the trenches are saying I'll accept

their work at their level as acceptable passing work. The person may write a

paragraph that really isn't a paragraph. It doesn't have any caps or periods and

all that good stuff, but they said something and we'll accept it at that level. So

we're not really helping them get better at reading and writing, but we're being

more accepting of their level and not really challenging them to get better

(Coll. 5/9/94, p.50-51).

While this was certainly discrepant with Lyle's strong stance on holding high

expectations for all students, it was not surprising. In general, a common practice of

secondary content area teachers is to hold high standards for knowledge of their subject

matter, but not for the mechanics of writing. However, this issue does raise several questions

about the continued development of the reading and writing skills of all students especially

those with disabilities in written language. Critics of the inclusion movement argue that this

is precisely why secondary students with reading and writing disabilities still need access to

resource room services (Zigrnond et al, 1995; Sapon-Shavin and O'Neil 1994/1995).

However, inclusionists argue that this practice means that both general and special educators

l 4 1

need to work jointly to provide the firrther development of reading and writing skills of all

students in the general education classroom (Barry, 1994/1995 and Warger & Pugach, 1996).

Although Jane stated in her Fastwrite that the "role of the learner needs to be

redefined," she did not elaborate further about what that means. However, it was evident in

the other data that she felt strongly that students needed to take more responsibility for their

learning by identifying their learning strengths and challenges and then'advocating for their

needs with their teachers. Lyle and Holly concurred with Jane on this redefinition of the

learners‘ role. However, unlike Lyle and Holly, who specifically wrote that learners needed

to be held to high expectations, Jane did not.

In reviewing the data, Jane appeared to believe that holding students to high

expectations was somewhat contingent on whether the teacher provided them with alternative

ways to learn and demonstrate their knowledge. In one conversation, she indicated it was

scary to her that the degree of the student's disability was really determined by how the

teacher thought about that student. Jane continued:

Like the fact that Lyle allows students to have an oral interview afier they try

to write as much as they can on a test makes a big difference on how

successful those kids are in your classroom (biology). And so there's a vehicle

for them to show you what they know other than the way they've never been

able to do it anyway (i.e., writing). But then they can go into a classroom

where there's not that understanding, there's not really the desire to know

what kids know, there's not that flexibility really to accommodate and those

kids are right back hitting their heads up against the wall. (Coll. 10/25/93,

p.24)

In this passage Jane addressed the issue of high expectations fi'om a student

perspective. In order for students to be held to high expectations, the curriculum, the

methodology, and the classroom organization have to be designed so that they can meet these

1 4 2

expectations given the nature of their disability. Jane reiterated this position when discussing

Jessica and Scott's ability to succeed or meet expectations in general education settings.

She asserted in both of the cases that the selection of the general education teacher

was a key to their success. In her videotaped conversation about Scott and Jessica, she said

several times that they needed to be less traditional in their approach to teaching both Scott

and Jessica.

Scott needs to be in a class where he can be actively involved. One that

provides group work and projects. This will tap into his strengths that include

a more active style of learning. Thought must be given to the teachers' style

and matching his style to the teachers.

Jane made a similar comment regarding Jessica.

Jessica needs classes where information is presented in different ways not

always giving information, but getting her more actively involved. She needs

classes where the text is viewed as more of a resource and not the Bible. She

needs teachers that view their role as more of a facilitator of learning than a

traditional one that lectures.

In both examples Jane was consistent with her position that the role of the general

educator needed to change in order to successfirlly merge general and special education.

According to her the traditional teacher as teller made it more difficult for students with

disabilities to engage in learning and demonstrate their understanding because of their

frequency of attentional deficits and their difficulties in writing.

What does the literature say about students with disabilities and expectations for their

learning? This critical issue is discussed also by Udvari-Solner & Thousand (1995) in their

chapter on promising practices for inclusive education. They write that high expectations for

learners and the demonstration of their personal best are important principles in developing

14 3

inclusive schools. Pugach and Warger in the book,WWW,

(Lovitt and Goodlad, 1993) write that "the integration of special and general education must

be well grounded in an analysis of curriculum issues and the expectations that various

approaches to curriculum create for learners" (p.125). These authors on inclusive practices

support both Lyle's and Holly's positions about learners needing to be held to high

expectations and add credence to Jane's position that holding students with disabilities to high

expectations in general education is dependent on the teacher's view of curriculum and

methodology.

Summary of Beliefs Concerning Teachers' Roles

In summary, all three of the teachers in this study behaved that their roles as educators

needed to be redefined with the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education

classrooms. While all three expressed this belief, they also revealed internal struggles with the

redefinition of their roles. Jane, the special education teacher expressed the most distress

about her changing role because this merger restructures both the location and the delivery

of special education services. Further, all three of the teachers indicated a belief that their

responsibility as a teacher is to teach all students. Finally, Holly and Lyle stated directly that

their role was to hold all students to high expectations. Jane's belief that students with

disabilities needed to be held to high expectations was conditional to the classroom teachers'

view of curriculum and methodology. All three of these beliefs concerning the teacher's role

further defines the moral purpose of making a difference in individual students' lives as a

teacher who reexarnines their role in relation to all of their students' academic needs including

those with disabilities and holds high standards and expectations for all students.

3. Beliefs About Curriculum and Assessment

144

A third set of beliefs that emerged from the data in the category regarding classroom

practice concerned curriculum and assessment.

A. The Need to Restructure the View of Subject Matter

Holly and Lyle in the data spent little time discussing the science curriculum. In fact

both of them in their videotapes of the case studies stated specifically that they would not

alter the science curriculum for either Scott or Jessica. Jane, however, in her Fastwrite stated

that both general and special educators must do more than redefine their roles, "they must

change their views on content and how learning is assessed." In the discussion above

regarding the redefinition of teachers' roles, Jane indicated that the success of Scott and

Jessica in the case studies was dependent on the selection of the general education teacher,

who needed to be less traditional in their approach to content, methodology and assessment.

How does one account for this difference in perspective on curriculums between the science

teachers and the special education teacher?

As the reader may recall from chapter one, in 1985 Hart High School became a

Professional Development School. Prior to this study the Science Department worked

diligently for five years to restructure their curriculum from a traditional curriculum of lecture

and lab that emphasized the memorization of facts in the text book to a model of conceptual

change. Lyle, in a transcription of an interview about restructuring the science curriculum,

describes this model as based on the belief that:

less science content is really more, we mix facts with processing and go into

greater depth and teach for understanding using real world concepts. We give

students real life problems and allow them to design their own labs. We use

145

metaphors and analogies to clarify concepts and try to relate new information

to ideas they understand.

This restructuring of the science curriculum is characteristic of the broader, natural reform

of science (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989). According to

Anderson and Fetters (Pugach and Warger, 1996) this science reform emphasizes deeper

understanding of fewer topics by changing teaching and the social organization of the

classroom to engage more students in authentic scientific experiments.

Holly was Lyle's MSU student intern in this science department at the time the

restructured science curriculum was being implemented. Thus, the science curriculum in

which she was mentored was a non-traditional curriculum based on a constructivist model of

teaching and learning emphasizing conceptual change. As a firll faculty member in the science

department she continued to implement the science curriculum based on the conceptual

change model. Jane and Lyle collaborated together to develop this science curriculum for

heterogeneous groups including at-risk students and those with disabilities.

The point of this discussion is to provide the reader with an explanation of why neither

Lyle nor Holly felt their science curriculum would need to be altered in order for Jessica and

Scott to be successfirl. Simply stated, their department had already redesigned their

curriculum to address the diverse needs of all students, therefore in the data of this study,

neither Holly nor Lyle focused their discussion on the need to change content.

Jane, however made several references in her comments on the videotaped case

studies regarding the teachers' roles and viewing their content differently. Both Jessica and

Scott according to Jane needed to be in a classroom environment in which the teacher viewed

their role as facilitator of students' engaging in content knowledge, rather than as a teller of

1 4 6

the content. Jane commented that the texts be used as a "resource not the Bible." This

statement seemed to imply that in order for teachers to see their role as a facilitator of

knowledge, they must regard subject matter as a dynamic body of knowledge including

concepts, vocabulary and facts in which they actively engage students, rather than a static

collection of information in a text to be read or lectured about. Jane explained her idea about

changing the way teachers think about learning and content during the collaborative

conversation on 11/3/93. The group was discussing the acquisition of language and the role

of prior knowledge. Holly gave an example of dropping a person into a country whose

language they didn't know. In this case, they had to learn by getting involved in the culture

and talking with people in addition to time when you sat and learned the language.

Jane responded,

What I hear you doing is giving him time. And that's something that we don't

give...I mean we wouldn't say to someone we're just dropping you into a

culture, you have to learn the basics like this year. Even as adults we give

ourselves as much time as we want to learn something. But our organization

(school) just stifles that so much. We say you have to obtain these standards

before we let you go on to this. That's what I think about with kids with

learning disabilities a lot of those kids need time to acquire knowledge. (Coll.

11/8/93, pp. 35-36)

Jane referred to the fact that schools rigidly define what content knowledge needs to

be acquired by a certain time line. Yet in the real world adults take the time they need to learn

things. Jane seemed to be arguing that content teachers have to be more flexible in giving

some students more time to acquire the content because in the real world each person learns

at their own pace.

Since Jane was a part of the restructuring effort in the Science department, why did

she make such a strong point in her data about the need for teachers to change their view of

1 4 7

content? Two factors could account for Jane's emphasis on teachers reframing their content.

First, Jane collaborated with teachers in all of the content areas. Not all of the departments

at Hart High School had restructured their curriculum to the same degree as the Science

Department, so Jane still experienced the effects on all students of a traditional teaching style

in which the text book and the teacher were the sole sources of knowledge and the students'

role was to listen and memorize. This business-as-usual approach to teaching consistently

impaired all students' ability to gain greater conceptual understanding, especially those with

disabilities.

Second, given that Jane was a part of the restructuring effort in the science

department with Lyle, she had directly experienced the impact of restructured curriculums on

students with disabilities. She stated in the unpublished paper of the transcription of their

interview, “I‘ve seen such growth from this experiment to create heterogeneous classrooms.

I too think the conceptual change approach to learning is very inclusive and keeps all students

tuned in to their own educational process." Given this experience in restructuring the science

curriculum to better meet the needs of all students, she felt the fiustration of students failing

in traditional classrooms even more strongly than before. Therefore, she was more

prescriptive in her belief statement about what was necessary to merge general and special

education than either Holly or Lyle.

Several authors concur with these three teachers that the content or curriculum needs

to be restructured to enhance the learning of all students. According to Ferguson (1995), in

response to the broader demands of life and work in the twenty-first century, requiring active

learners and collaborators, teachers at all levels of schooling are rethinking their curriculum

1 4 8

and trying to find ways to develop habits of learning that will serve them in the workplace.

Ferguson firrther indicates that educators are less convinced that learning one "official"

curriculum will allow students to achieve the competencies they will need for success in the

twenty-first century.

Pugach and Warger (1996) argue strongly that the restructuring of curriculums is the

common ground in which both general and special education teachers can participate in

developing a richer learning environment for all students. They state,

Given the central role the standard curriculum plays in the initial identification

of mild disabilities and also that the majority of students with mild disabilities

spend more time in general education than special education classrooms, the

standard curriculum present a natural context for special education to target

its reform energies (p.14).

In summary, all three of the teachers in this study believed that the traditional

curriculum needed to be restructured to better meet the needs of students. Lyle and Holly

made little reference to this change because they have spent the last several years redesigning

and implementing the science curriculum for all students. While Jane participated in this

project with the science department she made a strong point about this issue because she

worked with several departments that hold a traditional view of their teaching and their

curriculum.

The restructuring of curriculums is one way in which the moral purpose of teaching

and change agentry are linked. Goodlad, Soder, and Sirotnik (1990) argue that teachers with

moral purpose must ensure that no beliefs or practices exclude students fi'om access to

necessary knowledge. Holly, Lyle and Jane's evolving beliefs about science curriculum and

pedagogy to include all students were a part of the way they enacted the moral purpose of

1 4 9

teaching.

B. The Need to Develop Alternative Assessments

Just as there was a need for teachers to restructure curriculums, the teachers believed

that a new view of assessment was in order as well. Again Jane was much more focused on

this issue in the data than either Holly or Lyle for the same reasons stated above. However,

each of the teachers addressed the issue of assessment in the data.

Holly in the collaboration on 2/7/94 specifically shared with the group an example

from her classroom when everybody bombed the tests on organic substances. She knew it

was a difficult unit of study and so she thought about it and decided,

Let's go back and look at it. And I developed an alternative assessment for the

class that was more visual. I didn‘t ask questions, but made a more visual test

with pictures and columns. I made a big chart and they had to fill in the

blanks"(Coll. 2/7/94, p. 2-3).

In this example Holly illustrated that she believes that her role was to think about

assessment differently, not only as a way for measuring student knowledge, but also as a basis

of reteaching a concept.

Lyle in his videotaped interview of Jessica and Scott indicated that he would give both

students an opportunity to interview with him orally after they have attempted to respond to

their biology test in writing. This was consistent with the design of assessment that he and

Jane designed in their project on creating inclusive science classes. Also in Lyle's class,

students had an opportunity to share in their weekly journals what they have learned and

questions they have about their unit of study. Lyle used their journals as assessment tools in

determining their progress in understanding the concepts in the science curriculum. Jane had

1 5 0

several things to say about assessing learning in different ways. In one conversation Holly

asked Jane how she might accommodate and assess a student with a severe writing disability.

Jane responded that she worked with such a student in the American Studies class.

We do analysis journals every week and he writes what he can. He backs it

up with an audiotape. He makes an audiotape every week and analyzes his

own learning. He'll organize his ideas and talks it through on the tape. I've

encouraged him to organize his ideas like a concept map. (Coll. 11/29/93, p.

24)

This example illustrated how Jane was thinking about alternative ways to assess

students learning. She stated further that the students' degree of disability in a class was

dependent on how flexible the teacher was in thinking about ways of assessing learning. The

more traditional the assessment, i.e., strictly in written form, the more difficulty a student with

a writing disability will encounter in demonstrating their learning. One alternative was to

offer the student the option to audiotape his reflective journals.

Jane posited several things in her videotape about redefining assessment for both Scott

and Jessica. Extended time for assessments would be necessary for Scott whose attention

deficit may make it difficult to stay focused for a long period of time. Jessica would need

more time because of her reading and writing disability. Jane indicated that Jessica would

need the option of oral testing in conjunction with a written assessment because she might not

be able to write all that she knows.

In the segment about Scott, Jane stated that his teachers

needed to analyze his learning differently because he had difficulty finishing lengthy

assignments. Jane indicated that in the case of lengthy assignments such as reading a novel,

Scott might not finish, but then teachers needed to analyze his learning based on what he has

completed, which might not be a finished product. According to Jane, "They need to look

1 5 1

at the process of learning not just the product. Then they would see more evidence of success

and effort from a student like Scott." Jane said that with students like Scott the "teacher

needs to focus on the quality of his work rather than the quantity."

This particular issue about assessment was the topic of discussion in the last

conversation (5/31/94) after the group had viewed Jane's videotape. Karen, the novice math

teacher, asked Jane about this view of assessment:

Karen: You used a specific example about reading a novel and said that

expecting him to get to a final product of reading through the entire

novel by a particular time was not necessarily reasonable. I wonder

what you would expect from him in reading the novel?

J ane:

Well, my experience of being in classrooms where that is an

assignment, is that the whole class together will be at a certain point

on a certain date to answer all the questions that have to do with the

comprehension of what they've read about. And for a lot of kids that's

just an overwhelming task and I was thinking that for someone like

Scott to know that by next Tuesday I have to read 135 pages and have

all the answers to these questions.

It's so overwhelming that he

doesn't even attempt it. So I was thinking that, if he could do the same

thing except maybe not have to get that far, that it's more important

that he get going with the book and he takes some ownership and feel

like he's enjoying the story. Instead of stopping him from even

attempting it because we're so rigid about saying everyone in this

room has to be here by this time (C011,, 5/31/94).

Jane's point here was that if teachers viewed assessment in terms of both process and

product then students who found it difficult to complete lengthy assignments could be given

credit for the work that they had done even if they hadn't completed the full assignment. This

was consistent with her statement in her Fastwrite that teachers' need to assess learners

differently.

Udvari-Solner & Thousand (1995) posit that teachers need to adopt a new view of

assessment. They claim that traditional measures of performance fail to provide teachers with

l 5 2

information of students' understanding and quality of thinking. They indicate that classroom

teachers must move toward more authentic ways of assessment that involve exhibitions of

student learning in a variety of ways to show students' progress over time in both acquisition

and application of knowledge. Their position is congruent with Jane's that assessment should

include both process and product.

In summary, all three of the teachers' believed that alternative methods of assessment

were necessary to determine students' learning, in particular those with disabilities. Jane

offered several examples to demonstrate her belief, while Holly and Lyle offered only a couple

of examples. The Science department has spent several years rethinking assessment as a part

of their restructuring effort in their science curriculum and continues to reflect about and

revise assessment in their daily practice. These ongoing efforts reveal teachers with a moral

purpose who are committed not only to creating access to knowledge through curriculum

restructuring but through alternative assessments. These options allow students to

demonstrate their knowledge and understanding in a variety of ways which is helpful to all

students but essential to students with disabilities who are often limited in the area of written

language.

Summary of Beliefs about Classroom Practice

In conclusion, the three teachers in this study have fairly consistently espoused sets

of beliefs throughout the data in the category of classroom practice concerning learners, their

role as a teacher, and their view of content and assessment. At times they all expressed some

inconsistencies in their belief systems regarding changing their practice to include students

with disabilities in the mainstream. Schutz (1970) comments in the literature that teachers'

1 5 3

beliefs often vacillate and are sometimes unclear and ofien inconsistent. Fullan (1991) talks

about change being "a process not an event." "Real change represents a serious personal and

collective experience characterized by ambivalence and uncertainty" (Fullan, 1991, p.32).

Consequently, these inconsistencies expressed by Holly, Lyle and Jane are part of the normal

process of change.

The three sets of beliefs that emanated from the teachers’ data in this study about their

classroom practice, i.e., beliefs about learners, beliefs about teachers' roles, and beliefs about

content and assessment were all critical in supporting the needs of students with mild

disabilities in inclusive secondary settings. They reveal more precisely what it means to make

a difference in the lives of individual students. The mere physical presence of students with

disabilities in general education without changes in these tenets will continue to be business

as usual for them, which has been chronic fiustration and failure.

CATEGORY H: Beliefs About The Structure of Educational Systems

The second category of beliefs was derived from the subjects' written and oral

communication about the educational system and the Organizational structure of secondary

schools and how these components interacted and either facilitated or hindered inclusive

settings for students with disabilities.

The data showed that once beliefs about inclusive practices were operationalized in

their classroom, teachers recognized that both the educational system and the school's

organizational structure inhibited their efforts to include students with disabilities in the

mainstream and limited their possibility for success in integrated settings. According to Fullan

(1994) a teachers with moral purpose must simultaneously make a difference in the individual

154

and the broader school-wide change to create a system that will be most effective for all

students' learning.

Following is a description and discussion of the teachers' beliefs about

the structure of educational systems that surfaced in the analysis of the data.

1. Beliefs About Systemic Change

What beliefs about systemic change emerged in the data? Did the general and

special education teachers hold common beliefs about systemic change?

A. The Need to Counter Learned Helplessness

Lyle expressed in his Fastwrite that "the high school 2314110! make a significant

difference with many of the kids that have 'leamed to be special education.‘ We must change

the way these kids are supported in their earlier years" (Lyle, FW). This belief that students

with mild disabilities learned to be special ed and, therefore, the educational system needs to

begin mainstreaming students at the elementary level was a recurring theme that Lyle

expressed in many of the collaborative conversations.

In the first conversation Lyle stated that "High school teachers don't feel that they can

be very effective if they start mainstreaming at the high school. We have to stop tracking kids

in third and fourth grade" (Coll. 10/25/93 p. 10-1 1). In the next conversation (Coll.11/3/93

p.8) Lyle indicated that he "feels that kids are overprotected in elementary schools that kids

with disabilities need to face reality about their disability not be protected from it."

Again in the collaboration on 3/10/94 Lyle stated strongly:

I don't want to sound like a broken record, we need to deal with the people

(students) in the building right now, but I can't even be a part of this if we

can't somehow get back to the elementary and stop the bleeding back there.

This is too late. We're gonna have this same conversation next year and five

years from now and ten years from now and nothing will have changed unless

we go back to the elementary and change how we treat these kids. If we

155

continue to pull them out and put a label on their forehead they're always,

always gonna be like this. If we expect inclusion of students at this level then

there better be inclusion at the lower levels and the administration is gonna

have to staff it (pp. 9-10).

In these passages, he expressed his feelings about mainstreaming students throughout

their school career so that they were used to dealing with their learning issues in the regular

class and might have higher expectations for their learning. Ann, the social worker, who

supported both elementary and secondary students with disabilities responded to his

comments with a story of a fifth grader:

The interesting thing is that at the elementary school that (pulling them out)

feels good to the kids. They're sitting in a classroom where they haven't been

successful and they're failing and when they get pulled out and put into a

resource room and they start being successful, they feel like they have been

saved. I went to a parent conference of a 5th grader and the 5th grade teacher,

like when she has social studies and science the little girl is in the resource

room. So she was changing her times around so this kid would have some

contact with social studies and science and wouldn't always miss it. OK so

then the kid said to her, "I don't need to do social studies because I don't do

social studies in your room." And the teacher said, "Yes you need to do this."

And we all agreed with the parents that whenever she's in the room she has to

do what the other kids do...but see she wants to get out of it now. And I said

to them at the high school she's gonna be telling me I didn't get the

basics...I‘ve got gaps in my learning. Special Ed did this to me and now they

expect me to do this and that and I've got screwed because I got through

special ed. And in the fifth grade she wants us to excuse her...to make it

easrer.

Ann confirmed with this story Lyle's assessment of the "learned helplessness" that

begins at the elementary level. Students were pulled out of general education classrooms and

given easier work. Then, when they returned to the general education classroom, they didn't

even want to try; they have "somewhere down the line been given permission to not try hard

and to not perform. They have learned helplessness, they have learned to be special ed" (Lyle,

Coll. 11/29/93 p 1.).

1 5 6

In fact the special education literature validates the positions of both Lyle and Ann.

Learned helplessness occurs in people who have an external locus of control and believe that

bad things happen to them because they lack ability and good things occur because they are

lucky (Kennely & Mount, 1984; Rhodes, Blackwell, Jordan, & Walters, 1980). Luchow,

Crowl and Kahn (1985) describe this pervasive feeling of helplessness in the same way as Lyle

constructs it, a "lack of persistence at tasks which realistically could be mastered" (p.470).

Much of the discussion in the special education literature in fact supports Lyle's belief

about special educators routinely lowering expectations for special education students.

Fuchs, Fuchs, and Hamlett (1989) report the goals written in special education students'

Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) underestimate their performance and special

educators must be encouraged to raise their expectations to more realistic levels. According

to Rieth and Polsgrove (1994) this practice of establishing lower performance goals may be

contributing to students' lack of academic success.

Lyle, in two other collaborations, mentioned his observations of other characteristics

of the "learned helplessness syndrome" exhibited by special education students with limited

experience in general education. One observation was their attitude about tests. "They don't

try to pass the test in the first place. They didn't prepare for it. They come in every day, but

they're distracting the class and they’re not doing anything" (Coll: 11/29/93, p. 27-28.) In the

same collaboration Lyle noted that special education students came to expect special

treatment, "When they learn to be special ed it's like all I have to do is act up and I'll get some

special attention, but I'm not expected to perform very much so I'm going to get by with this

no matter what" (p. 1).

1 5 7

In a later conversation he told the group, "I think so many of these special education

students have learned that if they don't write anything down on a test, they're gonna get

treated really special...there's a percentage that can't, but I would say that 70-80% of them,

if we demanded more they would do it (Coll, 2/7/94, p.9).

In these statements Lyle was making the point that in special education resource

rooms of ten students and one teacher, special education students come to rely on having

immediate responses to their needs. Thus, when they began to experience difficulty or exhibit

frustration, an adult was readily available to attend to their needs. Then when they were

expected to firnction in the mainstream by the secondary level, these patterns of dependency

were manifested by the students' belief that they could not get started without assistance and

therefore would sit and wait until the teacher was there to help them. This was another

dimension of the "learned helplessness" syndrome fostered by a system that limited

mainstreaming opportunities through elementary and middle school.

A model secondary program for LD students developed by Naorrri Zigmond (1990)

includes training in survival skills, which includes social skills training for the general

education classroom. This curriculum includes learning teacher pleasing behaviors, such as

bringing a pencil to class, making eye contact, looking interested in a lesson, looking busy and

volunteering in class. Performing these behaviors will lead general education teachers to view

them more positively.

While this premise may be valid, that by exhibiting these behaviors the teacher will

view them more favorably, it also raises serious questions. Why do high school special

education students need to have training in these behaviors in the first place? Are these

1 5 8

behaviors an outcome of elementary and middle school special education programs that foster

the learned helplessness, the lowering of expectations and the "learning to be special

education" that Lyle has repeatedly observed in his teaching of special education students?

Would they need to be taught these teacher pleasing behaviors if their social behaviors had

been developed more predominantly in regular education classes?

In sum, Lyle articulated a belief that the K-12 educational system needed to change

by developing more inclusive practices, whereby students with mild disabilities spent a great

deal of time in general education settings starting at the elementary level. Through his efforts

to include students with disabilities in science classes, he has come to believe that the ability

of these students to be successful in general education even with a restructured curriculum

is limited because the system of special education fosters the development of the "learned

helplessness" syndrome.

Jane, like Lyle, embraced the belief that the educational system needed to change.

The general education system diminished self-esteem and the special education system

responded by fostering a learned helplessness. Therefore, both systems needed to change.

Following is a description of Jane's belief about the necessity for systemic change to more

successfirlly include students with mild disabilities at the secondary level.

B. The Need to Foster Self-Determination and Self-Advocacy Skills

In response to the "learned helplessness syndrome" of the special education system,

Jane wrote that she was "committed to this initiative (to include students with mild disabilities

in general education classrooms), although I have come to realize how complex the issues

involved are and that it necessitates a strong commitment to change" (FW, Jane).

1 5 9

According to her written belief statement, the reintegration of these students involved

a desire to reform the structure of a system and to change one's role as an educator. This

desire implied a willingness to rethink and change, with others, several pieces of the

educational system: the roles of the practitioners, the view of their content and how learning

was assessed, and the role of the learner as a self advocate, all of which were discussed in the

previous sections of this chapter.

In one conversation, Jane discussed specifically how the educational system

diminished the self-esteem of some students beginning at the elementary level. She had just

read an article discussing the effects of elementary schooling on students' academic self-

esteem and expressed how the structure of the educational system and the beliefs teachers

hold about students' capabilities negatively impact some students.

I was interested in this article and how the research indicates that early

elementary children make this appraisal about themselves and how they

compare academically with other kids and I asked, What is it about our

structure and what is it about, that we make things worse for kids?’ Because

that's where I see it breaking down. Kids make this appraisal and then these

messages get shot to them that it's not OK for them to be the way they are.

Because we have all these things, we give grades, we give tests, we compare,

we have our own notions of how kids should do and if they don't fall into our

own perceptions then they're low level kids. And I just think it gets worse and

worse. It's like this little tiny snowball that starts and it just builds so that by

the time you get the kids at this level they're depressed and angry about

school. And it just gets worse and worse and then we start down-shifting kids

by tutoring them, pulling them out, trying to do special things with them.

