IN FO R M A TIO N TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along w ith adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on die film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You w ill find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints o f "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.

Xerox University M icrofilm s
300 North Z w b Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 46106

75-7108
ALLEN, Velma Ruth Perkins, 1940THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN EVALUATION
SYSTEM FOR LOCAL DISTRICT ASSESSMENT OF
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MICHIGAN MANDATORY
SPECIAL EDUCATION ACT.
Michigan State U n iversity, Ph.D., 1974
Education, special

Xerox University Microfilms # Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

© C o p y rig h t by
VELMA RUTH PERKINS ALLEN
1974

THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN EVALUATION SYSTEM
FOR LOCAL DISTRICT ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH
THE MICHIGAN MANDATORY SPECIAL EDUCATION ACT

By
Velma Ruth P erkins A lle n

A DISSERTATION
Subm itted to

Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity
in p a r t ia l f u lf il lm e n t o f the requirem ents
fo r the degree o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f Elementary and Special Education
1974

ABSTRACT
THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN EVALUATION SYSTEM
FOR LOCAL DISTRICT ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH
MICHIGAN MANDATORY SPECIAL EDUCATION ACT
By
Velma Ruth Perkins A lle n

Almost one year a f t e r the im plem entation o f P u b lic A ct 198,
instrum ents f o r assessment o f lo c a l sp e cia l education program com pli­
ance w ith the mandatory sp e cia l education law are s t i l l n o t g e n e ra lly
a v a ila b le .

S tate Department o f Education personnel and o rg a n iz a tio n s

o f a d m in is tra to rs have a tte s te d to the fa c t th a t an e v a lu a tio n system
is needed.

In an a tte m p t to meet th a t need, t h is study was designed to

accomplish the fo llo w in g o b je c tiv e s :
1. To develop a l i s t o f p ra c tic e s s p e c ifie d In P u b lic A ct 198,
th e S ta te Code, The S tate Plan f o r the D e liv e ry o f Special Educa­
t io n Programs and S e rv ic e s , and th e G uidelines and to c la s s if y
them as " in com pliance," "h ig h ly recommended," "n ot recommended,"
o r " i l l e g a l , " based on an in te r p r e ta tio n o f those documents, and
using Goals I and I I o f the State Plan as a framework f o r the l i s t
o f p ra c tic e s .
2. To v a lid a te the in te r p r e ta tio n s o f the requirem ents under
the mandatory law by a panel o f exp erts from the Michigan Depart­
ment o f Education.

Velma Ruth P erkins A lle n
3. To develop a s e rie s o f q u e stio n n a ire s to be used in sur­
veying f iv e d if f e r e n t ca te g o rie s o f persons who are associated
w ith the program regarding t h e ir pe rcep tion s o f program p ra c tic e s .
4. To p i l o t the q u e stio n n a ire s u t i l i z i n g lo c a l and interm e d ia te sp e cia l education a d m in is tra to rs , spe cia l education tea che rs,
general ed ucators, and pa ren ts.
5. To develop a system f o r ge n e ra tin g a p r o f ile o f a lo c a l
d i s t r i c t ' s a c t iv i t i e s which w i l l pro vid e a model f o r a concise,
v ia b le means o f lo o k in g a t a l l d if f e r e n t areas o f the t o t a l program
and how they compare in terms o f compliance w ith the l e t t e r and the
in te n t o f the law.
6. To subm it the system f o r f i e l d te s tin g in a M ichigan lo c a l
d i s t r i c t which has a comprehensive sp e cia l education program and
to v a lid a te the adequacy o f the pro du ct.
7. To re v is e the e v a lu a tio n system, based on feedback from the
f ie ld te s t.

Procedures Used in the Study
Five e s s e n tia l steps were in volved in the design and develop­
ment o f the e v a lu a tio n system.

These steps c h a ra c te riz e the methods and

procedures f o r t h is research e f f o r t , and are o u tlin e d below:
1. P re lim in a ry P lanning:

D iscussing w ith spe cia l educators

t h e ir concerns regarding the need f o r assessment techniques; con­
d u c tin g a p re lim in a ry in v e s tig a tio n to determ ine the a v a il a b ili t y
o f such an in s tru m e n t; and w r itin g a l l u n iv e r s itie s and a l l middle
c it ie s sp e cia l education d ire c to r s in ord er to determine c u rre n t
p ra c tic e s in sp e cia l education e v a lu a tio n .

Velma Ruth Perkins A lle n
2. Review o f Related Research:

Reviewing lit e r a t u r e re la te d

to the nature o f e v a lu a tio n , c u rre n t e v a lu a tio n p ra c tic e s in gen­
e ra l and sp e cia l ed uca tion , e v a lu a tio n models, L e g is la tiv e prece­
dents to P u b lic A ct 198.
3. Developing the e v a lu a tio n system:

Designing the q u e stio n ­

n a ire , v a lid a tin g the in te r p r e ta tio n s o f the le g a l requirem ents
f o r program o p e ra tio n , preparing in s tr u c tio n s , developing item
a n a ly s is feedback c h a rts and program p r o f ile c h a rts .
4. P ilo tin g the in stru m e n t:

Asking in d iv id u a ls and small

groups o f sp e cia l ed uca tors, general ed ucators, parents and agency
re p re s e n ta tiv e s to respond to the q u e s tio n n a ire and to complete a
two-page feedback sheet on i t s u s a b ilit y .
5. F ie ld te s tin g the e v a lu a tio n system:

Presenting the system

to a lo c a l d i s t r i c t f o r f i e l d te s tin g .
6. R evising the system in c o rp o ra tin g the recommendations and
suggestions obtained d u rin g the f i e l d t e s t .

Conclusions
This study has shown th a t the e v a lu a tio n system presented
herein can be used to assess compliance w ith the mandatory spe cia l edu­
c a tio n law and to id e n t if y areas o f weakness o r s tre n g th in a sp e cia l
education program through surveying persons c lo s e ly associated w ith the
program:
c ie s .

a d m in is tra to rs , s t a f f , general ed uca tors, parents and agen­

The system a lso provides those persons an o p p o rtu n ity to express

t h e ir concerns about any aspects o f program o p e ra tio n .
the system is useful in planning f o r in -s e rv ic e .

T his fe a tu re o f

Velma Ruth Perkins A lle n
F u rth e r a tte n tio n to the problem o f e v a lu a tio n is w arranted.
This study may be seen as a f i r s t step in the development o f a compre­
hensive e v a lu a tio n system which looks a t stud en t performance, the admin­
is t r a t iv e process, and the in fo rm a tio n system as i t s components.

Any

one o f the subsections used in th is study could be expanded in to a sep­
a ra te area o f e v a lu a tio n f o r a more s p e c ific approach to the e v a lu a tio n
process.

TO MAMA, who ta u g h t me the meaning o f lo ve
and the importance o f "m o th e r-w it"—
she had an abundance o f both and
shared them u n s e lfis h ly

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am extrem ely g ra te fu l to the fo llo w in g persons f o r t h e ir
a ssista nce and encouragement:
- the members o f n\y d o c to ra l committee: Dr. Charles Henleyi
Dr. James E. K e lle r ; Dr. W illia m Sweetland; Dr. Richard
Featherstone.
- Dr. Charles Henley, my chairman.
- Dr. A1 K lo s te r, A d m in is tra tio n and Higher Education,
Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity .
- Mr. B e rt Donaldson; Mr. Gene Thurber; and Dr. H arrold
S p ic k n a ll o f the M ichigan Department o f E ducation, Special
Education S e rvices.
- Dr. Edward B irch and h is s t a f f , Grand Rapids Special Educa­
tio n Department, Grand Rapids P u b lic Schools.
- My frie n d s .
- My fa m ily .

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... v1
LIST OF FIG U R ES......................................................................................... . . . v1i
Chapter
I.

INTRODUCTION

...........................................................................................

1

Need f o r the S t u d y ..........................................................................
4
Statement o f Purpose ......................................................................
6
Statement o f O b je ctive s ..................................................................
6
D e lim ita tio n o f the Study ..............................................................
7
Design o f the S t u d y ..........................................................................
8
Overview o f the S t u d y ...........................................................................10
II.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.......................................................................11
C urrent P ra ctice s in E va lua tion .................................................
11
Nature o f E valuation ...................................................................... 13
E va lua tion in Special Education .................................................
16
Models f o r Special Education E va lu a tio n .................................
19
E va lua tion E ffo rts in Michigan .................................................
22
L e g is la tiv e Precedents to P u b lic A ct 198 ............................. 25
P u b lic A ct 198 o f M ic h ig a n ...............................................................29

III.

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE EVALUATION SYSTEM .....................
P a rt I :

31

Developing th e Q u e s tio n n a ire .......................................... 32

D e riv in g the Questions .............................................................. 34
V a lid a tio n o f the Q uestionnaire Items ................................. 35
The Master Q uestionnaire .......................................................... 40
Determ ining Respondents and Designing the
Q u e s tio n n a ir e s ...................
40
The Master L is t o f Mandates and Recommendations . . . .
48
The P ilo t Study
.......................................................................99
P a rt I I :

Developing the E va lua tion S y s t e m ............................103

1v

Chapter

Page
Overview o f the E va lua tion S y s te m .............................................. 103
Q u tlin e o f the E va lu a tio n Process .........................................
104

IV.

FIELD TEST, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

..................................

128

The F ie ld T e s t ....................................................................................... 128
Summary.................................................................................................. 137
Recommendations
................................................................................... 139
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 141
APPENDICES:
A.

THE MASTER FEEDBACK CHART........................................................................146

B.

REVISED QUESTIONNAIRES

.......................................................................

v

161

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1.

Sample page from se t o f items used in v a l i d a t i o n ......................

37

2.

Master 11st o f mandates and recommendations

..............................

49

3.

Sample school d i s t r i c t e v a lu a tio n plan ..........................................

130

4.

F ie ld t e s t response t o t a l s ........................................................................132

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Page

1.

A d m in is tra to r q u e s tio n n a ire ..............................................................

43

2.

S ta ff q u e s tio n n a ire ...............................................................................

44

3.

General educator q u e s tio n n a ire

......................................................

45

4.

Parent q u e s tio n n a ire

...........................................................................

46

5.

Agency q u e s tio n n a ire

...........................................................................

47

6.

Feedback form f o r q u e s tio n n a ire ......................................................

100

7.

Form I :

P re lim in a ry d e cisio n s f o r the c h a irm a n .....................

106

8.

Form I I :

In s tru c tio n s f o r team m em bers.....................................

116

9.

Form I I I :

T a lly form - one c a t e g o r y .........................................

118

10.

Form IV :

Summary sheet - one c a t e g o r y .....................................

119

11.

Form IV-A:

Summary sheet - a l l respondent c a te g o rie s . . .

121

12.

Form V:

Line graph p r o f i l e ..............................................................

124

13.

Form V I:

E va lua tion summary s h e e t .............................................

126

14.

Preparing the e v a lu a tio n re p o rt:

v ii

A suggested form at

. . .

127

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Special education Is w e ll on the way toward becoming recog­
nized by a l l as a resp ecte d, necessary phenomenon In American education
which makes p o s s ib le the r e a liz a tio n o f the premise upon which our edu­
c a tio n a l system is e s ta b lis h e d — th a t o f he lp in g every c h ild "develop to
h is f u l l e s t p o t e n t ia l. "

New programs 1n ca re e r education and In d iv id u ­

a l l y guided education f o r a l l c h ild re n are based upon in s tr u c tio n a l con­
cepts o f meeting in d iv id u a l needs which have been In h e re n t f o r many
years in the sp e cia l education c u rric u lu m .
More and more educators are accepting the Idea th a t before
meaningful programs f o r re g u la r and sp e c ia l education students can be
e s ta b lis h e d , i t is necessary to r e a liz e th a t every c h ild 1s an In d iv id ­
u a l. complete w ith h is own se t o f " I n t r a in d iv id u a l" and " I n t e r in d iv id u a l"
c h a r a c te r is tic s , to borrow K ir k 's terms (K 1rk, 1972).

In o rd e r to plan

the education o f any c h ild , these c h a r a c te r is tic s must be taken in to ac­
count.
Though the sp e cia l education f i e l d 1s described by some as a
"te a p o t in a tempest" ( L i l l y , 1970, p. 4 5 ), and h a rsh ly c r it ic i z e d by
those w ith in and w ith o u t i t s ranks (Dunn, 1968), the fu tu re s t i l l looks
prom ising.

Even though many c h ild re n remain unserved, thousands more

each year are re c e iv in g needed s e rv ic e s , and the general concern f o r

1

2
comprehensiveness and q u a lit y o f programming is ever in c re a s in g .

John

Cook discusses the e f f e c t o f a c c o u n ta b ility on th e sp e c ia l education
p ro fe s s io n :
Parents and le g is la t o r s are no lo ng er accepting the sp e cia l
e d uca tors' reassurance th a t the c h ild has been "diagnosed,"
th a t he is in a "program ," th a t h is tea che r 1s " f u l l y c e r t i ­
f ie d . " They are in e f f e c t saying th a t some (u s u a lly con sid­
e ra b le ) number o f d o lla r s has been poured In to the sp e cia l
c h ild 's education and tr a in in g and th a t c e rta in ta n g ib le re ­
s u lts should be happening which bear some r e la tio n (th e more
the b e tte r ) to the amount o f money and resources Inve ste d.
(Cook, 1972, p. 5 .)
Evidence o f t h is growing concern lie s 1n the f a c t th a t some
s ta te s have enacted le g is la t io n which mandates th a t a p p ro p ria te educa­
tio n a l se rvice s be provided a l l c h ild re n .

No lo n g e r is i t being l e f t

to the d is c r e tio n o f lo c a l d i s t r i c t s in these s ta te s to p ro vid e educa­
tio n a l se rvice s f o r some and to exclude oth ers who are handicapped.
According to the A p r i l, 1974, Phi D e lta Kappan, sp e cia l edu­
c a tio n gained so much a tte n tio n in the United S tates in 1973 th a t i t
was included 1n Ben B ro d ln s k y 's annual l i s t o f "te n m ajor educational
e v e n ts ."

As s ta te d in the a r t i c l e , "S pecial Education—A M ajor Event

in 1973," seven s ta te s passed comprehensive laws in 1973 on b e h a lf o f
c h ild re n who d e v ia te from average c h ild re n p h y s ic a lly , m e n ta lly , or
e m o tio n a lly and re q u ire sp e cia l scho olin g and care.

Those s ta te s are

Arkansas, A riz o n a , Colorado, Maine, M aryland, M is s is s ip p i, and M is s o u ri.
As re p o rte d in the Kappan a r t i c l e , n e a rly a l l s ta te s in the
Union re q u ire th a t school d i s t r i c t s o f f e r sp e cia l education programs
f o r most handicapped c h ild re n .

The 1973 ju d ic ia l r u lin g s came a f t e r

the 1971 U.S. D i s t r i c t Court re q u ire d Pennsylvania to educate a l l

3
c h ild re n 4 to 21, reg ard le ss o f c o s t.

W ith in two y e a rs , the " r ig h t to

education" concept has been extended to in c lu d e p h y s ic a lly , m e n ta lly
and e m o tio n a lly handicapped."

(Phi D e lta Kappan, A p r il, 1974, p. 513.)

A t the same tim e , however, sp e c ia l educators are being pres­
sured to show evidence o f t h e ir achievement o f the goals which they
have adopted.

In o th e r words, a c c o u n ta b ility has, ou t o f n e c e s s ity , be­

come im p o rta n t because some means o f de term ining whether a d i s t r i c t com­
p lie s w ith the law must be a v a ila b le .

E v a lu a tio n , in some form o r an­

o th e r, must e x is t i f lo c a l school d i s t r i c t s are to be m onitored and i f
the re sp o n sib le agency, be i t the S ta te Department o f Education, the
Interm ediate D i s t r i c t O ffic e , o r the lo c a l d i s t r i c t i t s e l f , is to know
what p ra c tic e s are being fo llo w e d in a given d i s t r i c t .

Local d i s t r i c t s

must have some means o f d e term in in g what p ra c tic e s and a ttitu d e s are
p re v a le n t w ith in the d i s t r i c t and must have some type o f in fo rm a tio n
system o r e v a lu a tio n procedure to help them to make t h is d e te rm in a tio n .
In 1971, M ichigan P u b lic A ct 198 s tip u la te d th a t by J u ly , 1973,
mandatory sp e cia l education would become e f f e c t iv e in M ichigan, thereby
g iv in g d i s t r i c t s two years to prepare f o r the im plem entation o f the law.
A c c o u n ta b ility f o r t h is im plem entation was to r e s t w ith the In te rm e d ia te
D i s t r i c t , although r e s p o n s ib ility f o r p ro v is io n o f se rvice s was given
p r im a r ily to the lo c a l d i s t r i c t .
During the two years p r io r to the a ctu a l e ffe c tu a tio n o f Pub­
l i c A ct 198 in O ctober, 1974, no w r itte n procedure o r e v a lu a tio n system
based on the new S tate Code was a v a ila b le f o r general use to pro vid e a
means by which a lo c a l program could be evaluated e ith e r by the S tate
Department, In te rm e d ia te D i s t r i c t , o r lo c a l d i s t r i c t personnel.

4
P re lim in a ry g u id e lin e s f o r the in te r p r e ta tio n o f the ru le s and re g u la ­
tio n s o n ly became a v a ila b le in December, 1973.

There i s , then, l i t t l e

o r no ta n g ib le evidence a t t h is tim e to in d ic a te th a t p ra c tic e s in
lo c a l d i s t r i c t s have changed s ig n if ic a n t ly sin ce the ru le s went in to
e ffe c t.
What does appear to be the case, from very lim ite d observa­
tio n s ( i . e . , discussion s w ith p a rtic ip a n ts in Michigan S tate U n ive r­
s it y 's Extern Program f o r D ire c to rs o f Special Education and w ith the
M iddle C itie s Education A s s o c ia tio n Special Task Force on Special Edu­
c a tio n ) 1s th a t now, some months a f t e r the im plem entation o f P u b lic Act
198, many lo c a l a d m in is tra to rs are not a lto g e th e r sure th a t they are in
com pliance, but are in te r p r e tin g the law as best they can and op e ra tin g
t h e ir programs in good f a it h .

Some a d m in is tra to rs are not sure th a t

t h e ir s t a f f members are fo llo w in g the mandates o f the S tate Code, even
though they have made some e f f o r t to acquaint them w ith the le g a l r e ­
quirements f o r program o p e ra tio n .

Others are no t w o rrying too much

about the im plem entation o f the new la w , d e c la rin g th a t by the tim e the
"d ust s e t t le s , " they w i l l have had p le n ty o f tim e to comply.
The in e v ita b le r e s u lt o f a la ck o f a s p e c ific e v a lu a tio n p ro ­
cedure from an a u th o r ita tiv e source is th a t in te r p r e ta tio n s o f the law
d i f f e r and con fusio n p re v a ils .

Need For The Study
A search f o r p re v a le n t e v a lu a tio n procedures and instrum ents
c u rre n tly in use in Michigan and o th e r s ta te s y ie ld e d such meager re ­
s u lts , th a t one m ight conclude th a t th e re is a genuine la ck o f system atic

5
e v a lu a tio n o f spe cia l education programs.

Much o f the e v a lu a tio n a t

the present tim e appears to be in fo rm a l and h ig h ly s u b je c tiv e .
The need f o r an e v a lu a tio n in stru m en t is unquestionable.

One

in d ic a tio n o f t h is need is th a t the Special Education Task Force o f the
M iddle C itie s Education A s s o c ia tio n designated the p ro je c t In v o lv in g
the development o f an e v a lu a tio n model f o r sp e cia l education as a top
p r i o r i t y p ro je c t f o r 1973-74.

Discussions w ith the group revealed th a t

they would welcome any e f f o r t s along these lin e s to develop models o r
procedures f o r e v a lu a tio n .
Another fa c to r in d ic a tiv e o f the need f o r an e v a lu a tio n in ­
strum ent is th a t the S tate Department o f Education has shown an a c tiv e
In te r e s t 1n design and development o f an in stru m en t o f t h is type .

One

Instrum ent was developed by S tate Department personnel in t h e ir e v a l­
u a tio n o f the Kalamazoo Special Education Program 1n 1972, bu t is not
in general use.

This in stru m en t w i l l be discussed more th o ro u g h ly in

Chapter I I .
L e tte rs to a l l Middle C itie s Education A sso cia tio n Special
Education D ire c to rs and a l l Michigan U n iv e rs itie s re q u e stin g Inform a­
tio n about a v a ila b le Instrum ents o r procedures y ie ld e d minimal r e s u lts .
Many d ir e c to rs responded, however, th a t although they had no instrum ents
them selves, they would a p p re cia te very much re c e iv in g copies o f the in ­
strum ent th a t would be developed as a r e s u lt o f t h is research.
Ben H e rb e rt, Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity d o c to ra l candidate and
Dr. H arrold S p ic k n a ll o f the Michigan Department o f Education conducted
a s im ila r survey o f a l l S tate Departments o f Education.

The r e s u lts o f

t h is survey were somewhat more p o s itiv e than the one conducted in Mich­
ig a n , but the need f o r more emphasis on e v a lu a tio n is p re v a le n t.
i

6
Also s u p p o rtive o f the need f o r t h is study 1s the fa c t th a t
the Im plem entation o f P u b lic A ct 198 w i l l be f a c il it a t e d by having a
s im p lifie d in stru m en t which d i s t r i c t s can use to determ ine whether they
are o p e ra tin g t h e ir sp e cia l education programs in compliance w ith the
law , and whether the p ra c tic e s c u r r e n tly in use in t h e ir d i s t r i c t s are
considered acceptable and in accord w ith the in te n t and the l e t t e r o f
the law.
B e n e fic ia rie s o f t h is research w i l l most d e f in it e ly be M ic h i­
gan Special Education Departments a t the lo c a l, in te rm e d ia te and s ta te
le v e l, and most im p o rta n tly , handicapped students in M ichigan.

Statement o f Purpose
The purpose o f t h is research is to develop an e v a lu a tio n sys­
tem to assess compliance w ith P u b lic A ct 198 in eleven s p e c ific areas
o f a lo c a l d i s t r i c t sp e cia l education program.

Basic to the system Is

an Instrum ent based on the S tate Code promulgated to implement P u b lic
A ct 198 and the accompanying g u id e lin e s .

The eleven areas to be e v a l­

uated are s p e c ifie d under Goals I and I I o f the S tate Plan f o r The De­
liv e r y o f Special Education Programs and S ervices (1973).

Statement o f O b je ctives
The s p e c ific o b je c tiv e s o f the study are the fo llo w in g :
1.

To develop a l i s t o f p ra c tic e s s p e c ifie d in P u b lic A ct 198,

the Michigan S tate Plan f o r the D e liv e ry o f Special Education Pro­
grams and S e rv ic e s , the S tate Code, and G u id e lin e s , and to c la s s if y
them as " in compliance w ith the la w ," " h ig h ly recommended," "n o t

7
recommended," and " c le a r ly i l l e g a l , " based on an in te r p r e ta tio n
o f those documents, using Goals I and I I o f the S tate Plan as
a framework f o r the l i s t o f p ra c tic e s .
2. To v a lid a te an in te r p r e ta tio n o f the requirem ents under
the mandatory law u t i l i z i n g a panel o f exp erts from the Michigan
S tate Department o f E ducation, Special Education S e rvices.
3. To develop a s e rie s o f q u e s tio n n a ire s to be used in s u r­
veying persons in f iv e d if f e r e n t ca te g o rie s who are associated
w ith the Special Education Program.
4. To p i l o t the q u e s tio n n a ire s u t i l i z i n g lo c a l and in te rm e­
d ia te sp e cia l education a d m in is tra to rs , general educators, p a re n ts,
agency re p re s e n ta tiv e s , and sp e cia l education teachers.
5. To develop a means o f g e ne ratin g a p r o f ile o f a lo c a l d is ­
t r i c t ' s a c t iv i t i e s as a co n cise , v ia b le means o f lo o k in g a t d i f ­
fe re n t areas o f the t o t a l program in terms o f compliance w ith the
le t t e r and In te n t o f the law.
6. To subm it the system f o r f i e l d te s tin g in a M ichigan lo c a l
d i s t r i c t which has a f a i r l y comprehensive program and the means f o r
complete compliance w ith the law to v a lid a te the adequacy o f the
pro du ct.
7. To re v is e the e v a lu a tio n system in c o rp o ra tin g suggestions
based on feedback from the f i e l d t e s t .

D e lim ita tio n o f the Study
This study addresses I t s e l f to those general areas o f concern
to a l l d i s a b ili t y groups in sp e cia l ed u ca tio n , and not to any s p e c ific

8
d i s a b i l i t y area.

The study is no t intended to p ro vid e a means o f e v a l­

u a tin g those p ra c tic e s which are s p e c ific to any p a r t ic u la r d i s a b ili t y
are a, bu t in s te a d , to eva lu ate the a d m in is tra tiv e process concerning
those p ra c tic e s which are described on a general basis in the S ta te
P lan.
Though a M ichigan lo c a l d i s t r i c t w i l l be used as a f i e l d te s t
s it e , t h is study is no t p r im a r ily concerned w ith an e v a lu a tio n o f th a t
d i s t r i c t ' s spe cia l education program.

The m ajor purpose o f the evalua­

tio n e f f o r t w i l l be to y ie ld data reg ard in g the accuracy, a m b ig u ity , o r
comprehensiveness o f the in s tru m e n t.

Consequently, data reg ard in g the

d i s t r i c t ' s sp e cia l education program w i l l not n e c e s s a rily be rep orted
unless th e data illu s t r a t e s some im p o rta n t fe a tu re o f the In stru m e n t.
The e v a lu a tio n system developed as a r e s u lt o f t h is study w i l l
be lim ite d to Michigan since i t 1s based on the M ichigan S tate Plan and
Michigan P u b lic A ct 198.

Design o f the Study
The S tate Plan f o r the D e liv e ry o f S pecial Education Services
l i s t s two m ajor goals governing the d e liv e ry o f s p e c ia l education s e r­
v ic e s in M ichigan.

These goals cover eleven subsections common to a l l

sp e cia l education programs se rvin g any d i s a b i l i t y area:

Goal I re fe rs

to comprehensiveness o f programming and in clu d e s r e f e r r a l system, d ia g ­
n o s tic s e rv ic e , placement procedure, continuum o f s e rv ic e s , and fo llo w up system; Goal I I re fe rs to q u a lity o f programming and Inclu de s p e r­
sonnel, f a c i l i t i e s , c u rric u lu m , le a d e rs h ip , in te g r a tio n and e v a lu a tio n .
These eleven subsections w i l l pro vid e th e framework f o r the in stru m e n t.

9
Under each o f the eleven su b se ctio n s, q u e stio n n a ire s were de­
riv e d in t h is manner:
1. Assumptions f o r each area are the same as the assumptions
u n d e rlyin g comparable goals in th e S tate P la n.
2. Each area has an o b je c tiv e as s p e c ifie d 1n the S tate P la n .
3. Statements r e f le c t in g recommendations and requirem ents o f
the S ta te Code. A ct 198. G uid e lin e s and S tate Plan were
developed f o r each o b je c tiv e .
4. Q uestions, c o rre c t responses and suggested response ra te s
were w r itte n f o r each statem ent.
5. When a l l questions were com piled, they along w ith suggested
responses were subm itted to a panel o f exp erts f o r v a lid a ­
tio n o f the fo llo w in g :
a. v a l id it y o f in te r p r e ta tio n s o f the S ta te Code.
b. v a l i d i t y o f in te r p r e ta tio n s o f the G u id e lin e s .
c . accuracy o f suggested responses.
d. c l a r i t y o f q u e stio n s.
6. Questions were designated and w r itte n f o r each o f the f o l ­
low ing groups, as deemed a p p ro p ria te :
a. sp e cia l education a d m in is tra to rs (ca te g o ry 1)
b. sp e cia l education s t a f f , in c lu d in g it in e r a n t and d ia g ­
n o s tic personnel, s p e c ia l education te a ch e rs, and in ­
s tr u c tio n a l aides (ca te g o ry 2)
c. general education teachers and a d m in is tra to rs , and I t i n ­
e ra nts (cate go ry 3)

10
d. parents (cate go ry 4)
e. agencies (ca te g o ry 5)
6. A ll p o s s ib le responses to each s e t o f closed response ques­
tio n s were charted on a p r o f ile sheet.
7. The questions were placed on a p p ro p ria te q u e stio n n a ire s f o r
the ta rg e t p o p u la tio n s to be surveyed.
8. The in stru m en t was subm itted to the lo c a l spe cia l education
d ir e c t o r f o r f i e l d te s tin g and revised in c o rp o ra tin g the
recommendations and suggestions obtained from the f i e l d
t e s t , i f necessary.
9. The re vise d e v a lu a tio n system is presented as the f in a l o u t­
come o f t h is stud y.

Overview o f the Study
Chapter I I o f t h is study reviews lit e r a t u r e which is re la te d
to t h is stud y.

A tte n tio n is given to c u rre n t p ra c tic e s on a n a tio n a l

and s ta te le v e l, d if f e r e n t views on the nature o f e v a lu a tio n , models f o r
s p e cia l education program e v a lu a tio n , and the r e s u lts o f a p re lim in a ry
in q u ir y in to s ta te department p ra c tic e s in the n a tio n .
Chapter I I I d e scrib es the design and development o f the e v a l­
u a tio n system.

P a rt I describes the development o f the q u e s tio n n a ire s ,

and P a rt I I de scrib es the development o f the complete e v a lu a tio n system.
Chapter IV describes the f ie l d t e s t procedures and gives a
b r ie f summary o f the e n tir e study in c lu d in g problems encountered and
recommendations f o r fu r th e r study.

The re vise d system is presented in

Chapter IV as the A lle n Survey System f o r E va lu a tin g Special Services
(ASSESS).

CHAPTER I I
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The review o f the lit e r a t u r e encompasses these areas:

c u r­

re n t general e v a lu a tiv e p ra c tic e s , nature o f e v a lu a tio n , e v a lu a tio n in
s p e c ia l education on the n a tio n a l le v e l, models f o r sp e cia l education
e v a lu a tio n , e v a lu a tio n e f f o r t s in M ichigan, and le g is la t iv e precedents
to P u b lic A ct 198 in M ichigan.

C u rre n t P ra ctice s In E va lua tion
The c u rre n t tre n d toward a c c o u n ta b ility has w ielded i t s in ­
flu e n c e upon a l l areas o f education.

Having p o s s ib ly o rig in a te d as a

means o f assuring th a t businesses fu n c tio n a t a maximum le v e l o f e f f i ­
cie n cy and p ro fic ie n c y the e n tir e approach has d e f in it e ly fo rce d educa­
to rs to c r i t i c a l l y examine t h e ir p o lic ie s and p ra c tic e s in the l i g h t o f
c o s t and e ffe c tiv e n e s s .
John Cook p o in ts to Leon Le ssin ge r, Deputy Commissioner in
the o f f ic e o f Education as the p o s s ib le i n i t i a t o r o f the a c c o u n ta b ility
concept by pushing i t in to the awareness o f both educators and the
general p u b lic .

He f e l t the f r u s t r a t io n experienced by congress as

they sought to a s c e rta in the impact o f la rg e sums o f fe d e ra l money
being spent on education.

With re sp e ct to T i t l e I , ESEA, f o r example,

i t was d i f f i c u l t , i f not im p o ssib le , to j u s t i f y w ith any confidence the
11

12
expenditures on the many p ro je c ts th a t had been funded.

J u s tify in g

these expenditures was seen as necessary in o rd e r to determ ine a p o lic y
f o r fu tu re e xp en ditu res.

According to Cook (1972, p. 2 ):

The c o s t-e ffe c tiv e n e s s approach o f the Department o f Defense was
in vogue a t the tim e , and questions ra is e d w ith in the c o n te x t o f
t h is approach were found d i f f i c u l t to answer by the O ffic e o f Edu­
c a tio n and school people. Concomitant w ith th is tre n d was a r i s ­
ing concern on the p a rt o f lo c a l school boards across the co u n try
about the ever mounting requests f o r a d d itio n a l funds f o r educa­
t io n . About the same tim e , data was a lso becoming a v a ila b le to
the p u b lic about the end product o f the educational system, i . e . ,
the s tu d e n ts ' a c tu a l academic achievements on a nationw ide b a sis.
In sum, Congress and the p u b lic were asking educators to be ac­
co u n ta b le , to show the p u b lic th a t they (th e Congress and the pub­
l i c ) were g e ttin g a "bang f o r t h e ir b u ck," and th a t le a rn in g was
o c c u rrin g commensurate w ith the f is c a l resources being committed
to the e f f o r t . "
M. Schriven (1967) voices the concerns o f many who a s s e rt
th a t i f business firm s c a n 't keep people on the jo b o r con tinu e to oc­
cupy b u ild in g s th a t are not p ro d u c tiv e , then s o c ie ty should not have to
keep school personnel o r programs th a t are no t fu n c tio n in g e f f i c i e n t l y .
The method o f e v a lu a tio n which.has found i t s way ou t o f the
business w orld in to the w orld o f education is a method known g e n e ra lly
as the "systems approach."

Frank Banghart is one o f the many w r ite r s

who has attem pted to ap ply the p r in c ip le s o f the systems approach to
education.

He noted th a t since World War I I , a new tech no log y, which

he terms "systems a n a ly s is " has p ro fo u n d ly in flu e n c e d most d e c is io n
making in business and government.

He in s is t s th a t the "systems" te ch ­

nique can work as an e v a lu a tiv e technique f o r educators a ls o (1969,
P. V ).

13

Common terms which id e n t if y approaches f a l l i n g under the gen­
e ra l heading o f systems a n a ly s is are Program E va lu a tio n Review Tech­
niques (PERT), Program Planning and Budgeting Systems (PPBS), e tc .
D. K. Tanner (1971) s ta te s :
Taxpayers are demanding to know p re c is e ly what re tu rn s they are
g e ttin g f o r money spent in our p u b lic elem entary and secondary
sch o o ls; moreover, campus d is o rd e rs , among Other th in g s , have mo­
tiv a te d the p u b lic to qu estio n s e rio u s ly the increased expendi­
tu re s in a l l areas o f ed uca tion .
Many s ta te governmental agencies mandated the im plem entation o f
program budgeting in e d uca tion . Top o f f i c i a l s in governmental
a f f a ir s have in s is te d on the need f o r educa tion al e v a lu a tio n .
Although program budgeting is no t the same as PPBS, the M ic h i­
gan Department o f Education has adopted PPBS as i t s a c c o u n ta b ility model,
in a l l p r o b a b ilit y , in response to the p u b lic 's change o f a t t it u d e , as
expressed in the preceding paragraph by Tanner.

Nature o f E va lua tion
As to the exact na ture o f e v a lu a tio n , o p in io n s are d iv e rs e .
Cook fe e ls th a t a c c o u n ta b ility as a concept has s tru c k a responsive
chord in both the p u b lic and the p ro fe s s io n a l educator and th a t

1 t also

means many th in g s to many people (1972, p. 2 ).
Though Cook d iff e r e n tia t e s between a c c o u n ta b ility and evalua­
t io n , he says th a t the n o tio n o f e v a lu a tio n must be considered to be
im p lic it and in te rtw in e d in the whole concept o f a c c o u n ta b ility .

He

fe e ls th a t the fo llo w in g are the e s s e n tia l elements o f a c c o u n ta b ility
as a general concept (1972, pp. 2 -3 ):
1. The educator must decide what he is a f t e r in terms o f student
performance and be re sp o n sib le f o r g e ttin g these r e s u lts .

14
2. The concept a lso im p lie s strea m lin ed management such as a con­
c is e a n a ly s is o f needs and arrangement o f p r i o r i t i e s , a p re c is e
d e f in it io n and d e s c rip tio n o f the in p u ts , the processes, and
the o u tp u t-re la te d goals o f the ed uca tion al endeavor.
3.

Not le a s t in importance is th a t the a c c o u n ta b ility process
should be communicable to the consumers ( i . e . , the p u b lic ) in
an e a s ily understood language o f the p a r t ic u la r p u b lic .

4.

F in a lly , the whole process o f governance in education must be
tie d to a f is c a l an d/o r tim e base so th a t the undertaking can
be demonstrated to be t h r i f t y , s e n s ib le and, in g e n e ra l, p re ­
s e n tin g evidence o f good stew ardship.
S.

and e v a lu a tio n :

B. Anderson o ffe r s t h is d is t in c t io n between a c c o u n ta b ility
(Cook, 1972, p. 3)

1. E va lu a tio n is concerned p r im a r ily w ith e ffe c tiv e n e s s (th e de­
gree to which the in s t i t u t io n o r system succeeds 1n doing what­
ever 1 t is tr y in g to d o ); a c c o u n ta b ility is concerned w ith e f ­
fe c tiv e n e s s and e ffic ie n c y (th e c a p a c ity to achieve re s u lts
w ith a given e xp en ditu re o f re so u rce s). Thus the l a t t e r is
even more complex than the fo rm e r, sin ce 1 t must encompass not
o n ly attem pts to determ ine success but a ls o how much 1 t costs
to o b ta in i t and the r e la tio n s h ip between co st and b e n e fit.
2. Educational e v a lu a tio n — though sometimes mandated in general
terms by a fun din g agency--1s la r g e ly th e business and province
o f the education in s t i t u t io n o r system i t s e l f ; and 1 t stands to
succeed to the e x te n t th a t i t is viewed by a d m in is tra to rs and
s t a f f as a v e h ic le f o r program Improvement. A c c o u n ta b ility , on
the o th e r hand, c a rrie d w ith i t the n o tio n o f e x te rn a l judgment
and c o n tr o l. The advocates o f a c c o u n ta b ility view t h is as a
p o s itiv e fe a tu re — the taxpayers have a r ig h t to know.
E va lu a tio n in re g u la r education has taken the form o f p e r fo r ­
mance c o n tra c tin g , tu rn -k e y in g , the voucher system, and in c e n tiv e r e ­
wards in some systems (Cook, 1972, pp. 3 -4 ).

These approaches have had

va ryin g degrees o f success, and p r a c tic a l methods and models are s t i l l
being sought.
Richard Dershimer sees e v a lu a tio n as an a c t i v i t y o r s e t o f
a c t iv i t i e s in it ia t e d o r u t iliz e d to p ro vid e data f o r m ajor o p e ra tio n a l

15
de cision s in the schools.

Three o th e r purposes i t serves are :

(1 ) p ro ­

v id in g more system atic ways o f g a th e rin g data f o r many o th e r purposes;
(2) sharpening the o b je c tiv e s o f any o rg a n iz a tio n ; and (3) id e n tify in g
and c la r if y in g aspects o f the s itu a tio n where re v is io n o r improvement
Is most

needed an d /o r

d e s ire d .

(C ite d by Cook, 1972, p. 8 . )

He proposes a th re e -p a rt scheme w ith these m ajor components:
(1) antecedent c o n d itio n s o r in p u t v a ria b le s ; (2) in te rv e n in g events o r
tre a tm e n ts; and (3) outcomes o r o b je c tiv e s .
R. M. Gagne, a s s e rts , "For the person who wishes to
process

o f ed u ca tio n ,

to analyze i t ,

to perform

study the

research uponi t f o r

the purpose o f understanding and im proving i t , statem ents o f educational
o b je c tiv e s as human performance are an a b s o lu te ly e s s e n tia l s ta r tin g
p o in t. "

(Gagne, 1965).
Others hold th a t e v a lu a tio n is the " c o lle c tio n and use o f In ­

fo rm a tio n f o r d e c is io n making pu rpo ses."

(S w isher, e t a l . . 1968, p. 8 .)

Stake (1965) in s is t s th a t both d e s c rip tio n and judgment are
e s s e n tia l to any e v a lu a tio n .
L. C. S ilv e rn (1965) and Andrew and Mo1r (1970) have a ls o
made suggestions f o r developing e v a lu a tio n systems 1n e d uca tion .

In ad­

d it io n , a w ealth in fo rm a tio n is a v a ila b le in standard sources on g a th e r­
ing and r e fin in g da ta.
With a l l the in fo rm a tio n a v a ila b le on procedure and tech niq ue ,
the re a l problem is summarized best by Dershimer who s ta te s :
The s o lu tio n f a r too o fte n is to 'go through the m o tio n s ,’ th a t i s ,
g a th e r some t e s t score d a ta , ta b u la te q u e s tio n n a ire r e s u lt s , ob­
ta in some te s tim o n ie s , and w r ite a fla s h y r e p o r t; the data are not
respected and o n ly s li g h t l y u s e d - - if a t a l l .
(D ershim er, 1968,
P. 7 .)

16
E va lua tion In Special Education
In sp e cia l ed u ca tio n , the a c c o u n ta b ility c r is i s is making i t ­
s e lf f e l t , e s p e c ia lly in those s ta te s where s p e c ia l education se rvice s
are mandated.

But even in s ta te s where mandatory laws do not e x is t ,

th e re is a growing consciousness among sp e cia l educators o f the im por­
tance o f being able to show the p u b lic th a t they are indeed seeing re ­
s u lts .

The requirem ent under mandatory th a t educational plans w ith

s p e c ific o b je c tiv e s f o r each c h ild must be developed has provided some
means o f determ ining the degree to which a teacher has helped a given
c h ild .
Cook notes a slow er response to the a c c o u n ta b ility th r u s t on
the p a rt o f sp e cia l educators (1972, p. 5 ).
The response o f the s p e c ia l educator to the a c c o u n ta b ility concern
has been n e ith e r as vocal nor as v a rie d as h is re g u la r education
c o u n te rp a rt . . .
A ls o , i t has been o n ly w ith in the la s t few years th a t many sp e c ia l
education programs l i t e r a l l y have moved o u t o f the b o ile r room in
the school basement and have become the r e c ip ie n ts o f s u f f ic ie n t
resources to even attem pt anything approaching exemplary programs
f o r the handicapped. An a d d itio n a l c o n tr ib u tin g fa c to r to the
slow er response to a c c o u n ta b ility o f the sp e c ia l educators could
w e ll have been th a t a t the beginning o f the 70s he was a lre a d y o f f
balance having been inundated by c h ild re n w ith assorted le a rn in g ,
em otional and behavioral problems f o r whom re g u la r education could
o r would n o t attem pt to pro vid e le a rn in g experiences. In any e ve n t,
i t would seem th a t the re g u la r e d uca tors' concern w ith accounta­
b i l i t y a t t h is tim e is very much a problem f o r the sp e cia l educa­
to r s as w e ll.
Cook o ffe r s the fo llo w in g statem ents in support o f h is m ild
rebuke:

(Cook, 1972, p. 6 .)

The statem ents which fo llo w are re p re s e n ta tiv e o f the fe e lin g s o f
a la rg e body o f p ro fe s s io n a ls and have y e t to be s e rio u s ly heeded
by the m a jo rity o f sp e cia l education p o lic y makers and p r a c t i­
tio n e rs ( L i l l y , 1970):

17
. . . N o tw ithstan ding the many obvious and v a lid c r itic is m s o f
s tu d ie s comparing sp e c ia l versus re g u la r c la s s membership, i t has
y e t to be demonstrated th a t the sp e cia l cla ss o ffe r s a b e tte r
school experience f o r re ta rd e d c h ild re n than does re g u la r cla ss
placement ( B la t t , 1960, pp. 53-54).
. . . W hile the s p e c ia l classes may be a d m in is tr a tiv e ly con ven ie nt,
th e re 1s no doubt t h a t the procedure has made sp e cia l education
s p e c ia l, Is o la te d 1 t , and in so doing perpetuated the Is o la tio n
and a tte n d in g m ysticism which has stood 1n the way o f sp e cia l edu­
c a tio n development (F is h e r, 1967, p. 29).
. . . Let us stop being pressured In to c o n tin u in g and expanding a
sp e cia l education program th a t we know to be un de sira b le f o r many
o f the c h ild re n we are dedicated to serve (Dunn, 1968, p. 5 ).
. . . Special education is h e lp in g the re g u la r school m a in ta in I t s
s p o ile d id e n t it y when 1 t crea tes s p e c ia l programs . . . f o r the
" d is r u p tiv e c h ild " and the "slow le a rn e r" many o f whom, f o r some
strange reason, happen to be black and poor and liv e 1n the in n e r
c i t y (Johnson, 1969, p. 245).
. . . There has been no r e lia b le evidence produced to in d ic a te
th a t d if f e r e n t ia l b e n e fits , e ith e r s o c ia l o r academic, accrue to
re g u la r students as a r e s u lt o f e ith e r th e e xclu sio n o r in c lu s io n
o f e xce p tio n a l students in re g u la r classes (C h rls to p le s and Renz,
1969, p. 373).
E va lua tion o f s p e c ia l education programs, though much needed
and san ction ed , 1s s t i l l done on a h ig h ly in fo rm a l basis 1n many lo c a l
d is tr ic ts .

Some s ta te departments o f education have developed o r are

In the process o f developing s p e c ific procedures o r Instrum ents to be
used In t h e ir c o n s titu e n t d i s t r i c t s in o rd e r to determ ine whether s ta te
g u id e lin e s are being fo llo w e d , o r in some In sta n ce s, to p ro vid e lo c a l
d i s t r i c t s w ith a means f o r s e ttin g down 1n some o rd e r, va lu a b le Inform a­
tio n about the d i s t r i c t so th a t they can make an assessment o f t h e ir own
p ra c tic e s .
Dr. H a rro ld S p ic k n a ll o f the M ichigan Department o f Education,
Special Education D iv is io n , conducted a survey in the Summer o f 1972 o f
a l l 50 S tate Department o f Education asking f o r copies o f instrum ents

18
o r d e s c rip tio n s o f procedures which are c u r r e n tly in use in t h e ir s ta te s .
The re s u lts in d ic a te d th a t few actu a l instrum ents are a v a ila b le .
The instrum ents which were a v a ila b le contained no measure o f
q u a lity a g a in s t a p re scrib e d standard, w ith the exception o f Pennsyl­
v a n ia 's in stru m en t which in clu de d the program standards.

Some in s t r u ­

ments contained a L ik e r t- ty p e o r some o th e r r a tin g scale o r c h e c k lis t,
but a f t e r the items were checked o r ra te d , no system f o r determ ining
what the r a tin g meant o r f o r making a q u a lit a t iv e comparison w ith an­
o th e r d i s t r i c t ' s standards was in evidence.
Texas d id no t fu rn is h an in stru m e n t, but in ste a d sent an ove r­
view o f a sp e cia l p ro je c t c a lle d PRIME (Programmed R e-entry in to Main­
stream Education) which is being used as one o f i t s e v a lu a tiv e te ch ­
niques.

P ro je c t PRIME was in it ia t e d to in v e s tig a te the e ffe c tiv e n e s s

o f a lte r n a tiv e sp e cia l education in s tr u c tio n a l programs.