There is just no excuse for this and as professionals we have to take

responsibility for the academic self-conflict of our students (Coll. 2/28/94, p.

10-11).

In this passage, Jane shared her perceptions about the impact of the educational

system as a whole because the process of diminishing students’ academic self-esteem and their

beliefs about themselves as learners are formed in the elementary school and have a snowball

l 6 0

effect. Jane's references to the structure’s schools have in place like grades/tests and teachers'

own perceptions of what learners ought to be doing at given ages served as evidence that she

was aware of the multiple dimensions in the educational system and, therefore, realized that

changing the system will be complex. She offered further evidence of her belief by expressing

her commitment to change the system, "We as professionals must take responsibility for our

students' self conflict."

Students' feelings of inadequacy can lead to poor performance and often inappropriate

behaviors precipitating a referral for special education services. Once they have been

identified as having a disability and are educated in the special education classrooms for an

extended length of time other feelings characteristic of the "learned helplessness syndrome"

are expressed. Jane spoke to this point on 12/7/93, "When I interviewed students with Lyle

in our project, it was a real wake up call to me to find out that they would describe

themselves as slow learners and how they come to that conclusion." Later in the conversation

she reflected, "I think that it is probably the process of special education: the labeling, the

parents' perceptions, the fostering of learned helplessness" (12/7/93, p.16).

Sally, a math teacher in the collaborative group stated during this conversation she

believed these feelings are developed also through:

the kinds of conversations that special education teachers have with their

clients in the special ed room and it's mostly helping them with their work that

general educators assign. I think this also sends a message to them that you're

incapable of doing this work, so you're here with me to help you..Not let's

discuss how you can compensate for these particular weaknesses that you

have. How can you approach this in a different way? What do you need to

take responsibility for...more of that kind of conversation (Coll. 12/7/93,

p.11).

1 6 1

According to Jane these feelings of shame and helplessness made the integration of

special education students into the mainstream more difficult.

In one of the last group

conversations, she shared with the collaborative group a particular incident with a junior high

student.

We're back to what you've (general education teachers)recognized for a long

time about these secondary students that have been in the (special education)

system forever; they've built up so much shame. I mean I have an example

of a junior high student at his IEPC meeting to plan his high school schedule.

He's been in special ed since second grade, doesn't want anyone to know

about his disabilities, all the shame (Coll. 5/24/94, p. 14).

This passage illustrated that through her experiences with special education students

in this process of integrating them into general education classes, Jane has learned that they

often have feelings of shame about themselves as a learner and they don't want anyone to

know about their disability.

These experiences led Jane and others to believe that special education students

needed to develop self-determination skills to be more successful in general education classes.

In several instances in her collaboration she said that "kids will have to learn to advocate for

themselves. They have to know about their disability; so they can talk about it with their

teacher" (C011,, 11/3/93, p.26).

In 1994, Jane, Ann, and I piloted a class for students’ at-risk and with disabilities to

foster skills in self-advocacy and self determination.

This course provided students the

opportunity to explore their learning challenges and strengths and develop and implement a

self-advocacy plan. In addition, they evaluated their behaviors regarding internal and external

locus of control. By examining who has the control of a situation and who has responsibility,

students can begin to feel empowered and diminish their sense of "learned helplessness."

1 6 2

Although Jane was a strong advocate for this change in the special education system

to foster self-determination, she realized in teaching these skills that it would not be an easy

process. During a collaborative group conversation she reported, "In our class I thought it

was going to be uncomfortable for them to talk about their disability, but neither Peg nor I

expected the intensity of their feelings, their rage, about their disability and their resistance

to talk about it.

It was like opening Pandora's box " (p5).

A few months later she said, "You know I was really amazed at the frustration I felt

and didn't anticipate in trying to help kids. I thought it would be easy for them to say, this is

where my problem area is. This is what I can do to help. I mean it is not easy" (Jane, Coll.

5/24/94, p. 14). Further, she was amazed at how frustrated she felt about it and that she hadn't

anticipated this kind of difficulty assisting students with disabilities to become more self-

determined.

Given these experiences Jane believed that the development of self-determination skills

needed to start earlier. Jane reiterated several times during the collaboration how essential it

was that the development of self-determination skills that fostered student responsibility

needed to begin in upper elementary grades.

If we really did a better job of helping them understand their disability at the

elementary level, it would be more natural for them at the high school level,

as opposed to trying to hide it and be shameful of it (3/21/94, p.6).

The concept of self-determination is gaining acceptance within the disability fields

because many people are questioning the limited opportunities that persons with disabilities

have to give input about their firtures. According to Ward (1992), "self-determination, which

includes self-actualization, assertiveness, creativity, pride, and self-advocacy, must be part of

l 6 3

the career development process that begins in early childhood and continues throughout adult

life" (p.389).-

Field (1996) states that students with learning disabilities face many barriers to

becoming self-determined including acknowledging that they have one. An understanding of

one's strengths and challenges and an acceptance of self are the foundation of self-

determination (Field & Hoffman, 1994). Further, Smith (1989) reports that the learned

helplessness of students with learning disabilities has been well documented and presents real

barriers to becoming self-determined. The process of self-determination is a developmental

process that begins in early childhood, although is being fostered more at the secondary level.

However, according to Ward (1991) many of the beliefs, values, and skills that promote or

hinder adolescents' self-determination are most strongly formed in early childhood.

This literature provides support for Lyle's position that many students with disabilities

develop learned helplessness and for Jane's position that changing the general and special

education system to develop the skills necessary for self-determination at the elementary level

would begin to ameliorate their sense of shame and powerlessness.

What did Holly, the novice teacher express about systemic change? She did not

address this issue directly in any of her data. Perhaps, one reason for this was that she was

only in her second year of teaching and new to the profession. Thus, the majority of her

energy was consumed with the initial development of her classroom practice. Further, since

she did not have the experience that Lyle and Jane had, she was not yet thinking about the

system as a whole and its long-term impact on high school students.

164

In summary, both Lyle and Jane believed strongly that the K-12 general and special

educational systems needed to change in order to more successfully include students with

disabilities in general education classrooms. Lyle argued for systemic change on the basis of

the learned helplessness that the system of special education fostered in students with

disabilities.

J ane argued that including students with disabilities required systemic change,

namely that all educators must rethink how they diminish students' self-esteem by sorting and

classifying them in both general and special education systems. Jane believed that the learned

helplessness could be addressed by developing the skills of self-determination at the

elementary level. Jane believed that the development of these skills needed to be systematic

throughout the grades, however "if we do this for just kids with disabilities then we are

fueling the dual system. All kids need to learn to be self—determined enough to advocate for

themselves" (Coll, 12/7/93, p.16).

2. Beliefs About Organizational Structure

In the further analysis of the data two beliefs surfaced about the need to change

the organizational structure of the high school.

A. Teachers Need to Work as A Team

Holly commented in her videotaped conversation on Jessica and Scott that everyone

was responsible to help them succeed:

the students, and both the general and special

education teachers.

Jane has looked at tests I have developed and made suggestions. Working

with the special education teacher helps me to be more successful with all

students. Special education teachers help all students. They help me see better

ways to teach all students.

l 6 5

Lyle made similar statements in his videotaped interview about Scott. "There needs

to be a team effort for Scott to address his ADHD issues. The team needs to include Scott,

his parents and the general and special education teachers."

In terms of Jessica and her

reading Lyle made the following comment,

Everybody is responsible to make Jessica read better. The special education

teacher is a part of the team and provides general information about students

with disabilities, but also specific information.

Jane stressed in her videotape on Scott the need for a team effort.

A group of people needs to work together to develop strategies for Scott to

be successfirl in general education.

All of his teachers including a special

education teacher and a former teacher need to meet and discuss what has

worked for him. The special education person is the key link to work with

Scott as well as his general education teachers. There must be a team effort,

including Scott.

About the second case study Jane said,

Jessica is the key. If she is motivated to improve her reading and writing than

general and special education teachers need together with her on this

program. We need to look at the training of the teachers on the team and

Jessica's needs. I think that whatever is best for her is the key, rather than

emphasizing whose role it is.

In summary all three of the teachers in this study expressed the belief that there needed

to be a team effort between general and special education teachers to support the needs of

students with mild disabilities in the mainstream. Obviously, in order for this team effort to

be possible time to collaborate and plan for students is essential. This belief system calls for

reorganization of the time structure of the school to allow teachers the time to consult with

each other and plan for students' learning.

1 6 6

Villa and Thousand (1995) discuss this issue of collaboration as a critical

organizational resource for teachers to fulfill their responsibilities to help students with

disabilities succeed in inclusive settings. They offer several ways to reorganize time to allow

for collaboration including redesigning the master schedule, providing permanent rotating

substitute teachers to release teachers, and rearranging the school day to allow for a block of

time before or after school. Without this type of commitment to the reorganization of the

school day, teachers and students will continue to be perpetually frustrated about the quality

of their teaching and students' learning. According to Villa and Thousand, "Support from

colleagues, students, formal leadership and others in the community is what most people

really are crying out for when they scream they are frustrated and in need of resources" (1995,

p.66).

Jane expressed the need for a team to address J essica's needs in reading and writing.

She said that educators needed to look at the Mtg of the team members and decide what

was best for Jessica, rather than who's responsible. In other words Jane was indicating that

teachers need to rethink their roles by identifying their strengths and then plan for students'

needs based on the skills of individual team members rather than by title and/or certification.

In fact Thousand and Villa (1995) offer this as a second tactic for creating inclusive schools.

They propose that educators rethink their roles and drop the standard rigid expectations as

to the roles people must play. Fullan (1994) states that collaboration is one of the

characteristics of teachers as change agents with moral purpose. This redefinition of roles

leads to the second belief that evolved from the data about the organizational structure of

schools.

B. Consistent Support from Special Education Teachers

167

Holly in the case study on Jessica commented about the role of special education

teachers in general education classrooms. She said,

Special education teachers are here to help these students, but that's not their

only role. They're here for all students. Special education teachers in the

mainstream help other students too and they can benefit from their help.

While Holly's comment did not state this belief directly, she implied that it was beneficial to

have a special education teacher in the classroom to help both special and general education

students.

Lyle had a stronger position. He began his Fastwrite with the following statement,

If we expect success with these students, the general education teachers must

receive regular support from special education. As much experience as I've

had with this situation, every year presents different teaching challenges and

no matter how experienced we think we are with this (initiative) we still need

lots of support.

Lyle and Jane team taught on a daily basis for three years as they developed their PDS

project to merge special education students from a fundamental general science class to a

biology class. Lyle said in their unpublished transcription of an interview about their project,

that having Jane teaming with me was beneficial to both the students and the

teacher. She was an advocate for all students, not just the special education

students. I personally learned a lot of techniques that may have gone

undiscovered without this exposure and experience.

In particular, Lyle learned to write words and phrases more legibly on the board or

overhead, avoid abbreviations, to use more colloquial terms along with the scientific

terminology (e. g., master control for nucleus), and to meet with all the cooperative groups

not just the groups that included students at-risk and with disabilities.

1 6 8

Jane commented in the same paper that in the team situation she "felt like she was

’included' too for- the first time."

In her Fastwrite she wrote "this initiative will require

resources to support both general and special education teachers including time to reflect and

collaborate together" (Jane, FW). Jane was committed to team teaching in general education

settings but noted that this initiative will require time for teachers to reflect and collaborate

together.

The key word in her position was "resources." At the completion of their three-year

project to create an inclusive biology class, special education students were dispersed into all

biology classes with a maximum number of four in any class. This arrangement was quite

different from the eight to ten that were in the team taught class with Lyle and Jane for three

years. Jane then circulated between the biology classes working in all of the classes (including

Holly's) on an as needed basis, rather than a daily basis.

Lyle pointed out, in his statement, that if inclusion is going to work general educators

must have "regular" support from special educators because each class was different. Though

he had acquired many skills in working with students with disabilities, Lyle argued that the

classroom teacher needed daily support to implement the new curriculum and teaching

methods that support their needs. By regular support he meant team teaching on a daily basis.

Jane made this point about the need for resources. All three of the teachers indicated the need

to reorganize secondary schools to utilize the teaching resources in both general and special

education to better serve the needs of all students in inclusive classrooms.

As noted earlier in the section on redefining teachers' roles Villa and Thousand (1995)

and Ferguson (1996) in their studies of inclusionary practices indicate that team teaching

1 6 9

arrangements are a viable solution to including students with disabilities in general education.

Pu gach and Warger the book, Integrating General and Special Education, (Lovitt and

Goodlad 1993) argue that general and special education teachers need to work in partnership

to redesign curriculum and teaching methods to enhance the learning of all students. This is

exactly what Jane and Lyle have done in their project to merge special education and at-risk

students in biology. Villa and Thousand (1995) suggest reorganizing schools by merging the

resources of special and general education teachers into team teaching arrangements. They

prOpose that in order for educators to more readily access the resources of their colleagues,

everyone must reconstruct their role and embrace new ways of working together. They

concur with Lyle, Jane and Holly that teaching teams bring their unique instructional expertise

and curriculum knowledge together to provide a richer learning experience for all students.

Roberts and Mather (1995, p.49-50) write, "successfirl integration is dependent on the

amount of support given to classroom teachers, students, and parents." Schumm and Vaughn

(1995) in their five-year study investigating inclusion reported that one central theme in their

study of 30 elementary teachers was the need for ongoing dialogue with special educators.

The state of Vermont, in which 83% of students with disabilities are educated in regular

classrooms, lists as vital to successful mainstreaming the incorporation of a process for

collaborative planning and teaming between general and special educators (Thousand & Villa,

1995). However, Kauffman and Hallahan (1995) have a different point of view about

restructuring special education resources in this way. They argue that the merger of special

education resources into general education classrooms on the basis of serving not only

students with disabilities, but all students more effectively, is not feasible because the diversity

of the learners in any classroom would be too great to effectively meet any student‘s needs.

170

By merging their resources special education will be in danger of losing its focus, identity and

authority.

It can only maintain its autonomy "if it

is successfirl in fending off the

entrepreneurial interests and irresponsible attacks that threaten its hard-won position"

(Kauffman and Hallahan, 1995, p.187).

These two opposing viewpoints frame the dilemma that Jane experienced at Hart High

School. How does a special education teacher commit to team teaching on a daily basis and

consult with the students on her caseload, their teachers, and the other support specialists

designated in their program?

After the completion of their Science Inclusion Project, Lyle and Jane reverted back

to their traditional practice of the general education teacher teaching alone and the special

educator consulting with all of the science teachers as needed. Hence, neither Lyle nor Jane

was satisfied with the organizational structure of Hart School because there was limited time

for collaboration and Jane consulted with all teachers in the science department without team

teaching in any one class.

Lyle was left with trying to adapt and tailor the science curriculum in a heterogeneous

classroom without the consistent support of a special educator. As Fullan (1992) indicates

meaningful, sustained change takes place over a three to five-year period. Lyle and Jane

stopped team teaching after three years, just as their efforts on creating heterogeneous

classrooms for students with disabilities and their partnership began to bear fruit. It seems

essential for the educational system to find ways to sustain congruent teaching partnerships

between general and special educators that are committed to creating new curriculums

focused on teaching and learning for all students. This type of continuity is necessary for the

l 7 1

continued learning and growth of both general and special educators, as they forge new ways

to teach all students in general education classrooms. According to Tralli, Colombo, Deshler,

and Schumaker (1996) these collaborative partnerships are a necessary condition for

"supported inclusion" for meaningful student outcomes, rather than inclusion by being listed

on the class roster.

Hart High School general and special education teachers continue to try to resolve this

dilemma by trying different organizational structures, which will maximize the utilization of

resources and offer them continued time to collaborate and reflect on their practice. During

the last three years, Holly has been working with other subject matter teachers in

mathematics, English and history to create an interdisciplinary teaching team for a group of

sophomores including ten special education students. A special education teacher works with

this team on a part time basis team teaching primarily in English and history. Perhaps, this

structure in tenth grade will foster a more consistent team teaching arrangements between

general and special education teachers.

The present status of the organizational structure at Hart High School as it is in

transition to create a more meaningful educational experience for all students though

frustrating, is not surprising. Fullan (1993) indicates in his book on educational change,

implementing new initiatives takes a minimum of two or three years and bringing about

institutional change can take five or more years.

Summary of Organizational Structure

In summary, all three of the teachers believed that the organizational structure needed

to change to allow time for them to work as a team to support the needs of students with

1 7 2

disabilities. Second, all three teachers believed that the organizational structure needed to

change so that general education teachers can have the consistent support of special education

teachers in their classrooms. The present organizational structure left all of the teachers

frustrated with their teaching practice and students' learning. Jane, the special education

teacher, was very torn between her belief about team teaching and the other demands of her

job to consult with all of the students on her caseload and their teachers and participate in the

special education evaluation process.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this chapter has described two categories of beliefs about inclusive

practices that emerged from the analysis of the data on the three teachers. Category I

includes three sets of beliefs about classroom practice: beliefs about learners, beliefs about

teachers' roles, and beliefs about content and assessment.

These sets of beliefs about classroom practice are at the core of a teacher with moral

purpose and, therefore, essential for teachers who are committed to making a difference in

the lives of individual students including those with disabilities. However, moral purpose

focused solely at the classroom level is insufficient to foster a moral ecology in the culture of

the school (Fullan 1994, Goodlad, Soder, and Sirotnik, 1990). Thus, throughout the data

teachers' beliefs about the need to change the organizational structure of school and the K-12

system emerged.

Category II includes two sets of beliefs about the structures of educational systems:

beliefs about systemic change and beliefs about the organizational structure of the school.

Teachers who have a moral purpose are change agents as well, who actively promote and

173

strive for changes in the system through inquiry and collaboration (Fullan, 1994). Thus,

through their collaborative work to restructure science teaching and learning for all students

the teachers in this study realized how the organizational structure of the high school and the

educational system impede teachers in their efforts to create inclusive schools and hinder

students' abilities to become fully integrated and successful in the general education

classroom.

The belief systems described in this chapter are at the heart of a teacher with moral

purpose and essential to developing inclusive classroom practices and fostering a moral

ecology in the culture of a school. As quoted at the beginning of this chapter, a teacher's

predispositions are not only relevant, but in fact are at the core of becoming a teacher (Lortie,

1975). According to Fullan (1991) teachers' beliefs are one of the three major components

in changing practice. The other two components are revision of curriculum and revision of

teaching methods. All three of these components are necessary for achieving a particular goal,

which in this study is general and special education teachers working collaboratively to

support the needs of students with mild disabilities in general education classrooms. Just as

limited change in classroom practice can occur if teachers merely alter their curriculum and

their strategies, so too can inclusive practices be implemented by placing students with

disabilities in general education settings with some modifications and accommodations by the

classroom teacher. However, real change or sustained change occurs with the alteration of

an individual teacher's conceptions or core values about the purpose of education (F ullan,

1991). Then, in the case of developing inclusive practices, it is not only essential for teachers

to have the environmental resources for developing these practices, but equally critical that

1 7 4

teachers examine and change their beliefs about students' learning capacities and their own

responsibilities to help all students.

Lyle and Jane developed a study to create an inclusive biology class in which Holly

participated as a student intern. Through this three-year process these teachers examined their

belief systems about students with disabilities, and then changed their curriculum and their

methodology to better meet the needs of all students. This Collaborative Inquiry Project

offered them another opportunity to collaborate with each other, with two members of the

Hart High School Mathematics department, and a school social worker and to continue this

process of change by exploring their beliefs and their teaching practice in regards to

supporting the needs of students with mild disabilities in general education classrooms.

This chapter illuminated the categories of beliefs that emerged through their efforts

to create inclusive settings for the past several years. In the final analysis, all of the beliefs

articulated by these three teachers underpin the educational decisions they make daily to

address the needs of students with mild disabilities in the classroom. Based on these data

their central beliefs about their classroom practice are that all students can learn, that they are

responsible to teach all students, and they must formulate new ways to think about their

cuniculum and assessment. Seymour Sarason (1995) captures the critical factor of changing

one's beliefs very adroitly, "The initial object of change is not students, the classroom, or the

system: it is the attitude and conceptions of educators themselves" (p.84).

After establishing the critical beliefs teachers need to embrace to support students with

disabilities in general education, what intellectual resources evolved through the sustained

collaboration and inquiry that they drew on to support these students? The next chapter will

l 7 5

explore this question.

nrcnrcaN sran UNIV. LIBRARIES

1|l1|111Willi1111111111WIW‘HIIWINIll

31293017165238

 

CHAPTER 6

INTELLECTUAL RESOURCES

"Often we find meaning only by

trying something." p.xi, Fullan,

1991.

According to Fullan (1991) the implementation of educational change entails

alterations in the practice of teaching. However, change does not occur by addressing a single

component of practice. Innovation involves addressing multiple components of teaching.

Fullan (1991) cites at least three dimensions that must be addressed in implementing any new

policy or program: changes in beliefs, changes in curriculum, and changes in teaching

methods. Environmental resources are necessary to support the implementation of any of

these kinds of changes.

Chapter 4 described in detail the environmental resources at Hart High School that

were necessary to facilitate changes in teaching and learning to better meet the needs of all

students including those with disabilities. This attention to the teaching and learning of all

fostered the moral purpose of teaching, namely making a difi’erence in the lives of individual

students. In the collaborative partnerships supported by the environmental resources the

moral purpose of teaching was fused with change agency which facilitated new structures in

the school leading to a culture with a moral ecology in which all members of the school, i.e.,

176

1'7 7

teachers, counselors, support staff, and administrators worked toward creating an

intellectually demanding and supportive setting for all students.

Chapter 5 examined in detail the belief systems that were critical for teachers to make

a difi‘erence in the lives of individual students and simultaneously to create an inclusive school

culture.

Chapter 6 will describe the teachers’ knowledge that the general and special education

teachers in this study drew on to support all students and argue that these resources were

critical in supporting students with disabilities in inclusive settings. Thus, the question that

remains is what intellectual resources do teachers with a moral purpose utilize in the

'

classroom to make a difl'erence in the lives of individual students?

One of the dilemmas a researcher faces in studying teacher knowledge is how to

analyze and organize the data in a way the makes sense to other researchers and teachers.

Wilson, Shulman, and Richert (1987) in their studies about changes in teachers’ subject

matter knowledge over an extended time, faced a similar situation. Hence, to organize their

data they developed two frameworks. One model included the components of the professional

knowledge base of teaching and the other was a model detailing the pedagogical reasoning

that teachers use in the act of teaching. Both of these models proved useful in organizing the

data of this study for several reasons. First, the models have been used for the last ten years

and are known by many educational researchers. Second, these models represent the various

dimensions of the teaching act while maintaining a holistic representation of practice. Third,

the data in this study were similar to their data and, therefore, their models proved usefirl in

organizing the evidence from the teachers’ collaborative conversations and their videotaped

1 7 8

interviews of the hypothetical student case studies.

TABLE 6-1 Intellectual Resources

 

CATEGORY I. cmm PamGOGIcALKNoWLEDGE”

*

 

1. Knowledge of the theories and principles of teaching and learning.

2. Knowledge of diverse learners.

3. Knowledge of principles and techniques of classroom management and behavior.

 

CATEGORY II: SUBJECT MATTER KNOWLEDGE

 

1. Knowledge of the ideas, facts, and concepts of the discipline and their

relationships.

2. Knowledge of the syntax of a discipline, i.e., the process for generating and

testing knowledge.

 

CATEGORY III: PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

 

1. Knowledge and understanding of the process of teaching a topic.

2. Knowledge of the methods to teach the topic.

 

CATEGORY IV. PEDAGOGICAL REASONING

 

 

l.

Adapting--fitting the conceptual representation to the characteristics of the

learners.

2.

Tailoring--adapting the materials to the specific students in a class.

o
n

Reflecting--the process of evaluating one's own practice of teaching.

4.

Inquiringnthe process of questioning the teaching of one's own practice and

others.

 

 

Educators' collaborative conversation and videotaped interviews were the primary

data sources to ascertain the knowledge and skills that the teachers in this study drew on to

support students with special needs. However as mentioned in Chapter Five, several teachers

in the group developed their own studies as part of their work in Hart High PDS and wrote

1 7 9

about their work Thus, both their published and unpublished papers about their projects were

another data source analyzed to investigate their teacher knowledge.

As a point of refaence , the Collaborative Inquiry group consisted of Holly, Lyle, Jane

and three other participants: Sally, a veteran math teacher, Karen, a novice math teacher, and

Ann, a high school social worker. In some cases, examples of various intellectual resources

are exemplified by other members of the group, besides Holly, Lyle, . and Jane. In the data

analysis many of the subjects drew upon the same resources, and at times subjects other than

the three focal educators gave a more detailed description or example of their thinking in a

particular category. Since one purpose of this study was to illuminate the intellectual

resources that this collaborative group utilized in supporting the needs of students with mild

disabilities in general education settings using exemplars from other participants seemed

useful.

CATEGORY I: General Pedagogical Knowledge

This category of teacher knowledge is based on one's cumulative experience, as both

a teacher and a learner, and forms the foundation of the basic teaching principles and

techniques, that one relies on for their practice. It difi‘ers from pedagogical content knowledge

in that it is not subject matter specific. Naturally, like any knowledge base it is dynamic, rather

than static, and, therefore, continues to evolve with the teacher’s experience. This category

is divided into three elements, all of which are evidenced in the data as the collaborative group

discussed their practice in relation to students with mild disabilities.

180

1. Knowledge of Theories and Principles of Teaching and Learning

A. Theories About Teacher as Teller or Facilitator

The following excerpt fi'om Lyle's and Jane's of a transcription of their

interview by an MSU professor exemplified the theories and principles of teaching and

learning they drew on in their study to create a science curriculum for heterogeneous classes.

Further, it described how their beliefs and theories changed over time.

 

In the 70s and most of the 803, our teaching methods were fairly

traditional-lecture, lab, written reports, objective quizzes and tests-

and we were trying to teach facts instead of bringing about

understanding of concepts. Currently, we believe that "less is more,”

where we mix facts with processing and go into greater depth and

teach for understanding using real world problems. We are not

grouping by ability, but have heterogeneous classes. We use

cooperative learning teams and assess with essay quizzes and tests. All

students have the option of interviewing with us after the written test.

Students are given real life problems and are allowed to design their

own labs. They either report their findings and conclusions in writing

or give team presentations (unpublished paper, Lyle and Jane, p.3).

In this passage Lyle and Jane described how the theories and principles they employed

in teaching science changed as they experimented with knew ways of teaching and facilitating

students' learning and worked to develop heterogeneous science classes. They described the

changes they made in their practice from a role of teachers as tellers, to teachers as facilitators

of knowledge. In their paper, they viewed learners as active participants in constructing

knowledge, rather than passive vessels to be filled by the teacher.

Students had real

ownership in their learning by designing their own questions for study in the science lab with

a small group. Over time Lyle and Jane viewed the curriculum difl‘erently, "less is more,”

which meant teaching fewer concepts in greater depth and emphasizing conceptual

1 8 1

understanding which was really ”more knowledge,” than surveying the text and teaching facts

with limited understanding. Their new curriculum was linked to real world examples fi'om

students' daily lives. The curriculum changes implemented by Lyle and Jane are the essence

of the reform "Science for All Americans" advocated by the American Association for the

Advancement of Science, 1989 and the National Science Teachers Association, 1992).

Finally, Lyle and Jane presented difi‘erent plans for assessment which provided

students with oral or written alternatives for reporting their lab findings. Students had access

to the teachers for support, as well as the members of their group. Thus, in this classroom

setting, the teachers' theoretical principles of teaching and learning provided a variety of ways

for students to learn and to demonstrate their knowledge. This meant that students with

special needs such as difficulties in reading and writing had a better opportunity to firlly

participate and succeed in this class. In summary, Lyle and Jane altered several of their

fiameworks regarding teaching and learning. Table 6-2 below depicts their shifts in theoretical

fi'ameworks as described in their unpublished paper of their interview.