The p rin c ip a l

qu estion which the study addresses is f o r whom and under what c o n d itio n s
is in te g r a tio n o f m ild ly handicapped c h ild re n in to mainstream education
a v ia b le educational a lte r n a tiv e .

(Kaufman, e t a l . , 1973, p. 1 .)

The study is described as unique by the authors because o f
w id e -sca le employment o f d ir e c t ob se rva tio n o f classroom in te ra c tio n s .
(Kaufman, e t a l . , 1973, p. 9 .)
C le a rly , P ro je c t PRIME addresses an im p o rta n t need in sp e cia l
education e v a lu a tio n , but i t s purpose is somewhat removed from the p u r­
pose o f the study proposed h e re in .
Other s tu d ie s have focused on the problem o f e v a lu a tio n o f
s p e cia l education programs in o th e r s ta te s .

19

M a rily n Jo P arsley o f the U n iv e rs ity o f Denver, developed an
in stru m en t based on outcomes, in s tr u c tio n a l process and pro du ct.

P a rt

I co n ta in s a "re a l and id e a l" q u e s tio n n a ire form using a L ik e r t- ty p e
scale.

P a rt I I deals w ith process and p ro d u ct; P a rt I I I w ith le a d e r­

ship behavior based on the LBDQ and P a rt IV c o n ta in s recommendations.
(P a rs le y , 1971.)
P a rs le y 's in stru m en t was p ilo te d in a school system and in ­
volved s p e cia l education te a ch e rs, sp e cia l education a d m in is tra to rs ,
a n c illa r y s t a f f , school a d m in is tra to rs , re g u la r te a ch e rs, p r in c ip a ls ,
and p a re n ts.
John T. C assell o f the U n iv e rs ity o f C onnecticut developed a
guide f o r use in e s ta b lis h in g o r e v a lu a tin g sp e cia l programs f o r the
m e n ta lly handicapped.

(C a s s e ll, 1968.)

Edwin Ray Edmunds conducted a norm ative study comparing s e r­
vice s f o r exce ptio na l c h ild re n in M issouri w ith se rvice s which a panel
o f experts described as being necessary f o r the education o f excep­
tio n a l c h ild re n .

Two hundred and seventeen M isso u ri P u b lic Schools

were in v o lve d in the stud y.

(Edmunds, 1960.)

Anna Barbara Crumpler Smart developed in 1970, a proposed spe­
c ia l education program f o r the S tate o f Alaska w ith emphasis on ru r a l
schools.

(Sm art, 1970.)

Models f o r Special Education E va lua tion
Edward Ahr and Howard Sims proposed an e v a lu a tio n model f o r
s p e cia l education which re p re se n ts, in the a u th o rs ' words, "A system
a n a ly s is o f the components and a c t iv i t i e s in a d i s t r i c t o r j o i n t

20
agreement sp e cia l education program ."
th re e e v a lu a tio n dimensions:

T h e ir model is s tru c tu re d around

the a d m in is tra tiv e process, the c u rric u lu m

process, and the in fo rm a tio n requirem ents.

Based on a th re e -y e a r im ple­

m entation p la n , the model is con structed on sound p r in c ip le s .

However,

in s u f f ic ie n t p ra c tic a l in s tru c tio n s are provided and many lo c a l adm inis­
t r a to r s w i l l f in d the model d i f f i c u l t to use.

The authors s ta te :

E va lua tion is based on the process o f:
(1) f i r s t agreeing upon
program standards; (2) then determ ining whether a discrepancy
e x is ts between aspects o f the a ctu a l program and the governing
standards; and (3 ) using the discrepancy in fo rm a tio n to id e n t if y
the weakness o f the program. U t iliz in g performance standards f o r
s tu d e n ts, the e v a lu a tio n can be accomplished through the employ­
ment o f a p p ro p ria te le v e ls o f standards. Through the use o f com­
prehensive e v a lu a tio n p ra c tic e s , improved education can accrue to
you ng sters, tea che rs, and p a re n ts ." (Ahr and S1ms, 1971, p. 1 .)
A second model, produced by the O rg a n iza tio n f o r Special and
Technical In n o v a tio n , In c. (OSTI), was designed f o r s ta te departments
o f education to plan and eva lu ate educational se rv ic e s to the handi­
capped.

As used in th e manual, planning and e v a lu a tio n means:

(1)

g a th e rin g in fo rm a tio n on the system o f educational se rvice s to the han­
dicapped; (2) using th a t in fo rm a tio n to se t o b je c tiv e s f o r the system;
(3) determ ining which department s tra te g ie s w i l l c o n trib u te to the sys­
tem o b je c tiv e s , ta k in g in to account the in flu e n c e o f a Department o f
Special Education in the c o n te x t o f the t o t a l environm ent th a t a ffe c ts
educational se rvice s to handicapped c h ild re n ; and (4) comparing actu a l
to described impact o f the s tra te g ie s employed.

(OSTI, 1970.)

Even though the model is designed f o r Special Education De­
partments a t the s ta te le v e l, the s e c tio n on "Im plem entation o f Evalua­
tio n " con tain s s p e c ific steps which helped to p ro vid e a basis f o r the

21
c o n s tru c tio n o f the in stru m e n t developed in t h is stu d y.

The s p e c ific

steps in v o lv e s p e c ify in g performance o b je c tiv e in d ic a to r s , m o n ito rin g
performance in d ic a to r s , and s e ttin g up s p e c ific e v a lu a tiv e c r i t e r i a to
determ ine whether the i n i t i a l o b je c tiv e has been re a liz e d .
An e v a lu a tio n model was developed in response to
became apparent a f t e r ESEA - VI - A began in 1967.

needs which

The needs which d ic ­

ta te d the form o f the model were needs f o r s im p lic it y and inexpensive­
ness o f p ro je c t w rite -u p and e v a lu a tio n , coherence and s im p lic ity in
data c o lle c tio n , as w e ll as m eaningful feedback to the a d m in is tra tiv e
personnel a t va rio u s le v e ls .

(Cook, 1972, pp. 8 -9 .)

Cook e x p la in s the model:
The basic e v a lu a tio n model is tw o-dim ensional w ith data and in f o r ­
m ation source and re c e iv e r on the v e r t ic a l a x is and the phases o f
p r o je c t o p e ra tio n on the h o riz o n ta l a x is . . . .
Since feedback
lo o p s, communication channels, e tc . are an in t r i n s i c p a rt o f the
a c c o u n ta b ility -e v a lu a tio n model as co n ce p tu a lize d , more dim ensions,
lin e s , c ir c le s , arrow s, and so f o r t h could be added to the model.
Such an approach tends to be con fusin g f o r the reader so an attem pt
w i l l be made to l e t the w r itte n word c a rry the b ru n t o f the commun­
ic a tio n thereby keeping a d d itio n s to the scheme a t a minimum.
(Cook, 1972, pp. 1 0 -1 1 .)
Cook s ta te s th a t these expressed needs have n o t a l l been met
in an optim al fa s h io n and th a t more work needs to be done in conceptual­
iz a tio n and in the how o f im plem entation (1972, p. 10).
Proger c r it ic i z e s the p r o lif e r a t io n o f e v a lu a tio n models, and
gives h is

d e f in it io n o f the Proger P r in c ip le .

(Cook, 1972, p. 9 .)

In a conceptual h ie ra rc h y every concept ( i . e . , e v a lu a tio n models)
e v e n tu a lly ris e s from a s p e c ific le v e l o f a p p lic a b ilit y to a gen­
e ra l le v e l o f fu n c tio n a l incompetence through " lo g ic a l a n a ly s is ."
He pleads f u r t h e r th a t educators should do something w ith
e x is tin g models.

the

22
E va lua tion E ffo r ts in Michigan
A v a ila b le lit e r a t u r e shows th a t a t le a s t th re e system atic a t ­
tempts to eva lu a te sp e cia l education programs in Michigan have been i n i ­
t ia te d d u rin g the past ye a rs.
One such study was conducted by Kenneth W. Brown o f Wayne
S tate U n iv e rs ity in 1961.

His stu d y , "An A d m in is tra tiv e Survey o f The

Special Education Program in Oakland County, M ic h ig a n ," describes a p ro ­
cedure o f developing an in stru m en t acceptable to an e x p e rt panel, a r ­
ranging f o r the panel to v i s i t a selected cross s e c tio n o f e x is tin g p ro ­
grams in Oakland County, an alyzin g the r e s u lts o f th e study and re p o r t­
ing recommendations based on the p a n e l's fin d in g s .
P o ssib ly the most comprehensive study conducted in Michigan
was a study conducted by a Special Study Team o f the Michigan Department
o f Education a t the request o f the Superintendent o f Kalamazoo P u b lic
Schools.

The study was to have begun in January o f 1971, and was con­

ducted by J u ly 1, 1971.
The eleven (11) areas which are s u b t it le d under Goals I and
I I o f the S tate Plan f o r The D e liv e ry o f Programs and S ervices form the
framework f o r the q u e s tio n s , and general assumptions reg ard in g sound
p ra c tic e s in each area helped to generate the q u e stio n s.
When taken o u t o f the c o n te x t o f the t o t a l stu d y, the in s t r u ­
ment i t s e l f is no t accompanied by s p e c ific e xp la n a tio n s and in s tr u c tio n s
which would p e rm it i t s use in a s e lf- e v a lu a tio n by a lo c a l d i s t r i c t .
This f a c t is understandable since the study was conducted by a team and
was not designed to be a s e lf-a d m in is te rin g in s tru m e n t, and i t has not
been d is tr ib u te d by the S tate Department o f Education as such an I n s t r u ­
ment.

23

The Kalamazoo Study and the in stru m e n t designed as a p a rt o f
i t , have been extrem ely va lu a b le in the development o f the in stru m en t
h e re in , sin ce both are based on the S ta te Plan f o r the D e liv e ry o f Ser­
vice s and c o n ta in the same basic o b je c tiv e s .
The t h ir d study in v o lv in g the development o f an e v a lu a tio n
model was done by Gordon Bergman in 1972.

Bergman saw a need to apply

a systems approach to program planning in sp e c ia l education and bears
some resemblance to the plan developed by Ahr and S1ms.

His approach

included these d i s t i n c t stages:
1. D e lin e a tio n o f e x is tin g programs and s e rv ic e s .
2. Gross d e te rm in a tio n o f needs.
3. Real needs assessment.
4. E stim a tio n o f p r i o r i t i e s f o r im plem entation o f programs
and s e rv ic e s ; Immediate and long range.
5. A llo c a tio n o f resources.
6. Im plem entation o f plan .
7. E va lu a tio n o f plan and p u p il product (Bergman, 1972,
pp. 33-35).
Bergman's plan allo w s f o r c o lle c tio n o f in fo rm a tio n needed
f o r making im p o rta n t d e c is io n s .

I t s purpose, however, is somewhat re ­

moved from the purposes o f t h is study.
The model developed by Bergman provides an in fo rm a tio n system,
but does no t p ro vid e f o r e v a lu a tio n in the sense th a t standards are p re ­
sented, c u rre n t p ra c tic e s are compared w ith standards, and discrep an­
c ie s noted.

i

24
M ichigan sp e cia l educators have recognized the need f o r e v a l­
u a tio n .

Many stu d ie s have been conducted in Michigan to determ ine

whether graduates o f sp e cia l education programs were making successful
adjustm ents in the community and on t h e ir jo b s .

U ltim a te r e a liz a tio n

o f the goal o f successful community adjustm ent and jo b placement is
viewed by many as the o n ly way to determ ine the success o f a special
education program which has as i t s in h e re n t g o a l, p e rso n a l, s o c ia l, and
v o c a tio n a l adjustm ent o f the in d iv id u a l.
Documented s tu d ie s concerning Lansing P u b lic Schools—Special
Education Department (Beekman, 1959), Kent Occupational High School in
Wyoming, Michigan (Warren, 1965), and the B e rrie n County Follow-Up Study
(Henderson, 1973) have a l l shown some measure o f success in the achieve­
ment o f the pe rsonal, s o c ia l, and v o c a tio n a l goals s e t f o r t h by the p ro ­
gram by students who completed p re scrib e d sp e cia l education programs.
No one can d is p u te the value o f such s tu d ie s , bu t th e re is
growing concern th a t what happens along the way toward program comple­
tio n a ls o deserves some a tte n tio n —c e r t a in ly more than i t has received
in the pa st.
One person who has expressed such a concern is Marvin E.
Beekman, form er S tate D ire c to r o f Special Education in M ichigan, who
has been a staunch sup po rter o f q u a lit y programs f o r e xce p tio n a l c h i l ­
dren and a le ad er in the f i e l d f o r many y e a rs , and has brought h is t r e ­
mendous in flu e n c e to bear in demanding the r ig h ts o f e xce p tio n a l c h i l ­
dren.

He observed:
As we lo ok over t h is v a s t c o u n try , we see the gaps in
the d is in te r e s t o f educators, problems o f money, la c k
and research stacked to the c e llin g b u t never a p p lie d
lem . . . one cannot help but wonder. ( " I n d ic a tio n s ,"

s e rv ic e s ,
o f tea che rs,
to the prob­
p. 18 .)

25
Beekman, probably more than any o th e r s in g le in d iv id u a l in
the S tate o f M ichigan, bears r e s p o n s ib ility f o r the passage o f P ub!ic
Act 198 o f 1971, M ich ig an's mandatory sp e cia l education a c t.

The f in a l

passage o f the law was the cu lm in a tio n o f a le n g th y , complex process in
which Marvin Beekman played a le a d in g r o le .

L e g is la tiv e Precedents to P u b lic A ct o f 198
In 1969, a group o f Michigan leaders in the f i e l d o f spe cia l
education met and decided th a t th e re was a d e f in it e need to change Mich­
ig a n 's sp e cia l education le g is la t io n from perm issive to mandatory and
decided th a t the way to do th is would be to c ir c u la te a p e t it io n to show
the le g is la tu r e th a t many in the S tate shared t h e ir o p in io n .
This e f f o r t was jo in e d by va rio u s s ta te o rg a n iz a tio n s in t e r ­
ested in the education o f e xce p tio n a l c h ild re n making i t apparent to the
L e g is la tu re th a t t h is was one problem which would have to be d e a lt w ith
th is tim e , even though e f f o r t s in the p a st to persuade them to enact
th is kind o f le g is la t io n had met w ith no success.
A t a p u b lic h e a rin g , the Chamber was packed w ith people fa v o r­
ing passage o f the b i l l , even though th e re was a t le a s t one voice which
openly re s is te d th e idea th a t mandatory le g is la t io n was the r ig h t an­
swer.

Proponents in c lu d in g L u c ille McCullough, P eter Coke, and o th e rs ,

g r e a tly outnumbered opponents, most o f whom were s ile n t and as a r e s u lt ,
the B i l l was on i t s way toward passage.
The Michigan L e g is la tu re had by no means been remiss in a tte n d ­
ing to problems o f the handicapped.

Many stu d ie s and re p o rts had been

completed and presented in the preceding years which no doubt provided
the background in fo rm a tio n and support which the B i l l needed f o r passage.

26
In 1965, Sander L e vin , Michigan S enator, was appointed c h a ir ­
man o f a Senate subcommittee on Special Education in M ichigan.

The com­

m itte e 's recommendations helped b rin g about the fo llo w in g changes:
1. Reimbursement f o r remedial reading
2. Summer school programs
3. A d m in is tra tiv e and su p e rviso ry personnel were in clu de d in
s ta te reimbursement
4. D e fin in g the school s o c ia l workers ro le
5. S tate sch o la rsh ip s were granted to r e c r u it and t r a in pe r­
sonnel f o r sp e cia l education
6. A u th o riz a tio n f o r f iv e (5) a d d itio n a l people a t the s ta te
le v e l.
7. A nine ( 9 ) - man a d v is o ry committee f o r S pecial Education
was cre a te d .
An in d ir e c t r e s u lt o f the re p o rt was th a t a S ta te D ire c to r o f
Special Education, Marvin E. Beekman, was appointed.
The W ille nb urg Report fo llo w e d in 1967-.

This re p o rt was a

study o f spe cia l education programs in the S tate Department o f Educa­
tio n and c a lle d f o r the fo llo w in g changes o r m o d ific a tio n s in the S ta te
Department:
1. More personnel
2. Emphasis on le a d e rsh ip a t the s ta te le v e l
3. No mandatory le g is la t io n
4. O verhauling the reimbursement system
5. A ssigning o f S ta te s t a f f members to in s tr u c tio n

27
6. E nlarging the In te rm e d ia te D i s t r i c t
7. R evising the Teacher P rep ara tion Program
8. Expanding the Teacher Counselor Program
9. Expanding Pre-School Programs
As a r e s u lt o f the W ille nb urg R eport, ta sk fo rce s on c e r t i f i ­
c a tio n , fin a n c e , and the ru le s and re g u la tio n s were appointed.

These

th re e committees issued re p o rts in 1968 and 1969 which re s u lte d in an
improved reimbursement form ula f o r sp e cia l education f o r the S ta te ,
and a move toward a competency based c u rric u lu m f o r spe cia l education
t r a in in g programs and the establishm ent o f s p e c ia lty area competencies.
In August, 1969, the M ichigan L e g is la tu re enacted P u b lic Act
220 which re q u ire d lo c a l school d i s t r i c t s along w ith in te rm e d ia te d is ­
t r i c t s to conduct a survey o f handicapped c h ild re n and youth in t h e ir
communities and to develop a comprehensive plan to meet the educational
needs o f these handicapped persons.

The purpose o f the A c t, as ex­

pla in e d by Dr. John P o rte r, S tate S uperintendent o f In s tr u c tio n , was
tw o -fo ld .

F ir s t o f a l l , A ct 220 was designed to pro vid e the Michigan

L e g is la tu re w ith accurate in fo rm a tio n concerning the number and type o f
handicapped youth in M ichigan and se rvice s c u r r e n tly being provided
them.

These data were necessary so th a t the L e g is la tu re would have s u f

f i c i e n t in fo rm a tio n on which to base proposed s ta tu to r y changes which
were being contemplated a t the tim e to meet the needs o f handicapped
c h ild re n in M ichigan.
The second purpose o f A ct 220 was to re q u ire lo c a l d i s t r i c t s
to assess the educational needs o f t h e ir handicapped c h ild re n and to
develop educational plans to meet the needs o f these c h ild re n 1n t h e ir
own communities.

28
The survey revealed th a t in cid en ce ra te s in educable m e n ta lly
im paired, c rip p le d and oth erw ise h e a lth im paired d i s a b i l i t y areas are
reasonably close to the n a tio n a l estim ates o f in c id e n c e , though some
confusion o f te rm in o lo g y , ( i . e . , le a rn in g d i s a b i l i t i e s ) , and o th e r prob­
lems le d to worse discrep an cies in o th e r areas:

speech im p aire d, v is u ­

a l l y im p a ire d , hearing im p aire d, and m u ltip le handicapped.

These re ­

s u lts c e r t a in ly a t t e s t to a need f o r re g u la r surveys sin ce the n a tio n a l
in cid en ce ra te s may no t always apply in a p a r t ic u la r school d i s t r i c t .
(A Study o f Handicapped C h ild re n and Youth, under P u b lic Act 220 o f
1969, Report Number 1, pp. 3 -1 0 .)
S ig n if ic a n t ly , however, fig u re s obtained from the study in d i­
cated th a t over 100,000 c h ild re n were in need o f sp e cia l education s e r­
v ic e s .

Other conclusions drawn from the study are these th re e (p. 7 ):

1. A sta te w id e survey such as the one conducted under P u b lic Act
220 should be conducted every th re e ye a rs.
2. The le g a l p ro v is io n s should be m o d ifie d to assure the d e liv e r y
o f a p p ro p ria te educational programs and s e rv ic e s to every c h ild
in M ichigan.

In o th e r words, perm issive le g is la t io n d id n o t

appear to work; a ls o , c o o rd in a tio n o f aspects o f the School
Code which a ffe c te d the educational programs and se rvice s f o r
handicapped c h ild re n seemed necessary.
3. Regional p la n n in g , c o o rd in a tio n and e v a lu a tio n o f sp e cia l edu­
c a tio n programs and se rvice s should be re q u ire d .
This study c o n trib u te d s ig n if ic a n t ly to the eventual develop­
ment o f a P re lim in a ry S ta te Plan f o r the D e liv e ry o f Special Education

29
Programs and S ervices which would serve , when f in a liz e d , as the v e h ic le
by which P u b lic A ct 198. passed in December, 1971, would be implemented.
Under the P re lim in a ry S tate P la n, the r e s p o n s ib ility o f p ro ­
v id in g s e rvice s to a l l exce ptio na l c h ild re n was assigned to the lo c a l
education agency.

The Plan c le a r ly d e lin e a te d fo u r basic assumptions

which were used as a basis f o r the development o f the S ta te P la n.

These

assumptions were as fo llo w s :
1. Every handicapped c h ild has a r ig h t to comprehensive spe­
c ia l education s e rv ic e s and programs a p p ro p ria te f o r h is
needs.
2. These programs must c o n ta in c e r ta in components in o rd e r to
be considered comprehensive.
3. The o rg a n iz a tio n a l s tru c tu re must enhance the d e liv e ry o f
sp e cia l education programs and se rvice s to handicapped
c h ild re n .
4. The understanding and acceptance o f the handicapped and
sp e cia l education programs and s e rv ic e s is a d ir e c t fun c­
t io n o f communications w ith in a school system.
The re vise d S tate Plan was approved in March, 1973, and f o l ­
lows much the same form at as the P re lim in a ry P la n .

The f in a l S tate Plan

co n ta in s the two goals and eleven program areas which suggested the
framework f o r the q u e stio n n a ire s developed in t h is stud y.

P u b lic A ct 198 o f M ichigan
The M ichigan Mandatory Special Education le g is la t io n , P u b lic
A ct 198. was passed in 1971.

S ection 2 5 2b .(1) s ta te s :

30
For the 1973-74 school year and th e r e a fte r , th e s ta te board o f
education s h a ll:
a. Develop, e s ta b lis h and c o n tin u a lly eva lu a te and m odify in
coo pe ratio n w ith in te rm e d ia te school d i s t r i c t s , a s ta te
plan f o r sp e cia l education which s h a ll pro vid e f o r the
d e liv e r y o f s p e c ia l education programs and services de­
signed to develop the maximum p o te n tia l o f every handi­
capped person. The plan s h a ll co o rd in a te a l l spe cia l
education programs and s e rv ic e s ;
b. Require each in te rm e d ia te school d i s t r i c t to subm it a
plan pursuant to s u b d iv is io n (a) o f s e c tio n 298c, in ac­
cordance w ith the s ta te plan and approve the same.
The S tate Code and accompanying "G u id e lin e s " were promul­
gated to help e ffe c tu a te the Mandatory Special Education Law.
The problem does no t end w ith the passage o f P u b lic A ct 198,
however.

As Romaine Mackie expressed i t so w e ll, "L e g is la tio n can

on ly go so f a r in sp e cia l education as in in te g ra tio n --1 n the f in a l
a n a ly s is , i t is the p ro fe s s io n a ls and o th e r s p e c ia lis ts who make le g ­
is la t io n a r e a liz a tio n .

(M ackie, p. 606.)

CHAPTER I I I
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE EVALUATION SYSTEM
S ix e s s e n tia l steps were in vo lve d in the design and develop­
ment o f the e v a lu a tio n system.

These steps c h a ra c te riz e the methods

and procedures f o r t h is research e f f o r t , and are o u tlin e d below:
1. P re lim in a ry P lanning:

D iscussing w ith sp e c ia l educators

t h e ir concerns regarding the need f o r assessment tech niq ue s; con­
d u c tin g a p re lim in a ry in v e s tig a tio n to determ ine the a v a il a b ili t y
o f such in s tru m e n t, and w r itin g a l l u n iv e r s itie s and a l l m iddle
c i t i e s Special Education D ire c to rs in o rd e r to determ ine what ap­
pears to be c u rre n t p ra c tic e s 1n sp e cia l education e v a lu a tio n .
2. Review o f Related Research:

The na ture o f e v a lu a tio n , c u r­

r e n t e v a lu a tio n p ra c tic e s in general and sp e cia l education evalua­
t io n models in sp e cia l ed uca tion , L e g is la tiv e Precedents to P u b lic
A ct 198.
3. Developing the Instrum ent:

Designing the q u e s tio n n a ire ,

v a lid a tin g the in te r p r e ta tio n s o f the le g a l requirem ents f o r p ro ­
gram o p e ra tio n , pre pa rin g in s tr u c tio n s , developing sco rin g proce­
dures, developing item a n a ly s is feedback c h a rts , developing p ro ­
gram p r o f ile c h a rts .
4. P ilo tin g the Instrum ent:

In d iv id u a ls and small groups o f

sp e cia l educators, general e d u ca to rs, parents and agency
31

32
re p re s e n ta tiv e s were asked to respond to the q u e s tio n n a ire and to
complete a two-page feedback sheet on i t s u s a b ilit y . .
5. Developing and f i e l d te s tin g the e v a lu a tio n system:

De­

ve lo p in g the complete system, pre se n tin g the system to a lo c a l d is ­
t r i c t f o r f i e l d te s tin g .
6. R evising the in s tru m e n t, in c o rp o ra tin g the recommendations
obtained d u rin g the f ie l d te s t and p re s e n ta tio n o f the f in a l e v a l­
u a tio n system.
This chapter is d iv id e d in to two p a rts :

P a rt I is devoted to

the development o f the master q u e s tio n n a ire and P a rt I I is concerned
w ith the development and d e s c rip tio n o f the complete system.

P a rt I :

Developing the Q uestionnaire

Upon c o n s id e ra tio n o f expressed needs in the area o f evalua­
tio n o f sp e cia l education programs, the o v e rrid in g concerns appeared to
be the fo llo w in g :
1.

E va lua tion based on o b je c tiv e s

2.

E va lua tion based on P u b lic A ct 198

3.

E va lua tion based on stud en t gain

4.

E va lua tion which could be s e lf-a d m in is te re d

5.

E va lua tion

a t the lo c a l d i s t r i c t le v e l

6.

E valuation

which would

be p ra c tic a l andinexpensive

7.

E va lua tion

which would

in v o lv e s t a f f

8.

E va lua tion

o f d e liv e ry

system and the a d m in is tra tiv e p ro ­

cess.

33
A design f o r the study was then sought which would meet a l l
o f the c r i t e r i a lis t e d above, o r as many o f them as p o s s ib le .

Using

The S tate Plan f o r the D e liv e ry o f Special Education Programs and Ser­
vices provided

a u se fu l o rg a n iz a tio n a l framework f o r the development

o f the in s tru m e n t.

The Plan is b u i l t around two m ajor goals f o r M ic h i­

gan Special Education Programs:

Goal I is to p ro vid e every handicapped

c h ild in M ichigan w ith comprehensive ed uca tion al programs and se rvice s
a p p ro p ria te to h is needs," and Goal I I is "to in s u re q u a lit y educa­
tio n a l programs and se rvice s f o r a l l handicapped c h ild re n in M ich ig a n ."
W ith in these g o a ls , eleven program areas are discussed and
o b je c tiv e s and s tra te g ie s are s e t f o r t h as guides to t h e ir r e a liz a tio n .
I t was decided, th e re fo re , to u t i l i z e the comprehensive document as a
model and basis f o r the e v a lu a tio n in s tru m e n ts , thus o rg a n iz in g the
mandates and recommendations o f the law , ru le s and g u id e lin e s around
the o b je c tiv e s which are common to a l l M ichigan Special Education Pro­
grams.
The v a rio u s se c tio n s o f the e v a lu a tio n in s tru m e n t, th e re fo re ,
were designed to correspond to the va rio u s subsections o f the State
Plan as fo llo w s :
Goal I in clu d e s the fo llo w in g components which are necessary
f o r "comprehensive" programming:
a. r e f e r r a l system
b. d ia g n o s tic se rvice s
c. placement procedures
d. continuum o f ed uca tion al se rvice s
e. fo llo w -u p system

I

34
Goal I I in c lu d e s th e fo llo w in g components as being necessary
f o r " q u a lit y program m ing."
f . p ro fe s s io n a l and p a ra -p ro fe s s io n a l personnel
g. a p p ro p ria te f a c i l i t i e s
h. in s tr u c t io n a l c o n te n t
1. a p p ro p ria te m a te ria ls
2. adequate s u p p lie s
i.

le a d e rs h ip

j.

o p p o r tu n itie s f o r in te g r a tio n o f handicapped persons w ith
t h e ir "n orm al" peers

k. s y s te m a tic program and s e rv ic e e v a lu a tio n
M ichigan d i s t r i c t s have a lre a d y been re q u ire d to g iv e a tte n ­
tio n to th e aforem entioned goals and o b je c tiv e s sin c e each in te rm e d ia te
d i s t r i c t was re q u ire d by P u b lic A ct 198 to develop a p la n f o r th e de­
liv e r y o f s p e c ia l e d u ca tio n programs and s e rv ic e s e ith e r s e p a ra te ly o r
in co o p e ra tio n w ith o th e r in te rm e d ia te d i s t r i c t s a n d /o r lo c a l d i s t r i c t s .
A c c o rd in g ly , each lo c a l d i s t r i c t is re q u ire d to cooperate w ith th e i n ­
te rm e d ia te d i s t r i c t in the development o f th e in te rm e d ia te d i s t r i c t
p la n .
D e riv in g th e Q uestions
The su b se ctio n s o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire are designed to c o rre s ­
pond to th e eleven su b se ctio n s o f Goals I and I I o f the S ta te P la n , and
the le t t e r s "A" through "K" are assigned to them to I d e n t if y the p ro ­
gram areas.

In o th e r w ords, each q u e s tio n li s t e d under "R e fe rra l Sys­

tem" would have th e l e t t e r "A" as p a r t o f i t s number.

35
In o rd e r to d e riv e th e m aster l i s t o f q u e stio n s under each
s u b s e c tio n , th e G u id e lin e s , th e S ta te Code, P u b lic A ct 198 and the
S tate Plan were c a r e f u lly screened f o r statem ents o f re q u ire d o r re c ­
ommended p r a c tic e s .

These statem ents were in c o rp o ra te d in to a l i s t o f

mandates and recommendations under each su b se ctio n o f the two g o a ls .

V a lid a tio n o f the Q u e stio n n a ire Items
V a lid a tin g the w r i t e r 's in te r p r e ta tio n s o f th e S ta te Code,
the G u id e lin e s and the S ta te Plan was th e n e xt ste p in th e development
o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire .

I t was determ ined th a t an a u t h o r it a t iv e source

should be asked to v a lid a te statem ents and t h e i r sources and p o in t o u t
d is c re p a n c ie s in th e in te r p r e ta t io n s .
I t was decided th a t th e M ichigan Department o f E d uca tion, Spe­
c ia l E ducation S t a f f would be th e most fe a s ib le source o f a panel o f
e xp e rts to perform th e re q u ire d ta s k .

Three s t a f f members o f th e De­

partm ent were con tacted and asked to read through the l i s t o f item s and
in d ic a te t h e i r agreement o r disagreem ent w ith th e In fo rm a tio n co n ta in e d
on the l i s t .
Each statem e nt r e f le c t in g mandated o r suggested p ra c tic e s was
r e - w r it te n as a q u e s tio n .

For each q u e s tio n , th e fo llo w in g In fo rm a tio n

was determ ined:
1. th e source o f th e q u e stio n
2. th e a p p ro p ria te response
3. c la s s if ic a t io n o f th e p ra c tic e as mandated o r recommended
No plans were made to re -s u b m it th e item s to th e e xp e rts to
o b ta in a concensus due to the amount o f tim e re q u ire d to com plete the

36
ta s k .

I t was decided t h a t every e f f o r t would be made to in c o rp o ra te

a l l suggestions from the e xp e rts and to re v is e a l l problem ite m s.
The e xp e rts were encouraged to in d ic a te agreement o r d is ­
agreement w ith any o f the item s lis t e d and to comment f r e e ly on any
item .

T h e ir comments were used to c o r r e c t any e rro 'rs in the l i s t o f

q u e s tio n s , responses and sources.

For i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes, the sub­

s e c tio n on the r e f e r r a l system is shown in

T able 1 on th e fo llo w in g

page as i t was sub m itted to th e panel o f e x p e rts .
Table 1, two item s were judged f a u lt y :

As may be seen in

A-3 and A -4.

These item s were

re vise d b e fo re th e y were placed on th e f in a l q u e s tio n n a ire .
Item A-3 was e lim in a te d because i t was d e riv e d through in f e r
ence and was no t s p e c if ic a lly recommended.

In a d d itio n , o th e r ques­

tio n s in the s e c tio n could be used to o b ta in th e in fo rm a tio n from the
persons in v o lv e d in th e s u rve y, w ith o u t a skin g t h a t q u e s tio n s p e c if i­
c a lly .
Item A-4 was c o n fu s in g ; i t was re-w orded using th e names o f
a l l programs and s e rv ic e s r e q u ir in g th e convening o f an e d u ca tio n a l
plan ning and placem ent com m ittee in s te a d o f th e term "s p e c ia l educa­
t io n r e f e r r a l . "
The com plete s e t o f q u e stio n s sub m itted to th e e xp e rts con­
ta in e d n e a rly 200 item s based on mandated and suggested p ra c tic e s in
the S ta te Code, G u id e lin e s and th e S ta te P la n .

As shown in th e i l l u s ­

t r a t io n , spaces were pro vid e d f o r th e comments o f th e e x p e rts and f o r
w r itin g in "Yes" o r "No" to in d ic a te concurrence o r disagreem ent w ith
an ite m .

Table 1.

Sample page from set o f items used in v a lid a tio n .

SECTION:
Questions - Master L is t

REFERRAL SYSTEM - CODE:

Source

Correct
Response

I-A

Mandated or Do you Agree?
Recommended Yes
No

Comments

I- A - l
Is there a form alized procedure
fo r rece iving and processing re­
fe rra ls ?

Act 198
Sec. 298c ( j )

Yes

Mandated

Yes

I-A -2
Is the re fe rra l procedure
w ritten ?

Guidelines

Yes

Recommended

Yes

I-A -3
Is the re fe rra l procedure d is trib u te d widely?

Guidelines

Yes

Recommended

No

should be
elim inated

I-A -4
Does every special education
re fe rra l re s u lt in an EPPC meet­
ing? (Note: a special educa­
tio n re fe rra l is a legal notice
th a t a change o f placement is
being requested.)

R340.1721

Yes

Mandated

No

confusing

Table 1.

Continued.

SECTION:
Questions - Master L is t

REFERRAL SYSTEM - CODE: I-A
Correct
Mandated o r
Source
Response Recommended

Do you Agree?
yes
No

I-A -5
Do supportive, diagnostic and
itin e r a n t special education per­
sonnel re fe r students being seen
by them f o r appropriate special
education services, i f warranted?

G uidelines,
p. 2

Yes

Recommended

Yes

I-A-6
Do you accept re fe rra ls from
parents and members o f the pro­
fessional community?

Sec. 298c ( j )

Yes

Mandated

Yes

I-A-7
Do you accept verbal re fe r­
rals?

G uidelines,
p. 3

Yes

Recommended

Yes

I-A -8
Do you accept w ritte n re fe r­
rals?

G uidelines,
p. 3

Yes

Recommended

Yes

Comments

39
When the th re e sets were re tu rn e d , the comments were com piled
onto one s e t o f qu estio ns so th a t a l l c o n tra s tin g o p in io n s could be
noted.

The com piled data were then s tu d ie d and Items were re v is e d , 1 f

necessary, to r e f le c t th e e x p e rts ' comments.

In some In s ta n c e s , one

e xp e rt checked "No" f o r an item w h ile the o th e rs checked "Y e s," o r v ic e
versa.

When t h is happened, th e re was u s u a lly a s p e c if ic reason given

f o r the disagreem ent, in which case the ite m was changed.

I f no reason

was g iv e n , the erroneous ite m was re v is e d by checking the source o r
seeking f u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n from o th e r sources.

I f the ite m was con­

sidered ir r e le v a n t o r u se le ss, i t was com p le te ly e lim in a te d .
Some items which were based on e a r lie r g u id e lin e s were found
to be in a c c u ra te , due to changes in the g u id e lin e s which had n o t y e t
been p u b lic ly dissem inated.

Since the e xp e rts were in v o lv e d 1n th e re ­

v is io n o f th e g u id e lin e s , they p o in te d o u t these d is c re p a n c ie s between
the o ld and new g u id e lin e s , and the item was changed a c c o rd in g ly .
In some cases, the language was n o t s p e c ific enough f o r one
o r more o f the e x p e rts .

When t h is was p o in te d o u t, the item s were re ­

vised to adhere more c lo s e ly to the a ctu a l w ording o f th e sources.
S p e c ific p o in ts which were no t covered in the q u e s tio n n a ire ,
bu t which should have been in clu d e d were p o in te d o u t.

These item s

were added, i f th e y were re la te d to e ith e r o f th e eleven areas covered
in t h is stud y.
In summary, th e v a lid a tio n was very c a r e f u lly completed by
the panel o f e x p e rts .

Though th e ta s k was q u ite long and te d io u s , they

completed i t ve ry pro m ptly a f t e r they rece ive d t h e ir copies o f the doc­
ument.

A ll comments by th e panel o f exp erts were used to re v is e the

40
items to e lim in a te th e problem id e n t if ie d .

F u rth e r v a lid a tio n was ac­

complished through the p i l o t stud y and th e f i e l d t e s t .

The Master Q u e stio n n a ire
F o llo w in g the v a lid a tio n s o f th e q u e s tio n s , a m aster q u e s tio n ­
n a ire c o n ta in in g a l l qu e stio n s was developed, coded and numbered.
The code f o r each item c o n s is ts o f th e assigned l e t t e r f o r
the sub sectio n and th e number o f the ite m .

The f i r s t ite m under the

r e fe r r a l system, th e n , would be coded A - l :

"A" re p re s e n tin g the l e t t e r

assigned to the su b se ctio n — "R e fe rra l System"— and th e " I " re p re s e n tin g
the o rd e r o f th a t item w ith in th e su b se ctio n .

D eterm ining Respondents and D esigning
th e Q ue stion na ires
I f one accepts the premise th a t persons a sso cia te d w ith the
sp e cia l e d uca tion program should be most knowledgeable about p re v a le n t
p ra c tic e s , then i t stands to reason th a t asking those persons about
these p ra c tic e s would be a v a lid means o f o b ta in in g In fo rm a tio n .
Since th e school community c o n s is ts o f seve ral d i s t i n c t groups
who are c lo s e ly asso cia te d w ith th e s p e c ia l e d u ca tio n program , a d e c i­
sio n was made to tap each o f these d i s t i n c t groups f o r in fo rm a tio n re ­
garding t h e ir p e rce p tio n s o f s p e c ia l educa tion departm ent o p e ra tio n .
D iffe r e n t q u e s tio n n a ire s would a ls o have to be designed f o r each o f the
d if f e r e n t groups, sin ce i t would n o t be a p p ro p ria te to ask a l l q u e stio n s
o f a l l respondents, and the w ording would n o t be as te c h n ic a l on some o f
the q u e s tio n n a ire s as on o th e rs .

41

The groups which were s e le cte d to be surveyed are th e f o llo w ­
in g :
Group 1 - S p ecia l Education a d m in is tra to rs :
v is o r s , a s s is ta n t d ir e c t o r s , e tc .

d ir e c t o r s , super­

Group 2 - S pecial Education s u p p o rtiv e , d ia g n o s tic and i t i n ­
e ra n t p e rso n n e l; S pecial Education te a c h e rs , s t a f f
Group 3 - General e d uca tors:
o th e rs
Group 4 - P a re n ts:

te a c h e rs , a d m in is tra to rs ,

general and s p e c ia l education

Group 5 - Agencies: community o rg a n iz a tio n s o u ts id e th e sys­
tem who have a c o o p e ra tiv e arrangement o f a form al
o r in fo rm a l n a tu re w ith the S pecial Education De­
partm ent.
The assumption was made th a t these groups would p ro b a b ly be
most f a m ilia r w ith th e v a rio u s aspects o f program o p e ra tio n , o r should
be, and would p ro v id e v a lu a b le data about t h e ir p e rc e p tio n o f th e p ro ­
gram.
Each ite m 's code number as found on th e m aster q u e s tio n n a ire
is re ta in e d no m a tte r which q u e s tio n n a ire th e ite m appeared on, o r how
the wording d if f e r e d .

T his arrangement p e rm its a com parative a n a ly s is

o f data by p ro v id in g a means f o r lo o k in g a t d if f e r e n t group responses
to the same ite m .
T h is fe a tu re o f th e system is considered to be one o f the
most s ig n if ic a n t aspects o f the system, s in c e p o llin g seve ral groups on
the same item and keeping th e responses separate could y ie ld v a lu a b le
in fo rm a tio n f o r th e lo c a l d i s t r i c t i f comparisons between groups should
be d e s ire d .

A b r i e f e x p la n a tio n o f each q u e s tio n n a ire fo llo w s .
The A d m in is tra to r q u e s tio n n a ire (1 ) co n ta in s a l l Items in a l l

eleven areas o f program o p e ra tio n .

42
The S p ecia l ed u ca tio n s t a f f q u e s tio n n a ire (2 ) was o r i g i n a l ly
designed to c o n ta in a l l ite m s , b u t th e p i l o t s tu d y and th e f i e l d
t e s t revealed t h a t s t a f f members were u n fa m ilia r w ith many areas
o f program o p e ra tio n , and th a t th e y f e l t fr u s t r a t e d when asked
about p ra c tic e s in these a re a s.

C onsequently, many o f th e more

te c h n ic a l item s re g a rd in g p e rs o n n e l, s p e c if ic program re q u ire m e n ts ,
e tc . were e lim in a te d .
The General e d uca tor q u e s tio n n a ire ( 3 ) c o n ta in s many item s
concerning general program o p e ra tio n , and was lim it e d to those
item s which i t was f e l t th e general e d u ca to r should have had some
o p p o rtu n ity to become f a m ilia r w ith .
The Parent q u e s tio n n a ire (4 ) c o n ta in s item s r e la te d to p a re n t
and s tu d e n t r ig h t s , and general program o p e ra tio n which p a ren ts
should have been acquainted w ith .

The language was changed some­

what to avo id t e c h n ic a lit ie s .
The Agency q u e s tio n n a ire (5 ) c o n ta in s th e s m a lle s t number o f
item s s in c e agencies would be le a s t in v o lv e d o f th e f iv e groups.
I t c o n ta in s item s r e la t in g to general program o p e ra tio n and Item s
e s p e c ia lly re la te d to c o o p e ra tio n w ith agencies and o th e r p ro fe s ­
s io n a ls in th e community.
Shown in F igu res 1 , 2, 3, 4 , and 5 a re th e f i r s t pages o f
the f iv e q u e s tio n n a ire s .

These pages are shown so t h a t th e d iffe r e n c e

in the w ording o f c e r ta in item s and in th e s e le c tio n o f item s f o r each
q u e s tio n n a ire may be noted.

As shown, th e p a re n t and agency q u e s tio n ­

n a ire s do n o t c o n ta in a l l o f th e item s which are shown on the f i r s t page
o f the m aster q u e s tio n n a ire f o r s p e c ia l ed u ca tio n a d m in is tra to r s .

The

43

ASSESS QUESTIONNAIRE
(1 ) S p e c ia l E ducation A d m in is tra to rs
INSTRUCTIONS:
Please answer each q u e s tio n a c c o rd in g to what is a c t u a lly p ra c tic e d in
y o u r school d i s t r i c t a t th e lo c a l le v e l.
I f an ite m in d ic a te s a
c e r ta in p r a c tic e in y o u r d i s t r i c t , c i r c l e th e "Yes" response.
I f th e
a c tio n a llu d e d t o 1n th e ite m is n o t th e p r a c tic e in y o u r d i s t r i c t ,
c ir c l e th e "No" response.
I f you r e a l l y do n o t fe e l t h a t you have
s u f f ic ie n t in fo rm a tio n t o make a d e te rm in a tio n , c i r c l e th e " ? “ response.
PLEASE CIRCLE ONLY ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH QUESTION.
Item Code
A.

Q ue stion

R e fe rra l System

A -l

Is th e re a fo rm a liz e d procedure f o r r e c e iv in g and p ro c e s s in g
r e f e r r a ls f o r s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n programs and s e rv ic e s in y o u r
d is tr ic t?
1.
Yes
No
?

A-2

Is a form al procedure fo llo w e d w hich c u lm in a te s in th e convening
o f an e d u c a tio n a l p la n n in g and placem ent com m ittee (EPPC) meet­
in g f o r a l l persons r e fe r r e d f o r programs f o r th e s e v e re ly
m e n ta lly im p a ire d , t r a in a b le m e n ta lly Im p a ire d , educable men­
t a l l y Im p a ire d , e m o tio n a lly im p a ire d , h e a rin g im p a ire d , v i s ­
u a lly im p a ire d , p h y s ic a lly and o th e rw is e h e a lth im p a ire d ,
s e v e re ly m u lt ip ly im p a ire d a n d /o r le a r n in g d is a b le d ?
2.

A-3

Yes

No

?

I f a s tu d e n t has a permanent d i s a b i l i t y o r a lo n g -te rm illn e s s
o r i n j u r y , is he r e fe r r e d to an EPPC?
3.

Yes

No

?

A-4

Is 1 t th e r e s p o n s ib ili t y o f s u p p o r tiv e , d ia g n o s tic , and
i t in e r a n t personnel (s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n ) t o r e f e r s tu d e n ts to
an EPPC when t h e i r e v a lu a tio n in d ic a te s t h a t th e s tu d e n t may
be m e n ta lly , p h y s ic a lly o r e m o tio n a lly im p a ire d o r le a rn in g
d is a b le d ?
4.
Yes
No
?

A-5

Does th e s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n o f f i c e a cce p t r e f e r r a ls from p a re n ts
and members o f th e p ro fe s s io n a l community w ith p a re n ta l consent?
5.
F ig u re 1.

A d m in is tr a to r q u e s tio n n a ire .

Yes

No

?

44
ASSESS QUESTIONNAIRE
(2 ) S p e cia l E ducation S t a f f
INSTRUCTIONS:
Please answer each q u e s tio n a c c o rd in g to what 1s a c t u a lly p ra c tic e d In
you r school d i s t r i c t a t th e lo c a l le v e l.
I f an Item In d ic a te s a
c e r ta in p r a c tic e in y o u r d i s t r i c t , c i r c l e th e "Yes" response. I f th e
a c tio n a llu d e d to 1n th e Item is n o t th e p r a c tic e 1n y o u r d i s t r i c t ,
c ir c l e th e "No" response. I f you r e a ll y do n o t fe e l t h a t you have
s u f f ic ie n t in fo rm a tio n to make a d e te rm in a tio n , check th e "? " response.
PLEASE CIRCLE ONLY ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH QUESTION.
Item Code
A.

Q uestion

R e fe rra l System

A -l

Is th e re a fo rm a liz e d procedure f o r re c e iv in g and pro ce ssin g
r e f e r r a ls f o r s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n programs and s e rv ic e s in y o u r
d is tr ic t?
1.
Yes
No
?

A-2

Is a fo rm a l procedure fo llo w e d w hich cu lm in a te s 1n th e con­
ven in g o f an e d u c a tio n a l p la n n in g and placem ent comm ittee
(EPPC) m eeting f o r a l l persons r e fe r r e d f o r programs f o r the
s e v e re ly m e n ta lly im p a ire d , t r a in a b le m e n ta lly im p a ire d ,
educable m e n ta lly im p a ire d , e m o tio n a lly im p a ire d , h e a rin g
im p a ire d , v is u a lly im p a ire d , p h y s ic a lly and o th e rw is e h e a lth
im p a ire d , s e v e re ly m u lt ip ly im p aire d a n d /o r le a rn in g d isa b le d ?
2.

A-3

?

.

Yes

No

?

Is i t th e r e s p o n s ib ilit y o f s u p p o rtiv e , d ia g n o s tic , and
it in e r a n t personnel (s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n ) to r e f e r s tu d e n ts to
an EPPC when t h e i r e v a lu a tio n in d ic a te s t h a t th e s tu d e n t may
be m e n ta lly , p h y s ic a lly o r e m o tio n a lly im p a ire d o r le a rn in g
d is a b le d ?
4

A-5

No

I f a s tu d e n t has a permanent d i s a b i l i t y o r a lo n g -te rm illn e s s
o r in ju r y , is he r e fe rr e d to an EPPC?
3

A-4

Yes

.

Yes

No

?

Does th e s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n o f f ic e accept r e f e r r a ls from p a r­
e n ts and members o f th e p ro fe s s io n a l community w ith p a re n ta l
consent?
5.
Yes
No
?

F ig u re 2.

S t a f f q u e s tio n n a ire .

45
ASSESS QUESTIONNAIRE
(3) General Educators
INSTRUCTIONS:
Please answer each qu estion according to yo u r pe rce p tio n o f what is
a c tu a lly p ra c tic e d in you r lo c a l spe cia l education program. C ir c le
hYes^, *'No" o r "? " f o r each item .
PLEASE CIRCLE ONLY ONE RESPONSE FOR EACHQUESTION.
Question

Item Code
A.

R e fe rra l System

A -l

Is th e re a fo rm a lize d procedure f o r re c e iv in g and processing
r e fe r r a ls f o r special education programs and se rvice s in your
d is t r ic t ?
1.
Yes
No
?

A-2

Is a form al procedure fo llo w e d which culm inates in the con­
vening o f an educational planning and placement committee
(EPPC) meeting f o r a l l persons re fe rre d f o r programs f o r the
seve rely m e n ta lly im paired, tr a in a b le m e n ta lly im p a ire d ,
educable m e n ta lly im paired, e m o tio n a lly im p a ire d , hearing
im p aire d, v is u a lly im p a ire d , p h y s ic a lly and oth erw ise h e a lth
im p aire d, se ve re ly m u ltip ly im paired and/or le a rn in g disabled?
2.

A-3

Is 1 t the
it in e r a n t
EPPC when
m e n ta lly ,

Yes

No

r e s p o n s ib ility o f s u p p o rtiv e d ia g n o s tic , and
personnel (s p e c ia l education) to r e fe r stud en ts to an
t h e ir e v a lu a tio n in d ic a te s th a t the stu d e n t may be
p h y s ic a lly o r e m o tio n a lly im paired o r le a rn in g

d1sab1ed?
A-5

No

I f a stud en t has a permanent d i s a b ili t y o r a lo n g -te rm I lln e s s
o r in ju r y , is he re fe rre d to an EPPC?
3.

A-4

Yes

4.

Yes

No

?

Does the sp e cia l education o f f ic e accept r e fe r r a ls from parents
and members o f the p ro fe ssio n a l community w ith pa re n ta l con­
sent?
5.

F igure 3.

General educator q u e s tio n n a ire .

Yes

No

I
46
ASSESS QUESTIONNAIRE
(4) Parents
Dear P arent:
Please share w ith y o u r lo c a l sp e cia l education o f f ic e y o u r pe rce p tio n
o f how th e program operates in t h is d i s t r i c t . The questions below
should be answered according to what you fe e l is being p ra c tic e d in
th is d i s t r i c t .
Please in d ic a te by c ir c l in g "Yes" o r "No" whether a c e rta in p ra c tic e
is ta k in g place in t h is d i s t r i c t .
I f you have had no o p p o rtu n ity to
fin d ou t about any Item on the q u e s tio n n a ire , please c ir c le " ? " .
PLEASE CIRCLE ONLY 0N£ RESPONSE FOR EACH QUESTION.
Item Code
A.
A-5

Question

R e fe rra l System
I f y o u r c h ild needed sp e cia l education s e rv ic e s , would the
s p e c ia l education o f f ic e accept a r e f e r r a l from you?
1.

A-8

?

Yes

No

?

When a c h ild is re fe rre d f o r a program f o r the m e n ta lly
im p a ire d , the e m o tio n a lly im p a ire d , the speech and language
im p a ire d , the hearing im p a ire d , the v is u a lly Im pa ired , the
p h y s ic a lly and oth erw ise h e a lth Im paired, the se ve re ly
m u ltip ly im p a ire d , o r the le a rn in g d is a b le d , does the spe cia l
education o f f ic e arrange a meeting o f the ed uca tion al planning
and placement committee to determ ine e l i g i b i l i t y and recommend
a p p ro p ria te programs and services?
3.

A-3

No

W ill the sp e c ia l education o f f ic e o b ta in the p a re n t's p e r­
m ission before processing a r e fe r r a l?
2.

A-2

Yes

Yes

No

?

I f a c h ild has a permanent d i s a b ili t y o r a lo n g -te rm illn e s s
o r in ju r y , does the sp e cia l education o f f ic e arrange an EPPC
meeting f o r him to determ ine a p p ro p ria te programming?
4.

Figure 4.

Parent q u e s tio n n a ire .

Yes

No

?

47
ASSESS QUESTIONNAIRE
(5 ) Agencies___
Respondent Category
INSTRUCTIONS:
As an agency re p re s e n ta tiv e , y o u r pe rcep tion o f the p ra c tic e s o f the
sp e cia l education department are extrem ely im p o rta n t. Please use t h is
q u e s tio n n a ire to in d ic a te yo u r pe rcep tion s to the lo c a l sp e c ia l educa­
t io n a d m in is tra tio n .
For each ite m , c ir c le "Y es", "N o", o r "? ".
"Yes" means th a t the
p ra c tic e is p re v a le n t in t h is d i s t r i c t ; "No" means th a t the p ra c tic e
is not p re v a le n t in t h is d i s t r i c t ; "? " means th a t you do not fe e l th a t
you have s u f f ic ie n t in fo rm a tio n to make a d e te rm in a tio n .
PLEASE CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH ITEM.
Item Code
A.
A -l

Question

R e fe rra l System
Does the lo c a l sp e cia l education department have a form al
procedure f o r re c e iv in g and processing a l l r e fe rr a ls ?
1.

A-2

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Does the sp e cia l education o f f ic e accept r e f e r r a ls from
parents and members o f the p ro fe s s io n a l community w ith
p a re n ta l consent?
4.

A-6

?

When a c h ild has a permanent d i s a b ili t y o r a lo n g -te rm illn e s s
o r in ju r y , 1s an EPPC meeting held f o r him to determ ine h is
ed uca tion al program?
3.

A-5

No

Is an E ducational planning and placement committee meeting
(EPPC) held whenever a person is re fe rre d f o r programs f o r the
m e n ta lly im p a ire d , e m o tio n a lly im p a ire d , hearing Im paired,
v is u a lly im p a ire d , p h y s ic a lly and oth erw ise h e a lth Im pa ired ,
le a rn in g d is a b le d , an d/o r se ve re ly m u ltip ly impaired?
2.

A-3

Yes

Yes

No

?

W ill the sp e cia l education o f f ic e accept a verb al r e fe r r a l?
5.

Figure 5.

Agency q u e s tio n n a ire .

Yes

No

?

48
f i r s t pages o f th e general ed uca tor and th e s p e c ia l e d u ca tio n s t a f f
q u e s tio n n a ire s c o n ta in th e same item s as th e a d m in is tra to r q u e s tio n ­
n a ire , b u t th e y are n o t c o m p le te ly id e n t ic a l.

As one may note by lo o k ­

ing a t th e com plete, re v is e d q u e s tio n n a ire s which appear in Appendix
B, th e re are s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e s between a l l f i v e o f th e q u e s tio n ­
n a ire s ; no one q u e s tio n n a ire is id e n t ic a l to a n o th e r.

The M aster L i s t o f Mandates
and Recommendations
Once d e c is io n s were made re g a rd in g respondent g ro u p s, a
master l i s t o f mandates and recommendations was prepared to f a c i l i t a t e
the c o n s tru c tio n o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire s .

T h is m aster l i s t co n ta in s the

source o f data and designated respondent groups f o r each ite m .

A

space is a ls o pro vid ed f o r in d ic a tin g how a l l groups o r a p a r t ic u la r
group responded to each item in th e column headed "Y e s ," "N o ," o r "? " Responses.

Then each ite m was placed on an a p p ro p ria te q u e s tio n n a ire

as in d ic a te d by th e m aster l i s t which appears as Table 2 in t h is
study.

Table 2.

Master l i s t o f mandates and recommendations.

SECTION:

(Contains a ll item s, A -K .)

REFERRAL SYSTEM (A)

j
Statements o f Required Practices
— --------

_
Source

A -l
There must be a form alized procedure fo r re c e iv ing and processing re fe rra ls .

Act 198
Section 298c ( j )
R340.1722, 1723,
1832 (1.1)

A-2
Every re fe rra l fo r programs fo r the severely men­
t a ll y impaired, tra in a b le m entally impaired, educable m entally impaired, em otionally impaired,
hearing im paired, v is u a lly impaired, p h y s ic a lly
R340.1722
and otherwise health im paired, severely m ilt ip ly
impaired and/or learning disabled requires the
convening o f an educational planning and place­
ment committee.
A-3
I f a c h ild has a permanent d is a b ilit y o r a long­
term illn e s s o r in ju r y , he must be re fe rre d to
Guidelines
an educational planning and placement comR340.1709
m ittee (EPPC)
A-10
A ll re fe rra ls must be recorded according to the
interm ediate d i s t r i c t p la n 's sp e cifie d procedure fo r recording and processing re fe rra ls .
*Code:

1. Special Ed. A d m in istra ti on
2. Special Ed. S ta ff

R340.1731

3. General Education
4. Parents

M a jo rity
Respondent Cateqories* Response
— z*— r— r
r2— ::---------- — r — r
1
2
3
4
5
Yes No ?

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

5. Agencies

X

X

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

REFERRAL SYSTEM (A)

Statements o f Recommended Practices
A-4
Supportive, diagnostic and itin e r a n t special educa­
tio n personnel should re fe r students being seen by
them fo r appropriate special education services,
i f necessary

Source

G uidelines,
p. 2

A-5
R eferrals from parents and from members o f the pro- Mandatory fo r
fessional communityw ith parental consentmust
be
ISD Rec. fo r
accepted.
lo c a l. Sec.
298c ( j )

Respondent Categories
1 2
3
4
5

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

A-6
Verbal re fe rra ls should be accepted.

Guidelines
p. 3

A-7
I f the re fe rra l does not contain in d ic a tio n s o f the
p a ren t's consent, parents should becontacted to
G uidelines,
assure th e ir awareness and t h e ir consent.
p. 3
A- 8
Parental approval should be obtained before a re ­
fe r r a l is processed.

G uidelines,
p. 3

X X X

X

X X X

X

X

X

X

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No T

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:
. . . .
Statements o f Recommended Practices

REFERRAL SYSTEM (A)

A-9
I f the re fe rra l does not contain adequate in fo r ­
mation, the school should request a d d itio n a l in ­
form ation from the re fe rra l source v e rify in g the
existence o f a handicap or containing informa­
tio n which led the re fe rra l source to suspect
the existence o f a handicap.
A - ll
Records should be maintained fo r each student
which provide the fo llo w in g in fo rm atio n: name,
date o f b ir th , sex, ra c ia l or eth nic group,
type o f handicap(s), date o f r e fe r r a l, services
being rendered, date special education programs
or services were in itia te d and term inated, name
address and phone numbers o f parents and d is ­
t r i c t o f residence.
A-12
Records must be maintained u n t il the student is
no longer e lig ib le , has completed a course o f
study and graduated or u n til he reaches the
age where he is no longer e lig ib le fo r special
education.

Respondent Categories
Source — j — £— 3— 4 — 5—

G uidelines,
p. 3

Mandated fo r ISD
im p lic it in the
rules (340.1731)
fo r lo ca l d is ­
tr ic t

Mandated fo r ISD
R340.1731 (2)

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES (B)

M a jo rity
Respondent Categories
1 2
3
4
5

Statements o f Required Practices

Source

B-l
An Educational Planning and Placement meeting is
required fo r c e r tify in g the educable m entally impaired fo r special education programs and ser­
vices in your d i s t r i c t .

R340.1705

X

X

B-2
For the educable menta-ly impaired a comprehen­
sive evaluation by c e r tifie d psychologist, school
psychologist, or consulting psychologist is re ­
quired.

R340.1705

X

X

17nK

v

Y

B-3
To be e lig ib le fo r programs and services fo r the
educable m entally impaired, a person must meet a ll
o f the fo llo w in g requirements:
1. Must score approximately 2-3 standard devia­
tio n s below the mean on an in te lle c tu a l assessment - a standardized te s t.
2. Must score w ith in lowest 6 % on a Standard­
ized te s t in Reading and A rith m e tic.
3. Must show u n sa tisfa cto ry school performance
which must not be based on his s o c ia l, eco­
nomic, or c u ltu ra l background.
4. Must show lack o f development p rim a rily in
the co g n itive domain.

Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION: DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES (B)
------------------------------Statements o f Required Practices
Source
Responden t Categories
1
2 3
4
5
B-4
An EPPC meeting is required fo r determining e l i g i b i l i t y o f tra in a b le m entally impaired.

R340.1704

B-5
A comprehensive evaluation by c e r tifie d psychol­
o g is t, school psychologist, or consulting psycho!o g is t is required fo r placement in a program fo r
the tra in a b le m entally impaired.

R340.1704

B- 6
To be e lig ib le fo r
tra in a b le m entally
meet the fo llo w in g
1. Must score a t

X

X

X

X

D, An 17nA

Y

v

km u . u w

x

x

X

X

programs and services fo r the
impaired, the student must
requirements:
approximately 3-4 1/2 standard

deviations below the mean as determined by
intellectual assessment.
2. Lack o f development p rim a rily in the co g n itive
domain.
3. U nsatisfactory performance not found to be
based on his social o r c u ltu ra l background.

B-7
An EPPC is required fo r determining e l i g i b i l i t y fo r
programs fo r the severely m entally impaired in spe- R340.1703
c ia l programs.

............
M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION: ' DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES (B)
Statements o f Required Practices

Source

M a jo rity
Respondent Categories
I

fa

X

X

B- 8
A comprehensive evaluation by a c e r tifie d psychol­
o g is t, school psychologist, or consulting psycholo g is t is required fo r placement in a program fo r
the severely m entally impaired.

R340.1703

B-9
The fo llo w in g diagnostic c r it e r ia are required fo r
determining e l i g i b i l i t y o f the severely m entally
impaired fo r special education programs and ser­
vices:
1. Must score 4 1/2 or more standard deviations
below the mean as determined by in te lle c tu a l
assessment.
2. Lack o f development p rim a rily in the cogni­
tiv e domain.

R340.1703

B-10
An EPPC meeting is required fo r placement in a
program fo r the hearing impaired.

R340.1707

X

X

B - ll
The fo llo w in g diagnostic personnel are required
fo r determining e l i g i b i l i t y o f the hearing impaired:
A u dio !ogist and O tolaryngologist

R340.1707

X

X

w

7

v

£esfi2 n s |
IC5 NU

•

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES (B)

Statements o f Required Practices

Source

M a jo rity
Respondent Categories
1 2
3
4
5

B-12
To be e lig ib le fo r programs and services fo r the
hearing impaired, a person must be c e r tifie d as
having a hearing impairment which in te rfe re s w ith
learning.

R340.1707

X

X

B-13
An EPPC is required f o r determining placement in
a program fo r the v is u a lly impaired.

R340.1708

X

X

X

X

B-14
The fo llo w in g diagnostic personnel are required fo r
v is u a lly impaired program placement:
Opthalmologist or equivalent.
B-15
To be e lig ib le fo r services f o r the v is u a lly im­
paired, a person must have a visual impairment
and one o r more o f the fo llo w in g :
1. A central visual a c u tity o f 20/70 or less in
the b e tte r eye a fte r co rre ctio n .
2. A peripheral f ie ld o f v is io n reduced to no
greater than 20 degrees.
B-16
An EPPC must id e n tify person as having a physical
or other health impairment which in te rfe rs w ith
learning or requires physical a d a p ta b ility o f the
school environment.

R3-Q

, 708

R340.1708

X

X

R340.1709

X

X

Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION: DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES (B)
------------------------------------------------ *-*■
Statements o f Required Practices
Source
Respondent Categories
1
2
3
4
5
B-17
For services to the p h y s ic a lly and otherwise health
impaired a student must be c e r tifie d by an in te r n is t, orthopedic surgeon, n e u ro lo g is t, p e d ia tric ia n
or equivalent.
B-18
An approved speech and language teacher w ith a t
le a s t 5 years experience and a Master's Degree must
determine e l i g i b i l i t y f o r speech and language ser­
vices.
B-19
The fo llo w in g c r it e r ia must be used to determine
e l i g i b i l i t y fo r speech and language services. One
o r more o f the fo llo w in g disorders:
1. A rtic u la tio n - Ominous, s u b s titu tio n s , d is to r ­
tio n s .
2. Voice w ith inappropriate voice p itc h , ra te o f
speaking, evenness or q u a lity o f speech.
3. Fluency o f speech distinguished by special
in te rro g a tio n s (blocks) re p e titio n o f sounds,
words, phrases or sentences which in te rfe re
w ith e ffe c tiv e communication.
4. I n a b ilit y to comprehend form ulate and use
fu n ctio n a l language.

R340.1709

X

X

R340.1710

X

X

R340.1*710

X

X

............
M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES (B)

Statements o f Required Practices
B-20
To be e lig ib le fo r homebound services, a person must
be c e r tifie d a t le a s t annually by a licensed physician as having a severe physical or other health im­
pairment preventing school attendance.
B-21
A person is e lig ib le fo r services to the hospital
ized i f he cannot attend school because o f hospita liz a tio n .
B-22
An EPPC meeting is required to determine e l i g i b i l i t y
fo r programs and services fo r the learning disabled.
B-23
The fo llo w in g diagnostic personnel are used to de­
termine e l i g i b i l i t y fo r programs and services fo r
the learning disabled:
School Psychologist
C e rtifie d Psychologist
C e rtifie d Consulting Psychologist
or
Neurologist o r medical examiner q u a lifie d to eval­
uate neurological dysfunctions.
B-24
To be e lig ib le fo r placement in a learning d is a b il­
it ie s program, the student must have an impairment

Source

R340.1711

M a jo rity
Respondent Categories
1
2 3
4
5

X

X

R340.1712

X

X

RW|

y

y

X

X

171^

R340.1713

Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES (B)

Statements o f Required Practices
B-24 Continued
o f one or more o f basic psychological processes in ­
volved in understanding or is using spoken o r w r it ­
ten language—which disorder may m anifest i t s e l f in
im perfect a b il it y to lis te n , think., speak, read,
w rite , s p e ll, or do mathematical c a lc u la tio n . He
must meet requirements in each o f the fo llo w in g
categories:
1. Symptoms o f perceptual handicap, brain im p airment, minimal brain damage, dyslexia or
aphasia.
2. Development a t less than the expected ra te o f
age group in the c o g n itiv e , a ffe c tiv e o r psycomotor domain.
3. I n a b ilit y to fu n ctio n in reg ular education
w ithout supportive special education services.
4. U nsatisfactory performance not found to be
based on s o c ia l, economic or c u ltu ra l back­
ground.
B-25
An EPPC meeting is required fo r placement in to a
program fo r the severely m u ltip ly impaired.
B-26
The diagnostic personnel and inform ation lis te d
below are required fo r c e r t if ic a t io n o f e l i g i b i l i t y
fo r a program fo r the severely m u ltip ly impaired.

Source

171,

R3- Q , 7, .

M a jo rity
Responden t Categories
1
2
3
4
5

Y

„

x

X

Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES (Bl

Statements o f Required Practices
B-26 Continued
Medical records, educational h is to ry , and evalua­
tio n by a n e u ro lo g ist, orthopedic surgeon, op tho lm ologist, or a u d io lo g is t.
B-27
The c r it e r ia lis te d below must be used to determine
e l i g i b i l i t y fo r placement in to a program fo r the
severely m u ltip ly impaired:
1. Severe m u lt ip lic it y o f handicap in the physi­
cal and co g n itive domain.
2. I n a b ilit y or expected in a b ilit y to fun ction
w ithout other special education programs which
deal w ith a sin g le handicap.
3. Development a t less than the expected ra te o f
the age group in the approximate 2-3 standard
deviation below the mean on an in te lle c tu a l as­
sessment standardized te s t.
B-29
Data o f a c lin ic a l nature must be co lle cte d fo r each
d is a b ilit y group by sp e cifie d professionals.

Source

M a jo rity
Respondent Categories
1
2 3
4
5

R340.1714

X

X

R340.1714

X

R340.1702
through
R340.1714

X X X

X

Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION: DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES (B)
Statements of Required Practices
_________________________

Source

Majority
Respondent Categories Response
1 2 3 4 5
Yes No ?

B-30
The Educational planning and Placement Committee
must see that sufficient clinical and educational
data are available to make a verification of referred student's e lig ib ility or in e lig ib ility for
placement.

R340.1702
through
R340.1714
R340.1722

X

X

X

B-32
The special education department must refrain from
placing persons suspected of being handicapped in
special education programs prior to determination
of e lig ib ility by an EPPC.

R340.1702

X

X

X

B-33
The language of the evaluation must be the p rimary language of the student.

RUn 17Vi

X

X

X

X

X

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES (B)

Statements o f Recommended Practices

B-28
A fte r the re fe rra l is received, one s t a f f person
should be assigned the re s p o n s ib ility o f c o lle c t­
ing diagnostic data.

B-31
Teacher consultants may be assigned to work w ith
a regular student fo r up to 10 days to obtain
diagnostic inform ation to be used in determining
e l i g i b i l i t y fo r special education programs and
services.

Source

G uidelines,
p. 4

G uidelines,
R340.1749 e

M a jo rity
Respondent Categories
1
2
3
4
5

Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION: PLACEMENT PROCEDURES (C)
-------------------------------------------------- Maj o n ty
Statements o f Required Practices
Source
te g p n d en t to te a o rle s
____________________
— ______________________________________1
2
3
4
5
C-l
A ll special education placements except speech and
language* social worker* and homebound and h o s p ita lized and psychological services must be recommended
by an EPPC.
C-2
Before a change in educational status is made* an
EPPC must have made the recommendation. (Same exceptions as noted in C-l above.)
C-3
Changes from one type program to another, one le ve l
to another and additions or term ination o f services
are considered changes in education status.
C-4
The re s p o n s ib ility f o r making changes in the educa­
tio n a l status o f the handicapped person rests w ith
the Superintendent or his designee..
C- 6
The EPPC must con sist o f one representative from
each o f the fo llo w in g categories, as a minimum:
1. A dm inistration
2. Diagnostic personnel
3. In s tru c tio n a l and Supportive S ta ff
4. Parents, i f they choose to p a rtic ip a te

R340.1722

X X X

R340.1722

X X X

R340.1701 (2)

X

X

X

R340.1722

X

X

X

R340.1701 (4)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

............
Resfionse
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION: PLACEMENT PROCEDURES (C)
-------------------------------------------------- Maj o n ty
Statements o f Required Practices
______________________ - "
C-7
I f the student is under 18, the stud en t's mother,
fa th e r or guardian is considered the parent.
C- 8
I f the student is over 18, and has not had a legal
guardian appointed by the c o u rt, he is in v ite d to
p a rtic ip a te on his own EPPC.
C-9
The special education o ffic e must request in w r it ­
ing parent p a rtic ip a tio n on the EPPC on a case by
case basis.
C-10
I f the parent has not been n o tifie d o f the EPPC
meeting, the stud en t's educational status is l e f t
unchanged.
C-13
The recommendations o f the EPPC are implemented
when, as a minimum, the Superintendent or h is
designee and the parents agree.
C-15
The EPPC must determine th a t the need f o r in te rve n ­
tio n must e x is t and th a t the student have one or

Source

17ni

............

Responden t Categories
1
2
3
4
5
v

v

y

R340.1701

X

X

X

X

R340.1722

X

X

X

X

R340.1723

X

X

X

X

R340-1723

X

X

X

X

X

Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION;

PLACEMENT PROCEDURES fC)

M a jo rity

Statements o f Required Practices
Source
R-^ M e n t Categories
_________________
------ -------------------------------------------------------------1
2
3
4
5
C-15 Continued
more impairments as defined by lav/ before th a t stu ­
dent can be deemed e lig ib le fo r special education
services or programs, except fo r programs and ser­
vices in A-4.

R340.1721

X X X

C-16
I f the EPPC decides th a t a handicapped student may
best be served by non-special education services,
th a t student must not be placed in special education
programs and services.

R340.1723

X X X

C-17
I f parents choose not to p a rtic ip a te on the EPPC,
they are given p r io r n o tific a tio n o f the Committee's
recomnendation and allowed a t le a st 7 days to agree
o r disagree before placement is made. *

R340.1723

X

X

X

X

R340.1723

X

X

X

X

C-19
The special education o ffic e must assume the respon­
s i b i l i t y f o r making parents aware o f the provisions
o f Rule 24.
C-20
Parents must be informed by the Superintendent or
his designee th a t they may appeal to the State

R e s ^
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:
.
................................
Statements o f Required Practices

PLACEMENT PROCEDURES (C)
„
Respondent Categories
Source
— r* — :---------------a— :—
1
2
3
4
5

C-20 Continued
Superintendent o f In s tru c tio n i f a decision is not
reached in the hearing w ith the lo c a l Superintendent.
C-21
Parents must be informed o f the a v a ila b ilit y o f o r­
ganizations, t h e ir addresses and telephone numbers,
to a s s is t them a t the hearing.
C-22
The EPPC must recommend re g u la r and special educa­
tio n programs and services according to the educat io n a l, social and physical needs o f the handi­
capped person based on diag no stic and other eva l­
ua tive inform ation.
C-23
P rio r to sig ning , parents must be given the oppor­
tu n ity to receive and review the w ritte n recommendatio n s o f the EPPC.
C-25
Parents must be given the op po rtunity a t anytime to
request an EPPC to make a change in educational
sta tu s.

R340.1723

X

X

X

X

R340.1723

X

X

X

X

R340.1723

X

X

X

X

R340.1723

D~An 17„

M a jo rity
Response
- — c— r
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

PLACEMENT PROCEDURES (Cl

Statements o f Required Practices

Source

C-26
Parents must always be n o tifie d before placement is
e ffectua ted , denied o r changed.

R340.1723

C-27
Placement n o tific a tio n must always indlude the f o l ­
lowing:
1. D escription o f proposed actio n
2. S p e cifica tio n o f statue or ru le under which
action is proposed.
3. Statement o f reasons fo r a ctio n .
4. S p e c ific a tio n o f any te s ts or reports upon
which the actio n is based.
5. Notice o f r ig h t to a hearing and procedures fo r
such.
6 . A v a ila b ility o f organizations to a s s is t a t
hearings.
7. Options o f educational o p p o rtu n itie s a va ila b le .

D» A n

iu w

. i / cj

C-28
I f parents request s p e c ific persons from the school
s t a f f whose testimony is v it a l to attend the hearing, R340.1724
they must attend.
C-29
Parents may bring outside professionals or non­
professionals to the meeting i f they n o tify the hear- R340.1724
ing o f f ic e r p r io r to the meetings.

M a jo rity
Re|BPiident_Cat.egp ries

X

X

X

X

v

v

v

a

a

a

y
a

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

PLACEMENT PROCEDURES ( 0
Majority
*
Respondent Categories Response
Statements of Required Practices
Source—. —:— :—
.
—3
1 2 3 4 5
Yes No ?
C-30
Parents may provide testimony or evidence in
support of their position on the child's placement at the hearing.

C-33
Parents of handicapped persons may be repre­
sented at the hearing by any person of their
choosing.

R340.1724

X

X

X

X

X

R340.1724

X

X

X

X

X

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

PLACEMENT PROCEDURES (Cl

Statements o f Recommended Practices
C-5
The du ties o f an EPPC are the fo llo w in g :
1. Determining e l i g i b i l i t y
2. Recommending programs and services
3. E stablishing in s tru c tio n a l goals
4. Id e n tify in g outcomes expected as a re s u lt o f
educational placement

Source

Respondent Categories
1 2
3
4
5

G uidelines,
p. 6

X

X

C -ll
The EPPC Chairperson, i f appointed by the Superinten­
dent, may arrange the time and place o f the meeting
G uidelines,
and in v ite other p a rtic ip a n ts .
p. 7

X

X

C-12
A c e r tifie d le t t e r or a signed re c e ip t o f a hand de­
liv e re d le t t e r should be used to provide documenta­
tio n o f the le t t e r having been sent to the parents.

Guidelines,
P. 7

X

X

C-14
One s t a f f member may be appointed to arrange fo r the
implementation and follow -up o f the EPPC's plan and
coordinate and record the committee's a ctio n s.

G uidelines,
p. 4

C-18
Parents should be given a copy o f Rule 24.

G uidelines,
p. 11

X X X

X

X

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

PLACEMENT PROCEDURES ( 0

Statements o f Recommended Practices
C-24
The parent's signature o f consent should be a p a rt o f
or attached to the committee recommendation.

Source

G uidelines,
("must be")
p. 12

C-31
The Superintendent or his designee should act in the
fo llo w in g manner a fte r the recommendation o f the EPPC
is made:
G uidelines,
1. Place the student in an appropriate program, and
p. 6
2. Assign special education s t a f f
C-32
The A dm inistration should consider the fo llo w in g when
implementing the EPPC's recommendations:
1. The s k ills o f the teachers or teachers consultant
th a t can best provide fo r the student's needs.
2. The age range, number, and d is a b ilit y make-up the
students assigned to the program.
G uidelines,
3. The balance o f boys and g ir ls and c o m p a tib ility
p. 10
o f types o f learning d i f f ic u lt ie s .
4. The re la tio n s h ip o f the c h ild 's educational and
emotional needs to those o f other c h ild re n in the
classroom or group to which the c h ild is being
assigned.
C-34
I f the EPPC cannot v e r ify the impairment o f a student,
they should develop recommendations fo r regular eduG uidelines,
cation placement or request fu rth e r diagnostic study.
p. 8

Respondent Categories
1
2
3
4
5

X X X

X X X

X X X

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

CONTINUUM OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES (D)

Statements o f Required Practices
D-l
The special education program content must include
the fo llo w in g components fo r a ll handicapped stu ­
dents who can b e n e fit:
Personal adjustment tra in in g
Pre-vocational tra in in g
Vocational tra in in g
S k ills tra in in g
Work-study
D- 6
An in s tru c tio n a l u n it fo r the severely m u ltip ly im­
paired consists o f a t le a s t one in s tru c to r and two
aides fo r a maximum o f nine p u p ils .
D-7
A t le a s t one fu ll- tim e in s tru c to r and one f u l l ­
time aide must be employed in every severely mult ip l y impaired program.
D- 8
Supportive services o f a physical th e ra p is t, an oc­
cupational th e ra p is t, a speech th e ra p is t, and a
nurse must be reasonably a va ila b le .
(severely m u ltip ly impaired)
D-9
The school year must include a minimum o f 230 days
and 1,150 clock hours o f in s tru c tio n a l a c t iv it ie s .
(severely m u ltip ly impaired)

Source

R340.1701

M a jo rity

Respondent Cateflorjes
1
2
3
4
5

X

R340.1748

X

R340.1748

X

R340.1748

X

R340.1748

X

X

X

X

X

Resfionse
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

_

CONTINUUM OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES (D)

Statements o f Required Practices
—J

The program fo r the severely m u ltip ly impaired must
emphasize the treatment o f the to ta l c h ild ra th e r
than service to any sin g le handicap in is o la tio n .

Source

Respondent Categories
1
2
3
4
5

R340.1748

X

, 74g

„

D-ll

In s tru c to rs are responsible fo r the in s tru c tio n a l
program fo r the severely m u ltip ly impaired.

R- , 0

D-12

In s tru c to rs must coordinate the a c t iv it ie s o f in ­
s tru c tio n a l aides and other supportive personnel
in programs fo r the severely m u ltip ly impaired.

R340.1748

X

D-13
In s tru c tio n a l aides work under the supervision o f
the in s tru c to r and a s s is t in the d a ily program fo r
not more than three p u p ils in programs f o r the
severely m u ltip ly impaired.

R340.1748

X

Program assistants are used where necessary in programs fo r the severely m u ltip ly impaired.

R- . n 17Afl
*

y

D-15
Program assistants have the re s p o n s ib ility fo r as­
s is tin g the in s tru c to r and the in s tru c tio n a l aides,
helping w ith t o ile t in g , feeding, l i f t i n g and in d ividualized care and clean-up a c t iv it ie s fo r the
student in programs fo r the severely m u ltip ly im­
paired.

R340.1748

X

D-14

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

CONTINUUM OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES (D)

Statements o f Required Practices
----------------------------------D-16
I f there are no program a ssista n ts, the duties men­
tioned in D-15 are performed by the in s tru c tio n a l
aides in programs fo r the severely m u ltip ly impaired.

Source

Respondent Categor ies
1
2
3
4
5

R340.1748

X

17,o

y

R340.1738

X

R340.1738

X

D-20
The severely m entally impaired program in s tru c to r
is responsible fo r coordinating the a c t iv it ie s o f
aides and other s t a f f and m aintaining a systematic
method o f home-school lia is o n .

R340.1738

X

D-21
In s tru c tio n a l aides work under the supervision o f
in s tru c to rs and a s s is t in the d a ily tra in in g program
fo r not more than s ix p u p ils in programs fo r the
severely m entally impaired.

R340.1738

X

D-17
Your d i s t r i c t should provide a t le a st one in s tru c to r
and fo u r in s tru c tio n a l aides fo r a maximum o f 24
pupils w ith an average r a tio o f one aide per s ix
pupils in programs fo r the severely m entally im­
paired.
D-18
At le a s t one fu ll- tim e in s tru c to r and one fu ll- tim e
aide must be employed in programs fo r the severely
m entally impaired.
D-19
The school year fo r the severely m entally impaired
must include a t le a st 230 days and 1,150 clock
hours o f in s tru c tio n a l a c t iv ity

M a jo rity
^ esgonse
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

CONTINUUM OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES (D)

Statements o f Required Practices
____________________
D-22
Your program assistants may a s s is t the in s tru c to rs
and in s tru c tio n a l aides perform the fo llo w in g func­
tio n s : t o ile t in g , feeding, l i f t i n g , and in d iv id ualized care and clean-up a c t iv itie s fo r the s tu ­
dent in programs fo r the severely m entally impaired.

Source

R340.1738

D-23
The teacher-pupil r a tio must be one to fifte e n or
less w ith one aide o r up to one to t h ir t y w ith a max­
imum o f three in s tru c tio n a l aides w ith not more than R340.1739
ten pu pils per aide in programs fo r the tra in a b le
m entally impaired.
D-24
V is u a lly impaired class sizes must be determined
p rim a rily by the s e v e rity and m u lt ip lic it y o f the
impairments o f the v is u a lly impaired.
D-25
A class fo r the v is u a lly impaired w ith one teacher
must meet the fo llo w in g requirements:
1. Not more than seven f u ll- tim e p u p ils who are
b lin d .
2. Ten or fewer f u ll- tim e p a r t ia lly seeing p u p ils.
3. Eight or fewer f u ll- tim e p u p ils when b lin d and
p a r t ia lly seeing p u p ils are grouped, w ith not
more than fo u r being b lin d or v is u a lly im­
paired and also otherwise handicapped.

Respondent Categories
1
2
3
4
5

X

X

R340.1743

X

R, . n

y

X

Maj o r ity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

CONTINUUM OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES (D)

Statements o f Required Practices
Source
----------------------------------D-26
The curriculum fo r the v is u a lly impaired must include
in s tru c tio n in o rie n ta tio n and m o b ility , assistance R34Q 1743
in e a rly development o f comprehensive communication
s k ills and pre-vocational and vocational experience.
D-27
The Michigan School fo r the B lind must be considered
a p a rt o f the to ta l continuum o f services fo r the
v is u a lly impaired.

R340.1743

D-28
A pplications f o r placement a t Michigan School fo r the
B lind must be submitted by the Interm ediate School
R- . n
D is tr ic t Superintendent or his designee to the Super­
intendent o f Michigan School fo r the B lind .
D-29
Persons are id e n tifie d by the re fe rrin g school d is ­
t r i c t as v is u a lly impaired in accordance w ith procedures sp e cifie d in Part I by the re fe rrin g school
d is t r ic t .
D-30
The re s p o n s ib ility fo r e sta b lish in g an EPPC rests
w ith the agency in it ia t in g a change o f placement in to o r out o f Michigan School fo r the B lind .
D-31
The r a tio in the program fo r the em otionally im­
paired must consist o f one teacher fo r not more than
the equivalent o f ten f u ll- tim e p u p ils .

Respondent Categories
1
2
3
4
6

„

X

1743

»

R340.1743

X

R340.1743

X

R340.1741

X

X

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

_

CONTINUUM OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES (D)

Statements o f Required Practices

The r a tio in educable m entally impaired programs con­
s is t o f one teacher fo r not more than the equivalent
o f fu ll- tim e students.
D-33
The teacher o f the learning disabled must have the
equivalent o f ten or fewer f u ll- tim e p u p ils assigned
per teacher in a special class.
D-34
In the speech and language program, size and composi­
tio n o f groups are determined by the teacher o f the
speech and language impaired.
D-35
The d e liv e ry o f services is determined by the teacher
o f the speech and language impaired in cooperation
w ith the d i s t r i c t d ire c to r o f special education or
his designee, and the b u ild in g p rin c ip a l o f the
school in which the p u p ils are e n ro lle d .
D-36
The case load o f the teacher o f the speech and la n ­
guage impaired must be no more than 75 p u p ils a t any
one time.
D-37
Homebound services fo r p h y s ic a lly or otherwise health
impaired must be provided no la te r than 15 school days
a fte r c e r t if ic a t io n o f a medical handicap which re ­
quired the person to be confined to his home.

Source

M a jo rity

Repndent^C ategories

R340.1740

X

X

R340.1749

X

X

R340.1745

X

X

R340.1745

X

R340.1745

X

17.«

Y

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

_

CONTINUUM OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES (D)

Statements o f Required Practices

The teacher o f the homebound o r h o sp ita lize d must
have twelve pupils or fewer assigned to him a t any
one time.
D-39
In homebound programs, progress reports fo r each per­
son are recorded in accordance w ith the interm ediate
school d i s t r i c t plan.
D-40
The teacher o f the homebound or h o sp ita lize d must in ­
s tru c t persons a minimum o f two non-consecutive hours
per week.
0-41
In the homebound and ho sp ita lize d programs, th e ra p ists
may supplement, but not s u b s titu te fo r a teacher's
in s tru c tio n a l time.
D-42
The programs fo r the hearing impaired must meet the
fo llo w in g requirements fo r one teacher's special
class:
1. Seven fu ll- tim e p u p ils o r less w ith a severe
hearing loss.
2. Ten f u ll- tim e pu pils or less i f severely and
moderately impaired students are grouped to ­
gether.
3. Three fu ll- tim e p u p ils o r less when they are
hearing impaired, and otherwise handicapped.
4. Twelve fu ll- tim e p u p ils or less in a supervised
class a t the secondary le v e l.

Source

Respondent^Categories

R340.1742

X

R340.1742

X

R340.1742

X

R340.1742

X

R340.1742

X

M a jo rity

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

CONTINUUM OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES (D)

Statements o f Required Practices
D-43
Group hearing aides are provided when deemed necessary by the EPPC.
0-44
Communication s k ills and language are emphasized as
an in te g ra l part o f the curriculum fo r the hearing
impaired.
D-45
The Michigan School fo r the Deaf must be considered a
p a rt o f the to ta l continuum o f services f o r the hearing impaired.

Source

D, An 17A0
W 4 U .I/ 4 Z

R340.1742

R340.1746

D-46
A ll ap p lica tio n s fo r placement a t Michigan School fo r
the Deaf must be submitted by the Interm ediate School
D is tr ic t Superintendent or his designee to the Super­
intendent o f Michigan School fo r the Deaf.

R34Q

D-47
The person must always be id e n tifie d as hearing imparied as spe cifie d in Part I o f the ru le s and regu la tio n s p r io r to a p p lic a tio n to Michigan School fo r
the Deaf.

R340.1746

D-48
The re s p o n s ib ility fo r e sta b lish in g the EPPC rests
w ith the agency in it ia t in g a change o f placement in to
or out o f the Michigan School fo r the Deaf.

R340.1746

Respondent Categories
1
2
3
4
5

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

CONTINUUM OR PROGRAMS AND SERVICES (D)
.
Respondent Categories
Statements o f Required Practices
Source— ^ — £— 3— 4 — 5—
D-49
The EPPC must include representatives o f the Interme­
d ia te School D is t r ic t o f residence and Michigan School R340.1746
fo r the Deaf when placement a t Michigan School fo r the
Deaf is being considered.
D-50
The class size fo r the p h y s ic a lly or otherwise health
impaired must be no more than 15 p u p ils per teacher.
D-51
The special classroom u n it serving p h y s ic a lly or
otherwise health impaired must provide a t le a s t 60
fe e t (sq. f t . ) o f f lo o r space per person.
D-53
Special education programs leading to a high school
diploma must be approved in the Interm ediate D is t r ic t
Plan and as a minimum, include personal adjustment,
prevocational and vocational tra in in g .
\

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

X

R34Q

x

S
R340.1744

R340.1701
R340.1733

X

X X X

X

X

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

CONTINUUM OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES (D)

Statements o f Reconmended Practices
D-2
There should be continuum o f special education ser­
vices in your d i s t r i c t fo r a l l handicapped students
in clu d in g these le ve ls in s o fa r as they can b e n e fit:
Pre-Primary
Elementary
Junior High
Secondary
D-3
There should be h ie ra rc h ic a l arrangement o f special
education placements a va ila b le in your d i s t r i c t in ­
cluding the fo llo w in g based on the s e v e rity o f the
handicap:
F u ll-tim e regular class placement w ith supportive
services
P art-tim e special c la ss; p a rt-tim e reg ular class
F u ll-tim e special education class
Homebound or h o sp ita lize d services
Special day school
R esidential placement
D-4
The fo llo w in g special education supportive services
should be a va ila b le in your d i s t r i c t fo r a l l stu ­
dents:
Social Worker Services
Psychological C onsultation Services
Teacher Consultant Services
Speech and Language Services

Source

G uidelines,
p. 18

State Plan,
P. 9
G uidelines,
pp. 19-20

G uidelines,
p. 21

Respondent Categories
1
2
3
4
5

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

CONTINUUM OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES (D)
Respondent Categories
Statements o f Recommended Practices
Source
1
2
3
4
5
D-5
The fo llo w in g in s tru c tio n a l services should be a v a il­
able in your d i s t r i c t fo r a ll students:
1. Teacher consultant fo r evaluation o f regular
students during a 1 0 -day diagnostic teaching
period.
2. Teacher consultant services fo r small groups
o f special education students and general edu­
cation teachers who are se rvicin g impaired stu ­
dents.
3. Special education teacher serving more than one
d is a b ilit y group. (Resource Teacher)
4. Special education classroom teacher fo r a basic
classroom program.
D-52
Health care aides may be employed to serve in a sup­
p o rtiv e capacity to the nurse, physical th e ra p is t,
occupational th e ra p is t in programs fo r the physi­
c a lly or otherwise health impaired.

G uidelines,
p. 20

R340.1744

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:
Statements o f Required Practices

FOLLOW-UP (El
M a jo rity
Respondent Categories Response
Source — r 1— - — - — . — -—
- — „— 1
2
3
4
5
Yes No ?

E-l
A review o f programs and services provided each handicapped person must be held a t le a s t annually.

n o '9 t * \
w w ,l/“

y
A

y
A

y
A

y
A

E-2
Parents must be provided a copy o f the recommendatio n s the annual review in d ica te s.

D7, n 17„
R340.1722 (d)

v
X

v
X

v
X

v
X

y

y

y

v
*

v
*

E-4
The Superintendent o f the d i s t r i c t o f residence must
receive a copy o f the review re p o rt.
E-5
I f a change o f placement seems warranted, an EPPC
meeting must be held.
E- 8
The review must be conducted by one o r more approved
special education s t a f f persons as assigned by the
Superintendent or his designee.
E-9
The review must occur a t le a s t once every 12 calen­
dar months since the date o f placement or la s t re view.
E-l 0
A review must be held whenever i t appears necessary,
even i f less than a year has tra n sp ire d .

179„

D- . ft , 790
K jw ,l/ “

v
*

R340.1722

X X X

R340.1722

X X X

R- dn

17J)9

X

X

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:
Statements o f Required Practices
E - ll
The review re p o rt should contain an analysis o f
the student's progress toward meeting his ob­
je c tiv e s .

E-l 2
Each student must be follow ed f o r a t le a s t one
year fo llo w in g term ination o f special education
programs and services.

FOLLOW-UP (E
Source

Respondent Categories
1
2
3
4
5

X

R340.1722

State Code
R340.1832
(1.5 )

X

X

X

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

FOLLOW-UP (E)

Statements of Recommended Practices
E-3
The review report should include the names of per­
sons who conducted the review; the information that
was reviewed, and a recommendation for either continuation, additional services, or referral to an
EPPC for possible change of educational status.
E-6
The review should involve an analysis of the appro­
priateness of the present program including performance objectives.

Source

Majority
Respondent Categories Response
1 2
3 4 5
Yes No ?

Guidelines,
p. 27

X

Guidelines,
p. 27

X X X

E-7
The review should involve an analysis of educational,
physical and psychological data.
wiiae lines.