TABLE 6-2 Lyle’s and Jane’s Changes in Theoretical Frameworks

182

 

‘2 DOMAIN

  PAST THEORY

EMERGmCTHEWIORY ‘

 

Teacher Role

Teacher as Teller

Teacher as Facilitator

 

Student Role

Passive Participant Absorbs

Active Participant Constructs

Knowledge

Knowledge

 

Curriculum

Cover Text/Teach Facts Only Less is More/Teach for

 

Assessment

Traditional Paper/Pencil

Essay

Conceptual Understanding

Real World

Multiple-choice

Individual/Group

 

Essay/Individual

Oral/Written

 
  

Teacher to Small Groups

Teacher to Large Group

Teaching

Lecture Format/

Cooperative Learning]

 

Method

 

This framework of teaching and learning was indicative of the beliefs of Lyle, Jane,

and Holly that were detailed in the last chapter. As they experimented with new theories of

teaching and learning, changes in their belief systems evolved as well. These changes in beliefs

and theories were evidenced specifically by Jane, who stated in her Fastwrite that in order for

students with mild disabilities to be supported in the mainstream teachers need to change their

role, their methods and the way they think about curriculum and practice. In this statement

Jane described the actions of teachers with moral purpose, i.e., reflecting on their role, their

content and pedagogy in relation to teaching all students.

Lyle and Jane developed these new theoretical principles and beliefs during a three-

year PDS project that focused on ways to integrate students at-risk and with mild disabilities

1 8 3

in the fundamental track science class into the mainstream biology class. Holly was a student

intern in the MSU teacher education program that emphasized a constructivist approach to

teaching and learning in their science methods course. Thus, her internship with Lyle and

Jane in their PDS project was in an environment that provided her with an opportunity to

implement the theories of teaching and learning promoted by her teacher education program

at MSU.

Based on the data and my on site experiences with them, all three of the teachers in

this study followed the process of change described by Fullan (1992), i.e., change is a

personal process that takes place over time and emerges through an opportunity to

experiment with innovations. Real change is comprised of changes in curriculum, teaching

methods and one's belief system.

All three of the teachers addressed each of these components in their efforts to

implement a science curriculum for all students. The data illustrated through the teachers'

questioning and uncertainty that all three were still experimenting with these theories. Holly

was more tentative than Lyle and Jane about these theories because she was a second-year

teacher and did not initiate the changes in practice, as Jane and Lyle did through their project,

but became a part of the process as Lyle's student intern.

What other theoretical

considerations emerged in the conversations?

B. Theories About Directions for Class Assignments

On 4/29/94 members of the group discussed different strategies for giving students

directions before they begin a task. Karen, the novice math teacher, illuminated a contrast

184

in style she perceived between Sally, the veteran math teacher, and Lyle. She said, "Sally

gave students very explicit directions and told them what her expectations were, while Lyle

just kind of lets them get started" (4/29/94, p.38). Karen stated that she thought about this

contrast in giving directions as one of group vs. individual constructivism. She pointed out

that if group construction was the goal, than it's important that all get the same set of

directions, but, if you as a teacher are more concerned about the process a student goes

through in making sense of it and constructing a personal view, than giving less direction is

a better choice. Holly and Lyle responded to Karen's comments:

Holly: So I'm confirsed. I do give a lot of directions in the beginning. Or

maybe I don't give that much I ask, What are we doing? What do we

need to write down? So we do a lot of that together. I think my point

is that Lyle taught me during student teaching that you can't stand up

there and tell them everything because they'll tune out. So I let them

get started and then when questions come up then I come back and

say now we're at this point. But I don't know if they really go back

and construct individually. That sounds really cool. But I don't think

it's that much. (4/29/94,p.38)

This passage provided an example of how Holly was uncertain about how a teacher

should act in giving directions. She was uncertain about how much structure she provided

in giving directions and how much knowledge her students constructed individually. This

gives credence to the fact that she is still working to internalize the theoretical principles of

her internship program through her daily practice. This is not surprising as ambivalence and

uncertainty are characteristic of the change process and as well as the practice of teaching

(Fullan, 1992). The conversation continued with Lyle responding to Holly's uncertainty with

the following comment,

185

Lyle:

It depends on the task and how big the task is. Because sometimes it's

really important for them to go back and to construct their own

. process and other times it would be dangerous or would be

counterproductive.

Holly: It's kind of like a mixture you know.

Lyle:

It's a degree of scaffolding right?

Karen: It's a degree of scaffolding and then what you hope to get out ofthat

scaffolding. The goals for just a blank piece of paper with the

direction investigate the firnctions Y=X to the n would be difl‘erent

fiom investigate Y=X to the n and be sure to talk about the patterns.

Lyle:

I think early on we need to give them a lot of scaffolding until they

understand. Assuming they didn't have the organization skills in the

first place. Give them something to hang onto and then kind of

divorce them fi'om that. (4/29/94,p.38)

At this point in the conversation Peg asked Lyle about students like Scott (the

hypothetical special education student with ADI-ID in the case study), if they ever acquire

enough scafi‘olding to be able to construct knowledge more independently?

Lyle:

Sometimes they never figure out the scaffolding. So then you walk

around during a test, a lab, whatever you have going on, that's what

Holly was talking about, you provide individual scafi‘olding if you've

got a kid that's just sitting there like this or the test with nothing

written on it and he's read the question. Then he certainly needs some

more scaffolding before he can get going.

Karen: Yah. The difi’erence is sort of like, are you more interested in being

able to articulate the different things about functions that could be

interesting like domain and range or are you more interested in the

process of discovering the types of things that are interesting about

functions?

Holly: It depends on what you're after and it varies within every day, every

hour. It varies with the assignment, the class and the people.

1 8 6

Lyle:

In the lab class it's pretty easy. You go back and you give x number

of directions to the class and then you've got some kids that are not

. doing what they're supposed to be doing or not knowing where to

start then those are the ones you have to go over and give more

support to. Everybody isn't bringing the same skills and experiences

to the class. So you can't assume that one set of directions is gonna

fit for everybody. That's what we try to assume. We say, oh well if

I work on these directions good enough every single person will be

able to do them. But that's just not the case.

Karen: Not only that but a direction like make a graph of this situation in

Septemba might be a big direction. They have no idea what it means.

Now in April, if I said make a graph they could get started. Initially

that was a vague direction, now it's a specific direction.

Sally: And I've had to become more specific later in the year and less vague

with my directions because they know so much more (Coll. 4/29/94

pp.39-41).

-

This conversation illustrated several things about their thought processes while

planning assignments. They indicated that they think about the purpose of an assignment and

what kind of process they want students to use: a group or an individual process. The

process chosen determined whether the initial directions will be general or more specific.

In addition, Lyle pointed out that the teacher had to be prepared to support students,

who are not engaged, by guiding them or providing them with enough scafi‘olding in the form

of questions or probes for them to make a connection and engage in the class work.

Frequently, these were the students with disabilities. Lyle made the point that all students

come with a different set of experiences and skills. Some special education students, like

Scott, find it dificult to acquire enough of a knowledge base to operate as an independent

learner in class and therefore may always need to be provided with more facilitation from the

187

teacher. Lyle's focus on providing the individual student with the necessary scaffolding to

respond to questions and/or engage in the activity is a critical method that teachers committed

to addressing the needs of all students practice. It is a part of pedagogical reasoning called,

tailoring, that will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

Karen and Sally made a final point in this exchange that not only does a teacher have

to consider the class and the day, but that the time of the year was also a point of

consideration At the end of the year students have acquired a knowledge base and therefore

need more specific directions because they now have many more ways to think about the

directions for a particular task.

Jane did not comment in this segment of the conversation between Holly, Lyle, and

Karen about the issues to consider in giving directions for several reasons. One reason was

that in a team teaching situation between general and special education teacher, the general

education teacher usually took the lead in starting the class and giving the directions.

However, in my conversations with Jane and my observations of her in planning lessons with

general education teachers, she has stated on several occasions the necessity of giving both

oral and written directions for students with disabilities and that some students need different

kinds of directions in order to understand what is expected of them.

In sum, this conversation illustrated that these teachers draw on many theoretical

principles and experiences to determine how to direct the class. They reflected on the goals

of the lesson, the best methods/processes to accomplish the goal, the nature of the learners,

both as a group and as individual members, and the time of day and the school year before

18 8

determining how best to orchestrate the lesson for their classes that day. Lyle, in particular,

made a strong case for the teacher always considering the individual when he says one " good

set of directions" will not be good enough for every student as all learners are difi’erent.

While Jane did not state this in the collaborative conversations this comment is one that I have

heard her make frequently in her meetings with many general education teachers. These

theoretical principles are necessary for all students’ success, but thinking about the teaching

and learning of individual students is especially critical for students with disabilities to be

successfirl in general education. Further, the theories of teaching and learning they described

emanated in part from their belief systems about their roles as teachers, i.e., to teach all

students and their beliefs about learners, i.e., all students can learn. These practices and

beliefs that these teachers exhibited in the data are indicative of teachers with moral purpose.

C. Theories About Cooperative Learning

One method of engaging students in subject matter that Lyle, Holly, and Jane

embraced was cooperative learning, though they had difi‘erent thoughts about implementation.

A segment of the conversation on 11/29/93 illustrated these difl‘erences.

Lyle: Remember the last time we met, we talked about putting kids in

different arrays based on those who wanted to work and those who

absolutely didn't? Well, I wanted to report on that because I've done

that for a couple of weeks. The groups have had to make two

presentations. I can say that in every case they made good

presentations considering what they might have done if they were the

low man on the totem pole in another group. I challenged the dud

groups..I said OK you told me you were working, your group

members say you're not and my observations are the same. So let's

see you produce. .they had posters, they made good presentations,

they learned something. The only thing that bothered me is their quiz

189

grade didn't come up. But that means we have to look at an alternative

assessment.

Jane:

But you know Lyle one of the things we found out fiom our students

in the fundamental class about merging them into heterogeneous

groups is all that social stuff that is going on for those kids (the duds)

and I think that it's scary for them to be working with other kids who

never say hi to them in the hall and now they've got to work with them

as partners (Coll, 11/29/93 pp. 14-15).

In this exchange Jane and Lyle discussed the dilemmas that arise with any principle

of teaching and learning, i.e., different contexts present issues that challenge the principles a

teacher holds. In this case Lyle started with students arranged in heterogeneous cooperative

groups. Then, it became apparent to him that this arrangement was unsatisfactory for some

of the students. So he changed the membership of the groups and created a "dud" group,

comprised of students with disabilities who were unproductive and disruptive. Jane reminded

him of the social issues that arise in cooperative groups if the students feel socially rejected

by the other members of their group as is the case with special education students. The

conversation continued:

Lyle:

I still believe that heterogeneous classes are the way to go but maybe

not heterogeneous cooperative learning groups. You've got to match

more than just ability...you've got to match personalities, leadership

qualities, attitudes and values. I mean it's really complicated how to

pick these groups. When I first talked about cooperative learning, a

couple of years ago...the way to go was heterogeneous with assigned

roles and very structured and I mean it just blew the kids away.

Holly:

I don't like it that way either. My problem is that I have two "duds"

and I don't want them to work in partners and I didn't want them to

pull two other groups down. So it was hard for me to decide, so I put

them both together with two other students. They give them roles

they can handle but eventually I want them to give the two duds

. 190

bigger roles and they're giving them little roles. But the duds work

better together in a group of four rather than in two difl‘erent groups

‘ (Coll. 11/29/93 p.16).

In this exchange Lyle stated that after using cooperative learning in his class for three

years his theories about this method have changed. He thought there were many variables

besides ability that need to be considered in constructing cooperative groups, i.e., the

individual student's leadership abilities, values, and attitudes. The theme that pervaded these

interactions was that all three teachers were thinking about the various attributes of individual

learners and the conditions in which they could actively engage in learning as a group member

and then made the adjustment in their classrooms accordingly. These passages also provide

evidence of the teachers' reflective capacities, which is a part of pedagogical reasoning

discussed later in this chapter. According to these teachers thinking about the individual is

critical in supporting students with diverse learning abilities in heterogeneous classrooms.

Further, it is illustrative of the moral purpose that permeates the decisions they make in their

practice.

Lyle, has also found that implementing cooperative learning in a structured approach

with assigned roles was dificult for his students. Holly had a similar experience with a highly

structured approach to cooperative learning, therefore she agreed with Lyle on this point.

Often they have found that a student with reading and writing difiiculties are assigned a role

in the group that they found difficult to fulfill and than they are ridiculed.

Like Lyle, Holly had two students who were disengaged and consequently distractive

to their groups (the so called "duds"), however she resolved this dilemma difi‘erently. She

1 9 1

placed them together in one group thinking that this would give them a social partner, as well

as two other students, who could be role models. This dilemma of how to resolve the "duds"

was not easy, if the teacher placed them all together, they had no role models, if they were

placed in individual groups they could disrupt the productivity of four groups. Lampert

(1985) referred to these kinds of pedagogical problems as a difiicult choice between equally

undesirable alternatives, which meant that sometimes one could not choose a solution without

compromising other goals.

Based on the data and my own teaching experience these types of dilemmas become

more fiequent with more diverse heterogeneous groups, which include students with

disabilities. Often they are the "duds" and need individual consideration in order to become

stronger participants in group learning.

Their presence adds another complexity to the

pedagogical problems for the secondary teacher who wants to be inclusive, yet promote the

learning of all students. Jane and Lyle found in the student interviews they conducted as part

of their study how difi'rcult it was socially for students who have been in segregated settings

for many years to integrate into groups with members they do not know or whom they

perceive to be smarter. Lyle and Holly were struggling with this pedagogical dilemma in the

previous example.

One of the major concerns pervasive in the special education literature about including

students with mild disabilities in general education is that they will not have the individual

consideration that is necessary for their learning. Lyle and Holly consistently demonstrated

this principle in their teaching. Jane repeatedly echoed the theme of thinking about "what was

192

good for all kids,” as well as the individual learner. Thus, these teachers through their

conversations indicated that the challenge for all teachers in any classroom was to balance

these two perspectives: the needs of the individual vs. the needs of the group.

Summary of the Knowledge of the Theories and Principles of Teaching and Learning

In summary Holly, Lyle, and Jane presented evidence that the principles of teaching

and learning they used in their classroom were derived fiom the cognitive theory of

constructivism. These principles evolved through their PDS project based on “Science for

All Americans,” a curriculum to restructure science for all students supported by the National

Science Teachers Association (1992). In this model students were active participants in

developing their knowledge of a subject through group projects guided by questions

developed by the teacher as well as questions that they have generated.

Assessment was ongoing through journals, lab reports, and group presentations.

Students had written and oral test options. The text is used as a resource, rather than the

main source of information The emphasis on learning was conceptual understanding of fewer

concepts in depth, rather than survey of the facts and details of the subject. The primary

theory for learning was through cooperative groups emphasizing student responsibility. The

three teachers in the group were grounded in these principles in various degrees. Lyle and

Jane worked for three years on developing and implementing them, while Holly was mentored

in them as Lyle's student teacher and as a teacher in the science department for two years.

2. Knowledge of Diverse Learners

193

A second element of General Pedagogical Knowledge is one's knowledge of learners,

in the case of this study diverse leamer’s at-risk and certified in special education with mild

disabilities,

primarily learning disabilities (LD). This professional knowledge base

encompasses knowledge of student characteristics, cognition, and the motivational aspects

that impact students' learning Several of these elements were touched on in the last section.

What have Holly, Lyle and Jane and other group members come to know about learners with

special needs?

A. All Learners Are Different

One common learner characteristic that emerged from the data was that all learners

are different. In the first group conversation Lyle and Holly made the point to the group that

students were categorized in special education, but students with the same label were very

different.

Lyle: We like to lump kids together and say we've got Emotionally

Impaired, Mentally Impaired and then we have Learning Disabled.

And within the LDs there is a whole range. If we have a particular

definition of LD, I can go through my four classes and pick out eight

kids that are as handicapped as some of the LD kids and for various

reasons haven't been referred.

Holly: That's what I‘ve been observing in my classes. (Coll, 10/25/93, p.17)

Lyle made this point again in a conversation about his definition of success for mildly

handicapped students in his class, "My students have as many success levels as there are

students. Every student has a unique set of strengths and challenges coming into the class,

194

so it's hard for me to generalize" (1 1/ 15/93, p.2). At several points in the conversations Holly

made reference to very difi‘erent kinds of LD students that she has had in class.

Holly: LD students like Melissa who are so bright they blow you out of your

gourd but if they were not mainstreamed who knows what school

would be like for them. (lO/25/93, p.16)

Later in the conversations she discussed a brother of a fiiend of hers who is severely LD.

My boyfiiend's brother is severely learning disabled. He's graduated

now and has a diploma but he has no skills. He can barely read and

write. His mom is mad, but I tell her we can't keep kids in school

forever. I was wondering if he could still get services? (10/25/93, p.

23)

In a conversation a month later Holly referred to another type of LD student.

One of my LD students has very limited writing skills. He cant' spell

very much and he needs help constructing sentences. He tries very

hard to do his work, but he can verbalize what he knows" (1 1/29/93,

p.21).

These passages provided evidence that Holly was aware that even though a student

has the same label (LD) they had difi‘erent learning needs.

Several months later Lyle offered

these comments about learners:

Lyle: What is so fi'ustrating sometimes are the generalizations we make

about students. They just don't hold water when every kid is so

difi‘erent fiom every other kid. Every kid has their own specific kind

of disability and attitude. Every kid is brand new. It's almost as

complicated as a whole new set of genes! (Coll. 2/7/94, p. 17)

Lyle’s statement in this passage was no surprise to Jane. As a special education

teacher one part of her role was evaluating students for special education services and

1 9 5

developing individual educational plans for them based on their strengths and disabilities. She

shared with the group about an unusual LD student that she was working with.

Jane:

Last year I was working with a very difi‘erent LD kid with a learning

disability in written expression and was having so much trouble in art.

He couldn't express himself in art either and I'd never really thought

about how that would transfer to other content areas. He couldn't

express himself in any way even manipulative. He didn't' know how to

get started with constructing a piece of work. It was really amazing.

(lO/25/93, p. 24-25)

In this passage Jane gave evidence that LD students with writing disabilities are also

very difi‘erent. Even though she did not make many specific references about the uniqueness

of each learner, the nature of her job and my work with her provided evidence of this

awareness.

These passages indicated that these teachers viewed all students as unique learners

with special needs even, if they had the same label. This teacher perspective is central to

developing a moral purpose for one’s craft, because thinking about students as individual

learners is an initial step in trying to make a difference in their lives and an important

intellectual resource in supporting students with special needs.

B. Teachers’ Knowledge of Student's Perceptions of Themselves as Learners

One component of Lyle's and Jane's PDS project (in which Holly participated as an

MSU intern) was to find out the perceptions of students with disabilities concerning their

abilities to learn zoology in a regular class after learning science in low track classes. Their

findings were summarized in an unpublished paper, which was an interview conducted by

Helen Featherstone about their project. The following excerpt fi'om this paper describes the

1 9 6

students' perceptions, which was critical information in assisting Lyle, Jane, and Holly in

understanding the motivational issues regarding their students' class participation and in

developing strategies to address these issues. Helen asks them how they found out students'

perceptions about their class experiences.

Lyle:

Jane and I designed questions that gave students the opportunity to

compare their first semester experiences in the "tracked" firndamental

biology class with their experiences in the heterogeneous zoology

class. We were interested in finding out how they perceived

themselves as learners.

Jane: We talked with every special education student (15 students) and we

came up with some very powerfirl feedback We were shocked at how

they were feeling inside and how they viewed themselves as learners.

It was difficult to hear them say that they were 'slow learners'. and

were 'really low.‘ They expressed fear about being mainstreamed and

said they felt 'really stupid' compared to the 'other kids'. They said,

'The other kids already know this stufi‘.‘ They felt like they were way

behind the other students.

Lyle: How they felt with other students socially also came out. They

commented, 'We don't know these kids. They don't know us.’ They

said they see some of these kids in the ball but would never dream of

saying 'I-Ii' to them. They never had classes with them before. They

would say, 'I'm used to being in classes with my fiiends. You know,

the same kinds of students we are.' They seemed to feel like they

were in a different race that was shunned and discriminated against.

In the next segment Jane summarized how she and Lyle felt about their findings.

Jane: We were really saddened by these comments. Many of these students

had been put on 'caseload' (special ed.) back in the elementary school.

When the parents signed the referral and consent forms that made the

students eligible for special services, it became a lifelong commitment,

almost a sentence for them. It seems the earlier they are identified, the

farther behind the other students they get. Each year they fall behind

several weeks so, when they reach high school, they may be a couple

years behind both academically and socially. It became clear to us that

197

this feeling of being dumb and slow really inhibited their learning.

They were afraid to participate in class discussions because, 'I don't

know what questions to ask, and I don't know if what I want to ask

fits in.‘ (Lyle and Jane, Unpublished Paper, 1990., p.4).

Lyle and Holly had a similar exchange in one of the collaborations.

Lyle:

I think that a lot of special education kids come into classes with low

expectations for themselves and then on top of that if the teacher

reinforces that by having low expectations for them, they are defeated

right away.

'

Holly: It's also hard because you have these expectations and they

immediately turn ofi‘ because they just don't think they can meet them,

it’s scary because it's gonna be too hard. And that kind of stuff comes

out you know. (5/9/94, p.8)

Sally and Peg found similar student perceptions in their PDS project to transform low-

track mathematics classes into more intellectually challenging environments. Their curriculum

was based on the fi'ameworks developed by the National Council of the Teachers of

Mathematics (1989) that emphasized mathematical reasoning. The class of eighteen students,

including a combination of eleven at-risk and seven with mild disabilities, consistently

reported that they couldn't think like this and that they needed an easier class. One student

expressed her group's feelings about the difficult task this way, "We did not try really hard to

get it all finished because it was too hard. So we got sick of trying and we quit working on

it" (Lamb and Bethell, 1990, p.14).

These data on students with disabilities perceptions of themselves as learners in

mainstreamed classes were used by Lyle, Jane, Holly to develop particular classroom and

1 9 8

behavior management strategies to mrrture their active participation and, therefore, the social

inclusion of these students. These strategies are discussed in detail in the next section.

The outcomes of the student interviews fused for these teachers the moral purpose

of teaching and change agentry. This is evidenced by the fact that they spent several years

developing math and science and math curriculum to include all students and they became

active in eliminating the tracked classes in the mathematics and science departments at Hart

High. Since 1995 all Hart sephomores have enrolled in biology and algebra. The teachers

in the project have continued to refine the curriculum and methodology in these courses with

other members of their departments to include all students.

C. Teachers’ Knowledge of Student's Feelings About Their Disability

A third learner characteristic of students with disabilities that emerged from the data

was the emotional impact of their disability in school. The last section discussed students'

with mild disabilities perceptions of themselves as "slow" learners, dumb, and helpless. Jane,

Lyle, and Holly illuminated another characteristic of special education students: their strong

feelings about their disability.

Jane:

The Self-Advocacy class I was taken back by the tension that

developed so quickly in the class when we started talking about

having a learning disability.

Holly: We had a conversation in biology about learning disabilities the other

day and some kids who have difficulty with learning just didn't want

to talk about it.

Jane:

There was such a sense of shame coming from the students. Neither

Peg nor I were prepared for the degree of rage and depression the

students had about school and their experiences.

It was like we

199

opened Pandora's box by openly discussing learning disabilities. (Coll.

11/3/93, p. 19)

In another conversation Jane asked the group why they thought that students in

special education have the perceptions of being slow and stupid. Lyle responded:

Partly don't you think it's because they've been pulled out and treated

separate fiom all of their peers all the way down to elementary school.

Why wouldn’t you feel like you were retarded and be angry if you

were just jerked out of the class and sent to a special room with a

special teacher? (Coll.,12/7/93, p. 10)

Lyle also talked directly about students' feelings about their disabilities.

Some of them have such a low opinion of themselves they can't even

begin to list their disability.

It's like a deep seated depression or

resignation about whether they can ever learn. (Coll., 3/21/94, p. 16)

I‘ve seen many of them who don't own up to the fact that they have a

disability. They try to bury it. They want to be as normal as the next

person and they are in most respects, except they can't write or spell

Well, or in some cases conceptualize. (3/21/94, p.19)

As evidenced in the data above and in other conversations, the teachers in this study

discussed two emotional characteristics that were prevalent in many students with mild

disabilities: depression and rage. Some students cycled through both of them or exhibited

one of these emotions more predominantly than the other. In the depressed state the teachers

reported that they placed their heads down and were disengaged in learning, or as Lyle

indicated they sat there helpless. Conversely in the angry state, the teachers indicated that

they actively resisted wanting to do anything. As Lyle stated, "They came without paper and

pencils, they were unwilling to work in their group, or they wanted frequent passes out of

2 O 0

class" (4/29/94,p.11). They became as Lyle and Holly found real "duds.” Jane stated in a

later conversations what she knows about students' feelings about their learning.

Jane: And what I know about a lot of students that we've talked to this year,

they'll talk about how when things get tough in the class, they'll do

things like put their heads down or just get mad if they don't

understand the concept. Plus, they're bringing all that stuff that Lyle

and I found out with them, like everybody else already knows

everything1n the class. I'm a low level kid.

They've got all those

messages going on. (5/9/94, p.17)

Later in the same conversation Holly talked about a visit she made to the Self-

Advocacy class taught by Jane and myself.

Holly: Half of the kids were doing another assignment or had their heads

down on the desk maybe three were paying attention here and there.

I told them that in my class this kind of thing would not fly.

Peg:

I think that after a while that they just have these habits of surviving

in the classroom by withdrawing and putting their head down and

isolating themselves.

Holly: Well, I think that all of us teachers have got kids that put their heads

on the desk and it's just like you don't want to deal with telling them

to put their head up or I've had a kid out of control and for a few

minutes he's actually quiet with his head down, so I let him stay that

way. But what kind of message am I sending him if I'm not making

him sit up with head up, you know? (5/9/94, p. 33-36)

In this exchange Holly also noted how some learners respond by putting their heads

down and pulling back or to quiet themselves after they have been out of control. Sally and

I observed these same emotional responses form the students in our math study:

Their increased frustration and anxiety led to intense resistance in the

forms of argumentativeness and passivity. Some students resisted

more forcefully with negative comments such as, ‘I hate this class; it

201

sucks.’ Others just became disengaged in their cooperative groups

(Lamb and Bethell, 1990, p.14).

In summary, Jane, Holly, and Lyle and other members in the collaborative group

observed two predominant emotions--anger and depression--in students with disabilities and

those at-risk when they were integrated into general education classrooms with a restructured

curriculum to facilitate their learning. Their observations of students' emotional responses to

the restructured curriculum helped them realize that these feelings were another barrier that

they needed to address in order to engage these students' in learning science and math.

Consequently, they developed classroom strategies to assist these students in experiencing

success in their subjects as a way to address their feelings about their limitations. as learners.

These strategies will be detailed farther in the chapter.

Summary of Knowledge of Diverse Learners

In conclusion, teachers in this study identified several characteristics of learners with

special needs that are critical to their teaching. One, that all learners are difi‘erent, even if they

have the same special education label. Second, Lyle, Jane, and Holly through their PDS

project to restructure a science curriculum to include students with disabilities found that

these students perceived themselves as slow learners, stupid, or a really low level learner.