X

X X

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

PERSONNEL (F)

Statements o f Required Practices
F-3
A ll special education employees fo r whom sa la rie s
are reimbursable must meet q u a lific a tio n s required
by State law or State program reg ulatio ns.
F-9
Teacher consultants must provide services to handi­
capped students in the classroom; or provide con­
s u lta tio n to reg ular classroom teachers who have
handicapped pupils integrated in to th e ir classroom;
or provide itin e r a n t services in one or more
school b u ild in g s.
F-10
Teacher consultants may carry no more than 25 stu ­
dents on an active caseload.
F - ll
Teacher consultants may work w ith a re g u la r student
f o r up to , but not more than 10 consecutive school
days.
F-12
The d ire c to r or coordinator has re s p o n s ib ility fo r
the fo llo w in g duties as spe cifie d in Rule 50 i .
1. Developing and organizing and adm inistering
special education programs.
2. Planning and conducting in -s e rv ic e programs.

Source

G uidelines,
State Code
R340.1781,
Act 198

Respondent Categories
1

2

X

X

R340.1749

X X X

R340.1749

X

X

R340.1749

X

X

3

4

5

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

PERSONNEL (F)

Statements o f Required Practices
F-12 Continued
3. Conducting program evaluation.
4. Providing lia is o n w ith school s t a f f and communit y .
5. Preparing special education rep orts.
6 . Supervising special education s t a f f .

Source

Respondent Categories
1

2

R340.1750

X

X

1771

X

3

4

5

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

F-13
I f the sa la ry is reimbursed, the d ire c to r must meet
s ta te requirements fo r approval.
F-14
I f the salary is reimbursed, the a s s is ta n t d ire c to r
must meet sta te requirements f o r approval.
F-15
I f the salary is reimbursed, supervisors must meet
sta te requirements fo r approval.
F-16
I f t h e ir sa la rie s are reimbursed, a l l teachers o f
the handicapped must meet sta te requirements f o r
approval.
F-17
I f th e ir sa la rie s are reimbursed, a ll special educa­
tio n in te rn s must meet s ta te department approval re quirements.

00

U1
R340

, 77,

, 772

R340.1781

R340.1784

X

X

X

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:
Statements o f Required Practices

F-18
I f th e ir sa la rie s are reimbursed, a l l supportive
personnel such as social workers, medical sp e cia l­
is t s , psychologists, licensed, c e r t if ie d , o r reg­
iste re d by a governmental agency, c e r tifie d by a
le g a lly recognized board, or asso cia tio n , or rec­
ommended by a college or u n iv e rs ity o ffe rin g an
appropriate tra in in g program as approved by the
State Board o f Education.

PERSONNEL (F)
Source

R340.1792

M a jo rity
Respondent Categories
1
2
3
4
5

X

Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

PERSONNEL (F)

Statements o f Recommended Practices

Source

Respondent Categories
1
2
3
4
5

F -l
Roles o f special education personnel should be made
c le a r.

State Plan,
p. 14

X

F-2
Inservice programs should be conducted to upgrade
the tra in in g o f special education personnel.

State Plan,
p. 14

X

F-4
A ll special education employees should meet q u a lif i­
cations fo r approval by the State Department o f Edu­
ca tio n .

State Plan,
pp. 13, 14
Guide!ines-Code X

F-5
Annual reports on the status o f a ll special educa­
tio n personnel should be channeled through the in ­
term ediate special education o ffic e fo r m onitoring.

G uidelines,
p. 8

F-7
Inservice programs should be provided fo r reg ular
education personnel who work w ith special education
students.

State Plan,
p. 14

F- 8
Personnel associated w ith programs fo r handicapped
yough should be encouraged and given an op po rtunity
to v i s i t other classrooms, communities, in s titu tio n s
and agencies, and to attend professional meetings.

State Plan,
p. 14

X

X

X

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

FACILITIES (G)

M a jo rity

Statements o f Required Practices
Source
RejJondeni_ C at e^ or ie s
_______________________
~ ____________________________________ 1
2
3
4
5
G-l
New schools in the d i s t r i c t are to be b a rrie r fre e .

Public Act 1,
1966

G-2
Regular and specialized equipment must be provided
fo r each special education program.
G-3
Special education f a c il it ie s must be equal to fa c i l i t i e s fo r regular education programs.

1 7 o«,

p q . n

1 7 - -

Y

y

X
y

X
v

y

X

X

y

y

y

k j iu . i / m

G- 6
A ll special education classrooms must have a t le a s t
the average number o f square fe e t per student as
R340.1733
the regular classrooms in the d is t r ic t .
G-7
Teacher consultants and special education person­
nel must have space designated on a scheduled
basis in each b u ild in g to a ffo rd in d iv id u a l and
small group work.

X

p~An

G- 8
Handicapped students must be assigned to educa­
tio n a l programs and services which are housed in
R340.1733a
bu ildin gs which allow fo r in te g ra tio n to take place.

X X X

Y

y

X X X

y

X

Resfionse
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:
Statements o f Recommended Practices
------------------

FACILITIES (G)
Source

G-4
M aterials workshops should be conducted in order
to acquaint special education personnel w ith the
la te s t in s tru c tio n a l m a te ria ls.

G-5
Teachers should be encouraged to use specialized
supplemental educational m aterials from other
educational agencies.

p ifln
n
p*

15

M a jo rity
Respondent Categories
1 2
3
4
5

Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENT (H)

Statements o f Required Practices
H-4
EARLY SECONDARY
A ll handicapped secondary youngsters who are e l i g i ­
ble fo r special education, can b e n e fit from and who
are interested in vocational education must have
access to such programs.

Source

M a jo rity
RespondentJ^ategorj es Response
1
2
3
4
5
Yes No ?

R340.1733

X

X

R34Q , 7Q,
c * , * ! rn H0

y

y

R340.1733

X

X

X

X

H-9
Students who have terminated th e ir education be­
fore completing a normal course o f study and
graduating.
Special education students who have not completed
a normal course o f study and are between the ages
o f 16 and 25 must be served by special education
in your d i s t r i c t .
H -ll
INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES
A curriculum plan (w ith in d iv id u a l performance
o b je ctive s) should be developed fo r each student
in accordance w ith his needs in the c o g n itiv e , a ffe c tiv e and psychomotor domains w ith special a tte n ­
tio n to needs fo r personal adjustment tr a in in g ,
prevocational tra in in g and vocational tra in in g .
H-12
The performance objectives must be a va ila b le to
the parent.

R340.1733

X

X

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENT (H)

Statements o f Required Practices
H-13
The performance objectives w ritte n f o r each handi­
capped person (R340.1733 c) may be reviewed by
the Superintendent o f In s tru c tio n or his designee.

Source

R340.1733

H-14
The methods o f in s tru c tio n must be con sisten t w ith
the performance o b je ctives w ritte n fo r each handicapped person.

R340.1733

H-15
The in s tru c tio n a l program fo r a school day focus
on the in d iv id u a l needs o f the handicapped person,
as determined through the educational plan fo r
each student.

R340.1733

Respondent Categories
1
2
3
4
5

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENT (H)

Statements o f Recomnended Practices
H-1
PRE-PRIMARY
An in s tru c tio n a l program must be provided fo r handi­
capped students in the 0 - 6 category.
H-2
ELEMENTARY
The reg ular educational sequences should be follow ed
whenever possible.
H-3
The Handbook o f Suggestions fo r Development Learning
published by the Michigan Department o f Education
should be used as a general guide in developing cur­
riculum to meet the unique needs o f the handicapped.
H-5
The secondary curriculum should include the fo llo w in g
aspects as a minimum:
1. Continuation o f academic s k ills tra in in g
2 . Physical education
3. H is to ry , designed to meet legal requirements o f
a normal course o f study as prescribed in the
Michigan School Code.
4. Economics designed to help the student under­
stand the ro le or worker, supervisor and manage­
ment in a fre e e n terp rise system.
5. Home Economics designed to provide personal
s k ills needed to maintain an adequate l i f e en­
vironment.
6 . Business S k ills
7. In d u s tria l Arts
8 . Health Science

Source

Respondent Categories
1
2
3
4
5

R340.1701

X

X

G uidelines,
p. 22

X

X

G uidelines,
p. 23

X

X

X

X

(H isto ry)
School Code
340.361

G uidelines,
p. 23

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:
Statements o f Reconmended Practices

INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENT (H)
Respondent Categories
Source
1 2
3
4
5

H- 6
In providing the prevocational experiences each
teacher should be accountable fo r each o f the f o l ­
lowing:
1. Teaching the s k il l
2. Providing re lated occupational inform ation
3. Assessing in te re s ts , aptitudes and a b ilit ie s fo r
the purpose o f recommending appropriate voca­
tio n a l a lte rn a tiv e s when the student completes
the e a r lie r secondary sequence.
H-7
Handicapped students should receive d riv e r education
in your d i s t r i c t , unless deemed inappropriate by the
EPPC.
H- 8
Handicapped students should be placed in reg ular vo­
cational education programs where possible.
H-10
R eferrals f o r students 1 6 - 2 5 who have terminated
th e ir programs should be made to the fo llo w in g agen­
cies which are a va ila b le to serve special education
youngsters:
1. Vocational R e h a b ilita tio n Services
2. Michigan Department o f Education
3. Bureau o f B lind Services
4. Michigan Department o f Social Services

G uidelines,
p. 24

G uidelines,
p. 24

G uidelines,
p. 24

G uidelines,
p. 24

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION;

INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENT (H)

Statements o f Recommended Practices

Source

Respondent Categories
1

H-16
The use o f a ll sensory m odalities should be
incorporated in to the in s tru c tio n a l content
fo r handicapped students.

H-17
Special education programs should be designed
to promote the development o f social s k ills in
handicapped persons.

State Plan,
p. 17

Plan
,g
'
p*

2

3

4

5

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

LEADERSHIP ( I )

Statements o f Recommended Practices

Source

Respondent Categories
1
2
3
4
5

1-1
Members o f the special education s t a f f (adm inistra­
tiv e & other) are encouraged to attend professional
workshops, in s titu te s , and conventions in order to
remain abreast o f the la te s t development in the
f ie ld o f special education.

Stated fo r State
D ept.; presumed
desirable fo r
local d i s t r i c t
State Plan,
p. 18

1-2
The special education program plan should include
philosophy, goals, o b je ctives and stra te g ie s de­
signed to obtain meaninfgul and sequential educa­
tio n a l programming fo r handicapped ch ild re n .
1-3
Whenever the to ta l number o f professional person­
nel in a s p e c ific program or service exceeds te n , a
supervisor should be hired fo r th a t program.
1-4
D is tr ic ts should cooperate w ith Michigan Univer­
s itie s by allow ing th e ir in te rn s to work w ith spe­
c ia l education services s t a f f .

State Plan,
p. 18

State Plan,
p. 18

State Plan,
p. 18

M a jo rity
Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:
Statements o f Required Practices

J-4
The Educational Planning and Placement Committee
must recommend regular and/or special education
programs and services fo r each student in
accordance w ith his needs and a b ilit ie s .

INTEGRATION (J)
Source

R3* 0 1733

M a jo rity
Respondent Categori es
1
2
3
4
5

X

X

X

X

X

Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:

INTEGRATION (J)

Statements o f Recommended Practices

Source

J -l
Handicapped ch ild re n should be integrated in to regula r classroom programs whenever appropriate.

State Plan,
p. 19

J-2
Assistance may-be sought from the State Department
in developing a cooperative vocational education
in the special education program.

s ta te Plan
ig
p*

J-3
Coordination o f jo b placement and s k ills tra in in g
between teacher consultants fo r the m entally handicapped and the p h y s ic a lly handicapped should be
done in close cooperation w ith vocational education
and vocational re h a b ilita tio n agencies.
J-5
Are in se rvice tra in in g programs provided fo r regula r teachers to acquaint them w ith the needs o f the
handicapped?

q . . D,
® ig
p*

p-i,n
to

p‘

M a jo rity
Resjon.dent Cat^g°r1es
1
2
3
4
5

X

X

X

X

X

Response
Yes No ?

Table 2.

Continued.

SECTION:
Statements o f Recommended Practices
------------------

EVALUATION (K)
Source

K-l
Program evaluation should be undertaken to reveal
strengths and d e ficie n cie s o f the program or service
and to suggest changes in the d e liv e ry system.
K-2
An evaluation system should be a va ila b le to measure
the degree o f progress which students make toward
expressed o b je ctive s.
K-3
E ffo rt should be made to f a c ilit a t e the exchange o f
inform ation concerning techniques o f program evaluatio n , s t a f f ap pra isa l, e tc . w ith other lo ca l d is t r ic t s .
K-4
Measurable objectives should be set fo r the special
+
education programs and services so th a t they may be
o b je c tiv e ly evaluated.
K-5
An e f f o r t should be made to set measurable objec­
tiv e s fo r special education programs and services in
accordance w ith the sta te department's accountabili t y model.

Respondent Categori es
1 2
3
4
5

s ta te Plan
20

p‘

c+ate pi an
2o *
p*

State Plan,
p. 20

S ta te

p.

D1

Y \ 30 ,

20

State Plan,
p. 20

X X X

M a jo rity
Res ponse
Yes No ?

99
The P il o t Study
When th e f i r s t d r a fts o f q u e s tio n n a ire s were com pleted, p e r­
sons were s e le c te d in each o f the f iv e c a te g o rie s o f respondents and
asked to com plete th e q u e s tio n n a ire designed f o r t h e ir group and a tw opage form on which s p e c if ic c r it ic i s m was re q u e ste d .
feedback form appears as F ig u re

6

The two-page

o f t h is stu d y .

Among th e persons in the p i l o t stu d y who were asked to g iv e
feedback on th e q u e s tio n n a ire s were the fo llo w in g :
- S p ecia l Education A d m in is tra to rs
- S pecial Education Teachers
- School P s y c h o lo g is t
- Teacher C o n su lta n t
- General E ducation P rin c ip a ls
- General Education Teachers
- A d m in is tra tiv e A s s is ta n t to th e S u p e rin te n d e n t
- V o ca tio n a l R e h a b ilita tio n R e p re se n ta tive
- Parents
Both ve rb a l and w r itt e n feedback was sought.

A f t e r th e fe e d ­

back forms were re tu rn e d , respondents were thanked f o r t h e i r c r it ic is m s
and were given th e o p p o rtu n ity to ask f u r t h e r q u e s tio n s o r o f f e r a d d i­
tio n a l c r it ic is m .
The most common c r it ic is m o f th e in s tru m e n ts was as fo llo w s :
1.

Parents complained th a t th e y d id n o t understand th e word­

in g in many cases.
t e c h n ic a l.

The language, th e y f e l t , was to o s t i f f and

I
TOO

RESPONDENT:

___________________________

POSITION:

___________________________

1. Did the closed response nature o f the questions prevent you from
in c lu d in g va lu a b le in fo rm a tio n ?
YES_NO

UNCERTAIN_______

2. Are the in s tru c tio n s c le a r and easy to understand?
YES_NO

UNCERTAIN_______

3. Do the statem ents agree w ith your in te r p r e ta tio n o f the law , guide­
lin e s , o r S tate Plan?
YES_NO

UNCERTAIN_______

I f no, in d ic a te s p e c ific items and s ta te b r i e f l y how you in te r p r e t
them below:

4. Do you fe e l th a t any o f the items are unnecessary?
YES

NO

UNCERTAIN___

5. Do you fe e l th a t you are asked to pro vid e more in fo rm a tio n than you
should be expected to know?
YES
6.

NO

UNCERTAIN___

Where is the q u e s tio n n a ire no t s u f f ic ie n t ly c le a r o r no t s u f f ic ie n t ly
precise?

7. What im p o rta n t aspects o f the sp e cia l education program do you fe e l
were no t touched by the instrum ent?

Are these aspects covered by the S tate P la n , S ta te Code, o r Guide­
lin e s ?

Figure 6.

Feedback form fo r questionnaire.

101

8

. What p a rts would you d e le te f o r reasons o f ir r e le v a n c y , redundancy,
uselessness o r o th e r reasons?

9. What general re v is io n s should be made in the instrum ent?

10. What s p e c ific changes o r re v is io n s should be made in the instrum ent?

11. What e rro rs d id you n o tic e in the q u e stio n n a ire ?

Figure

6

.

Continued.

102
2. Special education a d m in is tra to rs p o in te d o u t om issions
o f s p e c ific s con tain ed in the law; they c ite d a m b ig u itie s in
the questions which led to con fusio n on some item s.
3. General educators— p r in c ip a ls and tea che rs— p o in te d out
th a t they f e l t inadequate to handle some o f the q u e stio n s due to
a la c k o f f a m i l i a r i t y w ith what the s p e c ia l education department
was doing and w ith s p e c ific program components in the d i s t r i c t .
They a ls o complained o f the excessive le n g th o f the q u e s tio n ­
n a ire .
4. The agency re p re s e n ta tiv e s complained th a t th e y were un­
f a m ilia r w ith the program and in many re s p e c ts , they d id no t
fe e l competent to make judgments about th e program.
5. Many respondents suggested the fo llo w in g general changes:
a. An improved fo rm a t so th a t the lin e s to be checked
would be more e a s ily asso cia te d w ith the c o rre c t
ite m .
b. S h ortening o f the questions
As a r e s u lt o f the p i l o t , the q u e s tio n n a ire s were re v is e d
to r e f le c t the e x c e lle n t feedback given by the respondents.

Q uestion­

n a ire s f o r groups o th e r than s p e c ia l educators were sho rten ed; te c h ­
n ic a l questions were re-worded where p o s s ib le .

The language was sim­

p l i f i e d f o r p a re n ts , and a b b re v ia tio n s were avoided unless they had
been explained when f i r s t presented.

M inor e rro rs were c o rre c te d ,

and the in stru m en ts were subm itted f o r r e - p r in t in g .

103
P a rt I I :

Developing th e E va lu a tio n System

Although the q u e s tio n n a ire s are v i t a l to the e v a lu a tio n sys­
tem, the complete system c o n ta in s , in a d d itio n , d e ta ile d in s tr u c tio n s
and a s e t o f forms to f a c i l i t a t e the c o m p ila tio n and in te r p r e ta tio n o f
the data c o lle c te d through using the q u e s tio n n a ire s .
The e v a lu a tio n system is termed the "A lle n Survey System f o r
the E va lu a tio n o f Special S e rvice s" and w i l l be re fe rre d to as "ASSESS."

Overview o f th e E va lu a tio n System
The lo c a l a d m in is tra to r o f the s p e c ia l education program o r
his designee is in complete c o n tro l o f th e e v a lu a tio n process.

The

e v a lu a tio n w i l l be conducted by an e v a lu a tio n team composed o f lo c a l
d i s t r i c t personnel; the a d m in is tra to r w i l l serve as the "chairm an" o f
the e v a lu a tio n team and w i l l be re fe rre d to in th a t manner in t h is and
rem aining se c tio n s o f th e study.
The q u e s tio n n a ire s have been discussed e x te n s iv e ly in P a rt I
o f t h is C hapter, and w i l l not be discussed again in t h is s e c tio n .

A ll

o f the o th e r components o f the system w i l l be presented and explained
in t h is s e c tio n .
Although P a rt I I o f t h is Chapter co n ta in s a complete s e t o f
suggested procedures f o r using ASSESS, the lo c a l a d m in is tra to r o f the
spe cia l education program is encouraged to e xp lo re w ith members o f h is
s t a f f , o r e v a lu a tio n team, unique approaches to using the system.
should be noted, however, th a t the recommended procedures f o r using
the system are the ones which have been f i e l d te s te d .

It

104
B a s ic a lly , th e e v a lu a tio n procedure in v o lv e s su rve yin g f iv e
d if f e r e n t c a te g o rie s o f respondents re g a rd in g p ra c tic e s in eleven as­
pects o f program o p e ra tio n , co m p ilin g the responses, d e te rm in in g the
m a jo rity response, and c h a rtin g th e in fo rm a tio n to I d e n t if y areas o f
non-compliance w ith mandates o r recommendations appearing in the man­
d a to ry s p e c ia l e d u ca tio n la w , th e S ta te Plan o r the G u id e lin e s .

Once

th is d e te rm in a tio n is made, a plan f o r b rin g in g th e d i s t r i c t in to com­
p lia n c e is to be developed by the team.

F in a lly , the chairman o r h is

designee prepares a f in a l re p o rt o f th e e v a lu a tio n e f f o r t in c lu d in g
fin d in g s and recommendations.

O u tlin e o f the E va lu a tio n Process
The e v a lu a tio n process has th e fo llo w in g d i s t i n c t phases:
1.

P re lim in a ry P lanning
a. S e le c tin g th e team members
b. Sampling respondent groups
c. D eterm ining re q u ire d percentage

2.

Conducting the i n i t i a l m eeting o f the
from the d i s t r i c t .

3.

Procedures f o r c o m p ilin g data

4.

Procedures f o r a n a ly z in g data

5.

Reconvening o f th e E v a lu a tio n Team

6

.

o f t o t a l responses.

P reparing f in a l re p o rts

E v a lu a tio n Team

105
a.

E v a lu a tio n summary sheet

b.

Suggested fo rm a t f o r f in a l re p o rt

P re lim in a ry P lanning
P r io r to a c tu a lly c a llin g to g e th e r a group o f people f o r
the purpose o f e v a lu a tin g the sp e c ia l education program, the Chairman
o f the E va lu a tio n Team should take c e r ta in p re lim in a ry ste p s.

F ir s t

o f a l l , he should become f a m ilia r w ith the com plete s e t o f m a te ria ls ,
in c lu d in g fo rm s, c h a rts , and in s tr u c tio n s .
As the Chairman becomes f a m ilia r w ith the m a te ria ls in the
system, he should make c e r ta in procedural d e c is io n s in c lu d in g s e le c t­
ing team members, s e le c tin g the e v a lu a tio n p la n , e t c . , and l i s t th e
in fo rm a tio n on a form provided f o r th a t purpose c a lle d "P re lim in a ry
d e c is io n s f o r the Chairm an."

(F ig u re 7 , Form I )

I t is n o t necessary to complete th e form a l l a t once, bu t
as c e r ta in d e c is io n s are made fo llo w in g each s e c tio n o f the in s tr u c ­
t io n s , the in fo rm a tio n is to be noted on th e form .

For example, the

f i r s t item on th e form in v o lv e s the s e le c tio n o f th e E va lu a tio n Team
members.

When t h is s e c tio n o f th e in s tr u c tio n s is read and the team

members are s e le c te d , the chairman should w r ite in t h e ir names on the
form .

The same procedure a p p lie s to th e d a te s , team assignm ents,

sampling p la n , e tc .

Upon com
pletion o f t h is fo rm , the chairman w i l l
*

have a u s e fu l c o m p ila tio n o f in fo rm a tio n th a t he w i l l need f o r the
f i r s t team m eeting.

106
S p e c ific A ctio n s to be Taken by the chairman p r io r to the f i r s t team
m eeting.
1.

Decide who the members o f yo u r E va lu a tio n Team w i l l be. You may
choose the members o f you r s u p e rv is o ry s t a f f , c o n s u lta n ts , o r you
may use a person re p re s e n tin g each o f several areas o f th e p ro ­
gram.

WRITE THE NAMES OF THE TEAM MEMBERS BELOW:

2.

Decide on date f o r the i n i t i a l team m ee ting , and w h ile y o u 'r e a t
i t , decide on dates f o r the o th e r Im p o rta n t phases o f th e evalua­
t io n :
a. I n i t i a l m eeting w i l l be held__________________________________
b. Data w i l l be c o lle c te d between_______________ and_____________
c . Completed q u e s tio n n a ire s should be re tu rn e d to _______________
__________________ on o r before_______________________________ .

3.

Decide how you w i l l assign team members.
Group I ________________________________________
Number o f Respondents___________________________
S elected by_____________________________________
Group 2_________________________________________
Number o f Respondents___________________________
S elected by__________;__________________________
Group 3_________________________________________
Number o f Respondents___________________________
S elected by_____________________________________

F igure 7.

Form I :

P re lim in a ry d e c is io n s f o r the chairman.

107
Group 4_________________________________________
Number o f Respondents__________________________
Selected by____________________________________
Group 5_________________________________________
Number o f Respondents__________________________
Selected by_____________________________________
4.

Decide on procedures f o r data c o m p ila tio n .
a. Data w i l l be compiled between_______________________________
and________________________________________ .
b. Data w i l l be compiled by______________________________________
Team member o f data processing c e n te r
c . I f you w i l l use data c e n te r, c a ll them now and make an a p p o in t­
ment f o r _________________________________ .
(d a te )
(tim e )
d. Team w i l l be reconvened to con sid er data_____________________ .
(da te)

5.

Decide on procedures f o r an alyzin g the da ta.
a. In o rd e r f o r the comgined responses to be considered "Yes"
o r "N o," decide on a percentage o f the t o t a l responses which
must

have been earned byth a t response.

percentage is earned, the m a jo rity response

I f le ss than th a t
f o r th a t item

should be marked "? " to in d ic a te a la c k o f in fo rm a tio n by
the respondents.
b. The re q u ire d response which you w i l l use i s _________ %
c . I f th e data ce n te r w i l l analyze the d a ta , plan c o o p e ra tiv e ly
w ith them.

Figure 3.

Continued.

108

d. I f team members are to t a l l y the responses, g iv e them the
t a l l y and summary forms on which the data are to be com piled.
e. Designate team members to p u t data in d is s e m in a tio n form using
the summary forms and graphs p ro vid ed .
These members are_____________________________________________
*>

.

Make sure you have enough q u e s tio n n a ire s f o r a l l persons in the
c a te g o rie s you w i l l survey.

7.

Make sure you have packets f o r each team member who w i l l be as­
signed a p a r t ic u la r group. Packets c o n ta in th e fo llo w in g :

6

a. Enough q u e s tio n n a ire s f o r th e p o p u la tio n assigned.
b. A summary sheet on which data f o r a p a r t ic u la r group can be
com piled.
c. A p r o f ile sheet on which the most fre q u e n tly o c c u rrin g re ­
sponse can be charted f o r each o f the

11

areas.

d. A memorandum from you g iv in g s p e c ific tim es and dates- f o r com­
p le tin g the survey.
e. A l i s t o f in s tr u c tio n s f o r the team member.
8

.

Reconvening o f team w i l l be on_________________________
Agenda:
Discuss data
Make recommendations
A ppoint persons to c a rry o u t s p e c ific recommendations
W rite th e e v a lu a tio n re p o rt f o r yo u r records using the form at
suggested a t the end o f t h is Chapter.

F igure 3.

Continued.

109
Procedures f o r S e le c tin g
Team Members
The Chairman may use one o f th e two suggested approaches,
o r he may de vise h is own p la n .
1. The Team Chairman - The D ir e c to r o f S pecial Education
is th e Chairman o f the S p ecia l Education E v a lu a tio n
Team.

He makes a l l m ajor d e c is io n s in c lu d in g th e com­

p o s itio n o f th e teams s in c e i t

is he who is u ltim a t e ly

re s p o n s ib le f o r th e s p e c ia l e d u ca tio n programs.
2. Team Members - To achieve a comprehensive and o b je c ­
t iv e e v a lu a tio n , i t

is im p o rta n t t h a t each team member

be c a r e f u lly s e le c te d .

The number o f team members and

d if f e r e n t a b i l i t i e s e n lis te d w i l l depend upon th e s iz e
o f th e school system and th e types o f s e rv ic e s i t p ro ­
vid es to handicapped c h ild r e n .

I t 1s recommended th a t

the team in c lu d e some s u p e rv is o ry and a d m in is tr a tiv e
personnel p r a c tic in g in s p e c ia l e d u ca tio n .
Several team arrangements are p o s s ib le .

Two suggested a r ­

rangements fo llo w :
Plan A:
group.

Persons who work w ith more than one e x c e p tio n a lity

a. P ra c tic in g s p e c ia l e d u ca tio n a d m in is tra to rs in c lu d in g
s u p e rv is o rs and o th e rs in an a d m in is tr a tiv e c a p a c ity .
b. A te a ch e r c o n s u lta n t.

S p e cia l e d uca tion te a ch e r con­

s u lta n ts are a l l persons who serve handicapped stud en ts

110

in th e re g u la r program and c o n s u lt w ith o th e r te a c h e rs ,
re g u la r o r s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n , re g a rd in g the education
o f handicapped stu d e n ts .

Since t h e ir work provides an

o p p o rtu n ity f o r involvem ent in many aspects o f the p ro ­
gram, they should be a b le to o f f e r va lu a b le in fo rm a tio n
to the team.

One o r more c o n s u lta n ts may be in c lu d e d .

c. P sychodiagnostic pe rson ne l.

T his person may be a pra c­

t ic in g school p s y c h o lo g is t an d/o r a d ia g n o s tic pre s­
c r ip t iv e te a c h e r, a s o c ia l w o rke r, speech and language
d ia g n o s tic ia n o r a s u p e rv is o r o f e ith e r o r both groups.
Here a g a in , involvem ent in many aspects o f the program
makes t h is person an asse t to th e team.
d. A p a re n t.

T his team member may be th e pa ren t o f a

handicapped c h ild o r non-hand 1 capped c h ild in the p u b lic
scho ols.

The p a re n t must re s id e in the community in

which the e v a lu a tio n is ta k in g p la ce .
e. A general e d uca tion a d m in is tra to r o r te a ch e r.

One p e r­

son who re p re se n ts general a d m in is tra tio n o r general
education should be in c lu d e d .

T his person may be a

p r in c ip a l, a d ir e c t o r o f in s t r u c t io n , an a s s is ta n t d i ­
r e c to r o f in s t r u c t io n , a c o n s u lta n t to the re g u la r p ro ­
gram, a s u b je c t area c o r r d in a to r , o r a classroom
te a ch e r.

I ll
Plan B:

Persons who work p r im a r ily w ith one e x c e p tio n a lity group.

An a lte r n a te p la n f o r th e team members would re q u ire using
re p re s e n ta tiv e s from the s u p e rv is o ry s t a f f , re p re s e n tin g d if f e r e n t
s p e c ia l e d uca tion program c a te g o rie s as team members, and a ssig n ­
in g them the r e s p o n s ib ilit y o f surve yin g a c e r ta in number o f p e r­
sons in each o f th e f iv e c a te g o rie s who are asso cia te d w ith t h e ir
assigned programs.

For example, the s u p e rv is o r o f programs f o r

the m e n ta lly im paired could be assigned th e r e s p o n s ib ilit y f o r c o l­
le c tin g data from the a d m in is tr a tio n , s t a f f , general e d u ca to rs ,
agencies and p a re n ts a sso cia te d w ith the m e n ta lly im paired program.
I t may be necessary to in c lu d e more than f iv e persons, o r each p e r­
son may be assigned more than one program to surve y.

Procedures f o r Sampling
the Respondent Groups
The procedure f o r s e le c tin g the persons to be surveyed is de­
term ined by the team chairm an.

I f the e v a lu a tio n is to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y

re p re s e n ta tiv e o f th e e n t ir e community, then a random sample o f persons
from each ca te g o ry may be surveyed.

Any standard re fe re n c e on sampling

procedures w i l l p ro v id e in s tr u c tio n s f o r draw ing the sample.
For th e sake o f p r a c t ic a l it y and s im p lic it y , however, team
members may sim p ly be in s tr u c te d to s o l i c i t responses from a v a r ie t y o f
persons in each ca te g o ry who are re p re s e n ta tiv e o f the community a t
la rg e .

T h is d e c is io n must be made e a r ly in the e v a lu a tio n process to

a llo w tim e f o r th e sample to be drawn.
The chairman must decide how th e sample is to be drawn, and
in s t r u c t team members a c c o rd in g ly .

112
I t is recommended th a t a t le a s t 20 people be s e le c te d from
each respondent ca te g o ry to re c e iv e a q u e s tio n n a ire .
p a r t ic u la r respondent group is sm all

(2 0

In th e event a

o r le s s ) , then a l l the persons

in th a t p a r t ic u la r ca te g o ry should be qu estio ne d.

T his may be tru e o f

the s p e c ia l e d uca tion a d m in is tra to r ca te g o ry sin ce th e re would probably
not be 20 a d m in is tra to rs o f s p e c ia l e d u ca tio n .

In the event a ls o th a t

the E v a lu a tio n Team Chairman saw f i t to in c lu d e more than 20 people in
a p a r t ic u la r c a te g o ry , t h is could be done.

C onsidering the tim e in ­

volved in t a ll y in g th e r e s u lts o f the q u e s tio n n a ire s , however, the E val­
u a tio n Team Chairman m ig h t choose to l i m i t the number to 20 o r even
fewer.
I f computer a n a ly s is o r some o th e r system o f ta b u la tin g data
is a v a ila b le in the d i s t r i c t , more persons could be surveyed.

I t would

a lso be h ig h ly d e s ira b le to in c lu d e th e e n t ir e s p e c ia l educa tion s t a f f
in th is e v a lu a tio n .

There are many b e n e fits to the s t a f f ans to the

e v a lu a tio n process in having a l l persons asso cia te d w ith the sp e cia l
education program in v o lv e d and made more aware o f s p e c ific requirem ents
o f the law.
A recommended sam pling procedure f o r a team is one in which
each team member is re q u ire d to randomly s e le c t f iv e persons from
each o f the 5 respondent c a te g o rie s to su rve y.

The chairman may wish

to develop a s im ila r plan using t h is fo rm a t as a means o f o rg a n iz in g
the plan .

113

D eterm ining the Required
Percentage o f Responses
A d e c is io n must be made p r io r to the team m eeting re g a rd in g a
re q u ire d percentage o f responses which w i l l be necessary b e fo re the
item e a rn in g a reasonable m a jo r ity o f responses can be determ ined.
That in fo rm a tio n is necessary in o rd e r to com pile and c h a rt responses.
For example, i f 20 people are questioned in a p a r t ic u la r
group, 5 o f the people respond "ye s" to an item and 5 respond "no" to
th a t same ite m , then how is the response to be charted?

Is i t a "yes"

response as the most fre q u e n tly o c c u rrin g , o r is i t a "no" response?
In th a t in s ta n c e , th e q u e stio n mark c a te g o ry , which means " i n s u f f ic ie n t
in fo rm a tio n to de te rm in e " o r "q u e s tio n a b le ," w i l l be the ca te g o ry which
should be checked as most fre q u e n tly o c c u rrin g .

In o rd e r f o r a response

to be a "ye s" response, i t is suggested th a t a t le a s t 75% o f th e respon­
dents respond "yes" to th a t ite m .

Whenever few er than 75% o f th e re ­

spondents answer a c e r ta in way, the "? " response must be checked.
Again, th e percentage is a suggested one.

The chairman m ig h t choose to

say th a t 95% o f the respondents should respond a c e r ta in way, o r 100%
o f the respondents should agree to an item b e fo re a d e f in it e "ye s" o r
"no" can be checked.
T his d e c is io n must be made by the E v a lu a tio n Team Chairman.
I t is e s s e n tia l th a t the d e c is io n be made p r io r to th e tim e th e team
members o r o th e rs a re g iv e n 'th e r e s p o n s ib ilit y o f c o lle c tin g data in a s ­
much as th e data must be ta b u la te d and cha rted on a summary she et.

i

114

Form I (F ig u re 7) should be completed p r io r to th e c a llin g o f
the f i r s t team m eeting.
chairman.

This form is designed as a convenience f o r the

I t s purpose is sim p ly to encourage th e c o m p ila tio n o f neces­

sary in fo rm a tio n p r io r to the team m eeting in o rd e r to avoid unnecessary
tim e d e la y s .

Conducting th e I n i t i a l Meeting
o f the E v a lu a tio n Team
Once th e in s tr u c tio n s have been th o ro u g h ly read by the c h a ir ­
man and the p re lim in a ry d e c is io n s have been made, the next ste p is to
c a ll to g e th e r the se le cte d members o f the E v a lu a tio n Team.
Form I may be used as a guide f o r th e f i r s t team m ee ting , in ­
asmuch as i t co n ta in s a l l o f the chairm an's m ajor d e c is io n s and pro vid es
him w ith an o r d e rly plan to fo llo w in the m eeting.

Team members should

be asked to make a note o f s ig n if ic a n t d a te s, tim es and p la ce s.
Persons are s e le c te d , n o t if ie d and c a lle d to g e th e r a t a spe­
c if ie d tim e and place by the chairm an.

When th e y are convened, a b r i e f

in tro d u c to ry statem ent by th e d ir e c t o r is made e x p la in in g why the spe­
c ia l e d u ca tio n department has decided to engage in an e v a lu a tio n o f
s p e c ia l educa tion p ra c tic e s and procedures and g iv in g a b r i e f r a tio n a le
fo r in c lu d in g s e le c te d persons as members o f th e E va lu a tio n Team.
E v a lu a tio n Team members are assigned s p e c if ic groups to s u r­
vey and are given a s p e c ific date by which a l l q u e s tio n n a ire s are to be
re tu rn e d .

The suggested amount o f tim e to be allow ed f o r th e d i s t r i b u ­

tio n and c o lle c tio n o f the q u e s tio n n a ire should be no more than ten days.

115

An a d d itio n a l amount o f tim e must be given f o r th e team members to com­
p le te the t a l l y and summary form s.
Team members are g ive n copies o f " In s tr u c tio n s f o r Team Mem­
b e rs ," (F ig u re

8)

and o th e r necessary form s.

The in s tr u c tio n s and ■

forms are to be e x p la in e d by th e chairm an, and an o p p o rtu n ity f o r mem­
bers to ask q u e stio n s is p ro vid e d .
A d e ta ile d e x p la n a tio n o f how to com pile the data and use the
forms provided in ASSESS is necessary.

The process fo llo w s below.

Procedures f o r C om piling Data
When the q u e s tio n n a ire s have been completed by the respondents,
the n e xt step is to com pile th e data f o r th e subsequent a n a ly s is .

If

the c o m p ila tio n is to be done by a com puter, th e i n i t i a l co u n tin g step
is e lim in a te d , b u t the rem ainder o f the process is much th e same, no
m a tte r whether the computer c e n te r o r team members prepare th e com pila­
t io n , i f ASSESS forms a re to be used.
The in s tr u c tio n s which f o llo w are based on the assumption
th a t th e responses w i l l be t a l l i e d by team members.

The chairman may

a p p o in t s p e c ific persons to com pile a l l q u e s tio n n a ire d a ta , o r each team
member may be asked to com pile th e responses f o r th e q u e s tio n n a ire f o r
which he was re s p o n s ib le and s u b m it, in s te a d o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire s , com­
p le te d t a l l y sheets and summary forms f o r h is p a r t ic u la r respondent
*

group, o r , i f he has more than one, across a l l groups from whom he has
obtained d a ta .
For th e sim ple t a l l y , Form I I I is used.

A mark is sim p ly made

in the a p p ro p ria te column to in d ic a te t o t a l "Y e s ," "N o ," and "? "

116
1.

D i s t r i b u t e q u e s tio n n a ir e s t o p e rs o n s i n th e re s p o n d e n t g ro u p w h ic h
you w ere a s s ig n e d by th e Team C h a irm a n .

2.

E x p la in t o p e rso n s t h a t th e s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n d e p a rtm e n t is c o n ­
c e rn e d a b o u t im p ro v in g i t s d e li v e r y o f program s and s e r v ic e s and i s
a s k in g s e le c te d p e rso n s t o answ er q u e s tio n s a b o u t w h a t p ro c e d u re s
a re a c t u a l l y b e in g fo llo w e d in im p le m e n tin g th e M a n d a to ry S p e c ia l
E d u c a tio n Law.

3.

Ask them t o c o m p le te th e q u e s t io n n a ir e based on w h a t i s a c t u a l l y
h a p p e n in g — n o t on w h a t s h o u ld be h a p p e n in g .
S tre s s t h i s f a c t .

4.

T e ll th e re s p o n d e n ts t h a t you w o u ld l i k e t o have th e q u e s tio n n a ir e s
re tu rn e d w i t h i n te n ( 1 0 ) d a y s ; th e y may ask you t o e x p la in ite m s
th e y do n o t u n d e rs ta n d , o r f a i l i n g t h i s , th e y may w r i t e " I do n o t
u n d e rs ta n d " b e s id e th e ite m .

5.

I f th e y f i n i s h th e q u e s tio n n a ir e s b e fo r e you c a l l f o r them , th e y
may r e t u r n them t o you i n p e rs o n .

6

.

7.
8

.

I f th e d a ta a re n o t t o be ta b u la te d by y o u , r e t u r n a l l q u e s tio n ­
n a ir e s t o th e Chairm an a f t e r you have checked them f o r d o u b le an­
s w e rs , e t c . , t h a t yo u may be a b le t o c l a r i f y by a s k in g th e re s p o n ­
d e n t.
W a it

f o r f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t io n s

You w i l l

fro m th e c h a irm a n .

re co n ve n e as a Team t o c o n s id e r d a ta on____________________ .

9.

W ill you be in v o lv e d i n th e a n a ly s is o f th e d a ta p r i o r t o th e n e x t
m e e tin g ?
F in d o u t . _____________________________________________________

10.

Makea n o te o f a l l p ro b le m s re s p o n d e n ts r e p o r te d
t o you in c o m p le t­
in g th e q u e s t io n n a ir e .
T h is fe e d b a c k can become p a r t o f th e e v a l­
u a tio n r e s u lt s and f in d in g s .

F ig u re

8

.

Form I I :

I n s t r u c t io n s f o r team members.

117
responses to each q u e s tio n .

T his form can o n ly be used w ith one group

a t a tim e .
In the i l l u s t r a t i o n o f Form I I I
tio n is A -2.

(F ig u re 9) th e item in ques­

( E ith e r th e q u e s tio n n a ire o r th e m aster l i s t o f q u e stio n s

is co n su lte d f o r th e a c tu a l w ording o f A -2 .)

As shown, th e re were 5

"yes" responses, 35 "no" responses, and 2 "? " responses.

Although "no"

is the most fr e q u e n tly o c c u rrin g response, i t must be determ ined whether
"no" re ce ive d 75% o r more o f th e t o t a l responses, s in c e th e 75% appears
a t the top o f th e column and re p re se n ts th e re q u ire d percentage a lre a d y
determ ined by th e chairm an.
35.
Since

42

=

.83

=

83%; "no" is entered in to th e column

as the m a jo r ity response sin c e i t more than meets th e re q u ire d p e rc e n t­
age.
As shown a t th e to p o f the fo rm , th e su b se ctio n Code "A" in d i­
cates the r e f e r r a l system su b se ctio n o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire ; the respon­
dent ca te g o ry being used is th e Parent Category (4 ) .

T o ta l item s on

the q u e s tio n n a ire in t h is s e c tio n are fo u r .
The Summary sheet (see Form IV , F ig u re 10) may then be used to
l i s t th e in fo rm a tio n obtained from the t a l l y form .

The fo llo w in g in f o r ­

m ation is entered in th e a p p ro p ria te spaces o r columns:
S ubsection Code (A, B, C, D, e t c . )
T o ta l Items in th a t Subsection
Respondent Category (Number, i . e . , 1, 2, 3, 4 o r 5)
S p e c ific Group (Name, i . e . , p a re n ts , ag en cie s, e t c . )
Item Code Numbers ( A - l, A -2 , e t c . )

118

T a lly Sheet f o r

A

Subsection Code
Respondent Category
Total Items

PARENTS #4

4______
TALLY RESPONSES IN EACH CATEGORY;
WRITE TOTAL NUMBER IN BOX AFTER TALLYING

ITEM

1’A-2
2

“ YES11 RESPONSES T "NONRESPONSES

mi

T

"?" RESPONSES

5 minumi/tw

35

.

4.
5.

6.
7.
8.

9.
10.

.

12 .

14.

Figure 9.

Form I I I :

2

1X3

r n iim tH i

3.

11

T

75%
M a jo rity
Response

T a lly form - one cate go ry.

n

119

Subsection Code
T o ta l Items

Item
Code
Number

A

Respondent Category
S p e c ific Group

4

T o ta l "ye s"
(1)

T o ta l "no"
(2 )

T o ta l "? "
(3)

T o ta l
Responses
(4 )

...

F igure 10.

Form IV :

Summary sheet - one c a te g o ry .

4

PARENTS

Response
Earning
75% o r more
(5 )

120
Form IV-A is used t o com p ile data across a l l groups.
lu s t r a t io n o f i t s

An i l ­

use is p ro v id e d in F ig u re 11.

R e fe rrin g to A -l in th e M aster l i s t o f mandates and recom­
mendations which appeared as T able 2 in Chapter I I I ,

th e item s ta te s

th a t "E very d i s t r i c t must have a fo rm a liz e d procedure f o r re c e iv in g and
processing r e f e r r a ls . "

In response to a q u e s tio n to t h a t e f f e c t , the

fig u r e s in d ic a te t h a t :
Agencies responded t h i s way:
(Yes - 1 0 ); (No - 2 0 ); (? - 5)
Parents responded t h i s way:
(Yes - 1 0 ); (No - 2 0 ); (? - 5)
General Educators responded t h is way:
(Yes - 1 0 ); (No - 2 0 ); (? - 5)
S p ecia l E ducation S t a f f responded t h is way:
(Yes - 1 0 ); (No - 2 0 ); (? - 5)
S p ecia l E ducation A d m in is tra to rs responded t h is way:
(Yes - 1 0 ); (No T o ta l Yes:

50

2 0 );

(7 - 5)

T o ta l No:

100

T o ta l ?:

O b v io u s ly , "No" earned most responses— 100.
were 175 responses 1n a l l

(100/175 = 57%).

25

However, th e re

S ince 75% has been d e te r ­

mined as th e percentage to be re q u ire d f o r "Yes" o r "N o ," th e 57% is
too lo w ; c o n se q u e n tly, th e d a ta

1s

regarded as in c o n c lu s iv e and "? " is

entered in th e column e n t it le d ,

"Response E arning 75% o r more o f re ­

sponses."
A second example is g iv e n in th e same i l l u s t r a t i o n .

B r ie fly ,

f o r A-5 "Yes" earned 450 responses, "No" earned 80 responses, and "?"

T T -V

.

Summary
sheet

-<
in a>
o in

o

00

H
o o
O

it.
In

to ►O
ui

^1
U1
to

M

o

to z
o

W

in -o

o 3>

°

Total

Special
Education
A dm inistration

-<

- a ll

in

H
o “
to
o §=

H
O

in

in

H

Special
Education
S ta ff

respondent
c a te g o rie s .

in

~o
H -<
O n>
w
to
O gr

General
Educators

H
O

in

in

-o
-<
o IS
in
to z
o

Parents

H
00

in

in
i- 1
in

to z

>3
in

I—
*

•O
in

M
O

•>)
-<
D
s w
o

in

*o

Agencies

Code

Form IV-A:

U1

Items

11.

$
o

■

Response Earning
75% or more
o r - "?"

►0

Subsection

Total

l
(O

Item
Code

>

A -l

A -3

A -4

A -5

A -6

A -7

A—10

A -1 2

Figure

> >
1 1
U> 00

122
earned 45 responses.

Of a t o t a l o f 575, 450 does re p re s e n t 75%.

There­

fo r e , "Yes" becomes the p re v a le n t response f o r Item A -5 .

Procedures f o r A n a lyzin g Data
When t o t a ls across groups a re o b ta in e d and th e m a jo r ity r e ­
sponse 1s determ ined, th e M aster Response Feedback C hart is co n su lte d
to f in d th e s ig n ific a n c e o f a p a r t ic u la r response.

(See Appendix A f o r

a copy o f th e C h a rt).

The M aster Response Feedback C hart
To use th e C h a rt, the column a t th e f a r l e f t is c o n s u lte d to
fin d

the ite m in q u e s tio n .

cated in
"? ".

The m a jo r ity response f o r th a t item is l o ­

th e column to th e r ig h t ; i t must be e it h e r "Y e s," "N o," o r

A t th e to p o f th a t column appears th e feedback re g a rd in g th e ite m .

The feedback w i l l be one o f the fo llo w in g :
1. In com pliance
2. Recommended
3. In c o n c lu s iv e data
4. Not recommended
5. I lle g a l

The Lin e Graph P r o f ile
An a d d itio n a l step in v o lv e s re p re s e n tin g a l l item s on a lin e
graph along w ith ra tin g s from
c le a r ly i l l e g a l

-2

to

+2

corre spo nd in g to d e s ig n a tio n s o f

( - 2 ) ; n o t recommended ( - 1 ) ; d a ta is in c o n c lu s iv e , o r in ­

s u f f ic ie n t o p p o rtu n ity to determ ine ( 0 ) ; recommended (+ 1 ) ; and in

123

compliance w ith the s ta te d ru le o r re g u la tio n .
is p lo tte d on a graph is shown in F ig u re 12.
glance which items f a l l below the
go ry.

0

An example o f data which
The graph re v e a ls a t a

o r m iddle lin e in to the minus c a te ­

I f too many item s f a l l on the m id dle li n e , th e a d m in is tra to r in ­

te rp re te d t h is to mean one o f two th in g s :

( 1 ) th e respondent g ro u p (s)

surveyed have no t been adequately inform ed about the program, o r ( 2 )
qu estio ns were s e le cte d f o r the group which one should n o t n e c e s s a rily
expect them to know.

Reconvening o f th e E v a lu a tio n Team
When the E v a lu a tio n Team is reconvened, they may perform any
o f several fu n c tio n s , depending on the amount o f p re p a ra tio n which has
a lre a d y been done, and whether o r no t data has been summarized and
placed on form s.

I f i t has not been done, th e m eeting must be a work­

ing session in which t h is is done.
I f th e sum m arizations have a lre a d y been done, the ta sk then
becomes one o f in te r p r e tin g the r e s u lts and making recommendations.
The team may perform any o f th e fo llo w in g fu n c tio n s :
1. T a lly q u e s tio n n a ire responses
2. Summarize data by respondent group
3. Summarize data across a l l groups
4. C onsult M aster Feedback C hart and p lo t data on a lin e
graph p r o f i l e sheet
5. Prepare E v a lu a tio n Summary Form
6

. Recommend s tra te g ie s f o r program improvement

SECTION___
Subsection^
Code
In s tru c tio n s :

1

2

Place a dot on lin e a t p o in t corresponding to item number and ra tin g
the dots to show lin e p r o file .
3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Connect

21

22

+2
+1

0

2

A-l A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A- 6 A-7 A- 8 A-9
Rating Key:

+2 +1 -

Figure 12.

Form V:

A ction is in compliance
A ction is recommended
Line graph p r o file .

0 -

Data is inconclusive

-1 -

Action is not recommended

-2 -

Action is c le a rly ille g a l

125
P reparing F in a l Reports
F in a lly , th e E v a lu a tio n re p o rt is to be w r itt e n so th a t i n ­
fo rm a tio n may be dissem inated and th e re p o rt may become a p a rt o f th e
department f i l e s .

Two forms are presented h e re in to f a c i l i t a t e the

w r it in g o f th a t re p o r t.

E v a lu a tio n Summary Sheet
The E v a lu a tio n summary sheet shown in F ig u re 13 pro vid e s a
space f o r summarizing the a lre a d y com piled d a ta .

Any p a r t o r a l l o f

t h is form may be used depending on th e wishes o f th e e v a lu a tio n team
chairman.

Suggested Format f o r
the F in a l Report
F ig u re 14 shows a fo rm a t which may be used f o r th e f in a l
n a r r a tiv e r e p o r t.

T h is fo rm a t is suggested so th a t an organized re p o rt

can be developed which would be u s e fu l to p re sen t to th e s t a f f , admin­
is t r a t io n , o r o th e rs .
I f these form s are used, the y re q u ire th e team to r e f le c t on
th e r e s u lts o f th e e v a lu a tio n and to p la n f o r th e r e s o lu tio n o f th e
problems which were r e a liz e d .
T h e ir use is e n t ir e ly o p tio n a l, however, as o th e r procedures
f o r summarizing data may b e t te r serve th e purposes o f the e v a lu a tio n .

126

I.

TOTALS
A.

TOTAL ITEMS "IN COMPLIANCE"

B.

TOTAL ITEMS "RECOMMENDED"

C.

TOTAL ITEMS "QUESTIONABLE" (?)
(Data are In c o n c lu s iv e )

D.

TOTAL ITEMS "NOT RECOMMENDED

E.

TOTAL ITEMS "ILLEGAL"

I I . IDENTIFYING PROBLEM AREAS
L i s t Each Item Which is Considered Q u e stio n a b le , Not Recommended
o r I l l e g a l , below:

(A) QUESTIONABLE

III.

(B) NOT RECOMMENDED

(C) ILLEGAL

PLAN OF ACTION RECOMMENDED
For each itm e f a l l i n g in the c a te g o rie s (A ), (B ), and (C) above,
id e n t if y a p la n o f a c tio n which th e Team recommends to e lim in a te
th e problem ; o r w r ite a j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f th e p re se n t p r a c tic e i f
th e Team b e lie v e s th e p re se n t p o lic y to be sound.
A l l (C) item s must be approved by the S ta te Department i f l e f t
unchanged.

IV . PREPARATION OF REPORT ACCORDING TO SUGGESTED FORMAT.

F igu re 13. Form V I:

E v a lu a tio n summary sheet.

127

A.

Page 1 o f the r e p o rt w i l l in c lu d e th e fo llo w in g ite m s:
-

T itle o f d is t r ic t
The a d m in is tra tio n
Date o f e v a lu a tio n
Makeup o f E v a lu a tio n Team
A ta b le o f co n te n ts ( b r i e f )

The Body o f th e re p o rt w i l l in c lu d e th e fo llo w in g :
1. O b je c tiv e s o f E v a lu a tio n
2. E v a lu a tio n Procedures
-

P o p u la tio n surveyed
Method o f sample s e le c tio n
Persons in v o lv e d
Procedures fo llo w e d

3. E v a lu a tio n R esults
Summarize the data f o r each o f th e respondent groups in each
area o f program e v a lu a tio n .
C.

Appendix
1. In c lu d e in t h is s e c tio n a copy o f each d a ta -g a th e rin g in s t r u ­
ment used in the e v a lu a tio n , as w e ll as any re p o rts o r documen­
t a r y evidence o f com pliance w ith th e law , e s p e c ia lly r e la t in g
to those item s f o r which the In stru m e n t y ie ld e d n e g a tive o r in ­
c o n c lu s iv e r e s u lt s .
2. In c lu d e a copy o f proposed plan o f a c tio n to e lim in a te problems
found.

F igure 14.

P reparing th e e v a lu a tio n r e p o r t:

A suggested fo rm a t.

CHAPTER IV
FIELD TEST, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The F ie ld Test
F o llo w in g th e p i l o t s tu d y , r e v is io n and development o f the
e v a lu a tio n system , i t was f i e l d te s te d in a la rg e urban d i s t r i c t in
M ichigan which p ro vid e s s p e c ia l e d u ca tio n s e rv ic e s f o r over 3,000 s tu ­
dents in a l l e x c e p tio n a lity areas.

The school d i s t r i c t was se le cte d as

the f i e l d t e s t s it e f o r two m ajor reasons:

( 1 ) the comprehensiveness

o f th e program and ( 2 ) the a d m in is tr a to r 's d e s ire to e va lu a te th e spe­
c ia l ed u ca tio n program to assess com pliance w ith ’th e m a n d a to ry law.
To implement the system, the lo c a l d ir e c t o r o f s p e c ia l educa­
t io n was given a copy o f th e ASSESS m a te ria ls along w ith enough in s t r u ­
ments f o r 25 persons in each o f th e f iv e respondent c a te g o rie s since
the suggested procedure in v o lv e d using

20

persons in each ca te g o ry .

The a d m in is tra to r was inform ed th a t a d d itio n a l in stru m e n ts were a v a il­
able i f he chose a sampling system which re q u ire d a d d itio n a l q u e s tio n ­
n a ire s .
The d ir e c t o r w as,advised th a t as th e lo c a l a d m in is tra to r, he
was to be chairman o f the e v a lu a tio n team and was in complete c o n tro l
o f th e e v a lu a tio n procedures.

I t was e x p la in e d to him th a t the recom­

mended procedures given in ASSESS were to be fo llo w e d , b u t th a t some

128
i

129
v a r ia tio n was a llo w a b le in o rd e r to make th e system more workable in
h is school d i s t r i c t sin ce th e e v a lu a tio n procedure was ve ry general in
n a tu re .

He was advised to read over the ASSESS m a te ria l p r io r to the

tim e f o r the f i r s t e v a lu a tio n committee m eeting so th a t any q u e stio n s
could be answered p r io r to the a c tu a l t r i a l ru n .
When the in s tr u c tio n s were re a d , th e a d m in is tra to r in d ic a te d
th a t he had s u f f i c i e n t l y c le a r in s tr u c tio n s and th a t he was ready to
begin the e v a lu a tio n .

As chairman o f th e E v a lu a tio n Team, he took the

fo llo w in g p re lim in a ry ste p s :
1. Team members were s e le c te d using a v a r ia tio n o f Plan B
which was discussed in the preceding C hapter.

S u p e rviso rs o f the

fo llo w in g programs were s e le cte d to serve as team members:
T ra in a b le m e n ta lly Im paired
P h y s ic a lly and o th e rw ise h e a lth im paired
Hearing im paired
S e verely m e n ta lly im paired
Elem entary programs f o r the m e n ta lly , v is u a lly , and emo­
t i o n a l l y im p a ire d , and the le a rn in g d is a b le d
2. An e v a lu a tio n plan was developed r e q u ir in g each o f th e
s u p e rv is o rs to survey s p e c ific respondent groups.

In most cases,

th e respondent groups were a sso cia te d w ith a p a r t ic u la r super­
v is o r 's program.

An e xce p tio n was the s u p e rv is o r o f elem entary

programs who was asked to survey a l l s p e c ia l educa tion a d m in is tra ­
to r s and to randomly s e le c t 25 general education a d m in is tra to rs to
survey.

Table 3 shows th e e v a lu a tio n p la n .

3. A s p e c ific d a te was s e t a s id e , and th e s e c re ta ry was in ­
s tru c te d to arrange the f i r s t team m eeting f o r t h a t d a te .

Table 3.

Sample school d i s t r i c t evaluation plan.

Respondent
Group I

Respondent
Group I I

Respondent
Group I I I

Respondent
Group IV

Respondent
Group V

Parents

Agencies

Adm inistrator
(Special Ed.)

S ta ff - Special
Education

None

Ramdomly select
5 s t a f f members
and survey

None

None

II

None

II

II

Supervi sor
#3

None

II

None

II

II

Supervisor
#5

None

II

None

II

II

Randomly se le ct
25 General Ed.
Adm inistrators
and survey

None

None

Supervisor
#1

Supervisor
#2

A dm inistrator
#5

Survey a ll
Special Ed.
Adm inistrators

None

General Education

Randomly se le ct
5 parents and
survey

Select 5
agencies w ith
whom you work

131

4. A d a te was determ ined f o r th e re tu rn o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire s
to the team chairman.
5. I t was determ ined th a t the data c e n te r would be used to
process the data and th e appointm ent was made.

Copies o f th e ques­

tio n n a ire s were a ls o subm itted to th e c e n te r to a llo w them tim e to
plan f o r processing th e da ta.
6

. Packets were prepared f o r each team member c o n ta in in g ques­

tio n n a ir e s , in s tr u c t io n s , and o th e r m a te ria ls in s u f f ic ie n t q u a n ti­
t ie s .
Since t h is in fo rm a tio n was to be shared w ith th e team members
a t the tim e o f th e f i r s t m ee ting , i t was necessary to reco rd th e d e c i­
sions so th a t th e y could r e a d ily be shared.

Form I , F ig u re 3 was used

by the chairman to record th e in fo rm a tio n .
No date was s e t f o r reconvening the team sin c e th e ye a r was
approaching an end and the a d m in is tra to r planned to use th e r e s u lts o f
the e v a lu a tio n to p ro vid e in s e rv ic e f o r th e s t a f f in the f a l l o f the
y e a r.

A t th a t tim e , th e r e s u lts o f the survey would be shared w ith th e

e n tir e s t a f f .

The Team Meeting
On the scheduled d a te , the team was c a lle d to g e th e r to im p le ­
ment the e v a lu a tio n p la n .

E va lu a tio n packets were handed o u t, and as-

signments were given as shown in Table 4.
In s tr u c tio n s were e xp la in e d b r i e f l y , and th e fo llo w in g p o in ts
were emphasized:

132

Table 4.

F ie ld t e s t response t o t a l s .

Respondent
Group IV

Respondent
Group V

4

5

5

5

5

#2

3

2

0

TMI

5

5

5

2

4

5

5

5

5

5

3

5

5

5

Respondent
Group I

Respondent
Group I I

S u pe rvisor
#1

Respondent
Group I I I

4
—

—

POHI

S u pe rvisor

S u pe rvisor
#3
HI

~

S u pe rvisor
#4
SMI

E xtra ( 8 )
S u pe rvisor
#5

Percentages
o f Responses
by Respon­
dent Group

9

22

14

9

"28~

25~

- =
9

100%

T o ta l sent o u t: 102

22

_ = 75%
28

------

— = 56%
25

T o ta l Returned : 73

— = 75%
20

—

— = 65%
20

T o ta l p e rc e n t re tu rn e d : 71%

N otes:
1.
In each b lo c k , th e to p number denotes q u e s tio n n a ire s r e ­
tu rn e d ; th e bottom number denotes number d is tr ib u te d by team members.
2.
E xtras shown f o r S u p e rv is o r in Group I I were sent o u t by th e
c e n tra l o f f ic e person to o b ta in a d d itio n a l in p u t from s t a f f asso cia te d
w ith elem entary program.

133

1. Respondents were encouraged to answer acco rding to d i s t r i c t
p ra c tic e s * and no t acco rding to what th e law re q u ire s .
2. Team members were asked to p e rs o n a lly d e liv e r each ques­
tio n n a ir e and p ic k them up in o rd e r to have them back to
th e chairm an w ith in th e a llo t t e d tim e .
3. Team members were to in s t r u c t respondents to check o n ly one
response f o r each ite m , and to fe e l fr e e to in d ic a te “ I
d o n 't know" when necessary.
Team members were inform ed th a t th e y would n o t have to t a l l y
the responses f o r t h e ir groups, so th e y d id n o t need th e c o m p ila tio n
form s.
week.

A ll q u e s tio n n a ire s were to be re tu rn e d to the chairman w ith in a
They were g ive n in s tr u c t io n sheets c o n ta in in g a l l p e r tin e n t i n ­

fo rm a tio n .

Data C o m p ila tio n
Of a t o t a l o f 102 q u e s tio n n a ire s which were se n t o u t, o n ly 71%
were re tu rn e d .

P a rt o f th e non-response problem was due to the f a c t

th a t many respondents f e l t to o in a d e q u a te ly inform ed about th e s p e c ia l
e d uca tion program to com plete them.
t io n to th a t e f f e c t .

Some were re tu rn e d w ith an exp la na­

(See Table 4 f o r response t o t a l s . )

Upon subm ission o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire s to the data c e n te r, i t
was d iscove red th a t th e coding system on th e q u e s tio n n a ire s o th e r than
the m aster was n o t com plete, due to th e e lim in a tio n o f c e r ta in item s f o r
c e r ta in groups.

As a r e s u lt , th e responses were d i f f i c u l t to keypunch.

C onsequently, i t was th e d e c is io n o f the data c e n te r s t a f f to t a l l y the
responses by hand.

T h e ir e x p la n a tio n was t h a t unless a l l item s were

134
numbered c o n s e c u tiv e ly under each s e c tio n , keypunching would be d i f f i ­
c u lt and would be s u b je c t to e r r o r because o f a la rg e amount o f s k ip ­
p in g .

T h is problem occurred because th e o n ly q u e s tio n n a ire s c o n ta in in g

a l l item s was th e a d m in is tr a to r and s t a f f q u e s tio n n a ire ; a l l o th e rs con­
ta in e d o n ly s e le c te d item s from th e m aster q u e s tio n n a ire .

C onsequently,

in o rd e r to compare the responses between groups, i t was necessary to
keep th e coding system in t a c t , b u t th e co n s e c u tiv e o rd e rin g was no lo n ­
ge r p o s s ib le .

In th e re v is e d q u e s tio n n a ire , an a lte r n a te numbering sys­

tem w i l l be used which w i l l in c lu d e th e m aster code along w ith a number­
in g system o f le t t e r s and c o n se cu tive numbers f o r each ite m .
m aster code can be used f o r data a n a ly s is w h ile

Then, th e

the a lte r n a te numbers

can be used f o r keypunch purposes.
The data c e n te r s t a f f was a b le to t a l l y th e responses, how­
e v e r, keeping a l l groups sep ara te so th a t the same kin d o f data a n a ly s is
was p o s s ib le w ith o u t th e b e n e fit o f having the data run through th e com­
p u te r.

ASSESS is designed to be used e ith e r way, a lth o u g h th e ta s k

re q u ire s more tim e when done by hand.
When th e data were re tu rn e d from th e c e n te r , the ASSESS forms
were used to show t o t a l responses to each ite m f o r each group s e p a ra te ly ,
and f o r a l l groups combined.

As an example o f how th e responses were

com piled f o r one group and across gro up s, p a r t i a l l y com pleted forms
shown in F igu res 7,

8

were

, and 9.
i

To use th e ASSESS fo rm s, i t was necessary to determ ine what
percentage o f c o n c u rrin g responses was necessary b e fo re th e most f r e ­
q u e n tly o c c u rrin g response to an item co u ld be determ ined.
used th e percentage o f 75%, s in c e i t

The chairman

is considered a c le a r m a jo r ity .

i

135
As in d ic a te d p re v io u s ly , data a n a ly s is is done a t the d is c r e ­
tio n o f th e chairm an.

In the f i e l d t e s t , the chairman decided to study

the com piled d a ta , graphs, and c h a rts across the summer, and to use
them to pla n in s e rv ic e in the f a l l .
Since th e school y e a r was alm ost o v e r, the a d m in is tra to r de­
cided to w ith h o ld th e form al re p o rt u n t il the f a l l when he would share
the r e s u lts o f the e v a lu a tio n w ith th e s t a f f .

Problems Encountered D uring
the F ie ld T est
1. The amount o f tim e f o r the q u e s tio n n a ire s to be completed
was p ro b a b ly in s u f f ic ie n t .

Most o f the q u e s tio n n a ire s were la t e .

Ten days in s te a d o f f iv e would be a more a p p ro p ria te le n g th o f
tim e .

The in s tr u c tio n s were re v is e d to a llo w ten days f o r comple­

t io n o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire s .
2. The coding on the q u e s tio n n a ire s was no t s u ita b le f o r data
pro cessing s in c e th e code re q u ire d a la rg e amount o f "s k ip p in g "
o f item s by th e keypuncher.

The new coding system in v o lv e s number­

ing a l l item s c o n s e c u tiv e ly under each sub sectio n as an a lte rn a te
coding system.
3. Respondents answered th e q u e stio n s as though they were
being e va lu ated on t h e ir knowledge o f A ct 198 in s te a d o f being
asked to t e l l what p ra c tic e s were p re v a le n t.

More care should

have been taken to g iv e e x p l i c i t in s tr u c tio n s .
4. Q uestions were too le n g th y ; many respondents complained o f
th e le n g th o f the Ite m s.
p o s s ib le .

The long q u e stio n s were shortened, where

136
5. Some item s were l e f t unanswered by many o f th e respondents
in c e r ta in c a te g o rie s , suggesting th a t the ite m s , in some cases,
were in a p p ro p ria te f o r th a t ca te g o ry o f respondents.

Many o f the

item s were o m itte d in th e f in a l r e v is io n .
6.

Parent item s were considered to o te c h n ic a l.

The Evalua­

t io n Team Chairman recommended th a t some o f the item s be e lim in a te d
and th a t the language and te rm in o lo g y be s im p lif ie d even f u r t h e r .
These recommendations were fo llo w e d .
7. Some o f the te rm in o lo g y was c o n fu s in g ; i t was e ith e r e lim ­
in a te d o r c la r i f i e d .
T a lly in g the item s by hand proved to be a te d io u s ta s k , even
f o r the sm all number o f persons surveyed in t h is f i e l d t e s t .

I f each

team member had to ta le d h is own s e t o f q u e s tio n n a ire s as recommended in
the manual, th e c o m p ila tio n o f data would have been s im p lif ie d .
In s p ite o f th e problem s, th e E v a lu a tio n Team Chairman f e l t
th a t v a lu a b le data were obtained as a r e s u lt o f the e v a lu a tio n .

C e rta in

general in fo rm a tio n which he obtained from th e survey fo llo w s ;
1. General educators p o in te d o u t th a t th e re was a need f o r
in s e rv ic e to a cq u a in t them w ith the s p e c ia l ed uca tion program and
the needs o f th e stu d e n ts .
2. Parents requested in fo rm a tio n b o o kle ts o r workshops to ac­
q u a in t them w ith th e

.s p e c ia l

educa tion program.

3. S pecial education s t a f f members requested in s e rv ic e to
he lp f a m ilia r iz e them w ith the program req uirem en ts.
4. Agencies expressed u n f a m ilia r it y w ith th e program 's opera­
t io n and a need f o r more in fo rm a tio n .

137
5.

S pecial education a d m in is tra to rs were aware o f program

shortcom ings in some a re a s, b u t f e l t th a t they were proceeding as
r a p id ly as p o s s ib le toward the goal o f com plete com pliance.
In c o rp o ra tin g the suggestions and c r it ic is m s o f a l l persons
in s o fa r as p o s s ib le , the in stru m e n ts were re v is e d and appear in Appen­
d ix B.

Summary
In summary, ASSESS has been shown to be a s e lf-m o n ito r in g i n ­
strum ent which can be o f value to a lo c a l d i s t r i c t in e l i c i t i n g

in fo r ­

m ation from persons a sso cia te d w ith th e s p e c ia l education program r e ­
ga rding program o p e ra tio n , and in showing where program s tre n g th s and
weaknesses a re , and where th e d i s t r i c t may be f a l l i n g s h o rt in comply­
ing w ith P u b lic A c t 198, th e S ta te Code and th e G u id e lin e s .
F u rth e r, the system has proved to be o f value in y ie ld in g
o th e r in fo rm a tio n sim p ly because i t

is a means by which feedback can be

given to the s p e c ia l e d uca tion departm ent by in d iv id u a ls who may n o t
th in k th e y have t h a t o p p o rtu n ity o r d in a r ily .

Respondents commented

f r e e ly on th e q u e s tio n n a ire s , sin ce i t was n o t necessary f o r them to be
id e n t if ie d and t h e ir comments were in v a r ia b ly e n lig h te n in g .

I f any per

son in th e d i s t r i c t pe rceives a d i s t r i c t as f a i l i n g to p ro v id e s e rv ic e s
to handicapped stud en ts ini accordance w ith th e la w , th a t is cause f o r
concern.
Two areas in which ASSESS may become more p re v a le n t are the
areas o f s t a f f in s e rv ic e and in fo rm a tio n d is s e m in a tio n f o r p a re n ts ,
a g en cie s, and o th e rs .

The p i l o t stud y and th e f i e l d t e s t s u b s ta n tia te d

138
t h is o b s e rv a tio n because many o f th e respondents requested th a t th e y be
in s e rv ic e d on th e q u e s tio n n a ire item s sin ce th e y d id n o t have access to
the m aster l i s t o r feedback c h a rts and were concerned about t h e ir un­
f a m i l i a r i t y w ith many o f th e ite m s.

Some o f th e u n f a m ilia r it y w ith the

program is undoubtedly a r e s u lt o f th e re c e n t im p le m e nta tion o f P u b lic
A ct 198, b u t some o f i t must a ls o be a t t r ib u t e d to a la c k o f dissem ina­
tio n o f in fo rm a tio n about th e s p e c ia l educa tion program.
I t is e n t ir e ly p o s s ib le th a t uses e x is t f o r th e system which
have n o t y e t been a s c e rta in e d .

O nly a d d itio n a l tr y o u ts w i l l determ ine

what these uses a re .
ASSESS was designed and developed in response to a need ex­
pressed by many o f M ic h ig a n 's sp e c ia l e d uca tion a d m in is tra to rs who are
concerned about o p e ra tin g t h e ir program in com pliance w ith M andatory.
Questions were d e riv e d from a m aster l i s t o f statem ents and mandated
p ra c tic e s re g a rd in g eleven areas o f program o p e ra tio n .

These q u e stio n s

became a m aster q u e s tio n n a ire f o r s p e c ia l e d u ca tio n a d m in is tra to rs .
This m aster q u e s tio n n a ire was used to generate fo u r a d d itio n a l q u e s tio n ­
n a ire s f o r p a re n ts , ag en cie s, general educators and s p e c ia l e d uca tion
s ta ff.
F o llo w in g th e development o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire s , th e in s t r u ­
ments were p ilo te d w ith persons from each respondent group.

Comments

from persons p a r t ic ip a t in g in th e p i l o t study le d to a r e v is io n o f the
♦

o r ig in a l s e t o f in stru m e n ts to e lim in a te s e rio u s problem s.
Some item s were n o t changed to a llo w o th e r respondents an op­
p o r tu n ity to comment on them when i t was determ ined t h a t a d d itio n a l in ­
p u t was necessary.

139

A f t e r the p i l o t study was conducted, the system was expanded
to in c lu d e forms and in s tr u c tio n s f o r t h e ir use so th a t the complete
package could be f i e l d te s te d .
The f i e l d t e s t was conducted by a lo c a l d i s t r i c t sp e cia l edu­
c a tio n program where th e sp e cia l education a d m in is tra to r assumed the
r e s p o n s ib ility f o r a p p o in tin g an E va lu a tio n Team, choosing an e v a lu a tio n
p la n , and b r ie f in g th e team members on the e v a lu a tio n procedures to be
used.
The system was implemented, data c o lle c te d , cha rted and placed
on a graph to be used as p a rt o f an e v a lu a tio n r e p o r t, dissem inated to
s t a f f members in the f a l l , and used as a basis f o r s t a f f in s e rv ic e .
F u rth e r re v is io n was done sin ce the data revealed several
weaknesses in the system.

The f i n a l , re v is e d in stru m e n ts are presented

in Appendix B o f t h is s tu d y , and complete in s tr u c tio n s appear in Chapter
I I I , P a rt I I .

Recommendations
R e a liz in g th a t e v a lu a tio n takes many forms and th a t t h is
study re p re se n ts a ve ry sm all e f f o r t to re s o lv e a ve ry complex problem ,
the fo llo w in g recommendations are made f o r f u r t h e r stud y:
1. Since ASSESS looks o n ly a t process e v a lu a tio n , some means
o f e v a lu a tin g p u p il performance should be developed.
2. ASSESS should become the f i r s t phase o f programmatic r e ­
search e f f o r t so th a t another person could lo o k in to the problem
o f d e velop in g performance standards o r documentary evidence o f p e r­
formance f o r those item s where t h is is p o s s ib le .

I f t h is were done,

140
ASSESS co u ld become an e v a lu a tio n approach which cou ld be used by
o u ts id e e v a lu a to rs ra th e r than th e d i s t r i c t ' s own s t a f f , i . e . ,
the in te rm e d ia te d i s t r i c t o r S ta te Department E v a lu a tio n Team.
3.

V a ria tio n s in th e procedures f o r using ASSESS should be

experim ented w ith in o rd e r to a s c e rta in th e most p r a c tic a l and use­
f u l procedure.
E v a lu a tio n is a re a l f a c t o r to be reckoned w ith by a l l s p e c ia l
e d u c a to rs ; i t

is tim e to begin to develop systems to accom plish the ta s k .

ASSESS is one sm all s te p in t h a t d ir e c t io n ; i t s

use is encouraged and

c o n s tru c tiv e amendments o r a d a p ta tio n s a re welcomed.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES
A hr, Edward and Sims, Howard. An E va lu a tio n Model f o r S pecial Educa­
t i o n . S ko kie, I l l i n o i s !
P r io r it y In n o v a tio n s , 1971.
Anderson, S. B. A c c o u n ta b ility : La N o w e lle Vogue. Proceedings o f
Conference o f A c c o u n ta b ility sponsored by E .T .S ., March,
1971.
Andrew, G. M. and M o ir, R. E. In fo rm a tio n —D e cisio n Systems in Educa­
t i o n . Ith a c a , I l l i n o i s !
F. E. Peacock P u b lis h e rs , 1970.
Banghart, Frank W. E ducational Systems A n a ly s is .
Col 1ie r-M c M illa n , L t d . , 1969.

T o ro n to , Canada:

Beekman, M arvin E. In d ic a tio n s o f P a tte rn s and Trends in Special
E ducation. Lansing, M ichigan: M ichigan Department o f
E ducation, 1971.
Beekman, R. "L a n sin g , M ic h ig a n ." In P re p a ra tio n o f M e n ta lly Retarded
Youth f o r G a in fu l Employment! W ashington, D .C .: U.S. Departm ent o f H e a lth , Education and W e lfa re . S uperintendent
o f Documents, U.S. Government P r in tin g O ffic e , 1959.
Bergman, Gordon Dennis. "A Systems Approach to Education Planning
A p p lie d to Special E d u c a tio n ." Unpublished D octoral d is s e r ­
t a t io n , M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity , 1972.
Brown, Kenneth W. "An A d m in is tra tiv e Survey o f the S pecial Education
Program in Oakland C ounty, M ichigan. Unpublished D octoral
d is s e r ta tio n , Wayne S ta te U n iv e r s ity , 1961.
Bureau o f Education f o r the Handicapped.
Im proving S pecial E ducation:
A Planning and E v a lu a tio n Manual. W ashington, D .C .: D epart­
ment o f H e a lth , Education and W e lfa re , 1970.
C a s s e ll, John T. "A Study to Develop a Guide f o r Use in E s ta b lis h in g
o r E va lu a tin g S pecial Programs f o r th e M e n ta lly Handicapped.
Unpublished D o cto ral d is s e r t a t io n , U n iv e r s ity o f C o n n e c tic u t,
1958.
Cook, John J.
"A c c o u n ta b ility in S pecial E d u c a tio n ." Focus on Excep­
tio n a l C h ild re n . Denver: Love P u b lis h in g Company, V o l. 3,
No. 9 (F ebru ary, 1972).
141
i

142
Dershim er, R ichard A.
"E v a lu a tio n and D e cisio n M a kin g ." E v a lu a tio n :
Processes and P ra c tic e s , S elected Papers from th e Conference
f o r th e E v a lu a tio n o f In s tr u c tio n a l M a te r ia ls . E d ited by
Ginny S w isher; Carol G ross; and E lle n Cramer. W ashington,
D .C ., A p r il 5 -6 , 1968.
Diana, e t a l . vs. S ta te Board o f E d u ca tio n , C-7037 RFP, D i s t r i c t
C ourt No.
Dunn, Lloyd M. "E ducation f o r th e M ild ly Retarded— Is Much o f i t
J u s t if ia b le ? " E xce p tio n a l C h ild re n , V o l. 35 (September,
1968), 5-24.
Edmunds, Edwin Ray. "S e rvice s O ffe re d to E xce p tio n a l C h ild re n in 217
M isso u ri P u b lic S c h o o ls ." Unpublished D o cto ra l d is s e r t a t io n ,
U n iv e rs ity o f M is s o u ri, 1960.
Gagne, R. M. "E d u ca tio n a l O b je c tiv e s and Human P erform ance." Learn­
in g and th e E ducational P rocess. E d ited by J . D. K rum boltz.
New Y ork: Rand M cN ally, 1965.
G a lla g h e r, James J.
"Phenomenal Growth and New Problems C h a ra c te riz e
S pecial E d u c a tio n ." Phi D e lta Kappan, V o l. 40 ( A p r i l, 1974),
516-520.
Geer, M. C. Testim ony Hearings Before th e General Subcommittee on
E d u ca tio n . W ashington. D .C .: Government P r in tin g O ffic e ,
T96ST
Henderson, N e il. A F ollow -u p Study o f Students in B e rrie n County
S pecial Education Programs f o r Years 1968-1972. B e rrie n
County ISD, B e rrie n S p rin g s , M ich ig a n , January 29, 1973.
Jackson R e p o rt. W ritte n by p ro fe s s io n a l and la ype rson appointed by
the S u p e rin te n d e n t o f P u b lic I n s t r u c t io n . M ichigan D epart­
ment o f E d u ca tio n , 1959.
Kaufman, M .; Semmel, M .; and Agard, J . P ro je c t Prim e: In te rim Report
Year 1 . Bureau o f E ducation f o r the Handicapped. W ashington,
D .C .: U.S. O ffic e o f E d u ca tio n , 1973.
K ir k , S. A. Educating E xce ptio nal C h ild re n .
Houghton M i f f l i n , 1972.

2nd E d itio n .

New York:

»

L i l l y , Stephen M. "S p e cia l E ducation: A Teapot in a Tem pest."
c e p tio n a l C h ild re n , V o l. 36 (1 9 7 0 ), 45.

Ex­

M ackie, Romaine and Dunn, L. M. "C o lle g e and U n iv e r s ity Programs f o r
the P re p a ra tio n o f Teachers o f E xce ptio nal C h ild r e n ." USOE
B u lle t i n , No. 131 (W ashington, D .C ., 1954), 606.

143

Marge, M ich a e l.
"P lan nin g and E v a lu a tio n f o r the F u tu re ."
C h ild re n , V o l. 34 (March, 1968).

E xceptional

M e is g e ie r, C harles H. and K ing, John D. The Process o f S pecial Educa­
t io n A d m in is tra tio n . S cran ton , P ennsylvania: In te r n a tio n a l
Textbook Company, 1970.
M ichigan A s s o c ia tio n o f P rofe ssors o f E ducational A d m in is tra tio n . The
Equal Q u a lity P la n . Task Force on P u b lic School Finance,
Lansing, M ich ig a n , 1969.
M ichigan Department o f E ducation. A d m in is tra tio n Guide f o r S pecial
Education Programs and S e rv ic e s i Lansing, M ich ig a n , 1971-72.
M ichigan Department o f E ducation. The Common Goals o f M ichigan Educat i o n . La nsing , M ich ig a n , 1971.
M ichigan Department o f E ducation.
"G u id e lin e s f o r the Im plem entation
o f P u b lic A ct 198. 11 (Rough D r a ft) December, 1973. Revised,
May, 1974.
M ichigan Department o f E ducation.
" L is t o f 18 T e n ta tiv e Area Designa­
tio n s as Adopted on March 15, 1972 by th e S ta te Board o f
E d u c a tio n ."
M ichigan Department o f E d u ca tio n , S pecial Study Committee. M ichigan
S pecial E ducation Committee Report on Teachers o f th e Handi­
capped. L a nsing , M ich ig an, 1970.
M ichigan Department o f E d u ca tio n , S p ecia l Study Committee on the S ta te
Code. M ichigan A d m in is tra tiv e Code Committee on S pecial
Education R e p o rt. La nsing , M ich ig a n , 1969.
M ichigan Department o f E ducation. S ta te Plan f o r th e D e liv e ry o f
S pecial Education Programs and S e rv ic e s . L a nsing , M ichigan
( P re lim in a ry ) F eb ru ary, 1971. ( F in a l) March, 1973.
M ichigan Department o f E ducation. A Study o f Handicapped C h ild re n and
Youth, Report No. 1. (Conducted under P u b lic A ct 220 o f
1969.) L a nsing , M ich ig a n , 1971.
O rg a n iz a tio n f o r S o cial and T echnical In n o v a tio n , In c . (O STI). Improv­
ing S pecial E d uca tion: A P lanning and E v a lu a tio n Manual.
W ashington: Bureau o f Education f o r th e Handicapped, D epart­
ment o f H e a lth , Education and W e lfa re , September, 1970.
P a rs le y , M a rily n Jo. "The Development o f a P lanning and E va lu a tio n
Model f o r Programs D ire c te d Toward the E xce ptio nal C h ild in
the School System. Unpublished D o cto ra l d is s e r t a t io n , U ni­
v e r s ity o f Denver, 1971.

144

P e nn sylvan ia A s s o c ia tio n f o r R etarded C h ild re n .
Nancy Beth Bowman e t
a l . v s . Commonwealth o f P e n n s y lv a n ia . D a v id H . Kurtzman e t
a Y . C i v i l A c tio n 7 1 -4 2 , O cto be r 7 , 1971.
P ro z e r,

B. B.
"Program E v a lu a tio n :
The M o d e l-B u ild in g Game."
o f L e a rn in g D i s a b i l i t i e s , V o l. 4 , No. 6 (1 9 7 1 ).

R eport on

J o u rn a l

S p e c ia l E d u ca tio n in M ic h ig a n , 1966. W ritte n by th e S p e c ia l
E d u ca tio n S ub-com m ittee o f th e M ich ig a n Senate E d uca tion
Com m ittee.

Rogow, S a lly and C h a r lo tte , D a vid .
"S p e c ia l E d u c a tio n : P e rs p e c tiv e s ,
Trends and Is s u e s ." Phi D e lta Kappan, V o l. 40 ( A p r i l , 1 9 7 4 ),
514-515.
S c riv e n , M. "The M ethodology o f E v a lu a tio n ." P e rs p e c tiv e s o f C u r r ic ­
ulum E v a lu a tio n . New Y o rk: American E d u ca tio n Research As­
s o c ia t io n , 1967.
S ilv e r n , L. C. Systems E n g in e e rin g o f E d u ca tio n 1: The E v a lu a tio n o f
Systems T h in k in g in E d u c a tio n . Los A n g e le s: E d u ca tio n and
T r a in in g C o n s u lta n ts Company, 1965.
S k e lly - W r ig h t, Judge J .
Hobson v s . Hansen.
in g to n , D .C ., 1967.

269 F . , Supp. 401, Wash­

Sm art, Anna Barbara C rum p!er.
"A Proposed S p e c ia l E d u ca tio n Program
f o r th e S ta te o f A la ska w ith Emphasis on R ural S c h o o ls ."
U npublished D o c to ra l d is s e r t a t io n , M ich ig a n S ta te U n iv e r s it y ,
1970.
S parks, Howard.
" A d m in is tr a tiv e P r a c tic e s in S p e c ia l E d u c a tio n ."
c e p tio n a l C h ild r e n , V o l. 4 (O c to b e r, 19 6 9 ), 119-122.
"S p e c ia l E d u c a tio n — A M a jo r Event in 1 9 7 3 ."
( A p r i l , 1 9 7 4 ), 513-515.

Phi D e lta Kappan, V o l.

Ex­
8

S p e cia l S tudy Team o f th e M ich ig a n D epartm ent o f E d u c a tio n — S p e c ia l
E d u ca tio n S e rv ic e s .
E v a lu a tio n o f S p e c ia l E ducation Programs
and S e rv ic e s in th e Kalamazoo K i b l i c S c h o o ls . P re lIm in a ry
R e p o rt.
Kalamazoo, M ich ig a n (June 4 , 1971).
S p e cia l Task Force and S ta te w id e S tudy Com m ittee. G u id e lin e s f o r th e
Development o f S e rv ic e s and Programs f o r th e Educable M e n ~
t a l l y Handicapped"! L a n s in g , M ich ig a n (June 12, 1972).
S ta k e , R o b e rt.
" O f f i c i a l P roceedings o f a C onference Sponsored by th e
Ohio Departm ent o f E d u c a tio n ." E d u c a tio n a l E v a lu a tio n .
E d ite d by Joseph L. D a v is . M a rtin W. Essex, S ta te S u p e rin te n d e n t o f P u b lic I n s t r u c t io n , Columbus, O h io , 1969.

145
S ta te o f M ich ig a n , 76th L e g is la tu r e .

P u b lic A ct 198 (1971).

Sw isher, G inny; G ross, C a ro l; and Cramer, E lle n . , eds. S e lecte d Papers
from th e Conference f o r th e E v a lu a tio n o f I n s tr u c tio n a l Ma­
t e r i a l s . W ashington, D .C ., A p r il 5 -6 , 1968.
Warren, F. G. The Kent O ccupational Education and T ra in in g C enter: A
Summary^ Grand R apids, M ichigan (RD P ro je c t 981, V o ca tio n a l
R e h a b ilita tio n A d m in is tr a tio n , U.S. Department o f H e a lth ,
Education and W e lfa re , W ashington, D .C .) September, 1965.
W ille n b e rg R e p o rt. R e su lts o f S p ecia l Study sponsored by M ichigan De­
partm ent o f E d u ca tio n , E. W ille n b e rg , Chairman, 1967.

APPENDIX A
MASTER FEEDBACK CHART

>
1
—
-■

>
1

>
1
—
J
o

—i

ro
70

70

CO
O

oo

CO
-t*
•o

■(*
•

—
J

CO
-p*
•o

•"J
C
O
—
m
i

"si
CO
-J

CO

>

1
CO

a

c

Q.
—
j
—
j.
a
ID

ID

V>

V
TJ
•

00

O)
-1.

c

CL
(D

>
1
■vj

>
1
<n

CO
_J.
o.

£D
c
—
i>

c

ID

CL
ID

—j

—
m
i

3
ID
</»

3
ID

3
a>

w

w
■a

w
■a

V>

•

TJ
*

co

CO

—i

•j.
tn

>

1

cn

CO
ID

f)
■
ro

CO
CD

o
V

•

CO

C_i.

>
1

•P*
CO
-J*

c

Q(D

>
i

co

70 70
co
CO
-p»
O o

_j.

*vl

3
ID

VO

(/)
V
•a

>
t
ro

o

'•J
ro
ro

«

ro

i

3

o-

n>
-s

a> 73

o

co

r+ -r>

o

CO —'
00 "J

»

ro
ro

co I
ro ro
o co
• i

—i
o
c+
Of
M
c+
ID
3
in

CO

■a
id

o

ro oo
co co
oo ro

co
o

cT”^

o

H
NJ

to
c
cr
in
ID
n
rt
- j.
o
3
O
o
CL
ID
>

-s

(0

Cj.

70
(V
-h
n>
-s
-s

Q>
z
o

Z

O

Ille g a l according to
stated ru le or regu­
la tio n

z
o

CO
VI

<+
ID

z
o

z
o

z
o

z
o

z
o

z
o

Not recommended by
spe cifie d source
Not a p p lica b le , or
in s u ffic ie n t informa­
tio n to determine, or
Inconclusive

-<
m
CO

-

m

<

co

-

<

m

-

<

m

co co

-<
m
CO

-<
m
CO

-<
m
CO

-<
m
CO

-<
m
CO

Recommended by
sp e cifie d source
-<
m

co

•<
m
co

-<

m

co

In compliance w ith
stated ru le or regu­
la tio n

MASTER FEEDBACK CHART

co

>
1

DO
1
no
ro

DO
i
ro

DO
i
ro
O

DO
i

DO
1

<•£> Oo

DO
1

DO
1

DO
1

DO
i

00
•

"si

CTl

cn

4*

00

Mpqt

DO DO
i
1
—■« -_j
ro —i

DO
1

OO
1
CO

O

DO
1
09

DO
1
cn

DO
1
"O

DO
1
cn

DO
i
4k

DO
1
CO

CO
1
ro

DO
1
—■

C l-H
3

r+

cr ro
ro 3
-j

H
O
c+
01
—j
t—t
c+
(Q

90
CO
4k

o
•

"J
—J
CO

90
CO
4*
O
•
—J
"si

90
CO
4k
O
«
—1
•sj

ro

90
CO
4k
O
•
—j
"si
—J

o

90
CO
4k
O
•
•J
"si
—J

o

90
CO
4»
O
•
"sj

o

CO

90

co
4»
O
*
•J
■"4
O
CO

90
CO
4k
O
•
—1
"si
O
00

90
CO
4k
O
•

90
CO
4k
O
•

"si

"si

00

§

o

XI
CO
4k
O
*
"si
O
"si

90
CO
4k
O
••
—J
"J
O
"4

90
CO
4k
O
•

wJ

"si

90
CO
4k
O
«
■J
"sj

90
CO
4k
O
•

90
CO
4k
O
•

90
CO
4k
O
*

90
CO
4k
O
•

90
CO
4k
O
•

"si

"si
O
4k

o

m
m
d

""I

o o o
"4 CO CO

"si
O
CO

o

4k

"4

4k

73

•

90
CO
4k
O
•

90
CO
4k
O
•

—J

"si

"si

CO
4k
O

o

CJ1

o O
U1 cn

co
■a
ro
o
—i.
-*j

o*
co
o
c
-s
n
ro

3
t/i

CO
c
cr
to
ro
o
rtsJi
o
2
O
o

Cl

CO

ro

(a)
CD

n
2

O
(/>
o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

2

o

o

o

Ille g a l according to
stated ru le or regu­
la tio n

c+

CO

ro

-s

<

Not recommended by
spe cifie d source
Not a p p lica b le , or
in s u ffic ie n t informa­
tio n to determine, or
Inconclusive
Recommended by
s p e cifie d source

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
rn m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
C O C O t/)C O C O C O C O t/lC O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C /lC O C O C O t/l

In compliance w ith
stated ru le or regu­
la tio n

n
ro
to

4*
"si

If
ro ro 00
t i 1
CO CO CO
CO ro

00 ro 00 ro 00 00 00
i 1
i 1 i 1 1 1
CO ro ro ro ro ro ro ro
o VO 00 V l oi cn -Pi CO
ro

3

rt

■STS

(u
to
3
O
w
ft

70

70

70

CO

CO
-Pi

CO
-p i

o
•

•s i
CO
<01

70

CO
-P»

ro o o
*
*
»
■mJ 1 ^
VI
"si v |
"J
o -p i — •ro O
ro 00 "j ro ro
CD — . o
-c»
i i
o

o
■

— '7 0
•>■4 CO
O -Pi

_ i

vl
-P»

o
c
—i.