Third, the teachers in this study observed two predominant emotional characteristics of

students with disabilities, anger and depression, which were barriers to their active

participation in group work. Given this knowledge of students' perceptions of themselves as

learners and their feelings about their disability, Lyle, Jane, and Holly realized that

2 0 2

restructuring the science curriculum was not sufficient to include all students when the

students presented social barriers to active participation.

Anderson and Fetters (1996) discuss the challenge of true inclusion in that special

education students encounter both academic and social barriers in general education classes.

They compare the social experiences of students with disabilities in general education to the

integration of African American students. Steele (1992) describes the stigma that students

of color feel, which applies to special education students, who are marked as different fi'om

their peers by labels, by segregated educational experiences, and difi‘erent cognitive abilities.

As many authors have noted (Delpit, 1988; Heath, 1983; Ogbu, 1987, 1992; Steele, 1992)

students that are stigmatized face a basic choice: they can try to diminish their differences

with their peers or protect their self-worth by choosing alienation. Ogbu (1987, 1992)

describes this behavior as "oppositional social identity" which manifests itself by limiting one's

effort toward goals that seem impossible to achieve.

Thus, the question the general and special education teachers in this study faced was

how to develop a learning community that addressed these dispositions and feelings so that

all students would participate in the restructured science curriculum. The next sections will

describe how the teachers changed their practice and the classroom environment to address

these needs and socially include students’ at-risk and with disabilities.

3. Knowledge of Principles and Techniques of Classroom Management and Behavior

The third element of General Pedagogical Knowledge was teachers' knowledge of the

principles and techniques of classroom management and behavior. Table 6-3 summarizes the

2 0 3

knowledge the teachers in this study drew on to create an environment that promoted the

social inclusion and construction of knowledge for all students and addressed the feelings of

shame and alienation that students with disabilities hold. These are the methods that these

teachers developed to make a difference in the lives of all students in particular those at-risk

and with disabilities. Not all of the participants in the study talked about each strategy:

however the reader needs to keep in mind that Holly was Lyle's intern and, therefore, actively

involved in Lyle's and Jane's PDS science project. In addition, as a special education teacher

at Hart High, I worked with Lyle, Jane and Holly and had many opportunities to discuss

strategies with them on including students with disabilities as well as observe them in their

classrooms.

204

TABLE 6-3 Principles and Techniques of Classroom and Behavior Management

 

PRINCIPLES AND TECHNIQUES or CLASSROOM

,

.

‘ AND BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

 

Principle I. Student Participation is Expected in Class Activities

 

A. Techniques

1. Calling on Students at Random

“
!
9
9
9
9
3
9

Dialogic Assignments and Journals

Physical Arrangement of the Classroom

Participation Grades

Group Presentations

Management by Walking Around

Coaching

Tailoring Interactions to Support Emotional Needs

9. Changing Group Membership

10. Class Attendance

Principle II. Student Responsibility

 

 

 
  

Principle III. Collaborative Effort for Behavioral Issues

This knowledge base is inextricably linked to teachers' beliefs about learners, their

theories and principles Of teaching and learning, subject matter knowledge, teaching methods,

and classroom organization. In other words, if a teacher's belief is that the text is the main

source Of knowledge and that teaching is an act of telling, then the particular teaching

methods and the organizational structures they choose will likely correlate with these

principles.

The teachers in this study embraced a social constructivist theory Of teaching and

learning: therefore the techniques Of classroom management and behavior they implemented

2 0 5

in their classrooms complimented these principles. They believed that all students can learn,

students need to take responsrbility for their learning, and that all students need to be held to

high expectations. Given this set of beliefs the rules Of behavior and management that they

established reflected these principles. What management principles and strategies did the

teachers in this study employ in their classroom to address the needs Of students with mild

disabilities?

Principle L Student Participation Was Expected

Lyle in one conversation talked about his basic rule which reflected his beliefs in this

area.

Lyle:

Well, one thing I want fiom students is that when they are in my class

that they are working and that's what I get upset about is when they're

not working up to their potential...and they're in the class and in the

lab screwing around instead Of working. That's when I put my foot

down and say, I demand that when you're in my class that you are

working. That's my basic rule. I give them Options and say you don't

have to come to this class, and if you don't want to be a part of this

class you can have the Option of going to the counseling center and

finding another choice.

Holly: Yes, definitely (Coll. 2/7/94, p. 19).

In this passage Lyle and Holly were committed to a basic rule that they expected

students to be engaged in their work. This corresponded to their beliefs of holding students'

to high expectations and being responsible for their learning. Jane tOO "wanted students tO

work and learn in a diverse group, just like they will after schooling is finished” (Lyle & Jane,

1990, p. 2). While the expectations that everyone be engaged in their work is prevalent in

traditional classrooms as well, it was their beliefs about teaching and learning, their teaching

206

methods, and their interactions with students that created a more constructivist learning

environment. Based on the teachers' report in their conversations and publications regarding

the resistance of students at-risk and with disabilities to engage in academic task, this principle

is a necessary position in order for students with disabilities to be meaningftu included in

general education classes not merely physically present. What did the data reveal regarding

the teachers' actions to operationalize this principle? Following are specific strategies that the

teachers employed in their classroom to encourage student participation and social inclusion.

1. Calling on Students at Random

The above conversation continued with Holly querying Lyle about his strategy when

students were not engaging in the class conversation.

Holly:

What do you do when kids just sit there and they act like they have

nothing to talk about...like nothing?

Lyle:

I don't wait anymore. I ask a general question and wait about two

seconds, you're supposed to wait four. .then I go what about you Judy

and I call on some students and put them on the spot and start calling

names because it's easy to sit there and be a member of 24 people.

Holly:

But still you call on them and it's '1 don't know.‘

Lyle:

Yeh, I know. Part of it's not cool to talk in class. You're a bit nerdy

if you raise your hand and act like you know something. That's really

unfortunate but it's gotten to be more and more that way. Eventually

I get students who are used to answering, because they know I'm

going to call on them. If the whole class is totally stuck, then I want

to larow how stuck we are and I'll go to the kid I know has the answer

and they prove it every time I call on them. (Coll. 2/7/94, pp.25-26)

2 0 7

The teachers reported that there are several tensions that arise in a classroom

organized for students and teachers to socially construct knowledge. One tension was to

foster a conversation between students and teachers. This was a very challenging task in

particular for students who have grown accustomed to being passive members in the class.

As Lyle and Jane found in the study of integrating special education students into

heterogeneous classrooms, they participated less because they didn't know many of their

classmates and they felt that everyone was more knowledgeable than they were. Given these

conditions, the teachers in the study believed it necessary to develop a variety of methods to

encourage students to interact and therefore assume some responsibility for their learning.

Although Jane did not comment about calling on students, because she operated as a support

teacher with the classroom teacher taking the lead.

However, she facilitated their

participation by sharing aloud that a particular student had something to add to the

conversation, then the classroom teacher would ask for this student's input. Jane's strategy

validated for students in advance that their comments were germane and encouraged them to

contribute.

2. Dialogic Assignments and Journals

A second strategy that Lyle, Jane, and Holly used to foster student/teacher dialogue

was reflective assignments and journals.

Lyle and Jane describe this strategy in their

unpublished transcribed interview about their PDS project.

Jane:

They weren't used to taking tough concepts and really thinking about

them. We tried to adjust to them by establishing 13131- We let them

know they could write in their own words with less scientific jargon

and that we would talk to them about their answers so they could

2 0 8

clarify verbally, if needed. They could answer with diagrams, graphs,

cartoons, or any other method they were comfortable with. We also

started having them practice more writing in journals (thinkbooks) so

they could become more confident in their writing abilities. (p.6)

Lyle: To improve lab report quality (and, therefore grades) students got

reports back with comments and questions and were allowed to

resubmit them with corrections. (p.8)

Dialogic assignments and journals were one way that they used to get to know what

students were learning, their misconceptions, and how they were feeling about the class.

Their responses to students' journals helped them to develop a level of trust and feel

supported in the class. They used the information gleaned from their journals about students'

conceptual understanding as a basis for deciding whom to call on in class. Once students had

a sense of trust and support they felt safe enough to participate in class conversation. This

strategy assisted teachers in making a difference in the individual students' learning. Holly

does not mention this strategy in the data, however, as Lyle's intern she was very involved in

dialogic assignments and based on my observations this strategy is incorporated in her own

classroom.

3. Physical Arrangement of the Classroom

Holly and Lyle used other strategies to foster students' comfort with a more

conversational teaching and learning process.

Holly: Another thing that I have been thinking about is the part about talking

to someone you've never talked to before.

I do a lot of class

discussion and we sit a U-shape and we're facing each other and we

do a lot of talking in this set up and it gets them going. And I really

like it because it lets them open up and talk to other people.

I've

really seen them grow more and more into class discussion. So I feel

209

in some ways at least we're still accomplishing the idea of opening up

relationships between students. (Coll. 3/21/94, p.17)

In this excerpt Holly shared a classroom arrangement that she found broke down some

of the social barriers between students by placing them in closer proximity with difi'erent

students and encouraging conversation in small and large groups. Based on my classroom

observations Lyle used a similar strategy; he arranged students' desks in tWo rows shaped like

a semicircle. This too allowed for students to feel more connected and facilitated participation

in a group conversation. Jane did not mention this strategy, however since Lyle and Jane

collaborated several times a week during their PDS project, it seems likely that the

arrangement of the room was jointly discussed.

4. Participation Grade

A fourth strategy that Lyle, Jane, and Holly used to foster participation was to grade

students on their contribution to class discussion.

Lyle and Jane described in their

unpublished paper of their interview,

The technique that the students liked fi'om the first semester of our class was that we

issued participation points during class discussion. It encouraged them to talk more and stay

"tuned in." (p.5)

Holly shared during group collaboration, "They get a participation conduct score (the

warm body, doing your job, taking notes, etc.) as part of their grade. I think that's important"

(1 1/29/93, p. 12). As Lyle and Jane indicated giving reluctant students credit for participating

encouraged them to share their ideas and maintain their attention in the class conversation.

5. Group Presentations

210

Group ”Presentations were a fifth strategy reported by Holly, Lyle and Jane to foster

group participation and interaction with the subject matter. Holly shared that "everyone in my

class has to verbally say a part of their group's oral presentation on unit topics" (1 1/29/93,

p.12). Later in the same conversation Lyle stated, "I tell my kids up front that each person

is being graded as an individual not as a member of the class or their group. Everybody

makes presentations" (p.14). Teachers found this plan allowed all students to demonstrate

their knowledge with the support of their group members and to become full participants in

the class conversations about their units of study. Teachers reported this method ofien

engaged those students who were reluctant to participate because of their anxiety about their

performance. "We wanted them to gain confidence in their own ideas by asking more

questions and getting involved in class discussions. An important learning strategy for all

students was oral presentations" (Lyle and Jane, 1990, p. 8). This method also reinforced that

they were responsible for their learning. The option of an oral demonstration of knowledge

versus a written form was an important consideration for students with writing difficulties

because it allowed them an opportunity to share their learning using their strength, oral

communication.

6. Management by Walking Around

As mentioned earlier many students, especially those with attentional difliculties,

found it difficult to get started with their work or to sustain it. Since Lyle, Jane, and Holly

expected students to be engaged in their work they instituted management by walking around

2 1 1

to assist these students. In my observations in their classrooms all three teachers circulated

around the claSs fiom group to group to ensure that students were involved in their assigned

task. They mentioned several times throughout the conversations that alter a few weeks they

knew which groups and individual students needed support in getting started or sustaining

their efi‘orts. In addition, they indicated that their movement from group to group ofi‘ered all

students support especially those with learning difficulties and was an informal method of

assessment to determine understandings and misconceptions about the lesson.

7. Coaching

Coaching was the seventh strategy that Lyle, Jane, and Holly discussed using to

engage students in learning. This involved encouraging students through cuing them with a

word, a picture or a question. Jane wrote, "During discussions or other learning times, I

could explain things in different ways fi'om Lyle and model constructing concept maps" (Lyle

& Jane, 1990, p.6).

Ann, the social worker, and Lyle had a conversation about the importance of coaching

students.

Ann: We have to help the kid take the next step.

First of all you've

encouraged them through the oral assessments that they can get their

grade better. The next thing is to coach them to the next level, plan

with the kid. What is the next step for you? Because I think if they

have some input into it and take some ownership into it then they can

move to the next level.

Lyle: When you were talking about coaching; that's what I'm really into.

We talk about walking around and helping them during the test,

reading this, stating it another way for the ones that are stuck. I try

to be real visual. I'll give them some seat time, I'll say this is going to

212

be your thinkbook entry for today and it will be a test question that's

coming up. I'll say I want you to write everything you know about

how earthworms reproduce sexually. And then everybody is writing

and drawing cause they have to do diagrams and writing, then I can

go around andfindthekidsthatarehavingdifficultywith that andtalk

to them at that point. And then during the test they expect me to walk

around, but they don't use me as a crutch either because I‘m not going

to give them the answer. I'll just ask them another question. I give

them some scafi‘olding. The coaching phase of that I think is terribly

important. They get use to you in their face, over their shoulder,

expecting them to do something instead of just sitting there like a

bump saying, 'I can't do this.’ I deal with all kids when I'm coaching,

Jane taught me this a long time ago. I'll go around and talk to the

other kids and challenge them too, even the ones doing it perfectly.

I'll challenge them to do it better, so that I'm not just stopping

everybody in special education. (Coll. 5/9/94 pp. 19-20)

This passage illustrated several things. First, it was an example of how Lyle implemented the

constructivist theory of teaching and learning. He facilitated students' learning by expecting

them to use both words and pictures to illustrate their ideas. He restated questions in

different ways to facilitate their understanding.

Both of these strategies were critical

accommodations for many students who found it difficult to express their ideas solely in

words and/or comprehend what they read, particularly students with mild disabilities. He

asked them a series of questions to push their thinking about the unit of study. The coaching

strategy also served as a management strategy in that his physical presence in the groups

reinforced his expectation that students needed to be working, they had some responsibility

for their learning and that he believed they all could learn and wanted to support their efforts.

Holly offered similar examples in the collaborative conversations as well.

All three teachers reported that coaching contributed to students' level of comfort in

engaging in the content and built their confidence in learning the subject matter. Finally,

2 1 3

Lyle's example illustrated in a holistic way how a teacher with moral purpose operated as a

facilitator of all learners in a heterogeneous class, held them to high expectations and provided

each with a variety of options and the emotional support and accommodations necessary to

demonstrate their learning.

8. Tailoring Interactions to Support Emotional Needs

Tailoring classroom management to address the emotional nwds of diverse learners

was also addressed by the three teachers in the study. Holly in her videotaped conversation

about Jessica noted that one of Jessica's strengths was her social skills and that she could use

that strength to help her become comfortable in class. In her discussion about Scott, she also

demonstrated sensitivity to him as a learner in the whole class. When asked how she would

approach teaching Scott, Holly said:

I would give him the class assignments and let him try things and then

I would go to him and ask some questions. It will take me a few

weeks to get to know him, but I would let him get started. He might

get too hyper in lab, but I'd let him get started and then step back and

watch him and see what he needs. (Holly, videotaped interview of

Scott)

In these statements Holly was treating Scott like other biology students. She was not

immediately rushing to accommodate him but, gave him some time to demonstrate what he

would do in her present structure and then she would make adjustments as needed.

Lyle and Jane in their second year of teaching a heterogeneous science class used a

social circle, i.e., students fi'om the previous class to orient and support the students.

Lyle: We invited several special ed. students that had experienced our first

semester experiment to join us in a "social circle" to share some of

2 14

their feelings and opinions about what the new students would

experience. We brought our data from the previous year's interviews

and invited the social worker to join us for additional support and

guidance.

Jane:

Everyone seemed comfortable talking openly about our endeavor, and

the new students, maybe naively didn't' see anything very threatening

about the situation. The real outcome of the social circle then was to

let the kids know that we wanted to stay connected with them and

that we were really going to be their advocates. They understood we

wanted them to have a positive experience and that we really cared for

them. (Lyle and Jane, 1990, p.7)

These excerpts fi'om the unpublished transcription of their interview indicated the

concern that both Lyle and Jane felt in supporting students at-risk and with disabilities in their

integration into an inclusive academic and social setting.

It is another example of how

teachers with moral purpose strive in every way to make a difference in the lives of all

students by considering the emotional impact of restructuring teaching and learning.

9. Changing Group Membership

As mentioned in the section on Cooperative Learning, teachers sometimes needed to

change students' groups. Both Lyle and Holly found that students who were "duds" and

seriously impaired the ability of a group to function had to be changed to a different group.

This was another strategy teachers utilized to manage students' behavior in their class,

although they reported implementing it infrequently and only after coaching members of the

group in resolving group dynamics. Implementation of this strategy required that teachers

be committed to ensuring that all students learn and be aware of the individual needs of all

their students. Although Jane reminded Lyle and Holly that "one of the things they found out

2 1 5

in the student interviews in their PDS science project was how scary it was for some kids to

work with kids-who never say 'hi' to them in the hall" (11/29/93, p.15). This parallels directly

the "oppositional social identity" Ogbu (1987) describes in which students reject and resist

participating in tasks that perceive as impossible for them to achieve, especially with peers

who view them as inferior. Consequently, changing group membership was a necessary

strategy for teachers to employ under these circumstances.

10. Monitoring Class Attendance

Another classroom rule that Holly and Lyle implemented in their class was a limited

number of passes out of class. Since the majority of activities in their class involved either

small or large discussion about their unit of study, missing a class really impacted students'

ability to develop conceptual understanding. Given that many activities were done in small

groups, it was difiicult for a group to work effectively when students were absent even for

part of the class. The following conversation illustrated their feelings about excusing students

from class. Holly had just asked Peg when do special education teachers see their students?

Peg indicated that they had to pull them out of class the same as the counselors or the

attendance stafi‘.

Lyle:

That's really a major flaw in the system. They need to be tuned in all

of the time and when they leave for a pass they can't just walk back in

15 minutes later and plug into what's going on. They're lost for the

day. That day has been scrapped, you know? So it works much

better, if whatever has to be dealt with can be dealt with in the

classroom. I'm pretty hard nose about giving them potty passes for

this reason. I tell my students at the beginning of the semester that

they get one emergency a semester. Then I ask them if they want to

spend it today?

2 1 6

Holly: My students are allowed two bathroom passes a semester and I keep

track. I have had kids that used their two passes and then had to sit

' there. The only time I ever let them go, that's another rule, I get to be

the one that decides when you have to go or not...not in the middle of

class discussion, not during the last ten minutes, but during a lower

key activity. You usually know if it's an emergency because they will

ask you more than once. (Coll. 2/7/94 p. 20)

In this exchange the teachers indicated that class attendance for the whole period was

very important in order to be a part of the large and small group conversations, which

developed their conceptual understanding of the subject matter.

Thus, their consistent

attendance was critical. According to Lyle, Holly and Jane time out of class was a serious

issue for any student, but in particular for students at-risk and with disabilities. Typically

these students had marginal attendance records and when called out of class by support stafi‘

(counselors, special educators, etc.) their participation diminished further. This placed them

in greater jeopardy of failing in a content that was taught through group conversations, rather

than a text.

In addition, since these students had degrees of discomfort in engaging in

learning, they were often eager to leave class for any reason. Consequently, the teachers felt

it was necessary for them to monitor carefirlly requests to excuse students fi'om class. While

Jane did not comment on this topic, my own knowledge on this issue is that she frequently

accompanied at-risk students to the office or restroom to minimize their time out of class.

Or she would leave class and discuss with office staff the difficulty the student faced in

missing class.

In summary, all ten strategies discussed by Lyle, Jane, and Holly in the study

collectively operated to increase class participation and the social inclusion of all students.

2 17

However, these measures in their view were critical to engage students’ at-risk and with

disabilities in the restructured curriculum given the habits they have developed to limit their

participation and minimize their fears of failure in school settings. By addressing the

intellectual, emotional, and social needs of individual students through the development of

these strategies and their curriculum, the teachers effected the moral purpose of teaching.

Principle II. Student Responsibility

All three of the teachers in this study believed that students needed to be responsible

for their learning. What does this mean for students with disabilities? In addition to being

expected to participate in large and small group discussions, Lyle, Holly, and Jane stated

throughout the data that students needed to learn to advocate for themselves.

In one

conversation Lyle told the group that he received a letter from a special education student's

mother indicating that her son had no initiative and that she wanted him to take responsibility

for her son.

Lyle:

I want to put the ball in his court. I want him to develop some

responsibility. I have made myself available to accommodate many

things for him, but he has to take the initiative to come in and do an

interview and to get his make-up work. I gave him his make-up work

for a while, but now I want him to take responsibility. I see him after

school and I've reminded him that he has a three week old test to

make-up. He says he'll come in but he never shows up.

(Coll.

12/7/93, pp. 10-11)

Holly shared similar experiences regarding students who do not access the support

ofi‘ered after school. However, on one occasion she described a very different self-advocacy

experience with a student.

2 18

Holly: One special education student came in the first day of class and

handed me this sheet of paper that he had filled out on himself. He

wrote where he feels his disability is and what help he needs on

assignments. He asked if he could go over it with me. I couldn't

believe it; he went through the whole thing. During the quiz today he

came up and asked me questions and he puts his hand up in class, he

tries very hard. How can we get other kids to do this? (Coll. 2/7/94,

p. 14)

Jane talked about the need for special education students to learn how to advocate for

themselves as Holly described.

As the school becomes more diverse kids will have to learn how to

advocate for themselves. They have to know how they learn; so they

can talk about it with their teachers. (Coll. 11/3/93, p.24)

The theme was the same from all three of the teachers, high school students needed

to take some responsibility for their learning. They needed to access the accommodations

that teachers provided. Students with disabilities needed to learn about their disability and

what accommodations they needed to be successfirl and share this with their teachers. Jane

and Peg experimented with how to teach students to assert themselves or self-advocate in a

pilot study initiated in 1994. They found that with guidance, support and practice students

with disabilities could learn self-advocacy skills and become more responsible for their

learning. One wonders how much the ability to self-advocate assisted students electing

advanced courses as described in chapter one. The literature on self-determination, mentioned

in chapter four supports the need for students with disabilities to learn these skills, so that

they will be more independent in their transition to adult life in accessing support in post

secondary training and the workplace.

Principle III. Collaborative Effort for Behavioral Issues

219

The videotaped data on the case study about Scott, the student with Attention Deficit

Disorder was consistent between Lyle, Holly, and Jane. They stated that students with

behavioral difficulties needed to participate in a collaborative efl‘ort between their general and

special education teachers to develop an intervention plan. In some cases it was helpfirl to

have a social worker or counselor and parent involved as well. All the teachers stated that

it was essential that Scott be responsible to develop a plan with his teachers to address his

difficulties in attending and staying still. Jane described the need for collaboration in her

videotaped interview about Scott.

The Special Education Teacher is the key person to work with Scott

as well as the general education teachers. There must be a team

effort. As a tenth grader I would want Scott to get to know himself

and learn to express to teachers what he needs. Scott needs to get in

touch with his behavior and when his attention is breaking down and

teachers need to accommodate that by letting him stretch when he

needs to.

Scott must learn to track the behavior that signals his

attention is wandering. He needs a group that will assist him too.

Teachers may need to work with the group to help them support

Scott. This must be done carefirlly so not to alienate Scott fi'om the

group. (Jane's videotape of Scott, case study)

According to these teachers, the key element in addressing any behavioral and/or

academic concern with a student was the development of student responsibility for his/her

behavior. Second, they indicated that ongoing communication between all teachers, the

student, the social worker, and parents. In the last group meeting, Holly, Lyle, Peg, and Ann

illustrated the effectiveness of collaboration in managing students' behavior. Holly asked the

group for assistance and then described a situation she had in her class with two students, one

2 2 0

who was a bright student who knew it all and constantly blurted out of turn and another who

was impulsive and blurted out inappropriately.

Holly: How do you deal with both of those? Without stifling the bright kids

how do you say wait a minute. Let's everyone think about it. She

raises her hand a lot, it's not really like she is blurring out.

Lyle:

Well in my opinion you have to negotiate with more than just Scott of

course. You've got to negotiate with everybody and maybe one at a

time, especially the strongest violators.

Peg:

You try to establish a norm in the class that you want to hear from

everyone and that everyone has to have a chance and so even though

lots of times several people may be wanting to respond it's important

that you hear everybody's voice. Ifyou set that norm then it provides

the students with a rationale for not calling on the flagger.

Holly: I have a student whose disability is talking out, but what he says has

nothing to do with what we're talking about. I've had the discussion

with him about what that does to the whole group and what that does

to our class community feeling. And then it happens again and I ask,

'Do you need to do that?‘

Peg:

Sometimes I say that I'm looking for comments about this particular

thing.

We're talking about amoebas at this time, do you have

something to say about that? So I frame the condition under which

they can respond?

Lyle:

I try to make it into a teachable moment. It depends on the comment.

If you act like you're bugged by it why then it's going to happen some

more and I would deal with it the same way. I would melt it into the

moment and talk to them later.

Holly: Another student responds inappropriately as a defense mechanism for

saying, 'I don't get this.’ But sometimes this happens and the perfect

moment where the discussion is really going good and then boom he

ruins it. I've pulled him out into the hall.

I'll get out there and talk to

him, but how many times do you talk to him in the hall?

221

Ann:

I would talk privately with the kids and instead of really focusing with

the 'you' stufi‘ which makes people defensive, I would come out with,

"I'm concerned or I feel that really affects the class! Or say your

feelings.

'I'm really irritated with you because I felt like it was a

moment when we could get a lot of leaming and you interrupted! But

always start with 'I' so they don't get defensive. When they start

blaming other kids then just say, 'I need you to take responsibility.

Because that's a way of not taking responsibility by blaming someone

else! I think we have a lot of ego centered kids that don't have a sense

of where other people are coming fi'om. I think our teaching job is to

try to teach them to have a sense of where other people are coming

from.

Karen: I was thinking about the kids you're talking about who are doing it

because they have a need to show everyone what they're doing. You

talk with them and they say I just need to participate. And it's difficult

for them to understand that if they do it all the time then it's just a

conversation between you and them and there are 27 other people in

the room that are not participating in the discussion.

Holly: You can plan it ahead of time by asking them the right questions so

they feel like their contributing. The ones who know a lot and think

they know all the answers, I want to challenge them too. So I try to

call on them when I know they don't have the answer so that they'll

feel challenged too. And so the other kids see that they don't know

everything.

Ann:

Also these kids are adolescents and they don't have all the skills of

what's appropriate and so I think kids like the class clown you can be

honest with them. Sometimes we need a little relief and it is firnny

but you need to realize how much you do it. You need to focus on

that's fine once in awhile, but when you start doing it continuously you

really are afl‘ecting the class and our learning. (Coll. 5/31/94, pp. 31-

36)

This passage illustrated several things.

First, it was an example of how the

collaborative group was an intellectual resource for teachers to think about ways to resolve

behavioral/management issues. Holly said it best in her videotape about the case studies,

222

"Talking with Jane about students with disabilities helps me to be more successful for all

students." Second, the passage gave insight into the complexity of the task these teachers

experienced in facilitating a group conversation with diverse learners toward a better

conceptual understanding of a topic. As the teachers discussed, each class of students

presented different challenges. Both students with disabilities and those who were gified

intellectually at times impeded class conversations because of their individual learning

characteristics. This passage was also another example of these teachers efi'ecting the moral

purpose of teaching to include all students. Each of their suggestions involved helping

students take responsibility for their behavior in the group without stifling their voice or

putting them down. Clark (1990) discussed moral transactions in a classroom and how

teachers often reduce classroom heterogeneity without physically removing students, but by

ignoring or ridiculing them, thereby discouraging their participation.