TO

70

70

TO

CO
-p i

CO
-pi

CO
-Pi

CO
-Pi

•
- «
VI

•
—i
VI

a.
(D

o

-a .
3
<D
</l
•*

VI

•

m
m
J

-P»

o
»

_ l
•V I
Ml
•pi

o

-Pi

o

CO

73

CO
-Pi
O
•

CO
T3

ro

o

-i

<

-J.

o

VI

CD

CO

v>
co

o
c
“S
o

T3
•

CO

CD

o
o

CD

-P»

<5

Q.

z
o

z
o

z
o

Z
o

z
o

z
o

z
o

z
o

z
o

z
o

Ille g a l according to
stated ru le or regu­
la tio n
Not recommended by
spe cifie d source

Z
o

Not a p p lica b le , or
in s u ffic ie n t in fo r ­
mation to determine,
o r Inconclusive
-<

-<

m
co

-< -<
mm

co co

Recommended by
sp e cifie d source

m
co

■< -<
m m

co

co

m m m m m
co co co co co

In compliance w ith
stated ru le o r regu­
la tio n

00

o o o o o o
1 1 1 1 1 1
—1
ro ro ro
ro
O VO 00 VJ
70
u
-p»
o
•

70
OO
4k
o

70
CO
-e»
o
■

o o o o
1 1 1 1
mmmt
CTl cn ■pk 00

o o o o CD o o CD CD o CD o
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-J
—
J VO 03 •Vl C
T> cn -Pk 00 ro
ro
o

—I
3

rt-

O ' (D

<D 3

70 id TO TO TO CD TO TO CD TO TO TO TO TO CD TO TO TO TO

OO c 00 00 oo c 00 OO c OO
4k ■Pk -Pk •J. -Pk -Pk -J. -Pk
-pk
O o. O o a. o
o CL •o o
•
•
•
*
fD
(1) •-J • «
fD •
—
J
—
J
pJ — 1 —
—
i —J
1
. V
■
vi -vl *vl -vl —
vl
J 'vl vJ -J. •Vl ■
ro ro ro ro 2 ro ro ro 2 ro ro 2 ro
ro CO oo oo n> 00 00 _j fD oo ro fD 00
{/>
V

V
>

T
3
*

■o

«
•

CD

aJ
*v|

■
vl

ro o
ro

—
j
•vl •vl
O

O

•P
k

C ■
a
fill. •

*

Q.
fD

-P
k

—
1
■
*

l/i
w

00 00 OO 00 c OO 00 00 OO
-Pk -Pk -Pk -Pk
-Pk 4k
4k
o o O o Q. o o o O
•
•
• • fD • * • •
_i2
fD
in
«

—
1
~v| •vl

ro o
ro

VJ

—
«
-vl

ro ro
ro ro

in

z
o

z
o

z
o

n

0*

o
a>
3

to

z
o

z
o

z
o

z
o

z
o

z
o

z
o

z
o

z
o

z
o

z
o

Ille g a l according to
stated ru le or regula­
tio n
Not recommended by
sp e cifie d source

z
o

Not a p p lica b le , or
in s u ffic ie n t informa­
tio n to determine, or
Inconclusive
-<
m

-< -c
m m

CO

00

-<
m

CO

-< -<
m m
CO oo

-< -< - <
m m m
in in 00

-<
m
m

f l>

fD

z
o

Z
o

o
o
o.

-<

Recommended by
sp e cifie d source

m

in

CO

-< -< -< -< -<
m rn m m m
CO CO CO CO Co

-< -< -< *<
m rn m rn
CO

oo CO

CO

In compliance w ith
stated ru le or regu­
la tio n

-o
T
o
o
n>
a.
c

*0
id

149

z
o

•Ck

2

-i

-J*

vJ

z
o

co

o

00

■a
•
z
o

tn

T3

ro
o

cr

fD

o
•—
< f+

§

l/J

z
o

—■

c

01

o
c

o>

2
fD

z
o

o>

in

o

■

-vl

rt-

r+

ro

■a

o

o
1

o
1

o o
1 i
ro —

r> o o o o o o o
i 1 i i i i i i
ro ro ro ro ro ro ro
o CO 00 vj
cn -pk CO

O C
C
O C
O C
O C
O
•P
k C
O
1

C 1
-1

3 nc r n>
a> 3

-j

CD

o

fD

3
fD

3

CD 30 CD CD 7 3 7 3 30 30 30 30 CD 30
C
CO c
c CO CO CO CO CO CO e CO
-J *
-Pk —i .
-Pk -Pk - f k -Pk -pk •Pk
•Pk
CL O
Q. a . O
o o O O o Ql o
»
»
•
•
•
•
(D •
f
D
f
D
f
D
mmJ
■J
•J
—J
m m i.

■J*

3

fD

'v l

ro

-Pk

in

•

VJ

•v J

fD ID

•Pk

•Pk

—!•

3

3

</)

•

VJ

VJ

-Pk

CO

CO CO

VJ

ro ro ro ro ro ro

IA

03

3

fD

(A
w

-a

-o

•

fD

Q.

ro

C

CO

-s
C
O

O
c
-5
o

•

OD

fD
fD

VJ

w

V

■o

VJ

co
T3

—<

ft)

ro

c+
“U
-s
o
o
fD

IA

O
O
3
C
+
—i.
3
C
fD

CL

o

o

•O

*-o

o

o

o

o

o

-<

cn

Not recommended by
s p e c ifie d source

z

o

o

Not a p p lic a b le , or
in s u f f ic ie n t inform a­
tio n to determ ine, or
Inconclusive

*-o

-<

-<

cn

in

-<
m

m m

m

I lle g a l according to
stated ru le or regu­
la tio n

Recommended by
s p e c ifie d source

co

-< -< -< -< -< -<
m m m rn m

m

cn

cn

cn

cn

cn

CO

-<
rn
cn

In compliance w ith
stated ru le o r regu­
la tio n

cn

O

o
1
ro
—*

o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o a a o a
i 1 1 1 —1J i i • i i i 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 i
—<
ro — 1 —J
CO 00 VJ cn cn 4k CO ro — i
o VO 00 VJ a t cn 4k CO ro
mmii

3 c+
O ' CD
CD 3

—l
o
r*
0»

-s

t—
t

30 30 30 70 70
CO CO CO CO CO
4k 4k 4k 4k 4k
o
o
o
o
O
1_1

Li

VJ VJ
CO co
00 oo

Li

Li

Li

30
CO CO
4k 4k
O O
70

Li

v j VI VI VI
CO CO CO Jk
00 00 00 00

30
CO
4k
O

30
CO
4k
O

Li

Li

Li

VI
4k
00

VI
4k
00

VI
£
00

30 30
CO CO
4k 4k
O
o
■
Li

30
CO

30
CO

30
CO

•

30
CO
-fk
o

•

4k
O

4k
O

4k
O

30
CO

4k
O

•

•

•

VI

vj

VI

VJ

VI

VI

VI

00

£

£

4k
00

4k
00

£

4k
00

CD
c
—1.

CD
c

CL

Cl

CD

CD

m^

«J*

(A

ft
0*
r+
(D

■o

3

3

CD
cn

CD
cn

P>

3

CD
c
■J,

Q.
CD

30
CO

4k
O
•

-L

VI

3

O

CD
cn

V

V

■a
*

•a
9

TJ
•

ro
—■*

co

CO

rt
i
cn

■o
CD
n

in
M

cn
c
cr
cn
C
D
o
c
+
—i.
O

3
O

o
Q.
C
D
o

c/>
o

c

-i
o

CD
00

cn

•o
CD
O
_j.

H)
-h

O
30
CD
43
C
u.

1
0 0

Ille g a l according to
stated ru le or regu­
la tio n

0 : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Z
o

2
o

Z
o

Z

Not recommended by
sp e cifie d source

o

Not a p p lic a b le , o r
in s u ffic ie n t informa­
tio n to determine, or
Inconclusive
-<
m
cn

m

m

r n

m

m

m

m

m

r n

m

m

r r m

m

m

m

-<
m
Co

-<
m
cn

Recommended by
sp e cifie d source

-<
m
cn

-<
m

cn

In compliance w ith
stated ru le o r regu
la tio n

CD
3

o
o
3
e+

>ii
3
C
C

3

O
-h
~o

-s
o

c+ IQ
cn ~s
,cr
<<

0)

3
cn

"O Ol
-5 3

O
CO
-s

0>
3
o

Ol
r+
CD
CO
O
-J
*<

CL

cn
CD
<

—
i.

n

CD

cn

cn

73

73

CO
-pk
o
•

73

CO
-Pk
o
•
•vi Vj
-pk -Pk
ro ro

73

CO
-Pk
•O
-vl
■Pk
ro

□

1
CO

O
O -vl

73

CO
-Pk
•o
'vl
4k
ro

73

CO
-Pk
•o
—
1
'vl
•Pk
ro

o
1
CO

CTi

73

CO
•Pk
o
*
■J
'vl
-Pk
cn

o
1
CO

cn

73

CO
-Pk
o
•
—
1
vj
-Pk

a
i

co

-Pk

73

CO
-Pk
O
•
vj
-Pk

cn cn

o
1
CO
CO

73

CO
•Pk
o
*
VJ
•Pk
vo

o
1
CO

ro

73

CO
-Pk
o
•
vj
-Pk
o

o
1
CO

—
1

o
1
CO

o

o
1

ro
vo

ro
00 VJ
ro

33
CO
-Pk
o
•
—
J
VJ VJ VJ
-Pk -pk -Pk
Pkl CO
CO
CO
-Pk
o
•

o
1

o
1

33
CO
-Pk
o
•

33
CO
-Pk
•O

o
1

o
i

ro
cn

ro

cn

33
CO
•pk
•o

o
i

33
CO
Jk
o
■
M
•
■
vj VJ VJ
Jk •Pk -Pk
CO CO CO

a

□

ro
co

ro
ro

i

ro

-Pk

i

-i

33
CO
-Pk
o
■
vj VJ vj vj
Jk Jk CO CO
CO CO VO oo

33
CO
Jk
•O

33
CO
-Pk
•o

3
f+
cr Q

fD 3

33
CO
-pk
O
•

CO
•o
n>

o

co

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

2

2

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

Z

2

Z

Z

2

Z

2

2

2

Not recommended by
sp e cifie d source
Not a p p lic a b le , or
in s u ffic ie n t informa­
tio n to determine, or
Inconclusive
Recommended by
spe cifie d source

m m m m r n r n m m m m m m m r n m m m m m m m m m

In compliance w ith
stated ru le o r regu­
la tio n

Continued

Ille g a l according to
stated ru le or regu­
la tio n

and Services

Z

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

C ategory

Z

Program

-j
o
a>

by

o
c

Programs

CO
-pk
o
•
—
J
vj
-Pk
ro

vo

o
1
CO

of

73

CO
•pk
o
•
•vj
-Pk
ro

o
1
CO

Continuum

-pk
CO

□ o
i
1
-Pk -Pk -Pk
ro —
' o
D
1

Requirements

33
CO
-Pk
•O
vj
-pk
ro

O
1

Specific

o
t
Jk
Jk

o o o o o O O o
1 i i 1 1 1 1 i
in cn cn 4k 4k 4k 4k 4k
PO
o 10 00 -4 cn in

30 30 30 30
w u u U
■TO 4k 4k 4k

O O O O
'vl

«v|

«vj

"»J

4k 4k 4k 4k
4k 4k 4k 9)

30 30 30 30
U U U U
4k 4k 4k 4k

OO O O

3

r+

cr ro
ro 3
3

cn
T3
ro
n
—u
“+
»
—i.
O
30

(/>
TJ
ro
o

>4 >>| nj xj
4k -pk 4k ^

O) O) (ji 9l
to

o
c
3
n

ro

ro
40

C
3

o
o
3
f+
—I*
3
c
c

3
o

-h

-a
3
o

ro
3
ro

£1
3

in

I/I

3
(+

ro
3

O" ro
<< 3
C
L

-o

3
O
lO
3

C
O

ro
3

<
nJ*
o
3
ro
o to
0>
r+ o
ro o
(TO 3
o 0+
3 _J.
«< 3
C
ro
Q.
0)

o o o o o o o o

Ille g a l according to
stated ru le o r regu­
la tio n
Not recommended by
sp e cifie d source
Not a p p lic a b le , or
in s u ffic ie n t informa­
tio n to determine, or
Inconclusive
Recommended by
sp e cifie d source

m m m m m m r n m

(/)(/IW (/)(/l(/)W W

In compliance w ith
stated ru le or regu­
la tio n

in
oo

m m m m m m m m m m
i i i i i i i i i i
to 00 V J oi cn 4k C O
|
ro
o

73 73 73 73 73 cn cn 73

CO CO
4k
O o
•
*

CO
4k
o
•

00 >0 M
CO ro ro
ro ro ro

o

o

CO c
4k
O CL
•
(V
—J
VJ >4 Mil
ro ro 3
ro ro ro
(/»
»

o

c
—J
.
Q.
ro*
o>
3

ro

w
w

CO CO
4k
O O
•
•
_J
Vj VJ
ro ro
ro ro

cn 73
2
CO
wit 4k
Q. o
ro *

VJ VJ
ro ro
ro ro

w

Q.

o.

o

o

ro
in

T3
•

T3

ro
Vj

ro
"0

ro
"0

•

z
o

o

CO
4k
O
•

3

TJ
•

o

73

z
o

Not recommended by
sp e cifie d source

z

o

Ille g a l according to
stated ru le or regu­
la tio n

©

Not a p p lica b le , or
in s u ffic ie n t informa­
tio n to determine, or
Inconclusive
-< -<
m
m
in in

- < - < - < - < -c
m m m m m
in in ui in in

■<
m

Recommended by
sp e cifie d source

(/)

-< -<
m m
in in

-<

-<

m m
in in

In compliance w ith
stated ru le o r regu­
la tio n

Follow-Up

o

CO
4k
O
•

■n m
i
i
00 " j

70
CO

-pk
o
•

70
CO

ro

T|
1

zl

-n
i

o

-n “n ■n ~n -n ~n ~n ~n
i
■ 1 i
i
i
i
i
oo 00 V l o> on -Pk co ro

TO TO TO TO co
co CO CO CO r+
-Pk •Pk O i
o o
o •o •o o O r+
•
•
•
•
*
fD
*
—j
h J
M l
v
j
v
j
v
j
'v l
VJ
'v l
v j ■vl v j -o
00 00 V J V J v j on •Pk -Pk -P k
-Pk
ro — * — 1 o oo VO VO
3
w
T3
*
__ i
-Ik

70
CO

-pk -Pk
o O
•
*

—J

VJ
oo

-n "n -n -n m
i
i
i
i
i
cn on -Pk oo ro

TO
CO

-Ik
o
»

70
CO

TO
CO

-Pk -pk

TO
CO

-Pk

• m it

'v l
OO

CO CO
c r+
o> -J - 01
r+ a c+
fD (D fD
Ml
X
J
*3
—■ 3
01 C
D 01
3 l/l 3
*#
w
XI
•o
■a
•
•
T3
__i 00
•Pk
—<
CO
c+

00
1

73

CO

CO
r+
O)

O r+
•
fD
«J
VJ ■o
00
—J
0>
3

C <-H
3 r+

S '!

CO
c+

01
r+
fD
-o
0)
3

co

•a
fD

o

■
a T
3
•
•

in
o
c

_i _,

fD

m

IA

-Pk •Pk

— i

0
<+
qj
—•

m

c
cr
fD
n
in

i—i <+
<+ —
*•
1
§
in
o
o
H Q.
00

(D

-s
o

~u

(V

o

o

z
o

z
o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Ille g a l according to
stated ru le o r regu­
la tio n

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Not recommended by
sp e cifie d source
Not a p p lica b le , or
in s u ffic ie n t informa­
tio n to determine, or
Inconclusive

-< -< -<
m m m m
CO CO CO CO

-<
rn

-<

-<

-<

-<

-<

-<

-<

-<

-<

-<

m m rn m m m m m m m
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

-<

-<
m
CO CO

rn

Recommended by
spe cifie d source
In compliance w ith
stated ru le or regu­
la tio n

<n

o

fD

oi

on

cn CD CD CD cn cn cn cn
i 1 1 1 i i i
03 •v j cn cn 4 k CO ro i

3 rt

? l
3

</> CO z CO *o
rt rt Co rt c
QJ QJ 4 k QJ cr
CO
o
o O
rt r t o r t
*o
•
•
•
_
j.
•
fD
ID
fD
fD
—J
O
o
•-J
•v l
XI
03
-Pk

CO
CO
QJ

XI
CO

co
CO

XI
CO
4k

co
CO

*o

■o

QJ
3

QJ
3

'•J
CO
CO

—J
cn

O

3>
rt

a. O

fD

V
■
o ■o
•
■
a
*

QJ

O

*
V
VO

cn

c•n

Oi

1
mmi

n

O
rt
QJ

co

c

O"

w
(D
O
rt

(D
3

to

[•

■i*

o
3
O
o

CL

fD

O

co

o
c
3
o
fD

cn

QJ

O
z z z
o o o

z z Z
o o o

Ille g a l according to
stated ru le or regu­
la tio n
Not recommended by
sp e cifie d source

z z
o o

Not a p p lica b le , or
in s u ffic ie n t informa­
tio n to determine, or
Inconclusive
o

-< -< -<
rn m m

CO

CO

CO

Recommended by
sp e cifie d source

o

-<
m
CO

-<

rn
to

In compliance w ith
stated ru le or regu­
la tio n

cn
cn
fD
CO

rc 31 x X 3 : X X X X
i 1 1 1 i> 11 ■■ —
1J 1
CO
"4 cn cn ■Pk oo ro — i o
CO CO 30 30
<-*■ r+ OO OO
PI o> ■Pk ■pk
c+ r+ o
O
<D fD * •
-J “J
x x vj vj
—j — J OO 00
D
>
0> 00 oo
3

«

x

•

3

30
00
-Fk
O
•
"J
oo
oo

30 X
00 00
•Pk •Pk
O
• *o
—J
v|

I

VJ

x

I
<n

x

i i
cn

i

co

o X CD GO CD 00 CD X CD CD
!= 00 c C C -Pk c OO c c
vl* O ■k ■Pk
■Jl
a. o O- a. CL •
a. O
a. o.
•
•
fD

id

X

X
•

•

•

ro
•Pk

—*

cr fD

CD 3

fD

(D

00 ID

fD

CD —

■
—-1 o.

X

•

X

•

ro ro ro

■
P
k ■
P
k

r+
O X

X

«< ‘

fD

—J. •vl
3 o

fD
tn

CO

X
CD

o
-h

•J.

w

O

X
•

OO
o
c
-s
o

ro ro

ro

'•j 2 oo
Q>

X
oo
-l*
o
•

00 ro

fD

Q.

oi

rtfD

cl

I lle g a l according to
stated ru le or regu­
la tio n

O O O O O

o

z

o

z

z

o

o o

o

Not recommended by
sp e cifie d source
Not a p p lic a b le , or
in s u ffic ie n t informa­
tio n to determine, or
Inconclusive

-<

-< -< -< -<

m
co

m m rn m
co oo cn in

rn
in

rn
w

-<
m
cn

m
w

m
w

-<

■<

co

oo

m m

m
1/1

-<
m
co

Recommended by
specified source
In compliance w ith
-< stated ru le or regu­
m
to
la tio n

M
C+
ID
3
(A
»-■
vl

CO
c
cr
CA
CD
o
r+
■i.
O
3
O
O

CL

fD
a

Content

z

—<
o
(+
B>
—j

In s tru c tio n a l

—4
O* "4

ro

3 rt-

-J

VJ
VJ
VJ
OO 00 3 o 3 3 3
3 oo 3
00 oo CD —J (D a> fD X fD 00 <D
(/i
.</>
(A (A (A — i
(A
«■
w
w
w
(A «
w

X

i i

C i- i
I I I I
3 rt
-Pk co ro — 1 cr m
fD 3
-s

-1

o

rt
Ql
—j

*—«

rt
<D

3

cn
rt
0>
c+
fD
-o
—j
0»

cn
Oi
rt
fD
-o
0>

1#

*

*•

w

cn

TJ

•a

TJ
•

•o

o
c

3

•

c+

3

•

cn
0>
rt
(D
T3
— i
rt

Q>
3

cn
D»
rt
(D
T5

rt

Q»
3

■

ro ro — i
o o 00 00

cn
TJ
fD
o
U i

r>

cn
c
cr
in
ID
o

rt
—a.
O
3

IA

O

o
a.
fD

H

-s

o
fD

(D

Ille g a l according to
stated ru le o r regu­
la tio n
Not recommended by
O O O O sp e cifie d source

“O -o

-o

-o

Not a p p lica b le , or
in s u ffic ie n t informa­
tio n to determine, or
Inconclusive

-<-<-<-<

m rn rn m Recommended by
oo
Go cn spe cifie d source

In compliance w ith
stated ru le or regu­
la tio n

Q)
O.

fD

in

cn
00

c_, Oi c_.
C-. o
1 1 1 1 1 1
O') cn -f» CO ro

3

rt

c r £D

"i

3

Oi
*—
i
r+

70

CO
•f*

o
■

'O

CO
CO

cn
ft
B)
ct
to

-o

—o

0)

3
*
TJ

•

CO
rt
0)
rt

cn cn

rt
OJ
rt

rt
OI
rt

CO
ct
0>
rt

fD

fD

“O
•—
j
0>

*o

"O

■o

O)

Q>

0»

3
*o

■

3
V

fD

3

(D

3

*

w

TJ

■a

•
•
_, _ i

•

CO CO CO CO CO

cn

T3
ro

o

</>
(71

cn
c
cr
to

to

o

rt
-*•

O
O
Q.
<0

CO

o
c
-s

o

(D

<+
z
o

Ille g a l according to
stated ru le or regu­
la tio n

ro

“5
O
)
c+

o

3
z
o

z
o

z
o

z
o

z
o

Not recommended by
sp e cifie d source
Not a p p lic a b le , or
in s u ffic ie n t informa­
tio n to determine, or
Inconclusive

-< -< -< ~< -<
m rn m m m
cn CO cn cn CO

-<
m

cn

Recommended by
spe cifie d source
In compliance w ith
stated ru le o r regu­
la tio n

cn

co

7*
7K
7*
7*
7*.
I
1
I
I
I
cn -p

to

ro —*

C l-H
3 ct

cr to

to 3
-s

-)
o
ct
p
—
J
1
—
1
rt

1
CO
ct
Oi
rt
(0

CO
Ct
Oi
rt

—
J

■J
01

fl>
-o ■o

P

3

3

GO
rt
OI
rt
(D

CO
rt
Oi
rt

00

~a *o

Ol

01

3

to

3

CO
rt
Oi
ct
(D

P

3
W

tO
CO
TJ
(0

n

~h

*

O
CO

o
c

rss

to

o

cn

O
o
Q.
to

~-d%

•a
•

CO
c
a*
to
(0
o
rt
4^1
O
3

-s
o

<
p

Ille g a l according to
stated ru le o r regula tio n

P

ct
O
3

O O O O O

Not recommended by
sp e cifie d source
Not a p p lica b le , or
in s u ffic ie n t informa­
tio n to determine, or
Inconclusive

-<-<*<-<-<

rn
CO

m
Co

m
rn
GO GO

m
CO

Recommended by
sp e cifie d source
In compliance w ith
stated ru le or regu­
la tio n

cn

o

APPENDIX B
REVISED QUESTIONNAIRE
( 1)

Special Education A d m in is tra to rs

(2)

Special Education S ta ff

(3)

General Educators

(4)

Parents

(5)

Agencies

ASSESS QUESTIONNAIRE
(1) Special Education A d m in is tra to rs
INSTRUCTIONS:
Please answer each question according to what is a c tu a lly p ra c tic e d in
your school d i s t r i c t a t the lo c a l le v e l. I f an item in d ic a te s a
c e rta in p ra c tic e in your d i s t r i c t , c ir c le the "Yes" response. I f the
a c tio n a llu d e d to in the item is no t the p ra c tic e in you r d i s t r i c t ,
c ir c le the "No" response. I f you r e a lly do n o t fe e l th a t you have
s u f f ic ie n t in fo rm a tio n to make a d e te rm in a tio n , c ir c le the "? " response.
PLEASE CIRCLE ONLY ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH QUESTION.
Item Code
A.
A -l

Question

R e fe rra l System
Is th e re a fo rm a liz e d procedure f o r re c e iv in g and processing
r e fe r r a ls f o r sp e cia l education programs and se rvice s in yo u r
d is tr ic t?
1.

A-2

?

No

Yes

No

?
illn e s s
?

Is i t the r e s p o n s ib ility o f s u p p o rtiv e , d ia g n o s tic , and i t i n ­
e ra n t personnel (s p e c ia l e d uca tion ) to r e fe r students to an
EPPC when t h e ir e v a lu a tio n in d ic a te s th a t th e student may be
m e n ta lly , p h y s ic a lly ’ o r e m o tio n a lly im paired o r le a rn in g d is ­
abled?
4.

A-5

Yes

I f a stu d e n t has a permanent d i s a b i l i t y o r a long-term
o r in ju r y , is he re fe rre d to an EPPC?
3.

A-4

No

Is aform al procedure fo llo w e d which culm inates in the
convening
o f an ed uca tion al planning and placement committee (EPPC) meet­
in g f o r a l l persons re fe rre d f o r programs f o r the seve rely
m e n ta lly im p a ire d , tr a in a b le m e n ta lly im p a ire d , educable men­
t a l l y im p a ire d , e m o tio n a lly im p a ire d , hearing im p aire d, v is u a lly
im p a ire d , p h y s ic a lly and oth erw ise h e a lth Im p a ire d , s e ve re ly
m u ltip ly im paired an d/o r le a rn in g disabled?
2.

A-3

Yes

Yes

No

?

Does the sp e cia l education o f f ic e accept r e f e r r a ls from parents
and members o f th e p ro fe s s io n a l community w ith p a re n ta l consent?
5.
161

Yes

No

?

162
A- 6

May the above-mentioned r e fe r r a ls be verb al?
.

6

A-7

No

?

I f the r e f e r r a l does no t s p e c if ic a lly in d ic a te the p a re n ts , are
parents contacted to assure t h e ir awareness and consent?
7.

A- 8

Yes

No

?

Is p a re n ta l approval obtained before a r e f e r r a l is processed?
8

A-9

.

Yes

No

?

I f the r e f e r r a l does not c o n ta in adequate in fo rm a tio n , does the
s p e cia l education o f f ic e request a d d itio n a l in fo rm a tio n from
the r e f e r r a l source v e r ify in g the e xiste n ce o f a handicap o r
c o n ta in in g in fo rm a tio n which le d the r e f e r r a l source v e r ify in g
the e xiste n ce o f a handicap o r c o n ta in in g In fo rm a tio n which le d
the r e f e r r a l source to suspect the e xiste n ce o f a handicap?
9.

A-10

A - l1

No

?

Yes

No

?

Are records m aintained f o r each stud en t in c lu d in g name, date o f
b ir t h , sex, r a c ia l o r e th n ic group, type o f handicaps, date o f
r e f e r r a l, se rvice s being rendered, date o f te rm in a tio n o r i n i t l a
tio n o f s p e c ia l s e rv ic e s , name, address and phone number o f
parents and d i s t r i c t o f residence?
11.

A - l2

Yes

Are a l l r e f e r r a ls recorded according to the in te rm e d ia te d is ­
t r i c t p la n 's s p e c ifie d procedure f o r re c o rd in g the processing
r e fe rr a ls ?
10.

Yes

No

?

Are records m aintained u n t il the stud en t 1s no lo n g e r e l ig ib l e ,
has completed a course o f study and graduated o r u n t il he
reaches the age where he 1 s no lo n g e r e l ig ib l e f o r sp e cia l edu­
catio n?
12.

B.

Yes

Yes

No

?

D iagnostic S ervices

Educable M e n ta lly Impaired
B -l

Is an Educational Planning and Placement meeting re q u ire d f o r
c e r t if y in g the educable m e n ta lly im paired f o r sp e cia l educa­
tio n programs and se rvice s in your d i s t r i c t ?
(R 340.1705)
K
Yes
No
?

B-2

Is comprehensive e v a lu a tio n by c e r t if ie d p s y c h o lo g is t, school
p s y c h o lo g is t, o r c o n s u ltin g p s y c h o lo g is t req uired ?
(R 340.1705)
2
yes
No
?

B-3

To be e l ig ib l e f o r sp e cia l education programs and s e rv ic e
fo r
the educable m e n ta lly im p a ire d , must a person meet a l l o f the
fo llo w in g requirem ents?

163
1.

Must score approxim ately 2-3 standard d e v ia tio n s below the
mean as determined by in te lle c t u a l assessment.
(R 340.1705a)

2.

Must score w ith in low est 6 % on a standardized t e s t in
reading and a r ith m e tic .
(R 340.1705b)

3.

U n s a tis fa c to ry school performance must not be based on h is
s o c ia l, economic, o r c u ltu r a l background. (R 340.1705b)

4.

Lack o f development p r im a r ily in the c o g n itiv e domain.
(R 340.1705e)
3
yes
No
?

T ra in a b le M e n ta lly Im paired
B-4

Is an EPPC meeting re q u ire d f o r determ ining e l i g i b i l i t y o f
tr a in a b le m e n ta lly im paired in yo u r d i s t r i c t ?
(R 340.1704)
4.

Yes

No

?

B-5

Is a comprehensive e v a lu a tio n by c e r t if ie d p s y c h o lo g is t,
school p s y c h o lo g is t, o r c o n s u ltin g p s y c h o lo g is t re q u ire d f o r
placement in a program f o r the tr a in a b le m e n ta lly im paired in
your d is tr ic t?
(R 340.1704)
5
yes
No
?

B- 6

To be e l ig ib l e f o r programs and se rvice s f o r the tra in a b le
m e n ta lly im p a ire d , must the stud en t meet the fo llo w in g
requirem ents? (R 340.1704)
1.

Must score a t approxim ately 3-4£ standard d e v ia tio n s below
the mean as determined by in t e lle c t u a l assessment.

2.

Lack o f development p r im a r ily in the c o g n itiv e domain.

J »

U n s a tis fa c to ry performance no t found to be based on h is
s o c ia l, c u lt u r a l, o r economic background.
6

.

Yes

No

?

Severely M e n ta lly Im paired
B-7

Is an EPPC re q u ire d f o r de term in in g e l i g i b i l i t y f o r programs
f o r the s e ve re ly m e n ta lly im paired in s p e c ia l programs in you r
d is tr ic t?
(R 340.1714)
7
Yes
No
?

B- 8

Is a comprehensive e v a lu a tio n by a c e r t if ie d p s y c h o lo g is t,
school p s y c h o lo g is t, o r c o n s u ltin g p s y c h o lo g is t re q u ire d f o r
placement in a program f o r the s e ve re ly m e n ta lly im paired?
(R 340.1714 )
8.
Yes
No
?

164
B-9

Are the fo llo w in g d ia g n o s tic c r i t e r i a re q u ire d f o r determ ining
e l i g i b i l i t y o f the se ve re ly m e n ta lly im paired f o r sp e cia l edu­
c a tio n programs and se rvice s in y o u r d i s t r i c t ?
1.

Must score 4£ o r more standard d e v ia tio n s below the mean
as determined by in t e lle c t u a l assessment.

2.

Lack o f development p r im a r ily in the c o g n itiv e domain.
9.

Yes

No

?

Hearing Im paired
B-10

Is an EPPC meeting re q u ire d f o r placement in a program f o r the
hearing impaired? (R 340.1707)
10.

B - ll

No

?

Are the fo llo w in g d ia g n o s tic personnel re q u ire d f o r d e te r­
m ining e l i g i b i l i t y f o r the hearing Impaired? (R 340.1707)
A u d lo lo g is t and O to la ry n g o lo g is t
11.

B-12

Yes

Yes

No

?

To be e lig ib le f o r programs and se rvice s f o r th e hearing
Im paired, must a person be c e r t if ie d as having a hearing
Impairment which In te rfe r e s w ith le a rn in g .
(R 340.1707)
12.

Yes

No

?

V is u a lly Im paired
B-13

Is an EPPC re q u ire d f o r de term in in g placement in a program f o r
the v is u a lly im paired in yo u r d i s t r i c t ?
(R 340.1708)
13.

Yes

No

?

B-14

Are the fo llo w in g d ia g n o s tic personnel re q u ire d f o r v is u a lly
im paired program placements?
14.
Yes
No
?

B-15

To be e lig ib le f o r se rvice s f o r the v is u a lly Im pa ired , must a
person have a v is u a l impairment and one o r more o f the
fo llo w in g ? (R 340.1708)
1.

A c e n tra l v is u a l a c u ity o f 20/70 o r le ss in the b e tte r eye
a f t e r c o rre c tio n .

2.

A p e rip h e ra l f i e l d o f v is io n reduced to no g re a te r than
2 0 degrees.
15.
Yes
No
?

165
P h y s ic a lly and Otherwise H ealth Im paired
B-16

B-17

Is an EPPC necessary to determ ine placement in programs f o r
the p h y s ic a lly and oth erw ise h e a lth im paired in yo u r d is t r i c t ?
( R 340.1709)
16.
Yes
No
?
Must person be c e r t if ie d by an in t e r n i s t , o rth o p e d ic surgeon,
n e u ro lo g is t, p e d ia tr ic ia n o r e q u iv a le n t as having a physical
o r o th e r h e a lth im pairm ent which in te r fe r e s w ith le a rn in g o r
re q u ire s ph ysica l a d a p ta tio n o f the school environment?
17.

Yes

No

?

Speech and Language Im paired
B-18

Must an approved speech and language tea che r w ith a t le a s t 5
years experience and a M aste r's Degree determ ine e l i g i b i l i t y
f o r speech and language services? (R 340.1710)
18.

B-19

Yes

No

?

Is the fo llo w in g c r i t e r i a used to determ ine e l i g i b i l i t y f o r
speech and language se rvice s? (R 340.1710)
One o r more o f the fo llo w in g d is o rd e rs :
1.

A r t ic u la t io n — om issio ns, s u b s titu tio n s , d is to r t io n s .

2.

Voice w ith in a p p ro p ria te voice p itc h , ra te o f speaking,
eveness o r q u a lit y o f speech.

3.

Fluency o f speech d is tin g u is h e d by sp e cia l In te rro g a tio n s
(b lo c k s ) r e p e titio n o f sounds, words, phrases o r sentences
which in te r f e r e w ith e f f e c t iv e communication.

4.

I n a b i l i t y to comprehend, fo rm u la te and use fu n c tio n a l
language.
19.
Yes
No
?

Homebound
B-20

Must a person be c e r t if ie d a t le a s t a n n u a lly by a d o cto r as
having a severe p h ysica l o r o th e r h e a lth im pairm ent pre ven ting
school attendance in o rd e r to be e l ig ib l e f o r homebound
services? (R 340.1711)
20
Yes
No
?

H ospital 1zed
B-21

Is a person e lig ib le f o r s e rv ic e s to the h o s p ita liz e d i f he
cannot a tte n d school because o f h o s p ita liz a tio n ?
340.1712)
21.
Yes
No
?

166
Learning D isabled
B-22

Is an EPPC meeting re q u ire d to determ ine e l i g i b i l i t y f o r
programs and se rvice s f o r the le a rn in g disabled? (R 340.1713)
22.

Yes

No

?

B-23

Are the fo llo w in g d ia g n o s tic personnel used to determine
e l i g i b i l i t y f o r programs and s e rv ic e s f o r the le a rn in g d is ­
abled?
School P sych o lo g ist
C e r tifie d P sych o lo g ist
C e r tifie d C o n su ltin g P sych o lo g ist
N e u ro lo g is t o r medical examiner q u a lif ie d to eva lu ate
n e u ro lo g ic a l d y s fu n c tio n s .
23.
Yes
No
?

B-24

Are the fo llo w in g c r i t e r i a used f o r placement in a le a rn in g
d i s a b ili t i e s program? (R 340.1713)
The stu d e n t must have an im pairm ent o f one o r more o f basic
p sych o lo g ica l processes in v o lv e d in understanding o r in using
spoken o r w r itte n language--which d is o rd e r may m a n ife st i t s e l f
1 n im p e rfe c t a b i l i t y to li s t e n , t h in k , speak, re a d , w r it e ,
s p e ll o r do mathematical c a lc u la tio n s . He must meet re q u ire ­
ments in each o f the fo llo w in g c a te g o rie s :
1.
2

.

Symptoms o f perceptual handicap, b ra in Im pairm ent, minimal
b ra in damage, d y s le x ia o r aphasia.
Development a t le ss than the expected ra te o f age group in
the c o g n itiv e , a f fe c tiv e o r psychomotor domain.

3.

I n a b i l i t y to fu n c tio n in re g u la r education w ith o u t sup­
p o rtiv e sp e cia l education s e rv ic e s .

4.

U n s a tis fa c to ry performance no t found to be based on s o c ia l,
economic o r c u ltu r a l background.
24.
Yes
No
?

Severely M u ltip ly Impaired
B-25

Is an EPPC meeting re q u ire d f o r placement in to a program f o r
the s e ve re ly m u ltip ly im paired? (R 340.1714)
25.

Yes

No

?

167
B-26

Are th e d ia g n o s tic personnel and in fo rm a tio n lis t e d below
re q u ire d f o r c e r t if ic a t io n o f e l i g i b i l i t y f o r a program f o r
th e s e v e re ly m u ltip ly im paired? (R 340.1714)
Medical re c o rd s , e d u ca tio n a l h is to r y and e v a lu a tio n by a
N e u ro lo g is t, O rthopedic Surgeon, O p th o lm o lo g is t, o r A udiolo g is t -

B-27

26.

2

.

3.

?

Severe m u l t i p l i c i t y o f handicap 1n the p h y s ic a l and c o g n i­
t iv e domain.
I n a b i l i t y o r expected I n a b i l i t y to fu n c tio n w ith o u t o th e r
s p e c ia l e d u ca tio n programs which deal w ith a s in g le
handicap.
Development a t le s s than the expected r a te o f the age
group 1 n th e psychomotor, c o g n itiv e , and a f fe c tiv e domains.
27.

Yes

No

?

A f t e r th e r e f e r r a l is re c le v e d , is one s t a f f person assigned
r e s p o n s ib ilit y o f c o lle c tin g d ia g n o s tic data?
28.

B-29

No

Are the c r i t e r i a lis t e d below used to determ ine e l i g i b i l i t y
f o r placement in t o a program f o r the s e v e re ly m u ltip ly
im paired? (R 340.1714)
1.

B-28

Yes

Are data o f a c l i n ic a l
group by p ro fe s s io n a ls

Yes

No

?

na ture c o lle c te d f o r each d i s a b i l i t y
s p e c ifie d in the S ta te Code?
29.

Yes

No

?

B-30

Does the E ducational P lanning and Placement Committee see th a t
s u f f ic ie n t c l i n i c a l and e d u ca tio n a l data are a v a ila b le to make
a v e r if ic a t io n o f re fe rre d s tu d e n ts ' e l i g i b i l i t y o r I n e l i g i b i l ­
i t y f o r placement? (R 340.1714)
30.
Yes
No
?

B-31

Do te a c h e r c o n s u lta n ts work w ith re g u la r stu d e n ts to o b ta in
d ia g n o s tic in fo rm a tio n to be used in d e te rm in in g e l i g i b i l i t y
f o r s p e c ia l e d u ca tio n programs and se rvice s? (R 340.1749e)
31.

B-32

Yes

No

?

Does the s p e c ia l education department r e f r a in from p la c in g
persons suspected o f being handicapped in s p e c ia l education
programs p r io r to d e te rm in a tio n o f e l i g i b i l i t y by an EPPC?
(R 340.1702)
32.
Yes
No
?

168
B-33

C.

Is the language o f the e v a lu a tio n the p rim a ry language o f the
student? (R 340.1735)
33. Yes
No
?
Placement Procedures

C-1

Are a l l s p e c ia l education placements recommended by an EPPC
except f o r Speech and Language, S o cia l W orker, and Homebound
and H o s p ita liz e d se rvice s?
1.
Yes
No
?

C-2

Before a change In s ta tu s is made, must an EPPC have made the
recommendation?
2.
Yes
No
?

C-3

Are changes from one type o f program to a n o th e r, one le v e l to
another and a d d itio n s o r d e le tio n s o f s e rv ic e s considered
changes 1 n e d u ca tio n a l sta tu s ?
3.
Yes
No
?

C-4

Does the r e s p o n s ib ility f o r making changes 1n the e d u ca tio n a l
s ta tu s o f the handicapped person r e s t w ith the S u pe rinten de nt
o r h is designee?
4.
Yes
No
?

C-5

Are the d u tie s o f th e EPPC in y o u r d i s t r i c t d e fin e d as fo llo w s :
1.
2.
3.
4.

C- 6

D eterm ining e l i g i b i l i t y
Recommending programs and s e rv ic e s
E s ta b lis h in g In s tr u c tio n a l goals
I d e n t if y in g outcomes expected as a r e s u lt o f s p e c ia l
educa tion placement.
5.
Yes
No

?

Does the EPPC in y o u r d i s t r i c t c o n s is t o f one re p re s e n ta tiv e
from each o f th e fo llo w in g c a te g o rie s , as a minimum?
1.
2.

3.
4.

A d m in is tra tio n
D ia g n o s tic personnel
S u pp ortive o r In s tr u c tio n a l s t a f f
P a re nts, 1 f they choose to p a r tic ip a te
6

.

Yes

No

?

C-7

I f th e s tu d e n t 1s under
18, 1s the s tu d e n t's m other, fa th e r
o r guardian considered th e " p a re n t," and In v ite d to p a r t i ­
c ip a te on h is own EPPC?
7
Yes
No
?

C- 8

I f th e stu d e n t 1s 18’ o r over and has no t had a le g a l guardian
appointed by th e c o u rt, 1 s he in v it e d to p a r t ic ip a t e on h is
own EPPC?
8
Yes
Nq
?

C-9

Does the S pecial Education O ffic e re q u e st 1n
w r it in g pa ren t
p a r t ic ip a t io n on the EPPC on a case by case basis?
9.

Yes

No

?

169
C-10

I f the Darent has not been notified of the EPPC meeting, is
the s tu d e n t's status le f t unchanged u n til parent involvement
is sought and perm ission is obtained?
10.

Yes

No

?

C - ll

Does th e EPPC ch a irp e rso n ( i f appointed by th e S u p e rinten de nt)
arrange tim e and place o f the m e e tin g (s) and in v it e o th e r
p a rtic ip a n ts ?
11.
Yes
No
?

C-12

Is a c e r t if ie d l e t t e r o r a signed re c e ip t o f a h a n d -d e live re d
l e t t e r used to p ro vid e docum entation o f th e l e t t e r having been
sent to th e parents?
12.
Yes
No
?

C-13

Does th e d e c is io n o f the EPPC become o f f i c i a l when, as a
minimum, the su p e rin te n d e n t o r h is designee and the parents
agree?
13.
Yes
No
?

C-14

Is one EPPC member appointed to arrange f o r the im plem entation
and fo llo w -u p o f the recommended plan and to reco rd and co­
o rd in a te the com m ittee's a ctio n s?
14.
Yes
No
?

C-15

Does th e EPPC re q u ire th a t the need f o r in te rv e n tio n must e x is t
and th a t the stu d e n t have one o r more im pairm ents as d e fin e d
by law be fo re th a t stu d e n t can be deemed e l ig ib l e f o r sp e c ia l
ed uca tion se rv ic e s o r programs? (Same exce ptio ns as in A-4
a p p ly .)
15.
Yes
No
?

C-16

I f the EPPC decides th a t a handicapped s tu d e n t may best be
served by n o n -sp e cia l education s e rv ic e s , is th a t stu d e n t
denied s p e c ia l educa tion programs o r s e rv ic e s a t th a t tim e?
16.

Yes

No

?

C—17

I f parents choose no t to p a r tic ip a te on the EPPC, are they
given p r io r n o t if ic a t io n o f th e Com m ittee's recommendation
and allow ed a t le a s t seven (7) days to agree o r disagree
b e fore placement is made?
17
Yes
No
?

C-18

Are parents given a copy o f Rule 24 which concerns the
Hearing Process?
18
Yes
No

C-19

Does th e s p e c ia l ed u ca tio n o f f ic e assume the r e s p o n s ib ility
f o r making parents aware o f the p ro v is io n s o f Rule 24?
19.

C-20

?

Yes

No

?

Are the parents inform ed by th e S u p e rinten de nt o r h is designee
th a t th e y may appeal to th e S u p e rinten de nt o f In s tr u c tio n i f a
d e c is io n is not reached w ith the lo c a l S uperintendent?
20.

Yes

No

?

170
C-21

Are parents inform ed o f the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f o rg a n iz a tio n s ,
t h e ir addresses and telephone numbers, to a s s is t them a t the
hearing?
21.
Yes
No
?

C-22

Does the EPPC re p o rt in c lu d e re g u la r e d uca tion and s p e c ia l
education programs and s e rv ic e s as deemed a p p ro p ria te ?
22.

C-23

No

?

P r io r to s ig n in g , are parents given the o p p o rtu n ity to re c e iv e
and review th e w r itte n recommendations o f the EPPC?
23.

C-24

Yes

Yes

No

?

Is the s ig n a tu re o f consent by the "p a re n t" a p a rt o f o r
attached to th e committee recommendation?
24.

Yes

No

?

C-25

Are parents given the o p p o rtu n ity to req ue st an EPPC m eeting
anytim e th e y fe e l th a t a change in t h e i r c h ild 's e d u ca tio n a l
s ta tu s is needed?
25.
Yes
No
?

C-26

Are parents always n o t if ie d be fo re placement is e ffe c tu a te d ,
denied o r changed?
26
Yes
No
?

C-27

Does the placement n o t if ic a t io n always in c lu d e the fo llo w in g ?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.

D e s c rip tio n o f proposed a c tio n
S p e c ific a tio n o f s ta tu te o r r u le under which a c tio n is
proposed
Statements o f reasons f o r a c tio n
S p e c ific a tio n o f any te s ts o r re p o rts upon which the a c tio n
1 s based
N o tice o f r ig h t to h e aring and procedure f o r re q u e stin g
same
Names and addresses o f o rg a n iz a tio n s a v a ila b le to a s s is t
a t he aring
A ll o p tio n s o f e d u ca tio n a l o p p o rtu n itie s a v a ila b le
27.

Yes

No

?

C-28

I f parents request s p e c if ic persons from the school s t a f f
whose te stim o n y is v i t a l to a tte n d the h e a rin g , are th e y
a v a ila b le to a tten d?
28
Yes
N(J
?

C-29

May parents b rin g o u ts id e p ro fe s s io n a ls o r n o n -p ro fe s s io n a ls
to the meeting i f th e y n o t if y the he aring o f f ic e r p r io r to
th e meeting?
29
Yes
No
?

C-30

May parents p ro v id e w r itt e n re p o rts f o r th e EPPC in support o f
t h e ir p o s itio n on the c h ild 's placement?
30.

Yes

No

?

171
C-31

Does th e S uperintendent o r h is designee a c t in the fo llo w in g
manner on the recommendation o f th e EPPC?
1.
2.

C-32

Place the stu d e n t in an a p p ro p ria te program, and
Assign S pecial Education S t a f f
31.
Yes
No

?

Does the a d m in is tra tio n co n sid e r th e fo llo w in g when implement­
in g the EPPC's recommendations?

1.

2.
3.
4.

The s k i l l s o f the teachers o r te a ch e r c o n s u lta n ts
The age range, number, and d i s a b i l i t y make-up o f the s tu ­
dents assigned to th e program
The balance o f boys and g i r l s and c o m p a tib ility o f types
o f le a rn in g d i f f i c u l t i e s o f e n ro lle e s
The r e la tio n s h ip o f the c h ild 's e d u ca tio n a l needs to those
o f o th e rs in th e group to which he is being assigned.
32.

Yes

No

C-33

May pa re n t be represented a t the h e aring by any person o f h is
choosing?
33.
Yes
No
?

C-34

I f the EPPC cannot agree on a placem ent, do they e ith e r recom­
mend re g u la r programs and s e rv ic e s o r request f u r t h e r diagnos­
t i c study?
34.
Yes
No
?

D.
D-l

Continuum o f Programs and S ervices
Does the S pecial Education Program c o n te n t in c lu d e the f o llo w ­
in g components f o r a l l im pairm ent groups?
Personal adjustm ent T ra in in g
P re -v o c a tio n a l T ra in in g
V o catio nal T ra in in g
S k ills T ra in in g
Work-Study

D-2

Yes

No

Is th e re a continuum o f s p e c ia l e d u ca tio n s e rv ic e s in yo u r
d i s t r i c t f o r a l l im pairm ent groups in c lu d in g
P re-P rim ary
Elem entary
J u n io r High
Secondary

D-3

1.

2.

Yes

No

?

Is th e re a h ie ra rc h ic a l arrangement o f s p e c ia l education
s e rv ic e s a v a ila b le in y o u r d i s t r i c t in c lu d in g the fo llo w in g :
F u ll- tim e re g u la r c la ss placement w ith s u p p o rtiv e help
P a rt-tim e s p e c ia l c la s s ; p a rt-tim e re g u la r cla ss
F u ll- tim e s p e c ia l educa tion cla ss
Homebound o r H o s p ita liz e d S ervices
R e s id e n tia l placement
3
y
^

y

172
D-4

Are the fo llo w in g s u p p o rtiv e s e rv ic e s a v a ila b le in yo u r d is ­
t r i c t f o r a l l Impairment groups?
S ocial Worker S ervices
P sychological C o n su lta tio n o r se rvice s
Teacher C onsultant S ervices
Speech and Language S ervices
^

D-5

yes

^

Are the fo llo w in g in s tr u c tio n a l s e rv ic e s a v a ila b le in yo u r
d i s t r i c t f o r a l l im pairm ent groups:
Teacher c o n s u lta n t f o r e v a lu a tio n o f re g u la r students d u rin g a
1 0 day d ia g n o s tic tea chin g p e rio d
Teacher c o n s u lta n t se rvice s f o r small groups o f sp e cia l educa­
t io n students and general education teachers who are
s e rv ic in g im paired students
Special Education tea che r s e rv in g more than one d i s a b ili t y
group
Special Education classroom te a ch e r f o r a ba sic classroom
program.
5.
Yes
No
?

Severely M u ltip ly Im paired
D- 6

Does an In s tr u c tio n a l u n it f o r the se v e re ly m u ltip ly
im paired c o n s is t o f a t le a s t 1 in s tr u c t o r and 2 aides f o r a
maximum o f 9 p u p ils ?
1.
Yes
No
?

D-7

Are a t le a s t 1 f u ll- t im e in s tr u c t o r and 1 f u ll- t im e aide
employed in every s e v e re ly m u ltip ly im paired program?
2.

Yes

No

?

D- 8

Are s u p p o rtiv e s e rv ic e s o f a p h y s ic a l th e r a p is t, an occupa­
tio n a l th e r a p is t, a speech t h e r a p is t, and a nurse reasonably
a v a ila b le ?
3.
Yes
No
?

D-9

Does the school ye a r in c lu d e a minimum o f 230 days and 1,150
clo ck hours o f in s tr u c tio n a l a c t iv it ie s ?
4.

D-10

5.

?

Yes

No

?

Are in s tr u c to r s re s p o n s ib le f o r th e in s tr u c tio n a l program?
6

D-12

No

Does the program emphasize the tre a tm e n t o f the t o t a l c h ild
ra th e r than s e rv ic e to any s in g le handicap in is o la tio n ?
%

D - ll

Yes

.

Yes

No

?

Do in s tr u c to r s co o rd in a te the a c t iv i t i e s o f In s tr u c tio n a l
aides and o th e r s u p p o rtiv e personnel?
7.
Yes
No

i

?

173
D-13

Do in s tr u c tio n a l aides work under the s u p e rv is io n o f the
In s tr u c to r and a s s is t in the d a lly program f o r not more than
3 p u p ils ?
8 .
Yes
No
?

D-14

Are program a s s is ta n ts used where necessary?
9.

Yes

No

?

D-15

Do program a s s is ta n ts have the r e s p o n s ib ility f o r a s s is tin g
th e in s tr u c t o r and the in s tr u c tio n a l a id e s , h e lp in g w ith
t o i l e t i n g , fe e d in g , l i f t i n g
and in d iv id u a liz e d care
and
clean-up a c t iv i t i e s f o r the
students?
10.
Yes
No
?

D-16

I f th e re are no program a s s is ta n ts , are the d u tie s mentioned
above performed by the in s tr u c tio n a l aides?
11.

Yes

No

?

Severely M e n ta lly Im paired
D-17

D-18

Does yo u r d i s t r i c t pro vid e a t le a s t 1 in s tr u c t o r and 4
in s tr u c tio n a l aides f o r a maximum o f 24 p u p ils w ith an
average r a t io o f 1 aide per 6 p u p ils ?
12.
Yes
No

?

Is a t le a s t 1 f u ll- t im e in s tr u c t o r and 1 f u ll- t im e aide
employed in each day t r a in in g program?
13.
Yes
No

?

D-19

Does the school ye a r f o r th e se ve re ly m e n ta lly im paired
In clu d e a t le a s t 230 days and 1,150 clo ck hours o f in s tr u c ­
t io n a l a c t iv it y ?
14.
Yes
No
?

D-20

Is the day t r a in in g in s tr u c t o r re s p o n s ib le f o r c o o rd in a tin g
th e a c t iv i t i e s o f aides and o th e r s t a f f and m a in ta in in g a
syste m a tic method o f home-school lia is o n ?
15.

Yes

No

?

D-21

Do in s tr u c tio n a l aides work under th e s u p e rv is io n o f In s tr u c ­
to r s and a s s is t in the d a ily t r a in in g program f o r no t more
than 6 p u p ils ?
16.
Yes
No
?

D-22

May y o u r program a s s is ta n ts a s s is t the In s tr u c to r s and
in s tr u c tio n a l aides perform the fo llo w in g fu n c tio n s :
t o i l e t i n g , fe e d in g , l i f t i n g , and in d iv id u a liz e d care and
clean-up a c t iv i t i e s f o r the students?
17.
Yes
No

?

174
Trainable M entally Impaired
D-23

Is the te a c h e r-p u p il r a t io 1-15 o r le ss w ith 1 aide o r up to
1-30 w ith a maximum o f 3 in s tr u c tio n a l aides w ith no t more
than 1 0 p u p ils pe r aide?
18.
Yes
No
?

V is u a lly Im paired
D-24

Are v is u a lly im paired cla ss size s determined p r im a r ily by
the s e v e rity and m u l t i p l i c i t y o f the impairments o f the
v is u a lly Impaired?
19
Yes
No
?

D-25

Does a cla ss w ith 1 teacher meet the fo llo w in g requirem ents?
Not more than 7 f u ll - t i m e p u p ils who are b lin d ?
10

o r fewer f u ll- t im e p a r tia lly - s e e in g p u p ils ?

o r fewer f u ll - t i m e p u p ils when b lin d
and p a r t ia l ly seeing
p u p ils are grouped, w ith no t more than 4 being b lin d o r
v is u a lly Im paired and a lso otherw ise handicapped?
8

20.
D-26

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Are persons I d e n t if ie d by the r e fe r r in g school d i s t r i c t as
v is u a lly Im paired in accordance w ith procedures s p e c ifie d in
P a rt I by the r e fe r r in g school d is t r i c t ?
24.

D-30

Yes

Are a p p lic a tio n s f o r placement a t MSB subm itted by the ISD
Supt. o r h is designee to the Supt. o f the MSB?
23.

D-29

?

Is the Michigan School f o r the B lin d considered a p a rt o f
the t o t a l continuum o f s e rv ic e s f o r the v is u a lly im paired?
22.

D-28

No

Does the c u rric u lu m f o r the v is u a lly im paired in c lu d e i n ­
s tr u c tio n in o r ie n ta tio n and m o b ilit y , assista nce in e a rly
development o f comprehensive communication s k i l l s and p re v o ca tio n a l and vo ca tio n a l experience?
21.

D-27

Yes

Yes

No

?

Does the r e s p o n s ib ility f o r e s ta b lis h in g an EPPC re s t w ith
the agency i n i t i a t i n g a change o f placement in to o r o u t o f
MSB?
25.

Yes

No

?

175
E m otio na lly Im paired
D-31

Does the r a t io in the program f o r th e e m o tio n a lly im paired
c o n s is t o f 1 teacher f o r not more than the e q u iv a le n t o f 10
f u ll- t im e p u p ils ?
26.
Yes
No
?

Educable M e n ta lly Impaired
D-32

Does the r a t io o f EMI programs c o n s is t o f 1 te a ch e r f o r no t
more than 15 f u ll- t im e students?
27.

Yes

No

?

Learning D is a b ilit y
D-33

Does the teacher o f the le a rn in g d isa b le d have the e q u iv a le n t
o f 10 o r fewer f u ll- t im e p u p ils assigned per te a ch e r in a
sp e cia l class?
28.
Yes
No
?

Speech and Language
D-34

Are s iz e and com position o f groups determined by the teacher
o f th e speech and language impaired?
29.

Yes

No

?

D-35

Is the d e liv e ry o f se rvice s determined by the te a ch e r o f the
speech and language im paired in cooperation w ith the d i s t r i c t
d ir e c to r o f spe cia l education o r h is designee* and the
b u ild in g p r in c ip a l o f the school in which the p u p ils are
e n ro lle d ?
30.
Yes
No
?

D-36

Is the case load o f the teacher o f the speech and language
Im paired no more than 75 p u p ils a t any one time?
31.

Yes

No

?

Homebound
D-37

Are homebound s e rv ic e s f o r p h y s ic a lly o r oth e rw ise h e a lth
im paired no la t e r than 15 school days a f t e r c e r t if ic a t io n o f
a medical handicap which re q u ire s the person to be con fine d to
h is home?
32.
Yes
No
?

D-38

Does the teacher of, the homebound o r h o s p ita liz e d have tw elve
p u p ils o r less assigned to him a t any one time?
33.

Yes

No

?

176
D-39

Are progress re p o rts f o r each person recorded in accordance
w ith the in te rm e d ia te school d i s t r i c t plan?
34.

D-40

No

?

Does the teacher o f the homebound o r h o s p ita liz e d in s tr u c t
persons a minimum o f 2 non-consecutive hours per week?
35.

D-41

Yes

Yes

No

?

Is i t a p ra c tic e in yo u r d i s t r i c t th a t th e ra p is ts may supple­
ment, bu t not s u b s titu te f o r a te a c h e r's in s tr u c tio n a l time?
36.

Yes

No

?

Hearing Im paired
D-42

Does the hearing im paired program meet the fo llo w in g re q u ire ­
ments f o r one te a c h e r's sp e cia l c la s s :
7 f u ll- t im e p u p ils o r le ss w ith a severe hearing loss?
10

f u ll- t im e p u p ils o r le ss i f s e ve re ly and m oderately
Im paired students are grouped tog ethe r?

3 f u ll- t im e p u p ils o r le ss when they are hearing im paired and
otherw ise handicapped?
12

f u ll- t im e p u p ils o r le ss in a supervised cla ss a t the
secondary le v e l?
37.

Yes

No

?

D-43

Are group hearing a id s provided when deemed necessary by the
EPPC?
38.
Yes
No
?

D-44

Are communication s k i l l s and language emphasized as an
in te g ra l p a rt o f the curriculu m ?
39.
Yes
No

D-45

Is the M ichigan School f o r the Deaf considered a p a rt o f the
t o t a l continuum o f s e rv ic e s f o r the hearing impaired?
40.

D-46

Yes

No

?

Are a l l a p p lic a tio n s f o r placement a t Michigan School f o r the
Deaf subm itted by the ISD S uperintendent o r designee to the
S uperintendent o f M ichigan School f o r the Deaf?
41.

D-47

?

Yes

No

?

Is the person always id e n t if ie d as hearing im paired as
s p e c ifie d in P a rt 1 o f the ru le s and re g u la tio n s p r io r to
a p p lic a tio n to MSD?
42.
Yes
No
?

177
D-48

Does the r e s p o n s ib ility f o r e s ta b lis h in g the EPPC re s t w ith
the agency i n i t i a t i n g a change o f placement in to o r o u t o f
the MSD?
43.
Yes
No
?

D-49

Does the above-mentioned EPPC in clu d e re p re s e n ta tiv e s o f the
ISD o r residence and the MSD?
44.

D-50

Yes

No

?

Is the cla ss s iz e in programs f o r the p h y s ic a lly o r otherw ise
h e a lth im paired no more than 15 p u p ils per teacher?
45.

Yes

No

?

D-51

Does the sp e cia l classroom u n it se rvin g p h y s ic a lly o r o th e r­
wise h e a lth im paired provide a t le a s t 60 fe e t (sq. f t . ) o f
f lo o r space per person?
46.
Yes
No
?

D-52

Are h e a lth care aides employed to serve in a su p p o rtive
c a p a c ity in programs f o r the p h y s ic a lly o r oth erw ise h e a lth
im paired?
47.
Yes
No
?

D-53

Is y o u r high school program approved in the in te rm e d ia te
d i s t r i c t plan?
48.
Yes
No

E.
E-l

?

Follow-up
Does the sp e cia l education department in you r d i s t r i c t
pro vid e a review o f programs and se rvice s provided each
handicapped person a t le a s t annually?
1. Yes
No

?

E-2

I f so, are parents provided a copy o f the recommendations o f
such a review?
2. Yes
No
?

E-3

Does the review re p o rt provided by the sp e c ia l education
department In clu d e the names o f persons who conducted the
re vie w ; the In fo rm a tio n th a t was review ed, and a recommenda­
tio n f o r e ith e r c o n tin u a tio n , a d d itio n a l s e rv ic e s , o r r e fe r r a l
to an Educational Planning and Placement Committee f o r pos­
s ib le change o f educational status?
3.

E-4

Yes

No

?

Does the S uperintendent o f the d i s t r i c t o r residence re ce ive
a copy o f the review re p o rt?
4.

Yes

No

?

178
E-5

I f a change o f placement seems w arranted a f t e r the re vie w ,
does the s p e c ia l education department see th a t the EPPC is
held?
5.
Yes
No
?

E- 6

Does the review in clu d e an a n a ly s is o f the appropriateness
o f the present program in c lu d in g the in d iv id u a l performance
o b je c tiv e s ?
6.
Yes
No
?

E-7

Does the review in clu d e an a n a ly s is o f e d u c a tio n a l, physical
and p sych olog ica l data?
7.
Yes
No
?

E- 8

Is the review conducted by one o r more approved sp e cia l edu­
c a tio n s t a f f persons as assigned by the su p e rin te n d e n t o r h is
designee?
8.
Yes
No
?

E-9

Does the review occur a t le a s t once every 12 calendar months
since the date o f placement o r la s t review?
9.

Yes

No

?

E-10

Is a review he ld whenever i t appears necessary, even i f less
than a yea r has tra n s p ire d ?
10.
Yes
No
?

E - ll

Does the review re p o rt c o n ta in an a n a ly s is o f the s tu d e n t's
progress toward meeting h is o b je c tiv e s ?
11.

E-12

F -l

No

?

Yes

No

?

Are in -s e rv ic e programs conducted to up-grade the t r a in in g
o f spe cia l education personnel?
Yes

No

?

Do a l l sp e cia l education employees f o r whom s a la rie s are
reimbursed meet the q u a lif ic a tio n s re q u ire d by S tate Law?
3.

F-4

Yes

Are the va rio u s ro le s o f sp e cia l education personnel made
c le a r by the a d m in is tra tio n in yo u r d i s t r i c t ?

2.
F-3

?

Personnel

1.
F-2

No

Is each stud en t fo llo w e d f o r a t le a s t one yea r fo llo w in g
te rm in a tio n o f sp e c ia l education programs and services?
12.

F.

Yes

Yes

No

?

Do a l l sp e cia l education employees whose s a la rie s are not
reim bursable meet s p e c ifie d s ta te q u a lific a tio n s ?
4.

Yes

No

?

179
F-5

Are annual re p o rts on the s ta tu s o f a l l sp e cia l education
personnel channeled through the in te rm e d ia te sp e cia l educa­
t io n o f f ic e f o r m onitoring?
5.
Yes
No
?

F- 6

Do s p e c ia l education te a ch e rs, s u p e rv is o rs , co n su lta n ts and
d ir e c to r s hold c re d e n tia ls which conform to the Department
o f Education g u id e lin e s f o r sp e cia l education personnel?
6

F-7

.

?

Yes

No

?

Are personnel associated w ith programs f o r handicapped youth
encouraged and given an o p p o rtu n ity to v i s i t o th e r classroom s,
com m unities, in s t it u t io n s , and agencies, and to a tte n d p ro ­
fe s s io n a l meetings?
8.

F-9

No

Are in -s e rv ic e t r a in in g and o th e r methods used to up-grade
personnel t r a in in g f o r s p e c ia l education s t a ff?
7.

F- 8

Yes

Yes

Do teacher co n su lta n ts pro vid e se rvice s to
dents in the classroom , o r

No

?

handicapped s tu ­

pro vid e c o n s u lta tio n to re g u la r classroom teachers who have
handicapped students in te g ra te d in to t h e ir classroom s; o r
pro vid e I tin e r a n t s e rv ic e s in one o r more school b u ild in g s ?
9.
F-10

?

Yes

No

?

May te a ch e r c o n s u lta n ts work w ith re g u la r students f o r up t o ,
but no more than 1 0 consecutive school days?
11.

F-12

No

Do teacher c o n s u lta n ts c a rry up to 25 stud en ts on an a c tiv e
caseload, but no more than 25?
10.

F - ll

Yes

Yes

No

?

Does the d ir e c to r o r c o o rd in a to r have r e s p o n s ib ility f o r the
fo llo w in g d u tie s as s p e c ifie d in Rule 50(1)?
Developing and o rg a n iz in g and a d m in is te rin g sp e cia l educa­
t io n programs?
Planning and conducting in -s e rv ic e programs
Conducting program e v a lu a tio n
P ro vid in g lia is o n w ith school s t a f f and community
P reparing sp e cia l educa tion re p o rts
S u pe rvisin g sp e cia l education s t a f f
12.

Yes

No

?

F-13

I f your d i s t r i c t receives reimbursement f o r the s a la ry , does
the d ir e c to r o f s p e c ia l education meet s ta te requirem ents f o r
approval?
13.

F-14

G-l

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

No

?

F a c ilit ie s
Are a l l new schools in your d i s t r i c t b a r r ie r fre e ?
1•

G-2

Yes

I f you r d i s t r i c t re ce ive s reimbursementf o r t h e ir s a la r ie s ,
are a l l s u p p o rtiv e personnel such as s o c ia l w o rkers, medical
s p e c ia lis ts , p s y c h o lo g is ts ; lic e n s e d , c e r t if ie d , o r r e g is ­
te re d by a governmental agency, c e r t if ie d by a le g a lly
recognized board, o r a s s o c ia tio n , o r recommended by a c o lle g e
o r u n iv e r s ity o ffe r in g an a p p ro p ria te tr a in in g program as
approved by the S ta te Board o f Education?
19.

G.

?

I f yo u r d i s t r i c t re ce ive s reimbursement f o r t h e ir s a la r ie s , do
a l l c u rric u lu m resource co n s u lta n ts meet s ta te department
approval requirem ents?
18.

F-19

No

I f your d i s t r i c t rece ive s reimbursement f o r t h e ir s a la r ie s , do
a l l sp e cia l educa tion in te rn s meet s ta te department approval
requirem ents?
17.

F-18

Yes

I f yo u r d i s t r i c t re ce ive s reimbursement f o r t h e ir s a la r ie s , do
a l l teachers o f th e handicapped meet s ta te requirem ents f o r
approval?
16.

F-17

?

I f you r d i s t r i c t re ce ive s reimbursement f o r the s a la r y ( s ) ,
does the s u p e rv is o r(s ) meet s ta te requirem ents f o r approval?
15.

F-16

No

I f you r d i s t r i c t rece ive s reimbursement f o r the s a la r y , does
the a s s is ta n t d ir e c to r meet s ta te requirem ents f o r approval?
14.

F-15

Yes

Yes

Is adequate equipment provided f o r each sp e cia l education
program?
2.
Yes
No
?

181
G-3

Are sp e cia l education f a c i l i t i e s equal to f a c i l i t i e s f o r
re g u la r education?
3.
Yes
No

?

G-4

Are m a te ria ls workshops conducted in o rd e r to acquaint
sp e cia l education personnel w ith the la t e s t in s tr u c tio n a l
m a te ria ls?
4.
Yes
No
?

G-5

Are teachers helped and encouraged to develop new in s tr u c ­
t io n a l m a te ria ls designed to meet the s p e c ific needs o f
handicapped c h ild re n ?
5.
Yes
No
?

G- 6

Do a l l sp e cia l education classrooms have a t le a s t the average
number o f square fe e t per stud en t as the re g u la r classrooms
in the d i s t r i c t ?
6.
Yes
No
?

G-7

Do te a ch e r c o n s u lta n ts and sp e c ia l education personnel have
space designated on a scheduled basis in each b u ild in g to
a ffo r d in d iv id u a l and sm all group work?
7.

G- 8

H.
H -l

Yes

No

?

Are handicapped students assigned to ed uca tion al programs
and se rvice s which are housed in b u ild in g s which a llo w f o r
in te g ra tio n to take place?
8.
Yes
No
?
In s tr u c tio n a l Content
Is an In s tr u c tio n a l program provided f o r handicapped students
in the 0 - 6 category?
1.
Yes
No
?

Elementary G uidelines
H-2

Is the re g u la r e d uca tion al sequence fo llo w e d wherever possible?
2.

H-3

Yes

No

?

Is the Handbook o f Suggestions f o r Developmental Learning
published by the M ichigan Department o f Education used as a
general guide in developing c u rric u lu m to meet the unique needs
o f the handicapped?
3.

Yes

No

?

182
E a rly Secondary
H-4

Do a l l handicapped secondary youngsters who are e lig ib le f o r
sp e cia l e d u ca tio n , can b e n e fit from and who are In te re s te d in
v o c a tio n a l education have access to such programs 1 n yo u r
d is tr ic t?
4.
Yes
No
?

H-5

Does the secondary c u rric u lu m Include the fo llo w in g aspects
as a minimum:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.

C o n tin u a tio n o f academic s k i l l s tr a in in g
Physical education
H is to ry , designed to meet le g a l requirem ents o f a normal
course o f study as p re scrib e d in the Michigan School
Code (Sec. 340.361).
Economics designed to help the student understand the
r o le o f w orker, s u p e rv is o r and management in a fre e
e n te rp ris e system.
Home Economics designed to provide personal s k i l l s needed
to m a in ta in an adequate l i f e environm ent.
Business S k ills
In d u s tr ia l A rts
H ealth Science
5.
Yes
No
?

P re-V ocational E va lu a tio n
H- 6

In yo u r d i s t r i c t , is each teacher accountable f o r each o f the
fo llo w in g :
A.
B.
C.

Teaching the s k i l l ?
P ro v id in g re la te d occu pa tion al in fo rm a tio n , and
Assessing in t e r e s t , a p titu d e s and a b i l i t i e s f o r the p u r­
pose o f recommending a p p ro p ria te v o c a tio n a l a lte rn a tiv e s
when the stud en t completes the e a r lie r secondary
sequence.
6.

Yes

No

?

La te r Secondary Programs G uidelines
H-7

Do handicapped students re ce ive d riv e rs education in yo u r
d i s t r i c t , unless deemed in a p p ro p ria te by the EPPC?
7.

H- 8

Yes

No

?

Are handicapped students placed in re g u la r v o c a tio n a l educa­
t io n programs where possible?
8.

Yes

No

?

183
H-9

Are s p e c ia l educa tion stu d e n ts who have n o t completed a normal
course o f stud y and are between th e ages o f 16 and 25 served
by s p e c ia l educa tion in y o u r d i s t r i c t ?
9.

H-10

Yes

No

?

Are r e f e r r a ls made by the S pecial Education Department to the
fo llo w in g agencies which are a v a ila b le to serve s p e c ia l educa­
tio n youngsters?
A.
B.
C.
D.

V ocational R e h a b ilita tio n S ervices
M ichigan Department o f Education
Bureau o f B lin d S ervices
M ichigan Department o f S o cial S ervices
10.

Yes

No

?

In d iv id u a l In s tr u c tio n a l O b je c tiv e s
H - ll

Is a c u rric u lu m plan (w ith in d iv id u a l performance o b je c tiv e s )
f o r each s tu d e n t developed in accordance w ith h is needs in the
c o g n itiv e , a f f e c t iv e and psychomotor domains w ith sp e c ia l
a tte n tio n to needs f o r personal adjustm ent t r a in in g , p re v o c a tlo n a l t r a in in g and v o c a tio n a l tr a in in g ?
(R 340.1733(b))
11.

H-12

No

?

Are the performance o b je c tiv e s a v a ila b le to th e parent?
(R 340.1733(b))
12.

H-13

Yes

Yes

No

?

May the performance o b je c tiv e s w r itt e n f o r each handicapped
person (R 3 4 0 .1 7 3 3 (c)) be reviewed by the S u p e rinten de nt o f
P u b lic I n s tr u c tio n o r h is designee?
13.

Yes

No

?

H-14

Are the methods o f in s tr u c t io n c o n s is te n t w ith the performance
o b je c tiv e s w r itt e n f o r each handicapped person?
(R 34 0 .1 7 3 3 (c))
14.
Yes
No
?

H-15

Does the in s tr u c tio n a l program f o r a school day focus on the
in d iv id u a l needs o f the handicapped person, as determ ined
through the e d u ca tio n a l p la n f o r each student? (R 340.1733(g))
15.

H-16

Yes

No

?

Is the use o f a l l sensory m o d a litie s in c o rp o ra te d in to th e
in s tr u c tio n a l c o n te n t f o r handicapped students?
16.

Yes

No

?

184
H-17

Is the s p e c ia l educa tion program designed to promote the
development o f s o c ia l s k i l l s in handicapped persons?
17.

I.
1-1

J.
J -l

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Does y o u r d i s t r i c t cooperate w ith M ichigan U n iv e r s itie s by
a llo w in g t h e i r in te rn s to work w ith S pecial Education
S ervices s t a f f ?
4.
Yes
No
?
In te g ra tio n
Are the handicapped c h ild re n in y o u r d i s t r i c t in te g ra te d
in to re g u la r classroom programs whenever a p p ro p ria te ?
Yes

No

?

Are e f f o r t s underway to develop a c o o p e ra tive v o c a tio n a l
e d u c a tio n /s p e c ia l e d u ca tio n program?
2.

J-3

No

Whenever th e t o t a l program o f p ro fe s s io n a l personnel in a
s p e c ific program o r s e rv ic e exceeds te n , is a s u p e rv is o r
h ire d f o r th a t program?

1.
J-2

Yes

Does yo u r program plan in c lu d e p h ilo s o p h y , g o a ls , o b je c tiv e s
and s tr a te g ie s designed to o b ta in m eaningful and s e q u e n tia l
ed u ca tio n a l programming f o r handicapped c h ild re n ?

3.
1-4

?

Are members o f th e sp e cia l educa tion s t a f f encouraged to
a tte n d p ro fe s s io n a l workshops, I n s t it u t e s , and conventions
1n o rd e r to remain abreast o f th e la t e s t developments in
the f i e l d o f s p e c ia l education?

2.
1-3

No

Leadership

1.
1-2

Yes

Yes

No

?

Is c o o rd in a tio n o f jo b placement and s k i l l s t r a in in g between
teacher c o n s u lta n ts f o r the m e n ta lly handicapped and the
p h y s ic a lly handicapped in close coo p e ra tio n s w ith v o c a tio n a l
r e h a b ilit a t io n agencies?
3.

Yes

No

?

185
J-4

Does the EPPC recommend re g u la r and sp e c ia l education
programs and s e rv ic e s f o r each student?
4.

J-5

K-l

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Is any e f f o r t made to f a c i l i t a t e the exchange o f in fo rm a tio n
concerning techniques o f program e v a lu a tio n , s t a f f a p p ra is a l,
e tc . w ith o th e r lo c a l d is t r ic t s ?
Yes

No

?

Are measurable o b je c tiv e s s e t f o r y o u r programs and s e rv ic e s
so th a t th e y may be o b je c tiv e ly evaluated?
4.

K-5

No

Is th e re an e v a lu a tio n system a v a ila b le f o r assessing the
amount o f p u p il progress toward accom plishing in d iv id u a liz e d
performance o b je c tiv e s ?

3.
K-4

Yes

Is program e v a lu a tio n undertaken in y o u r d i s t r i c t to reveal
s tre n g th s and d e fic ie n c ie s o f the program o r s e rv ic e and to
suggest changes in th e d e liv e r y system?

2.
K-3

?

E va lu a tio n

1.
K-2

No

Are in - s e r v ic e t r a in in g programs designed to a cq u a in t
re g u la r teachers w ith the needs o f handicapped students?
5.

K.

Yes

Yes

No

?

Is an e f f o r t made to s e t measurable o b je c tiv e s f o r sp e cia l
education programs and s e rv ic e s in accordance w ith the s ta te
department o f a c c o u n ta b ility model?
5.

Yes

No

?

ASSESS QUESTIONNAIRE
(2) Special Education S ta ff
INSTRUCTIONS:
Please answer each qu estio n according to what is a c tu a lly p ra c tic e d in
your school d i s t r i c t a t the lo c a l le v e l.
I f an item in d ic a te s a
c e rta in p ra c tic e in yo u r d i s t r i c t , c ir c le the "Yes" response. I f the
a ctio n a llu d e d to in the item is not the p ra c tic e in you r d i s t r i c t ,
c ir c le the "No" response. I f you r e a lly do not fe e l th a t you have
s u f f ic ie n t in fo rm a tio n to make a d e te rm in a tio n , check the "?" response.
PLEASE CIRCLE ONLY ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH QUESTION.
Item Code
A.

Question

R e fe rra l System

A -l

Is th e re a fo rm a liz e d procedure f o r re c e iv in g and processing
r e f e r r a ls f o r sp e cia l education programs and se rvice s in your
d is tr ic t?
1.
Yes
No
?

A-2

Is a form al procedure fo llo w e d which culm inates in the con­
vening o f an educational planning and placement committee
(EPPC) meeting f o r a l l persons re fe rre d f o r programs f o r the
s e ve re ly m e n ta lly im p aire d, tr a in a b le m e n ta lly im p aire d,
educable m e n ta lly im paired, e m o tio n a lly im p a ire d , hearing
im p a ire d , v is u a lly im p a ire d , p h y s ic a lly and otherw ise h e a lth
im paired, se ve re ly m u ltip ly im paired an d/o r le a rn in g disabled?
2.

A-3

?

Yes

No

?

Is i t the r e s p o n s ib ility o f s u p p o rtiv e , d ia g n o s tic , and i t i n ­
e ra n t personnel (s p e c ia l e d uca tion ) to r e fe r students to an
EPPC when t h e ir e v a lu a tio n in d ic a te s th a t the student may be
m e n ta lly , p h y s ic a lly o r e m o tio n a lly im paired o r le a rn in g d is ­
abled?
4.

A-5

No

I f a stud en t has a permanent d i s a b ili t y o r a lo ng -te rm illn e s s
o r in ju r y , is he re fe rre d to an EPPC?
3.

A-4

Yes

Yes

No

?

Does the sp e cia l education o f f ic e accept r e f e r r a ls from p a r­
ents and members o f the p ro fe s s io n a l community w ith pa re n ta l
consent?
5.
Yes
No
?

186

187
A-6

May the above-mentioned r e f e r r a ls be verbal?
6.

A -7

B.
B-28

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Are a l l r e f e r r a ls recorded according to the in te rm e d ia te
d i s t r i c t p la n 's s p e c ifie d procedure f o r re co rd in g and
processing r e fe rra ls ?
10.
Yes
No

?

?

?

?

D iagnostic Services
A fte r the r e f e r r a l 1s re ce ive d , is one s t a f f person assigned
r e s p o n s ib ility o f c o lle c tin g d ia g n o s tic data?
1.

B-29

Yes

I f the r e f e r r a l does not c o n ta in adequate in fo rm a tio n , does
the sp e cia l education o f f ic e request a d d itio n a l in fo rm a tio n
from the r e f e r r a l source v e r ify in g the existe n ce o f a ha nd i­
cap o r c o n ta in in g in fo rm a tio n which le d the r e f e r r a l source
to suspect the e xiste n ce o f a handicap?
9.

A-10

?

Is p a re n ta l approval obtained before a r e f e r r a l is processed?
8.

A-9

No

I f the r e f e r r a l does not s p e c if ic a lly in d ic a te the p a re n ts,
are parents contacted to assure t h e ir awareness and consent?
7.

A-8

Yes

Yes

No

?

Are data o f a c lin ic a l nature c o lle c te d f o r each d i s a b ili t y
group by p ro fe s s io n a ls s p e c ifie d In the S tate Code?
2.

Yes

No

?

B-30

Does the Educational Planning and Placement Committee see
th a t s u f f ic ie n t c lin ic a l and educational data are a v a ila b le
to make a v e r if ic a t io n o f re fe rre d s tu d e n ts ' e l i g i b i l i t y
o r I n e l i g i b i l i t y f o r placement?
3.
Yes
No
?

B-31

Do teacher co n su lta n ts work w ith re g u la r students to o b ta in
d ia g n o s tic in fo rm a tio n to be used in de term in in g e l i g i b i l i t y
f o r sp e cia l education programs and services?
4.

B-32

Yes

No

?

Does the sp e cia l education department r e f r a in from p la c in g
persons suspected o f being handicapped in sp e cia l education
programs p r io r to d e te rm in a tio n o f e l i g i b i l i t y by an EPPC?
5.

Yes

No

?

188
B-33

Is the language o f the e v a lu a tio n the prim ary language o f
the student?
6.

C.
C-l

C-2

Before a change in s ta tu s is made, must an EPPC have made the
recommendation?
?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Are the d u tie s o f th e EPPC in yo u r d i s t r i c t d e fin e d as
fo llo w s :
Determ ining e l i g i b i l i t y
Recommending programs and se rvice s
E s ta b lis h in g in s tr u c tio n a l goals
Id e n tify in g outcomes expected as a r e s u lt o f special
education placement.
5.

Yes

No

?

Does the EPPC in y o u r d i s t r i c t c o n s is t o f one re p re s e n ta tiv e
from each o f the fo llo w in g c a te g o rie s , as a minimum?
1.
2.
3.
4.

A d m in is tra tio n
D iag no stic personnel
S upportive o r In s tr u c tio n a l s t a f f
P arents, 1 f th e y choose to p a r tic ip a te
6.

C-7

No

Does the r e s p o n s ib ility f o r making changes 1n the educational
s ta tu s o f the handicapped person r e s t w ith the S uperintendent
o r h is designee?

1.
2.
3.
4.

C-6

Yes

Are changes from one type o f program to a n oth er, one le v e l
to another and a d d itio n s o r d e le tio n s o f se rvice s considered
changes 1n educational sta tu s?

4.
C-5

?

Are a l l sp e cia l education placements recommended by an EPPC
except f o r Speech and Language, S o cial Worker, and Homebound and H o s p ita liz e d services?
1.
Yes
No
?

3.
C-4

No

Placement Procedures

2.
C-3

Yes

Yes

No

?

I f the student 1s under 18, is th e s tu d e n t's m other, fa th e r
o r guardian considered the "p a re n t," and In v ite d to p a r t i­
c ip a te on h is own EPPC.
7.

Yes

No

?

189

C-8

I f the student is 18 o r over and has not had a le g a l guardian
appointed by the c o u rt, is he in v ite d to p a r tic ip a te on h is
own EPPC?
8.

C-9

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Does the d e c is io n o f the EPPC become o f f i c i a l when, as a
minimum, the sup e rin te n d e n t o r h is designee and the parents
agree?
13.

C-14

No

Is a c e r t if ie d l e t t e r o r a signed re c e ip t o f a ha nd -de live red
l e t t e r used to pro vid e documentation o f the l e t t e r having
been sent to the parents?
12.

C-13

Yes

Does the EPPC chairperson ( i f appointed by the S uperintendent)
arrange tim e and place o f the m eeting(s) and in v it e o th e r
p a rtic ip a n ts ?
11.

C-12

?

I f the pa ren t has no t been n o t if ie d o f th e EPPC m eeting, is
the s tu d e n t's s ta tu s l e f t unchanged u n t il p a re n t involvem ent
is sought and perm ission is obtained?
10.

C -ll

No

Does the Special Education O ffic e request in w r itin g parent
p a r tic ip a tio n on the EPPC on a case by case basis?
9.

C-10

Yes

Yes

No

?

Is one EPPC member appointed to arrange f o r the im plem entation
and fo llo w -u p o f the recommended plan and to record and
coordinate the com m ittee's actio ns?
14.

Yes

No

?

C-15

Does the EPPC re q u ire th a t
e x is t and th a t the student
defined by law before th a t
spe cia l education se rvice s
1 n A -4 a p p ly .)

the need f o r In te rv e n tio n must
have one o r more impairments as
stud en t can be deemed e l ig ib l e f o r
o r programs? (Same exceptions as
16
Yes
No
?

C-16

I f the EPPC decides th a t a handicapped stu d e n t may best be
served by non-special education s e rv ic e s , is th a t stu d e n t
denied spe cia l education programs o r se rvice s a t th a t time?
16.

C-17

Yes

No

?

I f parents choose n o t to p a r tic ip a te on the EPPC, are they
given p r io r n o t if ic a t io n o f the Committee's recommendation
and allow ed a t le a s t seven (7) days to agree o r disagree
before placement is made?
17.
Yes
No
?

190
C-18

C-19

Are parents given a copy o f Rule 24 which concerns the
Hearing Process.
18.
Yes
No

Does the sp e cia l education o f f ic e assume the r e s p o n s ib ility
f o r making parents aware o f the p ro v is io n s o f Rule 24?
19.

C-20

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Are parents always n o t if ie d before placement is e ffe c tu a te d ,
denied o r changed?
26.

C-27

?

Are parents given the o p p o rtu n ity to request an EPPC meeting
anytime they fe e l th a t a change in t h e ir c h ild 's educational
s ta tu s is needed?
25.

C-26

No

Is the s ig n a tu re o f consent by the "p a re n t" a p a rt o f o r
attached to the committee recommendation?
24.

C-25

Yes

P r io r to s ig n in g , are parents given the o p p o rtu n ity to
rece ive and review the w r itte n recommendations o f the EPPC?
23.

C-24

?

Does the EPPC re p o rt in clu d e re g u la r education and sp e cia l
education programs and se rvice s as deemed ap p ro p ria te ?
22.

C-23

No

Are parents inform ed o f the a v a il a b ili t y o f o rg a n iz a tio n s ,
t h e ir addresses and telephone numbers, to a s s is t them a t the
hearing?
21.

C-22

Yes

Are the parents inform ed by th e S uperintendent o r h is designee
th a t they may appeal to the S uperintendent o f In s tr u c tio n i f
a d e cisio n is not reached w ith the lo c a l Superintendent?
20.

C-21

?

Yes

No

?

Does the placement n o t if ic a t io n always in c lu d e the fo llo w in g :?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

D e scrip tio n o f proposed a c tio n
S p e c ific a tio n o f s ta tu te o r ru le under which a c tio n is
proposed
Statement o f reasons f o r a c tio n
S p e c ific a tio n o f any te s ts o r re p o rts upon which the a c tio n
is based
N otice o f r ig h t to hearing and procedure f o r req ue sting
same

191
F.
G.

Names and addresses o f o rg a n is a tio n s a v a ila b le to a s s is t
a t hearing
A ll op tion s o f educational o p p o rtu n itie s a v a ila b le
27.

C-28

Place the student in ana p p ro p ria te
Assign Special Education S ta ff
31.

3.
4.

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

program, and
Yes

No

?

The s k i l l s o f the teachers o r teacher co n su lta n ts
The age range, number, and d i s a b ili t y make-up o f the
students assigned to the program.
The balance o f boys and g i r l s and c o m p a tib ility o f ty le s
o f le a rn in g d i f f i c u l t i e s o f enrol lees
The r e la tio n s h ip o f the c h ild 's educational needs to those
o f o th e rs in the group to which he is being assigned.
32.

Yes

No

?

May parent be represented a t the hearing by any person o f h is
choosing?
33.

C-34

?

Does the a d m in is tra tio n con sid er the fo llo w in g when im ple­
menting the EPPC's recommendations?
1.
2.

C-33

No

Does the Superintendent o r h is designee a c t in the fo llo w in g
manner on the recommendation o f the EPPC?
1.
2.

C-32

Yes

May parents pro vid e w r itte n re p o rts f o r the EPPC in support
o f t h e ir p o s itio n on the c h ild 's placement?
30.

C-31

?

May parents b rin g o u ts id e p ro fe s s io n a ls o r n o n -p ro fe ssio n a ls
to the meeting i f they n o t if y the hearing o f f ic e r p r io r to
the meeting?
29.

C-30

No

I f parents request s p e c ific persons from the school s t a f f
whose testim ony is v it a l to atten d the h e a rin g , are they
a v a ila b le to attend?
28.

C-29

Yes

Yes

No

?

I f the EPPC cannot agree on a placem ent, do they e ith e r
recommend re g u la r programs and services o r request fu r th e r
d ia g n o s tic study?
34.

Yes

No

?

192
D.
D-l

Continuum o f Programs and S ervices
Does th e S pecial Education Program co n te n t In clu d e th e f o l ­
low ing components f o r a l l im pairm ent groups:
Personal adjustm ent T ra in in g
P re -v o c a tlo n a l T ra in in g
V o catio nal T ra in in g
S k ills T ra in in g
Work-Study
1.

D-2

Yes

No

?

Is th e re a continuum o f s p e c ia l education s e rv ic e s 1n yo u r
d i s t r i c t f o r a l l im pairm ent groups In c lu d in g :
P re-P rim ary
Elementary
J u n io r High
Secondary
2.

D-3

Yes

No

Is th e re a h ie ra r c h ic a l arrangement o f s p e c ia l education
s e rv ic e s a v a ila b le in yo u r d i s t r i c t in c lu d in g the fo llo w in g :
F u ll- tim e re g u la r c la s s placement w ith s u p p o rtiv e help
P a rt-tim e s p e c ia l c la s s ; p a rt-tim e re g u la r cla ss
F u ll- tim e sp e c ia l education cla ss
Homebound o r H o s p ita liz e d S ervices
R e s id e n tia l placement
3.
Yes
No

D-4

?

Are the fo llo w in g s u p p o rtiv e s e rv ic e s a v a ila b le 1n yo u r
d i s t r i c t f o r a l l Im pairm ent groups?
S o cial Worker S ervices
P sych olo gical C o n s u lta tio n o r s e rv ic e s
Teacher C o nsu ltan t S ervices
Speech and Language S ervices
4.

D-5

?

Yes

No

?

Are the fo llo w in g in s tr u c tio n a l s e rv ic e s a v a ila b le 1n y o u r
d i s t r i c t f o r a l l im pairm ent groups:
Teacher c o n s u lta n t f o r e v a lu a tio n o f re g u la r students d u rin g
a 10 day d ia g n o s tic te a ch in g p e rio d
Teacher c o n s u lta n t se rv ic e s f o r sm all groups o f s p e c ia l edu­
c a tio n stud en ts and general education teachers who are
s e rv ic in g im paired stud en ts
S pecial Education tea che r s e rv in g more than one d i s a b i l i t y
group
S pecial Education classroom te a ch e r f o r a ba sic classroom
program.
5.

Yes

No

?

193

E m otionally Impaired
D-31

Does the r a t io In the program f o r the e m o tio n a lly im paired
c o n s is t o f 1 teacher f o r not more than the e q u iv a le n t o f
10 f u ll- t im e p u p ils ?
6.
Yes
No
?

Educable M e n ta lly Im paired
D-32

Does the r a t io in EMI programs c o n s is t o f 1 teacher f o r not
more than 15 f u ll- t im e students?
7.

Yes

No

?

Learning D is a b ilit y
D-33

Does the tea che r o f the le a rn in g d isa b le d have the e q u iv a le n t
o f 10 o r fewer f u ll- t im e p u p ils assigned per teacher in a
spe cia l class?
8.

Yes

No

?

Speech and Language
D-34

Are s iz e and com position o f groups determined by the teacher
o f the speech and language impaired?
9.

E.
E -l

Yes

No

?

I f so, are parents provided a copy o f the recommendations o f
such a review?
Yes

No

?

Does the review re p o rt provided by the sp e cia l education
department in c lu d e the names o f persons who conducted the
review ; the in fo rm a tio n th a t was review ed, and a recommenda­
tio n f o r e ith e r c o n tin u a tio n , a d d itio n a l s e rv ic e s , o r r e fe r r a l
to an Educational Planning and Placement Committee f o r p o s s ib le
change o f educational s ta tu s?
3.

E-4

?

Does the sp e cia l education department in your d i s t r i c t pro vid e
a review o f programs and se rvice s provided each handicapped
person a t le a s t annually?

2.
E-3

No

Follow-up

1.
E-2

Yes

Yes

No

?

Does the S uperintendent o f the d i s t r i c t o f residence re ce ive
a copy o f the review re p o rt?
4.

Yes

No

?

194

E-5

I f a change o f placement seems w arranted a f t e r the review ,
does the sp e cia l education department see th a t the EPPC is
held?
5.

E-6

E-7

E-8

E-9

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Does the review occur a t le a s t once every 12 calendar months
since the date o f placement o r la s t review?
9.

E-10

E -l 1

No

?

Yes

No

?