Summary of Principles and Techniques of Behavior Management

In conclusion, the preceding discussion illuminated key principles and strategies of

classroom and behavior management that Lyle, Jane, and Holly implemented to facilitate the

social construction of knowledge. These principles (student participation and responsibility,

professional collaboration) were integrally connected with their theories of teaching and

learning and their beliefs about their roles as teachers and about learners. They attempted to

implement these principles and strategies with all students depending on their individual needs

as learners.

2 2 3

They spent several years discussing, reflecting and struggling to include students with

disabilities academically and socially so they would feel like full members of the class. The

teachers utilized the strategies described in this section that were most apprOpriate to address

the needs of all learners. While all students benefitted from these principles and techniques,

they were essential for the success of students with disabilities, given their feelings about

school and their habits of limiting their classroom participation. The development and

implementation of these strategies provided firrther evidence of the teachers' belief that it was

their role to teach all students and therefore their moral responsibility to address the attitudes

and behaviors that prevented students fiom accessing necessary knowledge even if the

students themselves erected these barriers.

CATEGORY II. Subject Matter Knowledge

The second category of knowledge that teachers in this study drew on to support

students with mild disabilities in general education classrooms was their subject matter

knowledge. The substantive component of subject matter knowledge is defined as the

teacher's knowledge of the ideas, facts, and concepts of the discipline and their relationships

(Wilson, Shulrnan, Richert, 1987). Another dimension of subject matter knowledge is syntax,

i.e., the process for generating and testing how subject matter knowledge is derived (Schwab,

1964; Floden, McDiarmid, and Wremers, 1989). Subject matter knowledge was not a major

focus of the collaborative conversations of the teachers in this study, since the primary

purpose of the group meetings were to discuss what they had learned about supporting

students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Perhaps, another reason for the

2 2 4

limited focus on subject matter was that the teachers in both the science and mathematics

departments had spent several years in restructuring their curriculum. A great deal of their

teacher collaboration time on Wednesday mornings at Hart High School was spent discussing

subject matter and their curriculum. Consequently, the members of this group who were

actively engaged in PDS curriculum projects, were already familiar with the national

fi'ameworks recently developed in science and mathematics that they had implemented in their

own classrooms, therefore it was not a primary focus of their conversations.

However, there were two conversations in which some of the teachers discussed

substantive and syntactical elements of subject matter knowledge that were very important

in supporting the needs of students with disabilities in general education. These conversations

revealed teachers' thinking about their subject matter that are critical considerations for

students with disabilities.

In one collaboration Lyle and Sally had a conversation about the significance of

vocabulary words in science and mathematics.

Lyle: We downplay the vocabulary and emphasize the understanding.

Those kids that have trouble reading use the simple terminology they

call them tubies in the earthworm, instead of nephridia and they

understand the concept. Who cares what its official name is? You

still want to be demanding and you still want to give all the students

an opportunity to reach their potential, but at the same time not shut

everybody out by the language.

Sally:

I think though at a different level that's better instruction about science

too, though. Because they learn how names are kind of arbitrary. If

they're exploring things and putting their own labels on them then they

can understand that's just what someone else did to come up with

'nephridia.’

225

Lyle:

Yeah. We talk about that all the time, especially the scientific naming.

'In fact I've infirsed this into my spiel. Now when I'm talking about

something using the scientific term I'll say who cares about that name.

Sally:

I think that's another aspect of de-emphasizing the traditional

vocabulary is that they get a better sense of the subject matter. And

how it grows, how science comes into being and how math comes into

being. Ithink that's real important. Because it's not making it easier;

it's making it broader.

Lyle:

I agree.

Peg:

It also says that knowing science is more than knowing the

vocabulary. In fact, if you just know the vocabulary you may question

whether you really know science or math.

It's having an

understanding of the concepts and the relationship between them that

is the important thing. For example, that all beings have some kind of

tubing system to eliminate waste.

That's a part of what human

organisms have to have. That would be a more powerful thing than

to know than the label.

Lyle:

I think so too. The other concern is that 50% of our students go to

college and they're going to use those words. So I tussle with well,

should I be challenging them to start learning the vocabulary? That's

why I put the official word up there on the board along with tubing

and hope that it rubs off on enough on those kids that are serious

students.

Peg:

But the terminology comes as you make sense of it.

Lyle: You know a lot of trouble with the language though is it's really

detrimental because if you lose out way back here when you started

using this specific word, it's just a garbled mess for kids that don't get

it. (Coll. 5/9/94, p.5)

This exchange between Lyle, Sally, and Peg illustrated several points that these

teachers considered in the teaching of their subject matter that were critical to all students,

2 2 6

but in particular those who have difficulty with learning vocabulary and reading

comprehension. Both Lyle and Sally indicated that vocabulary words were arbitrary in a

discipline and have evolved from experiments that others have done. Thus, when students

used their own terminology to describe their work, they were doing the same thing that other

scientists and mathematicians have done.

Sally indicated that allowing them to do this

broadens their perspective of how a discipline grows, referring to the syntactical dimensions

of subject matter. While Lyle stated that he struggled with this issue for college bound

students, his resolution was to use both terms. Lyle believed that using simpler terminology

gave more students access to learning about science, especially those who struggled with

language.

This was one theme that dominated the special education student interviews in his and

Jane's study that the vocabulary was too hard to understand. Thus, the ability to adapt

content was a critical way of thinking that Jane and Lyle developed in order for students with

disabilities, which often are language based difficulties, to be successfirl in their biology class.

This conversation also illustrated that Lyle's and Sally's priority in subject matter

knowledge for students was conceptual understanding. In a later collaboration members of

the group had a conversation about what the essential concepts were for their curriculum and

how they determined grth in conceptual understanding. This discussion was precipitated

by a question Peg asked about defining success for students with disabilities in the general

education classroom. She indicated that she would want to know what the key concepts of

2 2 7

the course were, like photosynthesis for example, so that the success of a student would be

dependent on their ability to demonstrate understanding of these concepts.

Lyle:

I'd want to know if they could demonstrate this knowledge before

going into the unit, because if they already knew that then they didn't

progress with the unit. And then what do we call essential?

Is it

essential prior knowledge?

Karen: The longer I'm teaching secondary education the more convinced I am

that there is not a content that is essential at the high school level.

There are many processes that are essential to learn.

Peg:

But what I‘m saying is that it has to be defined by the teacher. Three

science teachers might see it differently so you have to work it out

with an individual teacher so the student knows what the expectations

are.

Karen: I'm thinking that one of my essential goals in geometry is that students

are able to take a set of given conditions and make a statement that

they're going to have to back up and that they can construct a

justification for that statement based on certain things that everybody

knows are true. And if at the end of the year they don't even know

where to start, do we just fail them?

Lyle:

Or do we give them scaffolding and find out how much scaffolding

they have to have before they can give justification to their statement?

Karen: Right. Because I can scafi'old the heck out of that thing, but the point

of it is the process of being able to do that. The scaffolding is the

point. IfI have to scaffold it that almost defeats the purpose.

Peg:

I would argue that it depends on the kid. Ifyou had a student who

required a great deal of scaffolding at the beginning of the term and at

the end you had to give limited support and they could respond

satisfactorily, I would say that they had learned something.

Karen: Me too.

228

Lyle:

You have to have a record of their prior knowledge then in order to know if

they were successful. Because if I ask a kid to explain photosynthesis to me

and they say, 'What?’

and I say something like green plants...That's

scaffolding.

If they still can't respond and I say, sunlight. How far do I have

to go?

Peg:

Right and what I‘m saying is that it's the teacher's right to define those

terms, but I think from the beginning when you're working with a

student that's at-risk you have to have a way to define what is essential

learning for this kid.

Karen:

But see to me Lyle, photosynthesis is not the point. The point is being

able to take a question like what is photosynthesis, find a definition of

photosynthesis, take that definition apart into the pieces, make sure I

understand all of those words and then construct a description of how

the process happened. That's what I'm after.

Lyle:

It depends on what you term as essential.

To a biologist

understanding photosynthesis is essential.

Karen:

But are all kids biologists?

Lyle:

Yeah. Everybody is. We all are.

Karen:

Yeah and we're all mathematicians, but do I say if you don't know the

criteria by which we classify a quadrilateral then you don't know an

essential concept in geometry? I'm not certain that's the whole deal.

IfI know where to look up what different quadrilaterals are then that's

all I really care about. That you're inclined and that you have the

knowledge to find the resources to know that information. That's

what I care about more.

Lyle:

Well there's some place that there is a set of essential tools though.

I mean if I want kids to go out and do a pond study, which my final

exam is all about, then they need to have a basic concept of

photosynthesis like it was as easy as chewing gum. You've got to

make the jaw go down and you've got to make the jaw go up. It's an

essential. There's got to be some happy ground because you can't go

look up everything. I think the key is knowing their prior knowledge.

I assess that through their journals, class discussions, group reports.

229

Then I look at how much their thinking has changed, especially the at-

risk and special education students.

Peg:

So, did it make sense to you that each teacher would have to decide

what was essential for their learning?

Lyle:

Oh, Yeah! (Coll. 5/31/94, pp.42-48)

This conversation illustrated several critical points about the resources general

education teachers drew on to support students with disabilities. One resource was their

ability to think and talk about their subject matter and to determine what was essential for

students to understand. Lyle identified certain concepts essential for students to understand,

while Karen took a different point Of view about subject matter and described the

development of problem solving processes that were essential in mathematics. The major

point is not that teachers have to think about subject matter in the same way, but that they do

think about their subject matter knowledge and have a thoughtful rationale for their positions.

Both Lyle and Karen demonstrated this kind of thinking in this conversation. While Holly and

Jane did not contribute to this conversation, I have been in other group conversations in

which they shared their thoughts about these issues.

A second intellectual resource, was the alternatives they gave students in

demonstrating the development of their conceptual understanding.

Lyle indicated that

assessment of students' conceptual understanding was ongoing and that he read their journals,

noted their contributions to class discussions and group presentations, and their oral

assessment as a way of tracking the development of their thinking. Both he and Karen

discussed providing students with scaffolding to facilitate their ability to construct knowledge

2 3 0

and then gauged the changes in the degree of scafi‘olding a student required overtime. They

determined success based on their ability to demonstrate changes in their conceptual

understanding with less coaching. Lyle stated that in particular he noted these changes in

understanding for at-risk and special education students, so that he could better assess their

progress. Finally, the collaborative group, was a resource itself. This passage served as a

prime example of how members of the group used this collaboration to present their thinking

about their subject matter and to clarify and refine their thinking through the group process.

The discussion between Lyle and Karen reflects the national debate about what students need

to know in various subject matters and how they learn this. Many states Vermont,

Massachusetts, Virginia, and Ohio now require Hirsch-like list of "facts" students must learn

in history class. Thus, the opportunity to have these debates in which teachers examine their

rationales and to hear others in the school is a considerable intellectual resource.

It was Lyle, Holly, and Jane's collective abilities to think about their subject matter,

to identify the essential concepts, to design multiple ways to assess conceptual understanding,

as well as their ability to think about each student as an individual that were the critical

resources they drew on to support students with disabilities in general education classrooms.

It was this way of thinking about teaching and learning, fostered by the beliefs discussed in

Chapter 4, that these teachers practiced to ensure that students' with disabilities reintegration

into general education would not be business as usual, but a place where they have access to

knowledge and an opportunity to succeed based on their ability to demonstrate growth in

their conceptual understanding with the accommodations and support they need.

CATEGORY III: Pedagogical Content Knowledge

231

A third' category of professional knowledge is pedagogical content knowledge, which

includes both the knowledge and the understanding of the process and methods for teaching

a topic. This knowledge base is influenced by the teachers' subject matter knowledge, their

knowledge of methods, and their knowledge of learners. According to Wilson, Shulrnan, and

Richert (1987) this knowledge base evolves over time as teachers transform their own subject

matter knowledge for the purpose of teaching. It is the accumulation of what teachers know

about teaching a topic, how to teach it, how students learn it, the common student

misconceptions, and the difficulties students encounter in learning it. Teachers' capacity to

develop this body of knowledge in relation to students with disabilities is critical in order to

support their learning in general education classrooms. The greater the teacher's capacity to

think about how diverse learners acquire knowledge and their difficulties in doing so and to

develop methods to address these issue, the greater potential for diverse learners' success in

their classroom. In fact, this question of how to develop a curriculum and methodology that

addressed the needs of diverse learners was the point of the studies that Lyle, Jane, Sally and

Peg designed. Therefore the teachers in the collaborative group provided several examples

of this kind of thinking.

Both Jane and Lyle described their way of approaching the teaching of various topics

in science in their unpublished interview.

We are not just asking them to memorize facts and recall them during

an objective tests. We're asking students to take charge of their own

learning and to show us what they know and understand and how they

think about science. (Jane, p.9)

2 3 2

Their method included students taking responsibility for their learning and demonstrating their

understanding of scientific concepts. This method of assessment, i.e., demonstrating what

they know and how they were thinking about science in class discussions, in group

presentations, in their journal entries and in an oral interview gave all students a greater

opportunity to represent their learning. However, for students with mild disabilities including

difficulties with memory, reading and written language, providing them with options to

demonstrate their learning over a period of time was essential for their success in

mainstreamed settings, rather than the traditional multiple choice unit tests and midterm and

final. Jane and Lyle developed a particular process for teaching the science units, which

emphasized active engagement in learning through an inquiry process. Lyle described the

teaching and learning process for each topic this way:

Students are now asked: What do you know about this topic? Let's

list all of our misconceptions about a particular concept and try to

break them down. Let's analyze our problems, then design and run

experiments that will help us solve our own problems and draw our

own conclusions. Finally, let's see how our new concepts fit into the

"big picture' and how they might be used in our everyday lives (Lyle,

unpublished interview, p.9).

With each unit of study Lyle developed a concrete, real world connection for students to

represent the unit of study. For example, in teaching the unit on digestion Lyle led students

through a series of questions that were designed to help them visualize the process. In my

classroom observations, Holly used the same approach in teaching digestion in her biology

class. The representation that he used was the peanut butter and jelly sandwich. He asked

them what happened when they ate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? After they swallowed,

2 3 3

do little pieces of bread, peanut butter and jelly float through their body to the cells? What

were the basic elements in these foods that the cell used for energy? How did the cell get

energy? The students and the teacher then designed a series of experiments to determine the

basic nutrients in these foods: sugars, carbohydrates, protein. He always brought them back

to the peanut butter sandwich and what happened to it as it moved through the food tubes

(esophagus, stomach, and intestines).

Lyle discussed the series of questions that he asked students about photosynthesis in

a conversation with the group.

How does one think about photosynthesis? You can look at it as a

vocabulary word or a concept.

I don't have to use the word to

scafi‘old their thinking. I can ask, Where did the energy that possum

has walking across the road originate? And how did it get there?

Then they would certainly have to go through photosynthesis. They

would have to know how the food got its energy. (Coll.,5/31/94,

p.47)

In both of these examples Lyle tried to relate the scientific concept to the real world

of the student. This provided students with a way to connect what they were learning in

science to their life. One of the major barriers for students in learning any subject matter is

how it relates to their world. The further removed the topic is from their world the more

dimcult it is for them to conceptualize. Given that students with mild disabilities often have

a limited language base, i.e., vocabulary and concepts, due to their receptive processing

difficulties they have an even more difficult time bridging this gap. Consequently, the more

the teacher can represent and connect their subject matter to the world of the student the

greater the chance the student has of developing a conceptual understanding of the topic.

2 3 4.

Peg and Sally in their paper about transforming low-track mathematics classes into

mathematically empowering environments wrote about the struggle to develop meaningful

ways to represent subject matter to this population. "We stnrggled daily with this issue of how

to represent knowledge meaningfully to a group of students who had varying levels of

background knowledge of the mathematical topics and differing levels of desire to engage in

subject matter” (p.7).

The topic of probability serves as a good illustration of this point. For

example, one problem in probability related to the likelihood of a

woman giving birth to a male or female child and another problem

related to the probability of a basketball player successfirlly completing

a certain number of free throws. By striving to represent the content

in contexts that were relevant to their lives we found students more

motivated to engage in thinking about the subject matter (Lamb and

Bethell, 1992, p.8).

Summary Pedagogical Content Knowledge

In sum, the teachers presented examples of their pedagogical content knowledge that

improved the opportunities for all students to develop a real understanding of their subject

matter, especially students with mild disabilities. This form of teacher knowledge when

implemented provides all students with greater access to knowledge. While the teachers

provided some evidence of their knowledge in this area, it is an ongoing process that they

continually refine. However, it takes more than Pedagogical Content Knowledge to help all

students develop a conceptual understanding of a topic. Lyle, Jane, and Holly gave evidence

that it also requires that a teacher be able to think about how to transform a concept to

address the individual student's learning characteristics and hold the belief that it is their

2 3 5

responsibility to deveIOp ways to teach all students (Wilson, Shulrnan, Richert, 1987). This

ability is a form of pedagogical reasoning and is at the core of the moral purpose of teaching.

CATEGORY IV: Pedagogical Reasoning

The fourth category of teacher knowledge is pedagogical reasoning, a theoretical

concept described by Wilson, Shulrnan, and Reichert (1987) to describe the kinds of

reasoning that a teacher utilizes in their act of teaching. Four components of pedagogical

reasoning emerged from data analysis of the teachers' collaborative conversations and

classroom observations:

adapting, tailoring, inquiring and reflecting.

All four of these

elements are critical to one's continued development of their teaching practice and are

essential skills for teachers to support students with disabilities in the mainstream.

1. Adapting

In what ways did the teachers adapt their subject matter to address the needs of

students with mild disabilities? Adapting a lesson or topic involves fitting the analogies,

illustrations, activities, and assignments to better match the characteristics of the students in

the class. These characteristics include misconceptions, motivation, and ability. Lyle, Jane,

and Holly described several examples of adapting lessons, assessments, and activities to meet

the needs of students in their classes. As was illustrated earlier in this chapter one adaptation

that Lyle made in his classroom was using vocabulary that students understood with the

scientific term, for example, "tubies" for nephridia the tubes in the kidneys, "fingers" for

intestinal villi, and "blind alley" for appendix. Both Lyle and Holly emphasized the use of

terminology that students easily understood along with the scientific term. Lyle stated, "I

2 3 6

want students to describe it and understand the concept more than to remember the name of

it" (Coll, 2/7/94, p. 15). Other examples of adapting by Lyle, Jane, and Holly have been cited

throughout the chapter from the collaborations and their unpublished papers. These examples

included scaffolding or coaching students through a series of questions to facilitate their

thinking about a concept and provide them with alternative ways to assess their learning, i.e.,

diagrams and drawings with interviews, group presentations.

In one conversation Holly described an adaptation that she made for a class that had

"bombed" a test on organic substances.

Holly: It was a real hard unit. It's the organic unit and it's real new for a lot

of them. So then I thought well let's go back and look at it. So we

did like a make-up test and I re-did it.

I didn't ask questions. I like

drew pictures of structures and I had columns. How would you test

for this in a food lab? Is this organic? Give me an example of a food

it's found in.

I made like a big chart of all these substances and they

had to fill in the blanks about the substances. It was great. It was

really great to see them. They got a point if it was organic and

another if they could tell me an example of the food it's in. They got

it all worked out and the conversation between the kids was great. It

was all real visual because it was a big chart and they didn't have to

write essays. It was kind of matching in what they knew. I was really

glad I did that. (Coll. 2/7/94, p. 1).

This was an example of adapting an assessment for a particular class that had a

difficult time with an essay test. Many teachers would move to the next unit, rather than

regrouping and finding another way for this class to demonstrate their knowledge. However,

Holly modified the assessment for this class, which allowed the students to clarify their

misconceptions and feel empowered about what they knew. These kinds of adaptations were

important for all students to regroup when they failed an assignment or test, but especially

237

important for students with mild disabilities who have a history of repeated failure.

Adaptations such of these assisted all students in feeling that they could develop an

understanding of challenging subject matter even students who had a pattern of frustration

and resistance in trying to learn difficult concepts.

Lyle and Jane gave a detailed description in an unpublished interview by an MSU

faculty member of how they adapted the science curriculum to actively engage students at-

risk and with disabilities in constructing scientific knowledge. Their plan had five goals:

1.

2.

to help students express their thoughts in writing.

to help students gain confidence in their own ideas by asking more questions and

getting involved in class discussions.

3.

to develop cooperative teams as an important learning strategy for all students

for developing oral presentations.

4.

to develop more effective ways to assess student learning and to adjust to

individual needs more efficiently.

5.

to find more visual ways to communicate and compliment verbal instruction.

They provided the following adaptations for students to achieve these goals.

Jane:

I continued modeling note taking on the overhead during discussions,

and Lyle tried to use a larger variety of visual aids to help students 'get

a picture' of what was being said and what students were being asked

to think about. We also worked more with concept mapping and had

students practice using them as an additional leaming device.

Another strategy we tried, with limited success, was to set a minimum

standard (80%) that students must reach on lab reports, quizzes, and

tests. These students were too used to accepting failure as a possible

alternative, so we said that they had to 'do it until they got it right.‘

Lyle:

The 80% minimum led to alternative assessment methods. We used

mostly essay testing and offered as an option after the test, a chance

to answer questions students had trouble with orally during a personal

interview. To improve lab report quality students got reports back

238

with comments and questions and were allowed to resubmit them with

corrections. If this system was abused (and it was), students had to

come in after school to do the corrections.

Another form of alternative assessment was to let students work as

teams during a test or quiz working on the answers together (in real

life they may work in teams to solve problems, so why not?) This was

a very positive move because it improved their listening skills, their

critical thinking skills, questioning, cooperation and other social skills.

This techniques was used only when we deemed it appropriate, not all

the time.

Jane: We approached two of our goals by combining strategies We knew

that we wanted improved questioning during class/team discussions

to help students stay focused on the topics being presented. We also

wanted students to improve the organization, thoughtfirlness, and

general quality of their writing. Keeping 'thinkbooks' (journals) was

a way we started helping kids stay focused, asking questions, and

sharing ideas. At the end or sometimes the beginning of class students

had three to five minutes to either reflect on the day's lesson or ask a

question in writing or make a prediction or share a feeling or concern.

We would publicly acknowledge that two or more students had the

same question. This helped students see that they weren't the only

ones with questions. Further, we would build their questions into the

day's topics to demonstrate that their questions were important.

Students found that the same questions were asked by all students so

the special education students felt much better about asking their

'dumb' questions. (Lyle and Jane unpublished interview 1990, pp. 8-9).

This excerpt from their unpublished interview illustrated their thinking in adapting the

science curriculum to engage at-risk students and those with mild disabilities in scientific

thinking and the methods they implemented in their three-year study. They used visual cues

in the form of diagrams and concepts maps to aid conceptual understanding. They devised

alternative ways to assess students' thinking, such as, regularly assigned writings in a

thinkbook or student journal to improve students' ability to think and write about science.

2 3 9

They used the student questions generated in their thinkbooks as a basis of class discussion

and to illustrate that many students in the class have the same questions.

In sum, one element of pedagogical reasoning that surfaced in the data was teachers'

ability to adapt their curriculum and methods to address the characteristics of their students.

Lyle, Jane, and Holly found that the adaptations of their curriculum designed to facilitate the

learning Of students at-risk and those with disabilities was so beneficial that they came to

believe that these adaptations would assist all students in developing a greater conceptual

understanding of science. Consequently, their department after three years of study decided

to eliminate the low-track science classes. The adapted curriculum and methodology

developed in the science projects were incorporated into other science courses with

heterogeneous settings.

The critical point fi'om this data was that the general and special education teachers

working collaboratively adapted their curriculum and their teaching methods to address the

characteristics of all students including those with disabilities and facilitated their learning and

supported their social inclusion in heterogeneous settings. However, adapting the content and

methods to meet the general characteristics of the students in each class may not be sufficient

to address the learning characteristics of all students. Some students may need individual

adaptations.

2. Tailoring

How did these teachers tailor assignments and assessments to meet the individual

needs of students with disabilities? Tailoring is the second element of pedagogical reasoning

2 4 0

that emerged from the data. It is the same as adaptation except that it involves the adapting

of curricula, assignments, and assessment to the specific characteristics of individual students

in a class rather than the entire class. The ability of a teacher to tailor teaching and learning

to meet the individual needs of students with very diverse needs is critical for the success of

students with disabilities in general education settings. Lyle, Holly and Jane offered several

examples of tailoring teaching and learning for students with disabilities.

Several situations of tailoring that Lyle developed have been described in this chapter.

He coached individual students by scafi‘olding their thinking through a series of questions

during labs and essay tests. He asked them questions on their lab reports and journals and he

offered students the opportunity to interview with him after their written assessment. The

oral interview was another example of how Lyle tailored teaching and learning to the

individual student. Holly tailored her teaching in the same way. Following is a description

of my Observation of a follow-up interview of an essay test on digestion at the cell level with

a learning disabled/hearing impaired sophomore, named Mary. Lyle read the student's essay

and then drew a diagram consisting of a circle the size of a half dollar with a smaller circle the

size of a drop of water with dots in it. Lyle asked her what the picture represented. Mary

told him it was the picture of a cell and the smaller circle was the master control of the cell.

He asked her if she knew the name of the master control. He told her it was called the

nucleus and wrote the name on the picture. He said that she was correct that the nucleus was

the master control of the cell. He then drew two parallel lines one half inch a part on the left

side of the large circle. Then he drew several arrows from the midpoint between the parallel

241

lines into the cell. He asked Mary if she could describe the new part of the diagram. She told

him that the lines were a tube for feeding the cell. He confirmed her answer and elaborated

that the tube was a blood vessel, called a capillary that was really the size of a human hair.

He told her that this person ate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch an hour ago.

Then he asked her to tell him how the cell got this food? She told him that food

particles in the tube moved from the tube through the cell wall into the cell. He asked her

what she meant by pieces of food? Did she mean pieces of peanut butter, jelly and bread were

floating in the tube? She laughed and said, "No." The food was changed into nutrients and

the nutrients moved into the cell. He asked if she could name any of the nutrients? She told

him she couldn't remember. He reminded her that they were called fats, sugars, and protein.

He asked her how they get passed the cell wall? She told him that the cell wall had a guard

system, but certain things like nutrients could pass through. He told her that she was right

about that.

The interview ended with Lyle telling her that the next time they met he wanted her

to discuss with him what the cell did with the leftovers from the nutrients. He told her that

she was really making progress in her understanding of how cells got food. She left smiling.

Each time Lyle met with Mary he drew the same diagram and expected her to tell him

more about the processes of digestion, excretion, and diffusion using more and more of the

scientific vocabulary with less and less scaffolding. Each time Mary could tell him more.

Mary's disability made it very difficult for her to develop conceptual understanding. She

needed both an auditory and visual stimulus to develop a basic understanding of abstract

242

concepts. By providing her with an individual interview with a picture and a series of

questions, Lyle tailored his assessment to fit her characteristics as a learner.

This example illustrated how critical the ability of a teacher to tailor their teaching to

a student's learning is to a student with disabilities, like Mary. She was asked to drop her

ninth grade science class because the teacher was convinced she was incapable of learning

high school science because of her disabilities. She was very anxious at the beginning of her

biology class. However, with Lyle's beliefs that it was his responsibility to teach all students

and that all students can learn, Mary earned a grade of C+ in Biology due to her efforts and

the adaptations and tailoring that Lyle provided for her learning.

Holly offered another example of tailoring teaching and learning to meet the needs of

Nate, a student with a severe writing disability.

Holly: Nate has very limited writing skills. He can't spell very much and he

needs help in constructing whole sentences. He gets the assignments

with everybody else. He understands that he is gonna try. And he

does, he asks me how to spell things and he has a group member that

the loves to work with. She helps him spell and they talk through the

writing together and then they write it. He writes down as much as

he can and then we talk through the rest of it. (Coll. 11/29/93, p.23)

This passage was an example of how Holly tailored individual assignments to address

the characteristics of a student with a severe writing disability. Holly met with him after

school to complete his assessment on the digestive process. She read through his writing to

get a sense of what he knew.

Then she brought over the three-dimensional plastic

representation of the human body with all of the digestive organs. She asked him to use this

model to talk through how a peanut butter and jelly sandwich traveled through the digestive

243

system. Nate removed each of the organs and in most instances named the organ and

described the digestive process. She provided him with some scaffolding as he described the

process, but with the assistance of the model he was able to satisfactorily describe the

digestive process.

Nate had the benefit of a visual and tactile representation and oral communication to

demonstrate his understanding of the steps in digestion. These options allowed him to use

his strengths as a learner: visual and tactile processing to aid his memory and facilitate his oral

communication to demonstrate what he knew about digestion, rather than a written

assessment that emphasizes his disability area. Tailoring the form of assessment as well as the

teaching (Nate worked with a partner to do his written assignments) allowed students with

disabilities to utilize their strengths to demonstrate their knowledge and was critical for the

success of students with disabilities in Holly and Lyle's science classes. Nate completed

biology with a C minus. He failed science in his freshman year because of incomplete

assignments and low test scores without any adaptations or tailoring to accommodate his

disability.

Jane in the discussion of her videotape of the case study on Scott Offered a way to

tailor an English assignment to read a novel.

Jane:

Teachers need to think about the difference between assessing a

student on the final product versus the process.

If teachers

concentrated on the process then they would see more evidence of

success and effort. In my experience of having the whole class read

a novel and be at a certain point on a given date is quite overwhelming

for some kids and they won't even try, like Scott. I was thinking that

it's more important that they get going with the book and read some

244

pages that instead of stOpping him from reading at all because we‘re

so rigid about saying every one must be at this page on this date.

Karen: I wonder if the English teacher's goal was answering the

comprehension questions or reading the book? It could be that

developing the questions was a means for accessing this process of

engaging in a long piece of work and making sense to it from

beginning to end.

Jane:

But it's just that for some kids who get overwhelmed easier and never

can get to the final product there's no opportunity for them to learn

how to learn. It's more important for me to have Scott say, 'Well, I'm

really enjoying this book. I've never thought about reading a novel.’

And sometimes that might happen if you don't have all that pressure

of reading this much by a certain day, you're willing to try it.

Lyle chimed in and offered additional ways to tailor this assignment for a student like

Scott.

Lyle: A trick I use if I know the kid may not have read the entire assignment

than I will ask them questions about the early parts of the book

knowing they haven't read the last part of the assignment. So let him

have some success ask him and make sure that he knows you're going

to do that in advance so that he can trust you'll do that on a continual

basis, but continuing to challenge him to get a little better. And then

so that it's not obvious that you jump on him early all the time ask him

some predicting type questions later on rather than the factual

questions where you would have to have read it. Maybe he could pick

up off from someone else's comment and asks him to predict. So

there's ways of including Scott without exposing him number one as

a slow reader, number two not taking away his challenge that he can

get better and number three that he does count in class. This success

may encourage him to read a little further next time knowing that he's

going to be allowed to be successful in front of his peers which is all

important. He can also respond later in the discussion even though he

hasn't read that part. (Coll. 5/31/94, pp. 1-2)

This passage illustrated several points.

One, as mentioned earlier, was that the

collaborative group was a resource that the teachers used to inquire and reflect together about

2 4 5

their practice. Second, it described in detail the ways these teachers tailored a lengthy reading

assignment for students, like Scott with ADD and for students with reading difficulties. Jane

suggested that teachers tailor their assessment toward the process of a student reading a novel

and discussing it, rather than the completion of the novel. This allowed students like Scott

to have a chance of demonstrating some success in this assignment.

Lyle added his thinking about how to engage and encourage students who usually only

complete the first part of an assignment. This kind of tailoring in their general education

classrooms was essential for students with disabilities who quite Often were so overwhelmed

by attempting to complete 100 pages or so by a given day that they never even started. Lyle's

suggestions for tailoring the class discussion about a reading assignment gave students who

struggled with reading a way to participate and feel encouraged to continue their efforts.

Students with reading difficulties or disabilities had an opportunity to experience success in

there with tailored reading assignments.

In sum, the examples of tailoring that Lyle, Holly and Jane utilized in their practice

to support individual students with disabilities was critical to their success in the mainstream.

The development of the skills to tailor assignments and assessments emanated from their

beliefs that the practitioner's role is to teach all students and that all students can learn.

Further it illustrated their moral purpose of teaching by making a difference in the learning of

students like Mary, Nate and Scott who otherwise would not have been afforded these

options.

3. Inquiring

246

How did the teachers inquire and evaluate their practice of facilitating the learning of

students with mild disabilities? A third category of pedagogical reasoning that was evidenced

in the data was teachers' ability to inquire about and evaluate their teaching practice in relation

to diverse learners.

Inquiring into one's practice involves asking questions about their

teaching, student learning, subject matter, and learners. Evaluation involves the ability to

check for students understanding and misunderstandings. The teachers in this study

demonstrated both of these reasoning abilities.

Hart High School has been a Professional Development School for six years and

therefore committed to the six principles of a PDS. All of the teachers in this study embraced

the principles of teaching and learning for understanding for all students, creating a learning

community, long-term inquiry into teaching and learning, and inventing a new institution.

Four of the teachers in this study (Lyle, Jane, Sally, and Peg) developed their own PDS

studies focusing on the development of teaching and learning for conceptual understanding

of all students in science. The principles mentioned above were the guiding principles of their

studies.

After four years of inquiry into the development of these practices each of their

departments detracked their curriculum so that all students would participate in Algebra I and

Biology. The two novice teachers, Holly and Karen, were a part of these projects as interns

and have continued this work as new teachers in the science and math departments. Several

members of the group have written and published papers about their changes in teaching

practice developed through their projects.

247

Their voluntary participation in this collaborative inquiry project was a second piece

of evidence that they are committed to inquiring and reflecting about their practice. The

conversations and videotaped interviews were held for one to two hours after school. This

was their second PDS project for the 1993-94 school year, as this was in addition to their

department projects. Throughout the collaborative conversations group members constantly

asked each other questions about a variety of issues they face in their daily practice. Several

of these questions have been presented in the excerpts of conversations throughout this

chapter. Holly asked Lyle what he does when no one responds to his questions in large group

discussion.

Jane asked the group what to do about kids who do not engage in class

discussions and give little evidence of trying? Karen asked Jane what she meant by "students

are engaged in learning." Karen and Lyle had a conversation about what are the essential

concepts in a subject. Lyle had several sessions in which he questioned the group about how

to organize cooperative learning groups with students who are disengaged and disruptive in

class.

There were several conversations about the question of how to grade students and

how participation is a part of their grade. All of these examples that were in the passages

throughout the chapter illustrated the ability of these teachers to continually inquire about

elements of teaching and learning.

Lyle, Holly, and Jane provided a great deal of evidence regarding how they evaluated

students understandings and misunderstandings. In their practice of teaching evaluation of

student learning was ongoing, not merely during formal tests.

Large and small group

discussions, dialogic journals, oral presentations, written assignments, tests and individual

248

interviews were all viewed as Opportunities to evaluate students development of

understanding or misunderstandings of their content.

Lyle, Holly, and Jane used the

evaluative information from all of these sources about students' learning as a basis for

developing the next set of lessons and activities.

In sum, the teachers' ability to inquire about their practice and evaluate students'

learning was a critical intellectual resource for the inclusion of students with disabilities in

general education settings. The fiscal resources of the PDS enabled them to have time

necessary to inquire together about their practice. Further, the guiding principles of the PDS

encouraged them to think about methods to develop all students' conceptual understanding.

Thus, the focus of their inquiry in their PDS projects fostered the detracking of students at-

risk and with disabilities into heterogenous settings at Hart High School. The teachers in this

group were interested in developing a high powered curriculum focused on conceptual

understanding for students who have chronically failed math and science including those with

disabilities.

After three years of continually transforming, implementing, evaluating,

reflecting, and revising their curriculum and sharing the efforts of their labor with other

members of their departments, the science and mathematics departments created

heterogenous courses that were Opened to all students. The evidence presented in chapter one

regarding the increasing number of students with disabilities accessing more and more

advanced courses seems to validate these changes.

4. Reflecting

249

What role did reflection play in assisting these teachers in supporting the needs of

students with disabilities in mainstreamed settings? The fourth component of pedagogical

reasoning that emerged from the teachers' collaborations was the ability to reflect on one's

practice. Reflection is a process that enables one to learn from their experience. In the case

of teaching, the practitioner looks back on the teaching and learning that has occurred in their

class and reconstructs the events to determine their impact on students' conceptual

development of the unit of study. Based on their observations and interpretations of these

activities, adjustments are made in their practice accordingly.

This chapter and the previous chapter provided several parts of teachers'

conversations that demonstrated their abilities to reflect on various components of their

practice. It was this ability that fostered changes in their practice and in their department to

provide students at-risk and with disabilities access to learning science and math in

heterogeneous settings. One illustration of how reflection played a major part in assisting

these teachers to learn fiom their experiences was documented in Lyle and Jane's unpublished

interview with a university professor. They wrote about what they learned from the student

interviews after the second semester of implementing a more constructivist approach to

teaching in cooperative groups.

Lyle:

The techniques that students liked from the first semester were:

1) the use of illustrations on the board and overhead (I sketched cartoons

and diagrams that helped clarify concepts).

2) issued participation points during class discussion. It encouraged them to

talk more and stay 'tuned in.‘

250

3) tried to use more 'everyday words.‘ The zoology vocabulary I was using

was too hard, too fast.

4) used metaphors and analogous stories to help clarify concepts. If I could

relate 'new stuff to information they already understood, it would help

increase their understanding of the new material.

5) talked less and wrote more on the board/overhead without using many

abbreviations.

6) we went faster in zoology and didn't use as many real life examples to

which they could relate, where first semester we went at a more deliberate

pace and we tried to bring in real life experiences as often as possible.

Jane:

Take for example the written work. The at-risk and special education

students see some of their classmates taking notes from discussion

writing conclusions from lab investigations, and responding to other

writing assignments and they feel discouraged because writing takes

them so much longer.

Lyle:

Reflecting on this problem, we felt we should have done a better job

of preparing them for the merger into a heterogenous class the second

semester and more appropriate adjustments during the second

semester. The change was too much and too soon for many of them

(at-risk and special education students.) Now that we are working

with the 'less is more', there hasn't been the same kind of problems

with writing. They have more of a chance to practice their writing

skills in science classes because we do daily journals. (Lyle and Jane,

unpublished paper, 1990, p. S)

In this excerpt from their interview Lyle and Jane provided evidence of how they

reflected on the students' perceptions in their interviews to rethink their curriculum and

methods. After analyzing the student responses they itemized what students liked about the

first semester compared to the second semester and then made the necessary corrections. For

example, Lyle reported in one of the collaborative conversations that he used both the

scientific vocabulary and simple names to assist students' understanding. Participation was

a part of every student’s grade. They developed alternative ways besides writing for students

2 5 1

to demonstrate their knowledge. All of these changes were based on their reflections on

students' perceptions of the differences between their two semesters and Lyle and Jane's

observations. In the section on tailoring the passage about Holly creating a new assessment

on organic elements was evidence of her reflective abilities.

In sum, these teachers' abilities to reconstruct the events of the class as a whole and

for individual students was critical in changing their practice. Unless these teachers examined

their practice and reflected on the outcomes of these events in relation to all of their students,

their teaching would remain business as usual, then learning for students at-risk and with

disabilities in their classrooms would continue to be chronic frustration and failure.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this chapter has described the intellectual resources that general and

special education teachers working collaboratively utilized to support the needs of students

with mild disabilities in general education settings. These resources were divided into four

categories based on models of teacher knowledge developed by Wilson, Shulrnan, and Richert

(1987). The two frameworks included components of a professional knowledge base and

elements of pedagogical reasoning. Data on the focal teachers' knowledge fit into four

categories of professional knowledge: General Pedagogical Knowledge, Subject Matter

Knowledge, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, and Pedagogical Reasoning. Knowledge

representing these different categories evolved as the teachers worked to develop a new

curriculum and methodology for teaching students at-risk and with disabilities in more

meaningful ways.

2 5 2

As Fullan (1991) has indicated change is a process and not an event and often teachers

find meaning only by trying something. These teachers found meaning in the development

of their new curriculum based on conceptual change and their new methodology based On

social constructivism for students with disabilities and then promoted these changes for all

students in the science and mathematics departments at Hart High School. Through this

innovative process of changing their curriculum and methodology their beliefs about teaching,

learning and learners were further defined as well. In essence they achieved the merger of

change agentry and moral purpose that Fullan (1994) indicates is essential for deep system

change.

Pugach and Warger (1996 in press) argue that curriculum reform is an ideal focal

point for the collective energy of special and general educators. In their opinion it forms a

natural bridge between concerns for school improvement and concerns about how to address

the learning needs of students who have had persistent problems in the traditional curriculum,

namely students’ at-risk and with mild disabilities. The special and general educators in this

group not only embraced the task of restructuring their curriculum and methodology through

collaboration for all students, but have developed ways to tailor their teaching to address the

specific needs of students with mild disabilities within that curriculum. They demonstrated

that they are teachers with moral purpose thinking daily about their practice to make a

difference in the lives of individual students. What conclusions and implications can be drawn

from this study about the resources that contribute to a school's capacity to serve students

with special needs in inclusive settings? The last chapter will discuss this question.

CHAPTER 7

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

"For complex change we need many

people

working insightfufly

on

the

solutions

and

committing

themselves to concentrated action

together." (Fullan, 1994, p.34)

Summary and Implications

The question this study has examined-namely, what resources contribute to a school's

capacity to support students with special needs in inclusive settings—evolved through the

conversations of a group of general and special educators abOut restructuring their curriculum

and their practice to include all students.

The last three chapters have told the story of three teachers in the collaborative group:

Lyle, a veteran science teacher, Holly, a novice science teacher, and Jane, a special education

teacher. The story was about their efi‘orts over several years to implement two reforms at

Hart High School. One reform effort was to restructure teaching and learning to better meet

the needs of all students supported through a university partnership as a Professional

Development School. The second reform effort was the inclusion of students with mild

disabilities in general education classrooms initiated by the school district. These two reforms

intersected at Hart High School. They were implemented by the general and special education

teachers in this project through experimentation in team teaching and curriculum development

supported by the PDS. Their efforts prompted the development of a PDS Collaborative

253

254

Inquiry project to examine the teacher knowledge and beliefs generated in their years of

collaborative work to restructure their curricula to support students with special needs in

general education classrooms.

This study has argued that the collaboration between general and special education

teachers, supported by the resources and culture of a Professional Development School,

fostered the development of both educational belief systems with a moral purpose and the

intellectual resources necessary to support students with special needs. Collectively these

resources produced a new institutional structure and culture with a moral ecology that

promoted the teaching and learning of all students and ensured access to all subjects. The

student outcome data reported in chapter one provides some evidence to substantiate these

institutional changes.

Environmental Resources

Chapter Four argued that the establishment of Hart High as a PDS provided the

school with both human and fiscal resources that were critical in supporting the focal teachers

to collaboratively examine their beliefs and practice.

Providing the teachers time to

collaborate and reflect about teaching and learning was one of the initial steps in creating a

new culture. The collaborative time not only represented the new culture, but the ongoing

processes of inquiry and reflection during collaboration were the embodiment of the new

culture. Thus, spending time for restructuring curriculum, teaching, and learning to support

the needs of all students became a part of the new culture, while simultaneously creating a

new culture.

Chapter Four also described the collaboration between the math, science, and special

education teachers in this project and argued that their conversations and the shared

2 5 S

understandings, knowledge, and values they produced constituted yet another human resource

that they used to continue the growth of their professional knowledge. These additional

resources were a positive force in school restructuring; at the same time, however, they

created a countervailing negative force. The jealousies and tensions that developed at Hart

High over the resources to foster change were discussed in chapter four.

Implications of Findings About Environmental Resources

1. Two important resources that contribute to a school's capacity to support students

with special needs are access to ongoing professional development time and access to

university faculty as collaborative partners.

In order for inclusion to be an integrative and meaningful experience for students with

disabilities, rather than a place they are assigned, general and special education teachers must

have access to professional development time. However, merely the availability of time is

insufficient; how the time is spent is critical. In order for teachers to create an inclusive

environment their efi‘orts must be directed toward the restructuring of teaching and learning

for all students.

Lyle, Holly, and Jane had access to both time--a half day every week--and intellectual

resources-the other staff members and university faculty. The time allowed the stafi‘ to build

trust in each other, listen to each other, and share their work. It also provided the faculty

with time to explore their commonalities and difi’erences and time to reflect, inquire and build

a vision of school together. During this time, teachers talked at length about teaching,

learning, assessment, and new organizational structures. Lyle and Jane also had the

opportunity for daily collaborative planning time with each other over several years. Through

the fiscal resources provided by MSU, Lyle was given one hour of reallocated time to devote

2 5 6

to curriculum development. A university faculty member, a graduate student, or a student

intern (Holly) in science education fi'equently participated in these sessions. Jorgenson (1997,

in press) lists the "provision of time and support for teachers to engage in reflective inquiry

about their curriculum and teaching practice" (p.13) as one of the critical elements in schools

that have restructured their curriculum and teaching practice.

2. Fiscal resources to reallocate teachers' time need to be more equitably distributed.

Providing several members in each of the core subjects with an hour of reallocated time for

several years created a lot ofjealousy concerning the value of the PDS initiative for all faculty,

especially those in elective subjects. This jealousy over time fostered negative feelings of a

small minority of faculty about the restructuring initiative. Eventually these inalcontents

eroded the impact of reform efi‘orts. According to Sizer (1996) positive forces of change sow

seeds of discontent in some faculty members because they perceive some members of the

group receiving preferential treatment for doing the same job they do, teach. Some are afiaid

of change and want to sustain the traditional structure. Others have seen so many reforms

come and go with limited impact on the institution that they are cynical about the impact of

yet another new initiative (Sizer, 1996).

"Pressure for change, whether wise or unwise,

ultimately emerges as hiccups, but by and large leaves the school's design and routines much

as they are now," writes Sizer (1997, p. xv).

Is there a way to minimize the development ofjealousy and resistance? In the case

of Hart High School, perhaps if the reallocated time were awarded to more than the teachers

in the core subjects from the onset of the partnership with MSU, such strong jealousies may

not have developed. In addition, if a representative sample of teachers, administrators, and

university faculty jointly decided on the resources awarded to projects, rather than a small

2 S 7

group of core subject faculty, perhaps the intensity of the faculty's feelings about favoritism

for a few would have been less intense. Sizer (1996) in his reflections after ten years of

working to restructure high schools confesses that there is not at present a resolution to this

issue of resistance and cynicism about reforms and change.

3. When forming university and school professional development partnerships, the

university needs to provide faculty in elective subjects, as well as the core academic

subjects. A major reason that departments, such as fine arts, business, physical education,

life skills, and special education, received little PDS financial support to restructure their

curriculum was the lack of university faculty to participate in these areas. One of the

requirements for PDS project proposals was an identified university stafi‘ ' member to

participate in the project. Vlfrthout the university personnel available in these subject areas,

high school teachers in these departments were precluded fi'om developing PDS projects.

This situation sowed seeds of discontent toward the partnership and restructuring efforts.

Faculty in these departments often felt that their subject matter was viewed as less important

than the core academic subjects and this perception marginalized their support for school's

restructuring efforts. In order to create an inclusive school, all faculty need to be included

in the restructuring efi‘orts.

4. Time available for team teaching between general and special education teachers

contributes to a school's capacity to support students with special needs in general

education.

In their team teaching partnership Lyle, Jane, and Holly through their daily interactions

fostered a common set of beliefs about learners with special needs, their roles in relation to

these students, and beliefs about content and assessment that accommodate their needs as

258

learners. These partnerships allowed them to explore new dimensions of their roles as

teachers. The general education teachers, Lyle and Holly, had time to interview students

individually about their learning. The special education teacher, Jane, at times had the

responsibility for a lesson with the entire class. This teaching arrangement is central to

creating an inclusive school because it provides general and special educators the opportunity

to teach and think together about curriculum and methodologies that support the needs of all

students (Berres, Ferguson, Knoblock, and Woods, 1996). Further, it allows the strengths

of each team member to be utilized to best meet the needs of all students regardless of their

title (Villa and Thousand, 1995).

5. The addition of team teaching to the special educator's existing responsibilities

creates tensions that must be addressed through additional human resources.

While team-teaching arrangements between Lyle, Jane and Holly were necessary to foster an

inclusive school at Hart High, these partnerships created tensions for Jane regarding her

ability to meet the demands and duties of her existing role and still honor her commitment to

the team While Jane was willing to do this other members of her department were not, they

found the efforts necessary to juggle the requirements of the special education mandates

juxtaposed with a commitment to team teaching too overwhelming and exhausting. A

question to consider is whether school's should expect special educators to manage in essence

two jobs in order to foster inclusive practices. How long can one professional sustain this

commitment and is it morally defensible for school districts to expect someone to firlfill such

overwhelming responsibilities?

Clearly, based on the data in this study the team teaching partnerships between general

and special educators greatly contributed to Hart High School's ability to support students

259

with special nwds in general education classrooms. However, additional support personnel

were necessary in order to firlfill all of the legal mandates that special education teachers, like

Jane, must address. A special education teacher in each of the core subjects as well as in

technology and fine arts would be ideal. In addition, secretarial support to manage the

clerical work involved in record keeping for special education would free up valuable time

that could be directed toward team teaching and collaboration. The student data presented

in chapter one on Hart students’ GPA and their increasing selection of more advanced courses

seems to support the value oftearn teaching in accommodating and supporting students with

special needs. In addition, trained paraprofessionals to assist teachers in meeting students

needs would also alleviate some of the tension inherent in the special educator‘s job.

Implications Regarding Human Resources

1. Connecting human resources in an inclusive school provides teachers with a support

network to deliberate on and evaluate changes in teaching and learning and is an

essential resource for students with special needs. The relationships that Lyle, Holly, and

Jane established with other faculty, including support personnel, was an important human

resource in their efforts to change science teaching and learning for all students. Pugach and

Warger (1996) and Berres, et al (1996) identify this component as a critical element in

developing inclusive schools. By connecting all of the human resources in Hart High School

during professional development time, the faculty had the opportunity to deliberate about the

dilemmas they face in their practice. The faculty members brought their individual resources,

(i.e., their knowledge, skills, and dispositions) which collectively created a group resource for

them to discuss problems and issues. The group resource also served as a forum for all Hart

High stafi‘ to revise and refine their beliefs, their curriculum and their methodologies toward

2 6 0

meeting the needs of all students. The connection of general and special educators, support

personnel, and administrators at Hart High provided everyone with the support they needed

to continue the risk taking necessary to foster new practices. Without this support network

it was more likely that teachers would retreat to their familiar past practices when they

experienced fiustrations with the process of change.

Further, including all the human resources in Hart High School demonstrated the

value placed on the contribution everyone could make to restructuring teaching and learning.

The valuing of everyone's contribution on the faculty served as a model for students to value

the talents of all their peers regardless of their special needs at Hart High.

2. The principal is a critical resource in sustaining the vision of an inclusive school

toward the development of a moral ecology. The Hart High School principal, Ted Downs,

played a vital role in supporting and encouraging Hart ‘ faculty in their restructuring of

teaching and learning of all students. His support was critical in sustaining teachers' efi‘orts

as they encountered the risks involved in changing their practice. In addition, his leadership

in defending the guiding principles of inclusive practices to critics (teachers and parents) was

key in sustaining restructuring efforts. By participating with the faculty during professional

development, Ted modeled an expectation that all stafi‘ were responsible to enact the vision

fostered by the PDS principles, i.e., teaching and learning for conceptual understanding for

all students, inquiry into practice, training of preservice teachers, inventing a new institution

in collaboration with university faculty. Through frequent communication with members of

the Board of Education and the community regarding the school's progress in restructuring

teaching and learning for all students, he served as an important liaison for the faculty. The

principal, as the school leader, must continually "seek and oversee the broader purpose and

2 6 1

direction of the organization" (Fullan, 1994, p.71). Jorgenson (1997, in press) identifies

administrative vision and commitment as the critical component in sustaining school reform

and inclusive education This also indicates that programs in educational administration need

to emphasize leadership skills that support and sustain reform in addition to managerial skills.

3. The addition of outside voices, in the form of university faculty, are an important

resource for schools committed to restructuring teaching and learning for all. The

outsiders' perspectives were a valuable resource in terms of inquiry and reflection about

teaching and learning. The university faculty provided Hart High stafi‘ with new ways of

thinking about teaching, learning, assessment, subject matter, learners, and organizational

.

structure. In addition, as a part of the PDS partnership, the training of preservice teachers

at Hart High was an ongoing event. They were included in all projects and activities and

participated in the Wednesday morning professional development time. The preservice

interns contributed their enthusiasm, curiosity and their own thoughts and questions about the

practice of teaching. In the collaborative conversations they provided a critical voice in

directing the group's thoughts to the guiding principles of the Professional Development

School, i.e., teaching and learning for conceptual understanding for all and inventing a new

institution.

The participation of university staff provided teachers with additional perspectives on

restructuring teaching and learning. With this collaborative time Lyle, Jane, Holly, and a

university science educator had the opportunity to engage in the elements of change agentry

in relation to science: vision building, mastery of their practice, and inquiry (Fullan 1994).

This meant that they had the opportunity to examine and reexamine their visions and engage

in continuous inquiry about their teaching. The focal teachers and the university faculty

262

became intellectual resources for one another as they planned a new curriculum with

alternative assessments, implemented it together, and then reflected about their work.

According to Jorgenson (1997, in press) the systemic change process is advanced by

association with a critical fiiend—namely university faculty- to listen carefirlly during teacher

collaboration, as well as clarify elements of the conversation, and ofi‘er research on other

school's experiences with change. By having both the time and access to the intellectual

resources of a collaborative group, Jane, Lyle, and Holly restructured their science curriculum

using the framework promoted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science

(1989), "Science for All American" to better meet the needs of all students. Based on their

comments in an unpublished conversation with an MSU faculty member cited in chapter six,

they changed their roles from teacher as tellers, to teachers as facilitator and viewed learners

as actively constructing knowledge, rather than passive recipients. They further reported that

over time they began to view curriculums from the perspective of "less is more,” which meant

teaching fewer concepts in more depth. Thus, access to both time and human resources,

including university faculty, were two important resources that greatly contributed to Hart

School's capacity to support students with special needs.

Implications for Developing Cultural Resources

1. The efforts to implement the guiding principles of the Professional Development

School provide university and public school faculty the impetus to become change

agents to develop a school with a moral ecology. Darling-Hammond (1995) found in her

study of PDSs that the focus on restructuring teaching and learning fosters new forms of

teacher leadership, liberating them to re-shape practice and make decisions that impact the

institution and system. The guiding principles of the PDS embraced by the majority of

263

educators at Hart High School developed teachers who were change agents in the classroom

as well as in the institution. As Lyle's and Jane's work progressed in the restructuring of the

science curriculum to include all students, their efforts moved beyond the classroom level to

detracking the science department. In fact, through their efforts the fundamental science class

(low track) was eliminated and at present all students enroll in Biology. According to Fullan

(1994) teachers need to first concern themselves with making a difi‘erence with each student.

But they must also direct their efforts on a school-wide basis to create an environment or

ecology that is committed to creating access to all knowledge for everyone and helping all

students learn. It is the commitment to this moral purpose of making a difi‘erence in the lives

of all students that leads to a school with a moral ecology. Villa and Thousand (1995) and

Jorgenson (in press, 1997) in their research on creating inclusive schools confirm the necessity

of guiding principles that embrace the moral purpose of teaching as critical in the development

of an inclusive school culture.

2. The construction of a common vision by the school faculty comes from restructuring

experiences in changing teaching and learning for all students.

The premature

formalimtion of vision developed by an individual or a small group for an entire organization

may lead to compliance, but not a shared commitment, which is essential for success (Fullan,

1994; Senge, 1990). Individuals need a fair amount of reflective experience before they can

form a meaningful vision and a shared vision must be constructed through the collaborative

interactions of the members of an institution (Fullarr, 1994). "Vision emerges fi'om, more than

it precedes, action" (Fullan, 1994, p.28). As described in chapter four, the vision to create

an inclusive school in which all students have access to all knowledge and to teaching and

learning for understanding evolved as the Hart High School general and special education

faculty worked jointly to construct curriculum and pedagogical practices that included all

2 6 4

students.

After two years of collaboration with university faculty about restructuring teaching,

learning, and the organizational structures of their school, Hart High School faculty and

administration jointly developed a mission statement. Both the mission statement and their

student outcomes reflected the guiding principles of the PDS that focus on teaching and

learning for all students. This was in part due to the fact that they had over two years

experience in thinking and talking about these principles and trying them out through their

PDS projects. Jorgenson (1997, in press) indicates that schools do not become learning

communities simply by implementing istate-of-the-art instructional practices, educators must

attend to the culture of the learning community as well. By drafting a common vision or

mission statement after working collaboratively for several years on teaching and learning for

all students, the Hart faculty were able to develop a shared vision that was inclusive of all

students.

Teachers' Beliefs

Chapter Five exanrined in detail the beliefs of Holly, Lyle, and Jane that were

strengthened and/or evolved through their collaborative experiences in? their curriculum

restructuring efforts. The chapter argued that their belief systems including the moral purpose

of teaching was galvanized through their collaboration and that these beliefs were the most

critical component for special and general education teachers to develop in order to create

inclusive educational settings. The data illustrated that the moral purpose of teaching for

these teachers was based on their beliefs that all children should have access to the knowledge

in all subjects and that their role was to foster the learning of all students including those at-

2 6 5

risk and with disabilities.

Implications Regarding Teachers' Beliefs About Classroom Practice

1. One belief about classroom practice '3 that heterogeneous classrooms can provide all

students with the academic and social experiences necessary for the development of a

school with a moral ecology. As discussed in chapter five, Lyle, Holly, and Jane espoused

this belief that students with disabilities need to have the academic and social experiences

available to them in general education classes. Toward that end all of the teachers in the

study worked to detrack their science and mathematics departments. Detracking can be an

outcome when school's restructuring efforts include restructuring teaching and‘learning for

all students and the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education (National Study

on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, 1995). Further numerous educators provide

additional evidence regarding the necessity to create heterogenous classrooms to support all

students including those with disabilities. Gartner and Lipsky, (1997); Hahn (1994); Steele,

(1992); Ogbu, (1987, 1992) have all written about the stigrnatization and alienation that

occurs when certain populations are segregated from the mainstream. Oakes (1985) writes

at length about the difi‘erences in content, pedagogy, and classroom climate/culture between

high and low track classes. Civil Rights advocates for people with disabilities Funk (1987) and

Lasld, (1994) argue that students with disabilities have a right to be included in heterogeneous

classrooms. Ferguson (1996) and Jorgenson (1997) write about the necessity to create

inclusive schools with a diverse learning community that reflects the real world community

in which all members work and play together.

2 6 6

2. Teachers with a moral purpose who believe that all students can learn and that the

role of a teacher is to teach all students are a critical component in the development of

an inclusive school.

As detailed in chapter five, these beliefs evolved and/or emerged for Lyle, Jane, and Holly

through their collaborative efforts to restructure science teaching and learning for all students.

As general and special educators work together to restructure curriculums to enhance the

learning of all students, the outcome of their interactions is likely to be that different students

will learn the science curriculum to different degrees and in difi‘erent ways (Pugach and

Warger, 1996). Ferguson (1995) posits that in inclusive classrooms general and special

educators need to think of all students as being able to learn, but having difi'erent capabilities

and skills.

According to Pugach and Warger (1996), the challenge for educators is to create a

learning environment that teaches all students fundamental "learning-how-to-leam skills and

encourages thinking, social and communication skills, so they can tackle new content in ways

that better their current and/or future lives" (p. 228). These are some of the characteristics

embedded in the Science Framework, "Science for All Americans" (AAAS, 1989; National

Research Council, 1992; and National Science Teachers Association, 1992) that Lyle, Jane,

and Holly used to restructure their curriculum. For example, these reforms emphasized depth

on particular science concepts rather than breadth; deeper meaning over covering the text.

Further, the frameworks suggest changes in the social organization of the classroom (i.e.,

cooperative learning) to involve more students in lab experiences, which can enhance the

development of their social and communication skills. The adoption of these science

frameworks were congruent with Lyle's, Jane's, and Holly's desire to create a science

curriculum that included all students and their belief that their role as teachers was to teach

2 6 7

all students.

3. General. and special education teachers teaming in inclusive classrooms need to hold

high expectations for all students and assist them in taking responsibility for their

learning.

In chapter five, Lyle and Jane characterized many secondary students with disabilities as

having developed a "learned helplessness" from years of support in segregated settings. Lyle

and Jane felt that it was difficult for secondary teachers in general education to make a

significant impact on students' beliefs about themselves as learners, who had been segregated

through elementary and middle school. In resource rooms settings students receive support

in their area of disability in a classroom of ten students with a teacher and sometimes a

paraprofessional. According to Lyle they become accustomed to having immediate support

and are protected fiom struggling with difficult concepts in various subjects because the

curriculum in special education classrooms is often diluted. Jane indicated that special

educators often believe that students with disabilities in reading and writing are incapable of

engaging in higher level thinking skills and learning complex tasks. Thus, the students feel

helpless when they are reintegrated in general education, because they are not accustomed to

learning independently and engaging in the concepts of a subject. In fact Luchow, Crowl, and

Kahn (1985) describe this feeling of helplessness as limited persistence at tasks that they are

capable of mastering. According to Fuchs, Fuchs, and Hamlett (1989) the goals written in

students' Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) underestimate their performance and

abilities.

Good and Brophy (1997) detail the impact of teacher expectations in their book.

2 6 8

Lgsking is Classrooms. They state that:

teachers are guided by their beliefs about what students need and by their

expectations of how students will respond if treated in particular ways. Also,

teachers' beliefs about the academic ability of the class or of individual

students may influence their curricular, instructional, or evaluative decisions

(p.79).

.

Further, they describe two types of teacher expectation effects. In the self-firlfilling prophecy

effect an erroneous expectation leads to student behavior that becomes true. In the sustaining

expectations effect teachers reinforce students to maintain prior patterns of behavior and they

fail to observe and capitalize on changes in a student's potential.

Given the impact of teacher expectations reported by Good and Brophy (1997) and

the limited expectations that many special educators have for students with disabilities

reported by Fuchs, Fuchs, and Hamlett (1989), teaching students with special needs in

inclusive classrooms requires that teachers expect all students to live up to their potential.

Further, teachers need to be vigilant concerning opportunities to encourage students'

potential. Both general and special education teachers must work to foster student

responsibility for their learning.

Meiers (1995) suggests that there are two elements necessary for learning:

the

opportunity to watch an expert and being held to high expectations. In segregated classrooms,

i.e., low track classes students’ at-risk and with disabilities have neither element. The focal

teachers’ experiences in including students with disabilities with limited exposure to science

in general education was that they often sat passively and waited for assistance and

automatically assumed they were incapable of learning biology. Some students actively

resisted by refusing to participate or verbalizing that the activity was "stupid." Steele (1992)

269

describes this behavior as the "disidentification" with a subject or task that one feels incapable

of successfirlly'completing. Given these learner characteristics teachers must hold firm in their

expectations that all students work up to their academic potential and assist them in taking

responsibility for their learning by accommodating their academic and emotional needs in a

supportive, caring learning environment.

4. The belief that general and special education teachers' roles need to be redefined as

collaborators in adapting curriculums to meet the needs of all learners is critical to the

development of an inclusive school. Lyle, Jane, and Holly stated numerous times that

teachers needed to work as a team to address the intellectual, social, and emotional needs of

all students. As we have seen Lyle, Jane, and Holly worked together to develop curriculum

and teaching practices to include students at-risk and with disabilities in biology. Further,

during their collaborative time they discussed ways of adapting and tailoring curriculum to

meet the needs of individual students in their classes. Villa and Thousand (1995) redefine

general and special education teachers' roles as partners in collaboration to redesign

curriculums to meet the needs of all learners. Pugach and Warger (1996) describe their roles

as partners in Curriculum-Centered Problem-Solving teams to brainstorm new strategies and

methods in curriculum and assessment to support all students in general education. General

and special education teachers committed to restructuring teaching and learning for all

students including those with disabilities share a commitment to the firture of all children.

Through the redefinition of their roles as collaborators in adapting curriculums they can find

the "common ground with one another on the details of day to day educational practice that

will allow their visions to become reality" (Jorgenson, 1997, in press, p.11).

270

5. Teachers' belief in the need to restructure curriculums and develop alternative

assessments is a critical resource in creating an inclusive school. As reported in the data

Lyle, Jane, and Holly (as a student intern) developed a PDS project to restructure the science

curriculum to address the needs of students’ at-risk and with disabilities. Their curriculum

was based on the framework "Science for All Americans" which advocated more depth and

less breadth of content and teaching for conceptual understanding.

Implementing this

framework also involved shifting the role of the teacher from "teller" of knowledge to

facilitator of "knowledge.” Further, it altered the role of the learner to actively engage in

constructing knowledge with the teacher and other students, rather than passively absorb

information from a science lecture.

The current literature on developing inclusive schools indicates that restructuring

curriculum and developing alternative assessments are critical to the development of an

inclusive school. Udvari-Solner (1995) defines curriculum adaptations as any adjustment in

the classroom environment, teaching, materials, or assessment that enhances a student's

performance. Pugach and Warger (1996) propose curriculum redesign teams comprised of

general and special educators as central to the development of inclusive schools. Jorgenson

(in press 1997) refers to general and special education teachers "fine-tuning" the curriculum

and assessment methods as essential to inclusive practices.

Implications Regarding the Beliefs About the Structure of Educational Systems

1.

Both special and general education teachers need to foster skills of self-

determination to promote self empowerment and independent learning in students with

disabilities. In response to the "learned helplessness" syndrome discussed in the last section

and the feelings of limited capability, shame, and anger that students with disabilities

2 7 1

expressed in their student interviews in the science project, a class in the development of self-

detemrination sldfls was piloted at Hart High Self-determination skills include knowing one's

strengths and limitations and how to accommodate them. Self-emcacy, the belief that one is

capable, and self-esteern, the belief that one is of value are two other major skills in this area.

Self-advocacy, the ability to appropriately secure what one needs, is a critical skill in self-

deterrnination The purpose of this course was to provide students at-risk and with disabilities

an opportunity to explore their learning challenges and strengths and to develop a written self-

advocacy plan detailing their profiles as learners to share with their teachers.

Jane learned in teaching this class that the students' rage, shame, and depression about

their disability was much more intense than she had anticipated. Given her experiences in

assisting students to develop self-determination skills, Jane believed that this development

needed to start in elementary school. Ifstudents with disabilities learned fi'om the onset to

identify their strengths and limitations and how to advocate for the accommodations they

need to be successful, perhaps the syndrome of "learned helplessness" and the intense negative

feelings about themselves as learners that was evidenced at Hart High would be diminished.

Fields (1996) and Wehmeyer and Ward (1996) in their research on the transition of students

with disabilities to adult life have found that the development of these skills are essential to

success after school and strongly suggest that students begin developing them at the

elementary level. In the October 1996 issue of the Inclusive Education Programs’ newsletter,

Lamb reports that student self-advocacy impacts teachers’ practice. In her study on the

impact of self-determination at Hart High, classroom teachers reported that once students

with disabilities requested particular accommodations, they were willing to offer them to all

students in their classes.

2 7 2

2. Developing an inclusive school includes restructuring the organization so that

general and special education teachers can work as a team and consistently support one

another. Lyle, Holly, and Jane indicated throughout the data the necessity for them to work

consistently as a team to restructure teaching and learning to include students with disabilities

in general education Lyle was provided one hour of reallocated time through the monies of

the PDS for several years to restructure the science curriculum. Jane used her one hour of

planning time to work in partnership with Lyle. She was given one hour of reallocated time

for one semester over a three year period to support her efi‘orts in curriculum development.

This limited support was due to the fact at Hart High teachers in core subjects were the

primary recipients of one hour of release time and it was dificult to secure a certified special

education teacher for one hour a day.

However, without additional human resources in Vspecial education it is extremely

difficult for a special education teacher to team teach and collaborate daily with general

education teachers and still meet the legal mandates of the special education law. The

question is should special education teachers be expected to firlfill both obligations and

support 25 students with disabilities. How long can one person sustain the energy to meet

such a demand? The proposed revisions in the special education law will alleviate some of

the paperwork currently required. However, as mentioned earlier the addition of secretarial

support and more paraprofessionals to assist teachers would provide the special education

teacher with more time to consistently support general education teachers in team teaching

arrangements. The development of peer tutors and community volunteers to support teachers

in facilitating the learning of all students is another organizational structure that has shown

promising results in inclusive schools (Villa and Thousand, 1995).

Intellectual Resources

273

Chapter Six described the teacher knowledge that Lyle, Holly, and Jane drew on to

support all students and argued that these resources were critical in supporting students with

disabilities in inclusive settings. Further, these resources of teacher knowledge and

pedagogical reasoning were the elements of practice that these teachers implemented to make

a difi‘erence in the lives of individual students. The evidence on students at Hart High

accessing advanced courses in increasing numbers and their GPA seems to indicate that these

practices supported students with special needs.

Implications Regarding Intellectual Resources

The intellectual resources evidenced in this chapter have several implications for teacher

education programs in both general and special education as well stafi‘ development programs.

1. Both preservice and veteran teachers need to develop the habits of inquiry and

reflection in which they persistently question and examine their theories of teaching

and learning and their effectiveness in teaching students. Lyle, Jane, and Holly (a student

intern) examined their theories and principles of teaching and learning of students with special

needs with other university and school faculty during their weekly professional development

time. Through these conversations and their classroom experimentation, their theories of

teaching and learning changed over time as they worked to restructure science education to

address the needs of students’ at-risk and with disabilities. Through the processes of inquiry

and reflection they questioned the ways that they had been teaching these students. Lyle and

Jane, reported that, their four-year PDS project, they rejected the traditional teaching methods

of lecture and memorization and embraced a more constructivist model of teaching in which

teachers act as facilitators of knowledge with students learning in cooperative grOups.

2 7 4

Teacher education programs need to ground preservice teachers in the exarrrination

of varying theories of teaching and learning and establish partnerships with schools, such as

Hart High, in which university, veteran, and preservice teachers can collaborate and

experiment with these theories and determine which practices best address the needs of all

their students. Learning about the practice of teaching through collaboration, inquiry and

reflection is critical for beginning teachers because it is a formative time (Fullan and

Hargreaves, 1991). Schools must foster an environment in which collaboration, inquiry and

reflection about teaching and learning of all students is the norm. The infirsion of these

practices into the culture of a school are critical for creating an inclusive school in which the

special needs of all learners are addressed by all educators.

2. Preservice and veteran general education teachers need to increase their knowledge

of the characteristics, perceptions and dispositions of diverse learners in order to

address their special needs in their classrooms. Both Lyle and Holly developed an

understanding of the characteristics of students with learning disabilities and emotional

impairments through their conversations with Jane and their own classroom experiences. This

knowledge assisted them in thinking about the adaptations of their curriculum and

methodologies that would address these students' needs. Becoming familiar with the social

and emotional characteristics of students with disabilities helped them develop strategies for

dealing with the behaviors that interfered with their learning. Both Holly and Karen, the

novice teachers, in this study reported that they felt their teacher preparation program was

inadequate in this area. Providing preservice and veteran general education teachers with

knowledge of the characteristics of diverse learners and the accommodations that support

their learning will increase their abilities and confidence in addressing their needs. In addition,

2 7 5

perhaps this knowledge will contribute to their deveIOpment as teachers with a moral purpose,

who are committed to making a difference in the lives of all students.

3. In order to create inclusive classrooms both general and special education teachers

need more preparation in subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content

knowledge in their undergraduate programs, which are nurtured by a university and

school partnership committed to restructuring schools and teacher preparation with

a set of inclusive principles. The restructuring of the content and methodology of teaching

science to all students was the main focus of the collaboration between Lyle, Jane, and Holly

in their PDS project. Their conversations revolved around what concepts in biology were

critical for all students to learn, how should they be taught, what types of assessments would

best represent what students learned. Together they developed ways to adapt and tailor

science concepts to meet the needs of individual students. In this PDS context, Holly had the

opportunity to be mentored in school that subscribed to the same principles as her university

teacher preparation program.

Jane and Lyle had the opportunity to collaborate with

university faculty interested in restructuring science education and preparing preservice

teachers in this context.

Pugach and Warger (1996); Berres, Ferguson, Knoblock and Woods, (1996);

Jorgenson, (1997 in press) call for general and special education teachers to collaborate as

curriculum reformers as a way to create inclusive schools. Given that restructuring the

teaching and learning of various academic subjects is the main focus of the collaborative work 7

between general and special education in developing inclusive classrooms, then redesigning

curriculum, pedagogy and alternative assessments ought to be at the core of their teacher

education programs.

According to Pugach and Warger (1996) in teacher preparation

2 7 6

programs curriculum or subject matter is approached in the form of pedagogical methods for

teaching content rather than disciplinary frameworks. Most special education teacher

preparation programs are devoid of content and only very few require concurrent certification

in both general and special education (Pugach and Warger, 1996).

Some education reformers have proposed that general and special education teacher

preparation programs be integrated (Pugach, 1992; Pugach and Lily, 1984; and Stainback and

Stainback, 1985). "Bridging the curriculum gap necessitates an integrated, not a parallel,

approach to joint teacher preparation in which general and special education teachers become

knowledgeable about curriculum from the outset," Pugach and Warger (1996, p.242-243).

However, the incorporation of more content knowledge, methods for redesigning curriculum,

and characteristics of diverse learners into general and special education teacher preparation

programs does not ensure that this knowledge and these skills will be nurtured and

implemented in schools. Tomlinson, Callahan, Tomchin, Eiss, Irnbeau, and Landrum, (1997)

found that preservice teachers with knowledge in adapting curriculums for diverse learners

were discouraged in their efforts to make these accommodations through their enculturation

as novices in school systems indifi‘erent to diverse learners. "Even when the novices held firm

to beliefs in a need to modify instruction in ways responsive to academic diversity, the pull

to do otherwise was overwhelming" (Tomlinson, et. al., 1997, p. 276).

Conclusion

This study has described in detail the resources that contributed to three teachers'

capacity at Hart High school to support students with special needs in inclusive settings. The

quotation at the beginning of the chapter captures the collective efl‘orts of Lyle, Jane and

Holly in their efforts to create a science curriculum that supported the needs of students at-

277

risk and with disabilities. "For complex change we need many people working collectively on

the solutions and committing themselves to concentrated action together," (Fullan, 1994,

p.34). Implied in this statement are the elements of change agentry: collaboration, vision

building, mastery, and inquiry. As Fullan (1994) argues these are the processes wedded to

the moral purpose of teaching (making a difi‘erence in the lives of individual students) that are

necessary to develop inclusive schools with a moral ecology. The development of a school

with a moral ecology needs teachers who act simultaneously as change agents at the

classroom level and at the institutional level. According to Fullan (1994),

One cannot make a difi‘erence at the interpersonal level unless the problems

and the solutions are enlarged to encompass the conditions that surround

teaching and learning and the social skills and actions that would be needed

to make a difierence (p. 11).

Merely changing the organizational structure to place students with disabilities in general

education does not mean that inclusive practices will follow. Cultural change toward a moral

ecology is fostered by changes in the beliefs and intellectual resources of general and special

education teachers through collaboration to restructure teaching and learning for all students.

Hopefully, this study has helped to clarify for both general and special educators the beliefs

and intellectual resources necessary to make a difference in the lives of all students especially

those at-risk and with disabilities.

EPILOGUE

Creating an inclusive school is an intense, arduous, and complex endeavor as the

teachers in this study have found. The educators involved at Hart High School during this

study have demonstrated that it is possible with the addition of specific environmental

resources and the development of critical intellectual resources to create an inclusive culture

2 7 8

that addresses the needs of diverse learners. However, the moral ecology or inclusive culture

of a school is fi'agile and is always at-risk with changes in administrators, firnding,

environmental resources and teachers' resistance to change.

Such is the case at Hart High School. Since the completion of data collection in the

spring of 1994 the school has undergone many changes. Both the fiscal and human resources

of the PDS partnership with Michigan State University have diminished considerably. This

has greatly reduced the focus and frequency of collaboration about restructuring teaching and

learning. Thus, new teachers hired by the school are not being encultured in the intense

processes of change (vision building, inquiry, reflection, and collaboration) fostered and

supported by the university and school partnership in past years.

There are three new administrators serving as principal and assistant principals. Over

the last two years the voices of discontent with the PDS have strengthened and the new

administration has responded by shifting restructuring away fi'om curriculum to school

reorganization. A new special education director was hired, who embraces a more segregated

approach to special education services. Thus, more resource rooms and self-contained

classrooms are being created in the Kindergarten through ninth grade. These changes in

administrative positions are a source of great concern regarding the continuation of inclusive

practices at Hart High. Jorgenson (1997, in press) has indicated that the visions of inclusive

education rest foremost with school leaders, who must be unwavering in their commitment

to include all students when faced with uncertainty about inclusive practices.

During the last five years the cost of special education services for Hart Schools has

increased drastically because the percentage of reimbursement by the state and federal

government has diminished. Since Michigan's reimbursement formula for special education

2 7 9

is based on students served in segregated settings, more inclusive schools, like Hart, get less

reirnburserrrent for services and must bear the costs locally. In addition to less reimbursement,

Hart Public Schools' population of special education students has increased dramatically over

the last five years, because many families with special needs students have moved to Hart so

that their students can be educated in an inclusive setting.

The results of these burgeoning costs for special education in part has led to a

financial crisis in the district. For the first time since the implementation of the special

education reform in Hart Schools ten years ago, the elimination of the weighting of special

education students in general education to lower class size is under serious consideration. By

double counting students with disabilities in general education, class size is lowered and more

teachers are required. Presently, this kind of support for teachers as an inclusionary practice

costs the district nearly a million dollars.

In addition, the implementation of new state and federal reform initiatives firrther

erode general and special education teachers time and energy. The Michigan High School

Proficiency Test absorbs two weeks of instructional time for administration.

General

education teachers spend this time administering the tests and special education teachers

provide the numerous accommodations necessary for diverse learners to take the test. The

special education transition mandate is an additional responsibility of special educators

without the addition of special education personnel. This new mandate has limited further the

time for special education teachers to team teach on a consistent basis with general education

teachers. All of these changes impact the culture over time and many of these changes serve

to undermine the inclusive culture in the school. This is precisely why the development of

teachers with beliefs that foster the moral purpose of teaching are essential to sustain inclusive

2 8 0

practices in schools. Teachers of moral purpose must continue to advocate for the rights of

all individuals to learn in schools committed to providing everyone access to all knowledge

and providing the support necessary for them to be successfirl (Goodlad, Soder, and Sirotnilg

1990)

However, the question remains will teachers with moral purpose be enough to sustain

inclusive schools without the environmental resources and administrative support necessary.

The answer at Hart High School is one of uncertainty. Jorgenson (1997, in press) offers the

perspective of a special education director with nearly a decade's experience in developing and

maintaining inclusive practices in schools. This director has found that it is very dificult to

sustain the momentum of inclusion, unless the focus is constant and overt and with the

educational smorgasbord of reform initiatives it is easy for inclusive education to become lost.

Thus, without the environmental resources of constant support for inclusion and the

opportunity for continual development of teachers' intellectual resources, the moral ecology

of a school risks erosion and the moral purpose of some teachers may not be enough to

sustain inclusive practices.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

TEACHER INTERVIEW FOR COLLABORATIVE INQUIRY PROJECT:

CASE STUDY SCOTT

Scott is an incoming tenth grader with above average ability. He was diagnosed as having

both an attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD) in sixth grade and therefore was

eligible for special education support. Since then, his education program has consisted of one

hour of Special Education Resource Room study skills support and firll participation in

general education classes for the rest of the school day. He began taking medication to assist

him with his attentional dificulties and hyperactivity at the time of his diagnosis. The school

records indicate that the medication has helped his concentration and diminished his activity

level. However, he still exhibits difficulty sitting and listening for longer than twenty minutes.

After this time, he becomes quite fidgety and restless.

He continues to be quite impulsive in the classroom For example, he participates in class

discussions, but he often blurts out his questions or comments when others are talking. The

impulsivity is also evident in his work habits.

Although he is a good decoder, his

comprehension is weak because he rushes through the text and often misses many important

details and concepts.

This is also true in his written work and tests; he does not read

directions or questions carefully and therefore makes many errors. Scott usually begins most

assignments, but stops working before he finishes. Therefore, many assignments end up

incomplete or missing. Thus, he has struggled to pass his classes. Scott is a likeable fellow,

but his peers find him quite fi'ustrating to be around for long periods of time.

281

282

Name

.

Subject Area

Date

1. What are your thoughts about Scott being able to handle social studies class?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. A.

What issues or characteristics in the description seem most relevant to his success in

your class?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. B.

What issues or characteristics in the description seem most likely to prevent his

success in your class?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. How would you approach teaching Scott? PROBE: Is there anything you would do

difi'erently in teaching Scott than you would do in teaching other students in your class?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

283

. How about your curriculum? PROBE: Would you alter your curriculum in any way, if

Scott were your student?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. How about your ways of assessing students? PROBE: Would you assess your students’

learning, differently, if Scott was your student?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. How about the social organization of your classroom? PROBE: Would you organize

your students differently if Scott was a student in your class?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. How feasible is it for you to make these accommodations in your classroom? Please

explain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

284

8. What kind of resources or support would you need to make these modifications or

accommodations?

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.

Scott’s major problem is his attention deficit and hyperactivity which affect his

performance. Who do you think is responsible to help him develop more appropriate

classroom behaviors and work habits? Please explain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. Some educators argue that the reason we have special education teachers in schools to

precisely to deal with problems like Scott’s. What do you think about that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11. Other educators argue that ultimately it is the classroom teacher’s responsibility to see

that all students develop the work habits they need to learn efl‘ectively? What do you

think about that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12. When you think about your class requirements, how would you define success for a

student like Scott in your class?

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

TEACHER INTERVIEW FOR COLLABORATIVE INQUIRY PROJECT:

CASE STUDY JESSICA

Jessica is a sophomore at Holt High School. She was certified Learning Disabled in

the fourth grade in the area of Basic Reading Skills. She started receiving one hour of Special

Education Resource Support at that time and was mainstreamed in a general education

classroom for the remainder of the day. At the Junior High, she received one hour of study

skills support. Although she is of average ability, Jessica is presently reading at a fifth grade

level and has difi'rculty in both decoding and comprehending.

Her writing skills are

approximately at the same level. She writes rather simple sentences with many spelling errors.

Her reports indicate that she is a good listener and tries hard. She participates occasionally

in class discussions. Jessica attempts to read the text, but fins it difficult to decode some of

the words and understand them. These difficulties are reflected in her written assignments

as well. She often gets behind in her work and fails to complete some written assignments.

She has difficulty taking written tests. She tends to write brief answers and often doesn’t

finish all of the test. In spite of these academic difliculties, Jessica has managed to pass her

classes-«barelyu-at the junior high school. She is very popular with her peers and is pleasant

to have in class.

285

2 8 6

Name

Subject Area

Date

JESSICA CASE STUDY QUESTIONS

1.

What are your thoughts about Jessica being able to handle a social studies class?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. A.

What issues or characteristics in the description seem most relevant to her success in

your class?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. B.

What issues or characteristics in the description seem most likely to prevent her

success in your class?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.

How would you approach teaching Jessica? PROBE: Is there anything you would

do differently in teaching Jessica than you would do in teaching other students in your

class?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

287

How about your cuniculum? PROBE: Would you alter your curriculum in any way,

if Jessica were your student?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about your ways of assessing students? PROBE: Would you assess your

students’ learning, difi'erently, if Jessica was your student?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about the social organization of your classroom? PROBE: Would you organize

your students differently if Jessica was a student in your class?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How feasible is it for you to make these accommodations in your classroom? Please

explain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

288

8.

What kind of resources or support would you need to make these modifications or

accommodations?

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.

Jessica’s major problem is that she is a poor reader. Who do you think is responsible to

help him develop more appropriate classroom behaviors and work habits?

Please

explain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. Some educators argue that the reason we have special education teachers in schools to

precisely to deal with problems like Jessica’s. What do you think about that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11. Other educators argue that ultimately it is the classroom teacher’s responsibility to see

that all students learn to read and write. What do you think about that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12. When you think about your class requirements, how would you define success for a

student like Jessica in your class?

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

 

T
N
E
T
N
O
C
T
U
O
B
A
S
F
E
I
L
E
B

S
E
L
O
R

'
S
R
E
H
C
A
E
T
T
U
O
B
A
S
F
E
I
L
E
B

S
R
E
N
R
A
E
L
T
U
O
B
A
S
F
E
I
L
E
B

N
E
M
S
S
E
S
S
A
D
N
A

T 

T
N
E
M
S
S
E
S
S
A

T
N
E
T
N
O
C

L
L
A
R
O
F

S
T
N
E
D
U
T
S

E
L
B
I
S
N
O
P
S
E
R

N
A
C

M
O
O
R
S
S
A
L
C

E
V
I
T
A
N
R
E
T
L
A

T
N
E
R
E
F
F
I
D

H
G
I
H
D
L
O
H

H
C
A
E
T

E
L
O
R

S
T
N
E
D
U
T
S

L
L
A

M
O
R
F
T
I
F
E
N
E
B

F
O
W
E
I
V

F
O
W
E
I
V

S
N
O
I
T
A
T
C
E
P
X
E

L
L
A

D
E
N
I
F
E
D
E
R

E
R
A

S
T
N
E
D
U
T
S

S
U
O
E
N
E
G
O
R
E
T
E
H

S
T
N
E
D
U
T
S

R
I
E
H
T
R
O
F

N
R
A
E
L

  

s
f
e
i
l
e
B

’
s
r
e
h
c
a
e
T
f
o

s
i
s
y
l
a
n
A

a
t
a
D
f
o

y
r
a
m
m
u
S

1
-
8
E
L
B
A
T

C
X
I
D
N
E
P
P
A

d
e
t
a
t
S

e
i
l
p
m
I

d
e
i
l
p
m
I

d
e
i
l
p
m
I

G  H
d 

N
I
N
R
A
E
L

Y
L
L
O

d
e
t
a
t
S

d
e
t
a
t
S

d
e
t
a
t
S

d
e
t
a
t
S

 

 

d
e
t
a
t
S

d
e
t
a
t
S

d
e
t
a
t
S

d
e
i
l
p
m

e
i
l
p
m
I

d
e
i
l
p
m
I

d
e
i
l
p
m
I

d
e
i
l
p
m
I

d  I
   .

d
e
i
l
p
m
I

d
e
i
l
p
m
I

d
e
i
l
p
m
I

d
e
t
a
t
S

d
e
t
a
t
S

E
L
Y
L

d
e
t
a
t
S

d
e
t
a
t
S

E
N
A
J

d
e
t
a
t
S

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

 

289

 

O
O
H
C
S
E
H
T

L 

N
I
T
R
O
P
P
U
S
T
N
E
T
S
I
S
N
O
C

/
N
O
I
T
A
C
U
D
E
L
A
R
E
N
E
G

P
O
L
E
V
E
D

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

F
O
E
R
U
T
C
U
R
T
S
L
A
N
O
I
T
A
Z
I
N
A
G
R
O
E
H
T
T
U
O
B
A
S
F
E
I
L
E
B

   B

E
G
N
A
H
C
C
I
M
E
T
S
Y
S
T
U
O
B
A
S
F
E
I
L
E

 

 

 

2

I

e
t
a
t
S

d
e
t
a
t
S

d
e
t
a
t
S

d
e
t
a
t
S

d
e
t
a
t
S

e
i
l
p
m
I

  

A
E
T
A
S
A

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

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

M 
d 
d  
 

-
K
N
O
I
T
A
N
I
M
R
E
T
E
D
—
F
L
E
S

S
S
E
N
S
S
E
L
P
L
E
H
D
E
N
R
A
E
[

 
 

Y
L
L
O
H

d
e
i
l
p
m
I

d
e
i
l
p
m
I

d
e
t
a
l
S

E
N
A
J

E
L
Y
L

d
e
t
a
t
S

o
N

o
N

 

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D

TABLE 8-2 Summary of Intellectual Resources

 

CATEGORY 1: GENERAL PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE

 

1. Knowledge of the theories and principles of teaching and learning

A. Theories about teacher as teller or facilitator

B. Theories about directions for class assignments

C. Theories about cooperative learning

 

2. Knowledge of diverse learners

A. All learners are different

B. Students’ perceptions of themselves as learners

C. Students’ feelings about their disability

 

3. Knowledge of principles and techniques of classroom and behavior management

A. Student participation is expected in class activities

B. Student responsibility

C. Collaborative effort for behavioral issues

 

CATEGORY 11: SUBJECT MATTER KNOWLEDGE

 

1. Knowledge of the ideas, facts, and concepts of the discipline and their relationships.

2. Knowledge of the syntax of a discipline; i.e., process for generating and testing

knowledge.

 

CATEGORY III: PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

 

1. Knowledge and understanding of the process of teaching a topic.

2. Knowledge of the methods to teach the topic.

 

 

CATEGORY IV: PEDAGOGICAL REASONING

  
 

Inquiringuthe process of questioning the teaching of one’s own practice and others.

Adapting--fitting the conceptual representation to the characteristics of the learners.

Tailoring--adapting the materials to the specific students in a class.

Reflecting--the process of evaluating one’s own practice of teaching

“
.
’
9
9
9

290

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

TABLE 8-3 Summary of Environmental Resources

 

CATEGORY I:

CREATION AND UTILIZATION OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TIME

 

1. Wednesday Morning Time for Collaboration

2. Time for Collaborative Partnerships

3. Time for Team Teaching

 

CATEGORY II:

CONNECTING HUMAN RESOURCES

 

1. General Education Teachers

2. Counselors

3. Special Education Teachers

4. Administrators and their Administrative Leadership Role

5. University Personnel

 

CATEGORY III:

CULTURAL COMPONENTS FOSTERED BY THE PDS PARTNERSHIP

 
   1. Elements of a Professional Development School

 

2. Mission Statement of Hart High School

3. Teacher Generated Decision Making Model

291

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989).mm

A prgjsst 2061 rspsg 9n litersg goals in scisnss, mathsmstiss and gfihrsglggy.

Washington, DC: AAAS.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). MW

Prgject 2061, Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson, C. W., & Fetters, M. (1996). Response: science education trends and special

education. In Pugach, M. & Warger, C. (Eds), Cumsglum Trsnds, Spssisl

Edusatign and Rsfgrm Rsfgsusing tbs anvsrsstign. (pp. 53-67). New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Ashton, PT, and Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a diffsrsncs: Tesshers' ssnss 9f effisssy ad

studsnt gshievsmsnt. New York: Longman.

Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, (February, 1994). Resolution on inclusive

education. TASH Newsletter, (pp.4-5). Seattle, WA: TASH.

Bandura, A. (1986),

'

Foun

i ns f thou

acti n: A

'

'ive h

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barry, A., Easing into inclusion classrooms. (December 1994/January 1995) Mm],

Leadership, 52, (4), 4-6.

Berends, M (1992), A description of restructuring in nationally nominated schools. A paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,

San Francisco.

Berres,M, Ferguson, D., Knoblock, P., & Woods, C. (1996).W

tgday stones of inslgsign, shange, and rsnswgl, New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Brousseau, E, Book, O, & Byers, J. (Nov-Dec, 1988). Teachers beliefs and the cultures of

teaching. Jggrnal 9f Tsscher Educstion. 33-39.

292

293

Burgess, L., Tomlinson, J., & Feathestone, H. (1990). An interview about teaching science

in an inclusive classroom. Unpublished paper. Holt, MI: Holt Public Schools.

Carlberg, C. & Kavale, K. (1980). The efiicacy of special versus regular class placements for

exceptional children: A meta-analysis. qumal pf Spssial Edpsssipn, 14, 295.

Clark, CM, (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of

research on teaching thinking. Edpcstipng Rssearchsr, 17, (2), 5-12.

Clark, C., (1990). The teacher and the taught: moral transactions. In Goodlad, J ., Soder, R.

& Sirotnik, K. (Eds). Ths Mpral Dimsnsipns of Tesshing, (pp.351-265). San

Francisco: Jossey-Boss Publishers.

Darling-Hammond,L., Bullmaster, M.L., & Cobb, V., (January,1995). Rethinking teacher

leadership through professional development schools, Ths Elsmsntm Sphppl

Journal 96 (1), 87-106.

Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's

children. Harvard Educatipnal Review,58, (3), 280-296.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, PL94-142 (August 23, 1975).

Falvey, MA, Givener, C., and Kimm, C. (1995), What is an inclusive School? In Villa,

RA & Thousand, J. (Eds) Creating an Inclusive Sshopl, (pp. l-12). Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Featherstone, H., Pfeiffer, L., & Smith, S., (1993). Learning in Good Company: Report on

a Pilot Study, Research Report 93 -2, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University,

National Center for Research on Teacher Education.

Ferguson, D. L., Willis, C., Boles, S., Jeanchild, L., Holliday, L., Heyer, G., Rivers, E., &

Zitek, M. (1993). Re lar class

artici ation

st m

P .

Grant No.

H086D90011: US. Department of Education). Eugene, OR: Specialized Training

Program, University of Oregon.

Ferguson, D.L. (December,1995). The real challenge of inclusion confessions of a 'rabid

inclusionist.‘ Phi Dslta Kappan, 281-287.

Ferguson, D. (1996). Is it inclusion yet? Bursting the bubbles. In Berres, M., Ferguson, D.,

Knoblock, P. & Woods, C. (Eds). Creating Tpmprrpw's Schpols Tpday Stpriss pf

Inclusion, Chang; snd Renewal. (pp. 16-37). New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Field, S. & Hoffman, A., (1994). Development of a model for self-determination. M

Development for Exceptional Individuals.l7. (2), 159-169. 

 

294

Field, S.

Self-Deterrnination instructional strategies for youth with learning disabilities.

(January, 1996). J urn

f L amin Di

ilii

29 (1), 40-52.

Floden, R & Clark, C. (1987). Preparing teachers for uncertainty. Issue Paper 874. East

Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, National Center for Research on Teacher

Education.

Floden, R., McDiarmid, G.W., & Weimers, N., (1990). Learning About Mathematics in

Elementary Methods Courses. Research Report 90-1, East Lansing, MI: Michigan

State University, National Center for Research on Teacher Education.

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, CL, (1989). Curriculum based measurement:

a

methodology for evaluating and improving student programs. Diagpostigps, 14(1), 3-

l3.

Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, LS. (1991). Framing the RBI debate: Abolitionists

versus

conservationists.

In J.W. Lloyd, A. C. Repp & N.N. Singh (Eds), The Reggie;

Education Initiative: Altemagive perspectives pn concspss, isspss, §r_ld modsls, (pp.

241-255), Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, LS. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special

education reform. Exceptipnal Childrep, 60, 294-309.

Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L.S. (March, 1995). What's 'special' about special education? Phi Delta

Kappan, 522-530.

Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, LS. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special

education reform. Excsptipnal Childrsn, 60, 294-309.

Fullan, M. & Hargreaves, A (1991). What' Worth Fi htin

r in Y r Sch

1? Toronto,

Ontario, Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation; Andover, MA, The Network;

Buckingham, UK, Open University Press; Melbourne, Australia, Australian Council

of Educational Administration.

Fullan, M. and Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York,

NY: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M., (1994). Chang: forces probing the depths pf edpsstipnal rsfprm. Bristol, PA:

Falmer Press, Taylor and Francis, Inc.

Funk, R., (1987). Disability rights: From caste to class in the context of civil rights. In

Gartner, A. & Joe, T. (Eds), Images of ths disabled: Disabling images. (pp.7—30).

New York: Praeger.

295

Gartner, A, & Lipsky,D.K. (1987). Beyond separate education: Towards a quality system

for all students. Harvssd Educatipnal Review, 57. 367-395.

Giangreco, M., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Edelman, S., & Schattman, R. (1993).

"I've

counted on Jon": Transformational experiences of teachers educating students with

disabilities. Exceptional Childrep, 59, 359-372.

Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, AL. (1967). Th; Discovery pf Grpunded Thspry, Chicago, IL:

Aldine.

Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, PL 103-227, 20 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.

Good, T. & Brophy, J ., (1997). Lppking in Clsssrppms Ssvsnth Editipp, New York, NY:

Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Goodlad, J ., (1990). Teachers fpr er Nstion's Schppls, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Boss.

Goodlad, J., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K.A. (Eds) (1990) Th: Mprg Dimsnsions pf Tssshing.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Boss.

Hahn, H. (April 28-May 1, 1994). New trends in disabiligg studies:

Implicatipps fpr

 

educational pplicy.

Paper presented at the National Center on Educational

Restructuring and Inclusion invitational conference on inclusive education, Racine,

WI.

Hargreaves, A, (1994). Chspgm'g Teashsr, Chgging Timss Tssshsrs' Wprk spd Cplgsrs in

ths Postmodsm Age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Heath, SB. (1983;). W_ays with words: Langpags, life, and work in sommunities and

classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Holmes Group, (1990). Tomorr w'

cho l

'

rinci l

f r the ei

f r fe

i n

development schppls, East Lansing, Michigan. The Holmes Group.

Holt Public Schools, (1993). Alternative Assessment Holt, Michigan: Holt Public Schools.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, PL 101-476 (October 30, 1990).

Jeffrey, D.G., (1993). Identifying the roadblocks. What impedes the transition of secondary

severely emotionally impaired students? Issues in Tsacher Edpcatipdz, 51-55.

Jorgenson, C., (1997, in press).

Restructurin

hi h

h

l

in 1

all stu

n

Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

 

296

Judge, H., Carriedo, R. & Johnson, SM. (1995). Professional development schools and

MSU: the report of the 1995 review. Unpublished manuscript. East Lansing, MI.

Michigan State University.

Kauffman, J.M. & Hallahan, DP. (1995) Ths Illpsipn pf Full Inclusion A Comprehsnsivs

Critigus of a Current Special Education Bandwagpp, Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Kauffman,J., Lloyd, W.L., Baker, J ., & Reidel, T. (March, 1995). Inclusion of all students

with emotional or behavioral disorders? Let's think again. Phi Delta Kappdp, 542-

546.

Kennely K.J., & Mount, SA. (1984). Perceived contingency of reinforcements, helplessness,

locus of control, and academic performance. Psyshplogy in the Sshppl,22, 465-469.

Kohler, PD. (1993). Best practices in transition:

Substantiated or implied?

Carssr

Development for Exceptional Individuals, _2_0, (5), 107-121.

Kugelmass, J. (1996). Reconstructing Curriculum for Systemic Inclusion. In Berres, M.,

Ferguson, D., Knoblock, P., & Woods, C. (Eds). Cr tin

m rr w'

(pp. 38-67). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Lamb, M. & Bethell, S., (1992)

Transforming low-track mathematics classes into

empowering environments for mildly handicapped and at-risk students.

Paper

presented at the Council of Exceptional Children Conference, Baltimore, MD.

Lampert, M., (1985) How do teachers manage to teach?, Perspectives on Problems in

Practice, Hflard Edpcational Revisw, 55, 178.

Laski, F., (1994), On the 40th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education: Footnotes for

the historically impaired. TASH Newsletter, 20(5), 3-4.

Laski, F. (1994). Serving studsnts with disabilities in post secpndm educatipn settings: A

conceptual frsmswork of program outcomes. Unpublished manuscript.

Leinhardt, G. & Palley, A, (1982). Restrictive educational settings: Exile or haven, Rm’sw

of Educationsl Rssegsh, 52, 557-78.

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, EC. (1985).

Naturalistic Ingpigy,

Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage

Publications.

Lipsky, D.K. (1987). Family supports for families with a disabled member. New York, NY:

World Rehabilitation Fund.

Lipsky, D.K. & Gartner, A. (Winter, 1996).

Inclusion, school restructuring, and the

remaking of American society. Harvard Educational Review 66 (4), 762-796.

 

297

Lipsky, D.K. & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclpsipn and Schppl Reform Trgpsfprming Amsrics's

Classrpoms, Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Little, T., Gillett, J., Gray, M., Lamb, M. & Brice, L. (1995). A Hsndpppk for Tegshjng

Global Stpdies 1h; let High Schosl Experience. Holt, MI: Holt Public Schools.

Lortie, D. (1975). School Teacher: A sociological study, Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Luchow, J .P., Crowl, T.K., & Kahn, JP. (1985). Learned helplessness: Perceived effects of

ability and effort on academic performance among EH and LD/EH children. Joumd

Of Learning Disabilitiss, 13, 470-474.

Madden, N. A. & Slavin, RE, (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps:

academic and social outcomes, Review pf Edpcatipnfl Rsssgshfil 519-69.

Meier, D., (January, 1995). How our schools could be. Phi Delta Ksppan, 369-373.

Mithaug, D.E., Martin, J.E., & Agran, M., & Rusch, FR, (1988). Why Special Edusation

Graduates Fail: How to Teach Them Tp Succeed. Colorado Springs, CO: Ascent

Publications.

National Association of State Boards of Education. (1990). Today's childrsn, tpmorrow's

survivsl: A call to restructure schools. Alexandria, VA: NASBE.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, (1989), Curriculum andEvaluation Stand_a__rds

for School Mathematics, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc., Reston,

Virginia.

National study of inclusive education. (1995). New York: City University of New York,

Graduate School and University Center, National Center on Educational

Restructuring and Inclusion.

Oakes, J., (1985). Keeping Track: How Schools Stpscture Inequality, New Haven and

London: Yale University Press.

Ogbu, J .U. (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of an

explanation. Anthropology and Education Quarterly,18, 318-334.

Ogbu, J.U. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educstipng Researchsr,

;, (8), 5-14.

O'Neil, J. (December/January, 1994/1995). Can inclusion work? A conversation with Jim

Kauffman and Mara Sapon-Shavin, Edusationsl Leadership, 52,(4), 7-11.

Pascale, P. (1990). Managing pn the Edgs. New York, NY: Touchstone.

298

Powell, A.G., Farrar, E. & Cohen, D.K. (1985). Th; shppping mall higb sshppl winners and

lossrs in ths sdpsatipnal marketplace, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifilin Co.

Pugach, M. & Lily, S. (1984). Reconceptualizing support services for classroom teachers:

Implications for teacher education. demsl pf Teschg Edpsstipn, 35, 48-55.

Pugach, M. & Warger, C. (1993). Curriculum considerations. In Goodlad, J .I. & Lovitt,

T.C. (Eds). Int

tin Gen r

an

i Ed

i n (pp.125-148). New York.

NY: Macmillan Publishing Co.

Pugach, M. and Warger, C. (Eds). (1996). Curripplum trends,spssig,l sdpsptipp, and rsfprm

refocusing ths sppvsrsatipp, New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Reason, P. (1988). Human Inguig in Actipn: Devslppments in New Pasadigm Reseasch.

London: Sage Publications.

 

Rhodes, W.S., Blackwell, I, Jordan, C. & Walters, C. (1980). A developmental study of

learned helplessness. Devslppmentgl Psychplpgy, 16, 616-624.

Roberts, R. and Mather, N.(1995), The Return of Students With Learning Disabilities to

Regular Classrooms: A Sellout? Le

in Di

ili i

Re

h

Pra tice 10(1).

Rokeach, M.(1968). Beliefs, Attitudes, and values: A theory of organizatipn and change.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sapon-Shavin, M. (1988). Working towards merger together: seeing beyond distrust and

fear. Teashpr Edusatipn and Special Educatianl, 103-110.

Sarason, S.B.,(September, 1995). Some reactions to what we have leamed., Phi Delts

Kappap, 775-780.

Schumm, 1.8., and Vaughn, 8., (1995). Getting ready for inclusion: Is the stage set?,

Learning Disabilities Research and Practics, 10,(3), 169-179.

Schutz, A, 1970. Qn phenpmenplpgy and social rplstipns, Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press.

Schwab, J.J., (1964). The structures of the disciplines: Meanings and significance. In Ford,

G.w. & Pugon, L. (Eds). The tru

re f Kn wl

th

rri

lum. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press.

Senge, P., (1990) Ths Fifih Discipline, New York, NY: Doubleday.

299

Seventeenth Annual Report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act. (1995). Washington, DC: US. Department of Education.

Shanker, A. (1994.). Full inclusion is neither free nor appropriate. Educatipnal Leadgship,

2(2), 18-21.

Shulman, L. S., (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching, Educasipnsj

Researcher 15 (2), 4-14.

Sindelar, P.T. & Deno, S.L. (1979). The effectiveness of resource programming, Journal pf

Special Education, 12, 17-28.

Sirotnik, K., (1990). Society, schooling, teaching, and preparing to teach. In Goodlad, J.,

Soder, R, and Sirotnik, K., (Eds). Ths Moral Dimensipns bf Tspshing. (pp. 296-

327). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Boss.

Sizer, T. (July/August,1996). The Disheartening Work of School Reform. Hm

Educatipn Lstter,XII,(4).

Sizer, T. (1996). Horace's Hops What Works for ths Amsrican High Schppl, Boston, MA:

Houghton Mifflin Co.

Smith, DD, (1989). Teaching students with learning and behavior prpblems (2nd Ed).

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Stainback, S. & Stainback, W., (1985). Integzation pf Students with Ssvere Handicaps intp

Regular Schools. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, Publishing Co.

Stainback, W., Stainback, S., & Moravec, J .S. (1992). Using curriculum to build inclusive

classrooms. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds). (65-84). Curripblpm

consideratiops in inclusive classrooms: Facilitging lm'ng fpr all stpdsnts. Baltimore,

MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Steele, CM. (1992). Race and the schooling of black Americans. Atlantic Mpnthly,269(4),

68-78.

Supplement to TEACHINC Exsspgipnal Children,26,(3), January, 1994.

Teach Your Students How To Be Their Own Best Advocates in the Classroom. (1996,

October). lnslpsivs Edbcatipn Prpggams, 3, (10), 1,10,11.

Thousand, J. & Villa, R (1993). Strategies for educating learners with severe handicaps with

their local home schools and communities.

In Meyen, E.L., Vergason, G.A., &

Whelan, RJ. (Eds). Challsngss Facing Specid Edpmipn, Denver: Love Publishing.

 

300

Thousand, J.A. & Villa, RA. (December, 1995).

Inclusion alive and well in the green

mountain state. Phi Dslts Kappab, 288-291.

Tomlinson, C., Callahan, C., Tomchin, E., Eiss, N., Irnbeau, M. & Landrum, M. (Winter,

1997). Becoming architects of communities of learning:

Addressing academic

diversity in contemporary classrooms, Exssptional Childrsn, 63,(2), 269-283.

Tralli, R, Colombo, B., Deshler, D., & Schumaker, J., (July, 1996).

The strategies

intervention model: a model for supported inclusion at the secondary level, Remsdig

and Spssial Edpcstipn,l7,(4), 204-216.

Udvari-Solner, A. & Thousand, J ., (1995). Promising Practices that Foster Inclusive

Education, In Villa, R & Thousand, J., (Eds), Creating Inclpsivp Sphpols. (pp. 87-

109). Alexandria, VA: Association of Curriculum and Development.

Vermont Educational Goals, 1990., Vermont State Department of Education, 120 State St.,

Montpelier, Vermont 05602

Villa, R. & Thousand, J. (Eds), (1995). Creating an Inslpsivs Schppl, Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., D'Amico, R, Jay, E.D. Burler-Nalin, P., Marder, C., & Cox, R.

(Eds). (1991) Yputh with disabilities; pr ars thy dping? Ths first cpmprehensivs

report form the National Lpngitudinal Transition Study pf Special Edpcatipn

Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Marder, C., D'Amico, R.,& Blackorby, J ., (1992), What happens

next?

Trends in-ppstschopl outcomes of ypbth with disabilities.

Ths seppnd

comprehensive repor_‘t from the National Longispdinfl Transitibn Smdy pf spssisl

education students, Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Walker, R, & Bunsen, T., (Fall, 1995).

After High School: The Status of Youth with

Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Career Development fpr Exceptipnal

Individuals 18 (2), 97-108.

Ward, M.J. (1991).

Self-determination revisited: going beyond expectations. Transition

Sbmmgy,7,(12), 2-4.

Ward, M.J. (1992). Introduction to secondary special education and transition issues. In

FR. Rusch, L. DeStefano, J. Chadsey-Rusch, L.A. Phelps, & E. Szymanski (Eds),

Transition from schppl tp adult life: Models, Linkages and Pplisy,(pp. 387-389).

Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.

Warger, C. & Pugach, M., (February, 1996). Forming partnerships around curriculum,

Educational Leadership, 53,(5), 62-65.

 

301

Watson, N. & Fullan,M., (1992). Beyond school-university partnerships, in Fullan, M. and

Hargreaves A, (Eds). Teschsr Development and Educational Changs, (pp. 213-42).

Lewes: Falmer Press.

Will, M. C., (1986). Educating children with learning problems: a shared responsibility.

Exceptional Children,52,41 1-415.

Wilson, 8., Shulrnan, L. & Reichert, AB, (1987).

150 different ways of knowing:

representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed), Exploring teachsrs'

thinking, (pp. 104-124). London: Casell.

Zigmond, N., (1990). Rethinking secondary school programs for students with learning

disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23, 1-14.

Zigmond, N. & Baker, J., (1990). Mainstream experiences for learning disabled students

(Project MELD): preliminary report. Exceptional Children,57,(2), 176-190.

Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Baker, J. Jenkins, L. & Couthino, M.

(March, 1995). Special education in restructured schools findings from three multi-

year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 531-540.

nICHIan sran UNIV. LIBRARIES

 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

31293017165246