Does the review re p o rt c o n ta in an a n a ly s is o f the s tu d e n t's
progress toward meeting h is o b je c tiv e s ?
11.

E - l2

Yes

Is a review held whenever i t appears necessary, even i f less
than a year has tra n s p ire d ?
10.

Yes

No

?

Is each stud en t fo llo w e d f o r a t le a s t one ye a r fo llo w in g
te rm in a tio n o f sp e cia l education programs and services?
12.

Yes

No

?

Personnel
Are the variou s ro le s o f sp e cia l education personnel made
c le a r by the a d m in is tra tio n in your d i s t r i c t ?
1.

Yes

No

?

Are in -s e rv ic e programs conducted to up-grade the t r a in in g
o f special education personnel?
2.

F-3

Yes

Is the review conducted by one o r more approved sp e cia l
education s t a f f persons as assigned by the su p e rin te n d e n t o r
his designee?
8.

F-2

?

Does the review in c lu d e an a n a ly s is o f e d u c a tio n a l, p h ysica l
and p sych olog ica l data?
7.

F -l

No

Does the review in c lu d e an a n a ly s is o f the appropriateness
o f the present program in c lu d in g the in d iv id u a l performance
o b je c tiv e s ?
6.

F.

Yes

Yes

No

?

Do a l l sp e cia l education employees f o r whom s a la rie s are
reimbursed meet the q u a lif ic a tio n s re q u ire d by S tate law?
3.

Yes

No

?

195
F-4

Do a l l sp e cia l education employees whose s a la rie s are not
reim bursable meet s p e c ifie d s ta te q u a lific a tio n s ?
4.

F-5

No

?

Yes

No

. ?

Yes

No

?

Are personnel associated w ith programs f o r handicapped youth
encouraged and given an o p p o rtu n ity to v i s i t o th e r classroom s,
communities, in s t it u t io n s , and agencies, and to a tte n d pro­
fe s s io n a l meetings?
8.

F-9

Yes

Are In -s e rv ic e tr a in in g and o th e r methods used to up-grade
personnel tr a in in g f o r sp e cia l education s ta ff?
7.

F-8

?

Do sp e cia l education te a ch e rs, s u p e rv is o rs , c o n su lta n ts and
d ire c to rs hold c re d e n tia ls which conform to the Department
o f Education g u id e lin e s f o r sp e cia l education personnel?
6.

F-7

No

Are annual re p o rts on the s ta tu s o f a l l sp e c ia l education
personnel channeled through the in te rm e d ia te sp e cia l educa­
tio n o f f ic e f o r m onitoring?
5.

F-6

Yes

Yes

No

?

Do teacher c o n su lta n ts pro vid e services to handicapped
students in the classroom, or
pro vid e c o n s u lta tio n to re g u la r classroom teachers who have
handicapped students in te g ra te d in to t h e ir classroom s; o r
provide it in e r a n t se rvice s in one o r more school b u ild in g s ?
9.

F-10

?

Yes

No

?

May teacher co n su lta n ts work w ith re g u la r students f o r up t o ,
but no more than 10 consecutive school days?
11.

F-12

No

Do tea che r co n s u lta n ts c a rry up to 25 students on an a c tiv e
caseload, but no more than 25?
10.

F - ll

Yes

Yes

No

?

Does the d ir e c to r o r c o o rd in a to r have r e s p o n s ib ility f o r the
fo llo w in g d u tie s as s p e c ifie d in Rule 50 (i )?
Developing and o rg a n iz in g and a d m in is te rin g sp e c ia l educa­
t io n programs?
Planning and conducting in -s e rv ic e programs
Conducting program e v a lu a tio n
P ro vid in g lia is o n w ith school s t a f f and community
Preparing sp e cia l education re p o rts
S upervising sp e c ia l education s t a f f
12.
Yes
No
?

196
G.
G-l

F a c ilit ie s
Are a l l new schools in your d i s t r i c t b a r r ie r fre e ?
1.

G-2

H-l

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Are handicapped students assigned to educational programs and
se rvice s which are housed in b u ild in g s which a llo w f o r
in te g ra tio n to take place?
8.

H.

Yes

Do teacher co n su lta n ts and sp e cia l education personnel have
space designated on a scheduled basis in each b u ild in g to
a ffo rd in d iv id u a l and sm all group work?
7.

G-8

?

Do a l l sp e cia l education classrooms have a t le a s t the average
number o f square fe e t per stud en t as the re g u la r classrooms
in the d i s t r i c t ?
6.

G-7

No

Are teachers helped and encouraged to develop new in s tr u c ­
tio n a l m a te ria ls designed to meet the s p e c ific needs o f
handicapped c h ild re n ?
5.

G-6

Yes

Are m a te ria ls workshops conducted in o rd e r to acquaint
spe cia l education personnel w ith the la te s t in s tr u c tio n a l
m a te ria ls ?
4.

G-5

?

Are sp e cia l education f a c i l i t i e s equal to f a c i l i t i e s fo r
re g u la r education?
3.

G-4

No

Is adequate equipment provided f o r each sp e cia l education
program?
2.

G-3

Yes

Yes

No

?

In s tru c tio n a l Content
Is an in s tr u c tio n a l program provided f o r handicapped students
in the 0-6 category?
1.

Yes

No

?

Elementary G uidelines
H-2

Is

the re g u la r educational sequence fo llo w e d wherever possible?
2.

Yes

No

?

197

H-3

Is the Handbook o f Suggestions f o r Developmental Learning
pu blish ed by the M ichigan Department o f Education used as a
general guide in developing c u rric u lu m to meet the unique
needs o f th e handicapped?
3.

Yes

No

?

E a rly Secondary
H-4

Do a l l handicapped secondary youngsters who are e l ig ib l e f o r
s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n , can b e n e fit from and who are in te re s te d
in v o c a tio n a l education have access to such programs in yo u r
d is tr ic t?
4.

H-5

Yes

No

?

Does the secondary c u rric u lu m in c lu d e the fo llo w in g aspects
as a minimum:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.

C o n tin u a tio n o f academic s k i l l s t r a in in g ,
P h ysical e d u ca tio n ,
H is to ry , designed to meet le g a l requirem ents o f a normal
course o f study as p re s c rib e d in th e M ichigan School
Code (Sec. 340.361).
Economics designed to he lp th e stu d e n t understand th e r o le
o f w o rke r, s u p e rv is o r and management in a fre e e n te rp ris e
system.
Home Economics designed to pro vid e personal s k i l l s needed
to m a in ta in an adequate l i f e environm ent.
Business S k ills
I n d u s tr ia l A rts
H ealth Science
5.

Yes

No

?

P re-V ocational E v a lu a tio n
H-6

In you r d i s t r i c t , is each te a ch e r accountable f o r each o f
fo llo w in g :
A.
B.
C.

the

Teaching the s k i l l ?
P ro v id in g re la te d occu pa tion al in fo rm a tio n , and
Assessing in t e r e s t , a p titu d e s and a b i l i t i e s f o r th e purpose
o f recommending a p p ro p ria te v o c a tio n a l a lte r n a tiv e s when
th e stu d e n t completes the e a r lie r secondary sequence.
6.

Yes

No

?

L a te r Secondary Programs G uid elin es
H-7

Do handicapped students re c e iv e d riv e r s e d uca tion in y o u r
d i s t r i c t , unless deemed in a p p ro p ria te by th e EPPC?
7.

Yes

No

?

198
H-8

Are handicapped students placed in re g u la r vo ca tio n a l educa­
tio n programs where possible?
8.

H-9

No

?

Are sp e cia l education students who have not completed a normal
course o f study and are between the ages o f 16 and 25 served
by sp e cia l education in yo u r d i s t r i c t ?
9.

H-10

Yes

Yes

No

?

Are r e fe r r a ls made by the Special Education Department to the
fo llo w in g agencies which are a v a ila b le to serve sp e cia l educa­
tio n youngsters?
A.
B.
C.
D.

V ocational R e h a b ilita tio n Services
Michigan Department o f Education
Bureau o f B lin d Services
Michigan Department o f S ocial Services
10.

Yes

No

?

In d iv id u a l In s tru c tio n a l O b je ctive s
H-11

Is a c u rric u lu m plan (w ith in d iv id u a l performance o b je c tiv e s )
f o r each stu d e n t developed in accordance w ith h is needs in the
c o g n itiv e , a ffe c tiv e and psychomotor domains w ith sp e cia l
a tte n tio n to needs f o r personal adjustm ent t r a in in g , p re vo ca tio n a l t r a in in g and vo ca tio n a l tra in in g ? (R 340.1733(b))
11.

H-12

No

?

Are the performance o b je c tiv e s a v a ila b le to the parent?
(R 340.1733(b))
12.

H-13

Yes

Yes

No

?

May the performance o b je c tiv e s w r itte n f o r each handicapped
person (R 340.1733(c)) be reviewed by the S uperintendent o f
P u b lic In s tr u c tio n o r h is designee?
13.

Yes

No

?

H-14

Are the methods o f in s tr u c tio n c o n s is te n t w ith the performance
o b je c tiv e s w r itte n f o r each handicapped person?
(R 340.1733(c))
14.
Yes
No
?

H-15

Does the in s tr u c tio n a l program f o r a school day focus on the
in d iv id u a l needs o f the handicapped person, as determined
through the educational plan f o r each student? (R 340.1733(g))
15.

H-16

Yes

No

?

Is the use o f a l l sensory m o d a litie s in co rp o ra te d in to the
in s tr u c tio n a l content f o r handicapped students?
16.

Yes

No

?

199
H-17

Is the sp e cia l education program designed to promote the
development o f s o c ia l s k i l l s in handicapped persons?
17.

I.
1-1

J.
J -l

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

In te g ra tio n
Are the handicapped c h ild re n in you r d i s t r i c t in te g ra te d in to
re g u la r classroom programs whenever a p p ro p ria te ?
Yes

No

?

Are e f f o r t s underway to develop a co o p e ra tive vo ca tio n a l
e d u ca tio n /sp e cia l education program?
Yes

No

?

Is c o o rd in a tio n o f jo b placement and s k i l l s t r a in in g between
teacher co n su lta n ts f o r the m e n ta lly handicapped and the
p h y s ic a lly handicapped in close cooperations w ith vo ca tio n a l
r e h a b ilita t io n agencies?
3.

J-4

?

Does your d i s t r i c t cooperate w ith M ichigan U n iv e rs itie s by
a llo w in g t h e ir In te rn s to work w ith Special Education
Services s ta ff?
4.
Yes
No
?

2.
J-3

No

Whenever the t o t a l number o f p ro fe s s io n a l personnel in a
s p e c ific program o r s e rv ic e exceeds te n , is a s u p e rv is o r
h ire d f o r th a t program?

1.
J-2

Yes

Does your program plan in c lu d e p h ilo so p h y, g o a ls , o b je c tiv e s
and s tra te g ie s designed to o b ta in m eaningful and seq ue ntia l
educational programming f o r handicapped c h ild re n ?

3.
1-4

?

Are members o f the sp e cia l education s t a f f encouraged to
attend p ro fe s s io n a l workshops, in s t it u t e s , and conventions
in ord er to remain abreast o f the la te s t developments in
the f i e l d o f sp e cia l education?

2.
1-3

No

Leadership

1.
1-2

Yes

Yes

No

?

Does the EPPC recommend re g u la r and sp e cia l education programs
and se rvice s f o r each student?
4.

Yes

No

?

200
J-5

Are in -s e rv ic e t r a in in g programs designed to acquaint re g u la r
teachers w ith the needs o f handicapped students?
5.

K.
K-l

Yes

No

?

Is th e re an e v a lu a tio n system a v a ila b le f o r assessing the
amount o f p u p il progress toward accom plishing in d iv id u a liz e d
performance o b je c tiv e s ?
Yes

No

?

Is any e f f o r t made to f a c i l i t a t e the exchange o f in fo rm a tio n
concerning techniques o f program e v a lu a tio n , s t a f f a p p ra is a l,
e t c . , w ith o th e r lo c a l d is t r ic t s ?
3.

K-4

?

Is the sp e cia l education program evaluated to determ ine
s tre n g th s and weaknesses?

2.
K-3

No

E valuation

1.
K-2

Yes

Yes

No

?

Are measurable o b je c tiv e s se t f o r you r programs and se rvice s
so th a t they may be o b je c tiv e ly evaluated?
4.

Yes

No

?

ASSESS QUESTIONNAIRE
(3) General Educators
INSTRUCTIONS:
Please answer each question according to your p e rce p tio n o f what is
a c tu a lly p ra c tic e d in your lo c a l sp e cia l education program. C irc le
"Yes," No," o r "? " f o r each item .
PLEASE CIRCLE ONLY ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH QUESTION.
Item Code
A.
A -l

Question

R e fe rra l System
Is th e re a fo rm a lize d procedure f o r re c e iv in g and processing
r e f e r r a ls f o r sp e cia l education programs and se rvice s in your
d is tr ic t?
1.

A-2

No

?

Is a form al procedure fo llo w e d which culm inates in th e con­
vening o f an educational planning and placement committee
(EPPC) meeting f o r a l l persons re fe rre d f o r programs f o r the
se ve re ly m e n ta lly im p aire d, tr a in a b le m e n ta lly im p aire d,
educable m e n ta lly im p a ire d , e m o tio n a lly im p a ire d , hearing
im paired, v is u a lly im p a ire d , p h y s ic a lly and oth erw ise h e a lth
im p aire d, s e ve re ly m u ltip ly im paired a n d /o r le a rn in g disabled?
2.

A-3

Yes

Yes

No

I f astud en t has a permanent d i s a b i l i t y o r a lo n g -te rm
o r in ju r y , is he re fe rre d to an EPPC?
3.

Yes

No

?
Illn e s s
?

A-4

Is i t the r e s p o n s ib ility o f s u p p o rtiv e d ia g n o s tic , and i t i n ­
e ra n t personnel (sp e cia l ed uca tion ) to r e f e r students to an
EPPC when t h e ir e v a lu a tio n in d ic a te s th a t the stud en t may be
m e n ta lly , p h y s ic a lly o r e m o tio n a lly im paired o r le a rn in g d is ­
abled?
4.
Yes
No
?

A-5

Does the spe cia l education o f f ic e accept r e f e r r a ls from parents
and members o f the p ro fe s s io n a l community w ith p a re n ta l con­
sent?
5.
Yes
No
?

201

202
A-6

May the above-mentioned r e f e r r a ls be verbal?
6.

A-7

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Are a l l r e fe r r a ls recorded according to th e in te rm e d ia te d is ­
t r i c t p la n 's s p e c ifie d procedure f o r re co rd in g and processing
r e fe rra ls ?
10.

B.

Yes

I f the r e fe r r a l does not c o n ta in adequate in fo rm a tio n , does
the sp e cia l education o f f ic e request a d d itio n a l in fo rm a tio n
from the r e f e r r a l source v e r ify in g the e xiste n ce o f a handi­
cap o r c o n ta in in g in fo rm a tio n which led th e r e fe r r a l source to
suspect the e xiste n ce o f a handicap?
9.

A-10

?

Is pa ren tal approval obtained before a r e f e r r a l is processed?
8.

A-9

No

I f the r e fe r r a l does not s p e c if ic a lly in d ic a te the p a re n ts,
are parents contacted to assure t h e ir awareness and consent?
7.

A-8

Yes

Yes

No

?

D iagnostic Services

Educable M e n ta lly Im paired
B-28

A fte r the r e f e r r a l is re ce ive d , is one s t a f f person assigned
r e s p o n s ib ility o f c o lle c tin g d ia g n o s tic data?
1.

B-29

?

Yes

No

?

Does the Educational Planning and Placement Committee see th a t
s u f f ic ie n t c li n ic a l and educational data are a v a ila b le to make
a v e r if ic a t io n o f re fe rre d stu d e n ts ' e l i g i b i l i t y o r in ­
e l i g i b i l i t y f o r placement?
3.

B-31

No

Are data o f a c lin ic a l nature c o lle c te d f o r each d i s a b ili t y
group by p ro fe s s io n a ls s p e c ifie d 1n the S ta te Code?
2.

B-30

Yes

Yes

No

?

Do teacher c o n s u lta n ts work w ith re g u la r students to o b ta in
d ia g n o s tic in fo rm a tio n to be used in de term in in g e l i g i b i l i t y
f o r sp e cia l education programs and services?
4.

Yes

No

?

203
B-32

Does the sp e c ia l education department r e f r a in from p la c in g
persons suspected o f being handicapped in s p e c ia l education
programs p r io r to d e te rm in a tio n o f e l i g i b i l i t y
by an EPPC?
5.

B-33

C-l

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Are the d u tie s o f the EPPC in y o u r d i s t r i c t d e fin e d as fo llo w s :
Determ ining e l i g i b i l i t y
Recommending programs and s e rv ic e s
E s ta b lis h in g in s tr u c tio n a l goals
Id e n tify in g outcomes expected as a r e s u lt o f s p e c ia l
education placement.
5.

Yes

No

?

Does the EPPC in yo u r d i s t r i c t c o n s is t o f one re p re s e n ta tiv e
from each o f the fo llo w in g c a te g o rie s , as a minimum?
1.
2.
3.
4.

A d m in is tra tio n
D iag no stic personnel
S upportive o r in s tr u c tio n a l s t a f f
P a re nts, 1 f they choose to p a r t ic ip a t e
6.

C-7

Yes

Does the r e s p o n s ib ility f o r making changes in the ed uca tion al
s ta tu s o f the handicapped person r e s t w ith the S uperinten de nt
o r h is designee?

1.
2.
3.
4.

C-6

?

Are changes from one type o f program to a n o th e r, one le v e l to
another and a d d itio n s o r d e le tio n s o f s e rv ic e s considered
changes in ed u ca tio n a l s ta tu s?

4.
C-5

No

Before a change In s ta tu s is made, mustan EPPC have made the
recommendation?

3.
C-4

Yes

Are a l l s p e c ia l education placements recommended by an EPPC
except f o r Speech and Language, S o cia l W orker, and Homebound and H o s p ita liz e d se rvice s?

2.
C-3

?

Placement Procedures

1.
C-2

No

Is the language o f the e v a lu a tio n the prim ary language o f
the student?
6.

C.

Yes

Yes

No

?

I f the stud en t is under 18, is th e s tu d e n t's m other, fa th e r o r
guardian considered the " p a re n t," and In v ite d to p a r tic ip a te on
h is own EPPC?
7.
Yes
No
?

204
C-8

I f th e stu d e n t 1s 18 o r over and has no t had a le g a l guardian
appointed by the c o u rt, 1s he in v ite d to p a r tic ip a te on h is
own EPPC?
8.

C-9

Does the EPPC re q u ire th a t
e x is t and th a t th e stu d e n t
d e fin e d by law be fore th a t
sp e cia l education s e rv ic e s
1n A-4 a p p ly .)

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

the need f o r in te r v e n tio n must
have one o r more im pairm ents as
stu d e n t can be deemed e l ig ib l e f o r
o r programs? (Same exce ptio ns as
15.

C-16

Yes

Is one EPPC member appointed to arrange f o r th e im plem entation
and fo llo w -u p o f the recommended plan and to re co rd and co­
o rd in a te th e com m ittee's a c tio n s ?
14.

C - l5

?

Does the d e c is io n o f the EPPC become o f f i c i a l when, as a
minimum, th e s u p e rin te n d e n t o r h is designee and the parents
agree?
13.

C -l4

No

Is a c e r t if ie d l e t t e r o r a signed re c e ip t o f a h a n d -d e live re d
l e t t e r used to p ro vid e docum entation o f the l e t t e r having been
sent to the parents?
12.

C - l3

Yes

Does the EPPC ch a irp e rso n ( i f appointed by th e S u perintendent)
arrange tim e and place o f the m ee ting (s) and in v it e o th e r
p a rtic ip a n ts ?
11.

C -l2

?

I f th e pa ren t has n o t been n o t if ie d o f the EPPC m eeting, is
the s tu d e n t's s ta tu s l e f t unchanged u n t il pa ren t involvem ent
is sought and perm ission is obtained?
10.

C - l1

No

Does the Special Education O ffic e req ue st in w r itin g pa ren t
p a r t ic ip a t io n on the EPPC on a case by case basis?
9.

C -l0

Yes

Yes

No

?

I f th e EPPC decides th a t a handicapped s tu d e n t may best be
served by non-special education s e rv ic e s , 1s th a t stu d e n t
denied sp e cia l education programs o r s e rv ic e s a t th a t time?
16.

Yes

No

?

205
C - l7

I f parents choose n o t to p a r tic ip a te on the EPPC, are they
given p r io r n o t if ic a t io n o f the Committee's recommendation
and allow ed a t le a s t seven (7) days to agree o r disagree
before placement is made?
17.

C -l8

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Are parents given the o p p o rtu n ity to req ue st an EPPC meeting
anytime they fe e l th a t a change in t h e ir c h ild 's ed uca tion al
s ta tu s is needed?
25.

C-26

No

Is the s ig n a tu re o f consent by the "p a re n t" a p a rt o f o r
attached to the committee recommendation?
24.

C-25

Yes

P r io r to s ig n in g , are parents given the o p p o rtu n ity to re c e iv e
and review the w r itt e n recommendations o f the EPPC?
23.

C-24

?

Does the EPPC re p o rt in c lu d e re g u la r education and sp e cia l
education programs and se rv ic e s as deemed a p p ro p ria te ?
22.

C-23

No

Are parents inform ed o f the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f o rg a n iz a tio n s ,
t h e ir addresses and telephone numbers, t o a s s is t them a t the
hearing?
21.

C-22

Yes

Are the parents inform ed by th e S uperintendent o r h is designee
th a t they may appeal to the S uperinten de nt o f In s tr u c tio n i f
a d e c is io n is no t reached w ith the lo c a l S uperintendent?
20.

C-21

?

Does the s p e c ia l education o f f ic e assume the r e s p o n s ib ility
f o r making parents aware o f the p ro v is io n s o f Rule 24?
19.

C-20

No

Are parents given a copy o f Rule 24 which concerns the
Hearing Process?
18.

C - l9

Yes

Yes

No

?

Are parents always n o t if ie d before placement is e ffe c tu a te d ,
denied o r changed? '
26.

Yes

No

?

206
C-27

Does the placement n o t if ic a t io n always in c lu d e the fo llo w in g :?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.

D e s c rip tio n o f proposed a c tio n
S p e c ific a tio n o f s ta tu te ,o r r u le under which a c tio n is
proposed
Statement o f reasons f o r a c tio n
S p e c ific a tio n o f any te s ts o r re p o rts upon which the a c tio n
is based
N otice o f r ig h t to hearing and procedure f o r re q u e stin g
same
Names and addresses o f o rg a n iz a tio n s a v a ila b le to a s s is t
a t hearing
A ll o p tio n s o f educational o p p o rtu n itie s a v a ila b le
27.

C-28

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Does the Superintendent o r h is designee a c t in the fo llo w in g
manner on the recommendation o f the EPPC?
1.
2.

Place the student in an a p p ro p ria te program, and
Assign Special Education S ta ff
31.

C-32

Yes

May parents pro vid e w r itte n re p o rts f o r the EPPC in support
o f t h e ir p o s itio n on the c h ild 's placement?
30.

C-31

?

May parents b rin g o u ts id e p ro fe s s io n a ls o r n o n -p ro fe ssio n a ls
to the meeting i f they n o t if y the hearing o f f ic e r p r io r to
the meeting?
29.

C-30

No

I f parents request s p e c ific persons from the school s t a f f
whose testim ony is v i t a l to atte n d the h e a rin g , are they
a v a ila b le to attend?
28.

C-29

Yes

Yes

No

?

Does the a d m in is tra tio n consider the fo llo w in g when Implement­
ing the EPPC's recommendations?
1.
2.
3.
4.

The s k i l l s o f the teachers o r teacher c o n su lta n ts
The age range, number, and d i s a b ili t y make-up o f the
students assigned to the program.
The balance o f boys and g i r ls and c o m p a tib ility o f types
o f le a rn in g d i f f i c u l t i e s o f enrol lees
The r e la tio n s h ip ,o f the c h ild 's educational needs to those
o f others in the group to which he is being assigned.
32.

Yes

No

?

207
C-33

May parents be represented a t the hearing by any person o f
h is choosing?
33.

D.
D-1

Yes

No

?

Continuum o f Programs and S ervices
Does the Special Education Program co n te n t in c lu d e the
fo llo w in g components f o r a l l im pairm ent groups:
Personal Adjustm ent T ra in in g
P re -vo ca tio n a l T ra in in g
Vocational T ra in in g
S k ills T ra in in g
Work-Study
1.

D-2

Yes

No

?

Is th e re a continuum o f sp e cia l education se rvice s in you r
d i s t r i c t f o r a l l im pairm ent groups in c lu d in g :
Pre-Prim ary
Elementary
J u n io r High
Secondary
2.

D-3

Yes

No

Is th e re a h ie ra rc h ic a l arrangement o f sp e cia l education
services a v a ila b le in y o u r d i s t r i c t in c lu d in g the fo llo w in g :
F u ll-tim e re g u la r cla ss placement w ith s u p p o rtiv e help
P a rt-tim e s p e c ia l c la s s ; p a rt-tim e re g u la r cla ss
F u ll-tim e sp e cia l education class
Homebound o r H o s p ita liz e d S ervices
R e sid e n tia l placement
3.
Yes
No

D-4

?

Are the fo llo w in g s u p p o rtiv e s e rv ic e s a v a ila b le in y o u r d is ­
t r i c t f o r a l l Impairment groups?
S ocial Worker S ervices
P sychological C o n s u lta tio n o r se rvice s
Teacher C onsultant S ervices
Speech and Language S ervices
4.

D-5

?

Yes

No

?

Are the fo llo w in g in s tr u c tio n a l s e rv ic e s a v a ila b le in your
d i s t r i c t f o r a l l im pairm ent groups:
Teacher c o n s u lta n t f o r e v a lu a tio n o f re g u la r students d u rin g
a 10 day d ia g n o s tic tea chin g p e rio d
Teacher c o n s u lta n t s e rv ic e s f o r small groups o f sp e cia l educa­
tio n students and general education teachers who are
s e rv ic in g im paired students
Special Education teacher s e rv in g more than one d i s a b ili t y
group

208
Special Education classroom teacher f o r a ba sic classroom
program.
5.
E.
E-l

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Does the review in c lu d e an a n a ly s is o f e d u c a tio n a l, ph ysica l
and p sych olog ica l data?
Yes

No

?

Is the review conducted by one o r more approved sp e cia l edu­
c a tio n s t a f f persons as assigned by the su p erinten de nt o r h is
designee?
8.

E-9

No

Does the review in c lu d e an a n a ly s is o f th e appropriateness
o f the present program in c lu d in g the in d iv id u a l performance
o b je c tiv e s ?

7.
E-8

Yes

I f a change o f placement seems warranted a f t e r the re vie w ,
does the sp e cia l education department see th a t the EPPC is
held?

6.
E-7

?

Does the S uperintendent o f the d i s t r i c t o f residence re ce ive
a copy o f the review re p o rt?

5.
E-6

No

Does the review re p o rt provided by the sp e c ia l education
department in c lu d e the names o f persons who conducted the
review ; the in fo rm a tio n th a t was review ed, and a recommenda­
tio n f o r e ith e r c o n tin u a tio n , a d d itio n a l s e rv ic e s , o r r e fe r r a l
to an Educational Planning and Placement Committee f o r pos­
s ib le change o f ed uca tion al s ta tu s?

4.
E-5

Yes

I f so, are parents provided a copy o f th e recommendations
o f such a review?

3.
E-4

?

Does the sp e cia l education department in you r d i s t r i c t p ro ­
vide a review o f programs and services provided each
handicapped person a t le a s t annually?

2.
E-3

No

Follow-up

1.
E-2

Yes

Yes

No

?

Does the review occur a t le a s t once every 12 calendar months
sin ce the date o f placement o r la s t review?
9.

Yes

No

?

209
E - l0

Is a review held whenever i t appears necessary, even i f less
than a yea r has tra n s p ire d ?
10.

E - l1

F -l

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Do special education te a ch e rs, s u p e rv is o rs , c o n su lta n ts and
d ire c to rs hold c re d e n tia ls which conform to the Department
o f Education g u id e lin e s f o r sp e c ia l education personnel?
Yes

No

?

Are in -s e rv ic e t r a in in g and o th e r methods used to up-grade
personnel t r a in in g f o r sp e cia l education s ta ff?
6.

F-8

No

Are annual re p o rts on the s ta tu s o f a l l sp e cia l education
personnel channeled through the in te rm e d ia te sp e cia l educa­
tio n o f f ic e f o r m on itoring ?

5.
F-7

Yes

Do a l l sp e cia l education employees whose s a la rie s are not
reim bursable meet s p e c ifie d s ta te q u a lific a tio n s ?

4.
F-6

?

Are in -s e r v ic e programs conducted to up-grade the t r a in in g
o f spe cia l education personnel?

3.
F-5

No

Are the va rio u s ro le s o f sp e cia l education personnel made
c le a r by th e a d m in is tra tio n in yo u r d i s t r i c t ?

2.
F-4

Yes

Personnel

1.
F-2

?

Is each stu d e n t fo llo w e d f o r a t le a s t one ye a r fo llo w in g
te rm in a tio n o f s p e c ia l education programs and services?
12.

F.

No

Does the review re p o rt c o n ta in an a n a ly s is o f the s tu d e n t's
progress toward meeting h is o b je c tiv e s ?
11.

E - l2

Yes

Yes

No

?

Are personnel associated w ith programs f o r handicapped youth
encouraged and given .an o p p o rtu n ity to v i s i t o th e r c la s s ­
rooms, communities, in s t it u t io n s , and agencies, and to atte n d
p ro fe ssio n a l meetings?
7.

Yes

No

?

4

210
F-9

Do te a ch e r c o n s u lta n ts p ro vid e s e rv ic e s to handicapped
students in the classroom , o r
pro vid e c o n s u lta tio n to re g u la r classroom teachers who have
handicapped students in te g ra te d in to t h e ir classroom s; o r
provide it in e r a n t s e rv ic e s in one o r more school b u ild in g s ?
8.

F-13

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

I f you r d i s t r i c t re ce ive s reimbursement f o r t h e ir s a la r ie s ,
do a l l c u rric u lu m resource c o n s u lta n ts meet s ta te department
approval requirem ents?
14.

F-19

?

I f yo u r d i s t r i c t re ce ive s reimbursement f o r t h e ir s a la r ie s ,
do a l l s p e c ia l education in te rn s meet s ta te department
approval requirem ents?
13.

F-18

No

I f y o u r d i s t r i c t re ce ive s reimbursement f o r t h e ir s a la r ie s ,
do a l l teachers o f the handicapped meet s ta te requirem ents
f o r approval?
12.

F-17

Yes

I f yo u r d i s t r i c t re ce ive s reimbursement f o r th e s a la r y ( s ) ,
does the s u p e rv is o r(s ) meet s ta te requirem ents f o r approval?
11.

F-16

?

I f yo u r d i s t r i c t re ce ive s reimbursement f o r th e s a la r y , does
the a s s is ta n t d ir e c to r meet s ta te requirem ents f o r approval?
10.

F-15

No

I f yo u r d i s t r i c t re ce ive s reimbursement f o r th e s a la ry , does
the d ir e c t o r o f sp e cia l education meet s ta te requirem ents
f o r approval?
9.

F-14

Yes

Yes

No

?

I f you r d i s t r i c t re ce ive s reimbursement f o r t h e ir s a la r ie s ,
are a l l s u p p o rtiv e personnel such as s o c ia l w o rke rs, medical
s p e c ia lis ts , p s y c h o lo g is ts ; lic e n s e d , c e r t i f i e d , o r r e g is ­
te re d by a governmental agency, c e r t if ie d by a le g a lly
recognized board, o r a s s o c ia tio n , o r recommended by a c o lle g e
o r u n iv e r s ity o ffe r in g an a p p ro p ria te t r a in in g program as
approved by the S ta te Board o f Education?
15.

Yes

No

?

211

G.
G-l

F a c ilit ie s
Are a l l new schools in y o u r d i s t r i c t b a r r ie r fre e ?
1.

G-2

4.

1-1

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Does you r program plan In c lu d e p h ilo s o p h y , g o a ls , o b je c tiv e s
and s tra te g ie s designed to o b ta in m eaningful and s e q u e n tia l
e d uca tion al programming f o r handicapped c h ild re n ?
Yes

No

?

Whenever the t o t a l number o f p ro fe s s io n a l personnel in a
s p e c ific program o r s e rv ic e exceeds te n , is a s u p e rv is o r h ire d
f o r th a t program?
3.

1-4

?

Are members o f th e sp e c ia l educa tion s t a f f encouraged to
a tte n d p ro fe s s io n a l workshops, i n s t i t u t e s , and conventions in
o rd e r to remain a b rea st o f the la t e s t developments 1n the
f i e l d o f sp e cia l education?

2.
1-3

No

fo r

Leadership

1.
1-2

Yes

?

Are handicapped stu d e n ts assigned to e d u ca tio n a l programs and
s e rvice s which are housed in b u ild in g s which a llo w f o r I n t e ­
g ra tio n to take place?
6.

I.

No

Do tea che r c o n s u lta n ts and s p e c ia l education personnel have
space designated on a scheduled ba sis in each b u ild in g to
a ffo r d in d iv id u a l and sm all group work?
5.

G-8

?

Do a l l sp e c ia l education classrooms have a t le a s t the average
number o f square fe e t per stu d e n t as th e re g u la r classrooms
in the d i s t r i c t ?
*

G-7

Yes

Are s p e c ia l education f a c i l i t i e s equal to f a c i l i t i e s
re g u la r education?
3.

G-6

No

Is adequate equipment provided f o r each s p e c ia l education
program?
2.

G-3

Yes

Yes

No

?

Does yo u r d i s t r i c t cooperate w ith M ichigan U n iv e r s itie s by
a llo w in g t h e ir In te rn s to work w ith S pecial Education S ervices
s ta ff?
4.
Yes
No
?

212
J.
J -l

In te g ra tio n
Are the handicapped c h ild re n in yo u r d i s t r i c t in te g ra te d
in to re g u la r classroom programs whenever a p p ro p ria te ?
1.

J-2

K -l

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Is th e re an e v a lu a tio n system a v a ila b le f o r assessing the
amount o f p u p il progress toward accom plishing in d iv id u a liz e d
performance o b je c tiv e s ?
Yes

No

?

Is any e f f o r t made to f a c i l i t a t e the exchange o f in fo rm a tio n
concerning techniques o f program e v a lu a tio n , s t a f f a p p ra is a l,
e t c . , w ith o th e r lo c a l d is t r ic t s ?
3.

K-4

Yes

Is the s p e c ia l education program e va lu a te d to determ ine
s tre n g th s and d e fic ie n c ie s ?

2.
K-3

?

E valuation

1.
K-2

No

Are in -s e rv ic e t r a in in g programs designed to a cq u a in t re g u la r
teachers w ith th e needs o f handicapped students?
5.

K.

Yes

Does the EPPC recommend re g u la r and s p e c ia l education programs
and s e rv ic e s f o r each student?
4.

J-5

?

Is c o o rd in a tio n o f jo b placement and s k i l l s t r a in in g between
teacher c o n s u lta n ts f o r the m e n ta lly handicapped and the
p h y s ic a lly handicapped in clo se co o p e ra tio n w ith v o c a tio n a l
r e h a b ilit a t io n agencies?
3.

J-4

No

Are e f f o r t s underway to develop a c o o p e ra tive v o c a tio n a l
e d u c a tio n /s p e c ia l education program?
2.

J-3

Yes

Yes

No

?

Are measurable o b je c tiv e s s e t f o r yo u r programs and s e rv ic e s
so th a t they may be o b je c tiv e ly evaluated?
4.

Yes

No

?

ASSESS QUESTIONNAIRE
(4) Parents
Dear P arent:
Please share w ith you r lo c a l s p e c ia l education o f f ic e y o u r p e rc e p tio n
o f how the program operates in t h is d i s t r i c t .
The q u e stio n s below
should be answered according to what you fe e l is being p ra c tic e d in
t h is d i s t r i c t .
Please in d ic a te by c ir c l in g "Yes" o r "No" whether a c e r ta in p ra c tic e
is ta k in g place in t h is d i s t r i c t .
I f you have had no o p p o rtu n ity to
fin d ou t about any ite m on the q u e s tio n n a ire , please c ir c l e " ? " .
PLEASE CIRCLE ONLY ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH QUESTION.
Item Code
A.
A-5

Q uestion

R e fe rra l System
I f yo u r c h ild needed s p e c ia l education s e rv ic e s , would the
s p e cia l education o f f ic e accept a r e f e r r a l from you?
1.

A-8

?

Yes

No

?

When a c h ild is re fe rre d f o r a program f o r th e m e n ta lly im­
p a ire d , the e m o tio n a lly im p a ire d , th e speech and language
im p aire d, the he aring im p a ire d , the v is u a lly im p a ire d , the
p h y s ic a lly and o th e rw ise h e a lth im p a ire d , th e s e v e re ly m ul­
t i p l y im p a ire d , o r the le a rn in g d is a b le d , does the sp e c ia l
education o f f ic e arrange a meeting o f th e e d u ca tio n a l p la n n in g
and placement committee to determ ine e l i g i b i l i t y and recommend
a p p ro p ria te programs and se rvice s?
3.

A-3

No

W ill the s p e c ia l educa tion o f f ic e o b ta in th e p a re n t's p e r­
m ission before processing a r e fe r r a l?
2.

A-2

Yes

Yes

No

?

I f a c h ild has a permanent d i s a b i l i t y o r a lo n g -te rm illn e s s
o r in ju r y , does the s p e c ia l educa tion o f f ic e arrange an EPPC
meeting f o r him to determ ine a p p ro p ria te programming?
4.

213

Yes

No

?

214
B. D iagnostic Services
B-32

Does the s p e c ia l education o f f ic e always hold an EPPC meeting
before p la c in g a s tu d e n t in s p e c ia l education programs o th e r
than homebound, s o c ia l w o rker, p s y c h o lo g ic a l, o r speech and
language services?
1.

C.
C-4

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Does the spe cia l education o f f ic e request the parents to
p a r tic ip a te on each ed uca tion al plan ning and placement com­
m itte e on a case by case basis?
Yes

No

?

I f the EPPC meeting is held and th e parents have not been
n o t if ie d , is the s tu d e n t's ed u ca tio n a l s ta tu s l e f t unchanged?
5.

Yes

No

?

Are the recommendations o f the EPPC Implemented when as a
minimum, the su p e rin te n d e n t ( o r h is designee) and the parents
agree?
6.

C-17

?

I f the sp e cia l education stu d e n t is over 18 and has not had a
le g a l guardian appointed by the c o u rt, is the stud en t h im s e lf
in v ite d to p a r tic ip a te on h is own ed u ca tio n a l plan ning and
placement committee?

4.

C-13

No

A d m in is tra tio n
D ia g n o stic personnel
In s tr u c tio n a l and s u p p o rtiv e s t a f f
P arents, i f they choose to p a rtic ip a te ?

3.

C-10

Yes

Does the E ducational Planning and Placement Committee (EPPC)
always c o n s is t o f one re p re s e n ta tiv e from each o f the fo llo w in g
c a te g o rie s , as a minimum:

2.

C-9

?

Does th e r e s p o n s ib ility f o r making changes in the educational
s ta tu s o f the handicapped person r e s t w ith the S uperintendent
o r h is designee in your d i s t r i c t ?

1.
2.
3.
4.

C-8

No

Placement Procedures

1.
C-6

Yes

Yes

No

?

I f a parent chooses not to p a r tic ip a te on the EPPC, 1s he
given p r io r n o t if ic a t io n o f the com m ittee's recommendation and
allowed a t le a s t 7 days to agree o r disagree before placement
is made?
7.

Yes

No

?

215
C-18

Are parents given a copy o f Rule 24 1 f th e y disag ree w ith the
recommendations o f th e EPPC?
8.

C-19

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Are parents always n o t if ie d be fo re placement is e ffe c tu a te d ,
denied o r changed?
14.

C-27

?

May you, a t any tim e , req ue st the convening o f an ed u ca tio n a l
planning and placement committee (EPPC) to make a change in
you r c h ild 's ed u ca tio n a l s ta tu s ?
13.

C-26

No

Before s ig n in g , are parents given the o p p o rtu n ity to re c e iv e
and review the w r itt e n recommendations o f th e EPPC?
12.

C-25

Yes

Does the s p e c ia l education o f f ic e in fo rm parents o f the
a v a i l a b i l i t y o f o rg a n iz a tio n s , t h e ir addresses and phone
numbers, to a s s is t them a t th e hearing?
11.

C-23

?

Does y o u r lo c a l s p e c ia l educa tion o f f ic e in fo rm parents o f
t h e ir r ig h t to appeal to the S ta te S u p e rin te n d e n t o f In s tr u c ­
tio n i f a d e c is io n is not reached In th e h e a rin g w ith the
lo c a l superintendent?
10.

C-21

No

Does the s p e c ia l education o f f ic e assume the r e s p o n s ib ilit y
f o r making parents aware o f what Rule 24 says about p a re n ts '
r ig h ts to a hearing?
9.

C-20

Yes

Yes

No

?

I f you have re ce ive d a placement n o t if ic a t io n from the s p e c ia l
education o f f ic e , d id 1 t in c lu d e the fo llo w in g :
1.
2.

D e s c rip tio n o f proposed a c tio n .
S p e c ific a tio n o f s ta tu e o r r u le under which a c tio n Is
proposed.
3. Statement o f reasons f o r a c tio n .
4. S p e c ific a tio n o f any te s ts o r re p o rts upon which the
proposed a c tio n 1s based.
5. N o tice o f r ig h t to a he aring and procedures f o r such.
6 . A v a ila b il it y o f o rg a n iz a tio n s to a s s is t a t th e h e a rin g .
7. O ptions o f ed u ca tio n a l o p p o rtu n itie s a v a ila b le .
15.

Yes

No

?

216
C-28

I f parents req ue st s p e c ific persons from the school s t a f f
whose te stim o n y is v i t a l to a tte n d the h e a rin g , does the
school d i s t r i c t re q u ire th a t they atten d?
16.

C-29

D-l

E -l

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Follow-Up
Does the s p e c ia l educa tion department re vie w a l l programs and
s e rv ic e s provided each handicapped person a t le a s t an nu ally?
Yes

No

?

Are parents provided a copy o f the recommendations o f th e
annual review committee?
2.

E-3

Yes

Does the lo c a l sp e c ia l education program in c lu d e a continuum
o f s e rvice s f o r a l l handicapped stud en ts in s o fa r as the y can
b e n e fit, in c lu d in g these le v e ls : p re -p rim a ry , e lem e ntary,
ju n io r h ig h , and secondary?

1.
E-2

?

Does th e s p e c ia l education program co n te n t in yo u r d i s t r i c t
in c lu d e personal adjustm ent t r a in in g , p re -v o c a tio n a l t r a in in g ,
v o c a tio n a l t r a in in g , s k i l l s t r a in in g , w o rk-stu d y t r a in in g f o r
a l l handicapped stud en ts who can b e n e fit?

2.
E.

No

Continuum o f Programs and S ervices

1.
D-2

Yes

May parents o f the handicapped person be represented a t the
hearing by any person o f t h e ir choosing?
19.

D.

?

May parents p ro vid e te stim o n y o r evidence in sup po rt o f t h e ir
p o s itio n on the c h ild 's placement a t the hearing?
18.

C-33

No

May parents b rin g o u ts id e p ro fe s s io n a ls o r n o n -p ro fe s s io n a ls
to the EPPC m eeting i f the h e aring o f f i c e r is n o t if ie d p r io r
to the meeting?
17.

C-30

Yes

Yes

No

?

Does th e review re p o rt c o n ta in the names o f persons who con­
ducted the re vie w , the in fo rm a tio n th a t was review ed, and a
recommendation f o r e ith e r c o n tin u a tio n , a d d itio n a l s e rv ic e s ,
o r r e f e r r a l to an EPPC f o r p o s s ib le change o f ed u ca tio n a l
sta tu s?
3.
Yes
No
?

217
E - l2

Does the sp e c ia l education o f f ic e fo llo w each stu d e n t f o r a t
le a s t one year fo llo w in g te rm in a tio n o f s p e c ia l e d uca tion
programs and se rvice s?
4.

F.

G.

Yes

No

?

F a c ilit ie s

G-l

Are a l l new b u ild in g s in y o u r d i s t r i c t designed so th a t
handicapped persons ( b lin d , those in w h e e lc h a irs , e t c . ) can
have easy access to them?
1.

G-2

Yes

No

?

Are sp e c ia l education f a c i l i t i e s in you r d i s t r i c t equal to
f a c i l i t i e s f o r re g u la r education?
2.

H.

Yes

No

?

In s tr u c tio n a l Content

H - ll

Does each sp e c ia l education stu d e n t have a c u rric u lu m plan
which con tain s in d iv id u a l performance o b je c tiv e s ?
1.

H-12

Yes

No

?

Are the performance o b je c tiv e s f o r each c h ild a v a ila b le f o r
the pa ren t in y o u r d i s t r i c t ?
2.

Yes

No

?

Are sp e cia l education programs designed to promote s o c ia l
s k i l l development in handicapped persons in y o u r d i s t r i c t ?
3.

1-2

?

Do you understand the ro le s o f v a rio u s s p e c ia l education
personnel in the d i s t r i c t ?
1.

I.

No

Personnel

F -l

H-17

Yes

Yes

No

?

Leadership
Does the sp e c ia l education program plan in yo u r d i s t r i c t con­
t a in p h ilo so p h y, g o a ls , o b je c tiv e s and s tra te g ie s designed to
o b ta in m eaningful and s e q u e n tia l e d u ca tio n a l programming f o r
handicapped child ren? .
1.

Yes

No

?

218

J.
J -l

In te g ra tio n
Are th e handicapped c h ild re n in y o u r d i s t r i c t in te g ra te d in to
re g u la r classroom programs whenever a p p ro p ria te ?
1.

K.
K-2

Yes

No

?

E va lua tion
Does the s p e c ia l educa tion o f f ic e have some means o f de te rm in in g
how w e ll a c h ild 1n a s p e c ia l educa tion program is p ro gre ssin g
toward the in d iv id u a liz e d goals and o b je c tiv e s th a t have been
s e t f o r him?
1.

Yes

No

?

ASSESS QUESTIONNAIRE
(5)
Agencies
Respondent Category
INSTRUCTIONS:
As an agency re p re s e n ta tiv e , yo u r p e rc e p tio n o f th e p ra c tic e s o f the
special education department are extrem ely im p o rta n t. Please use t h is
q u e s tio n n a ire to in d ic a te you r p e rce p tio n s to th e lo c a l sp e c ia l educa­
tio n a d m in is tra tio n .
For each ite m , c ir c l e "Y e s," "N o," o r "? ".
"Yes" means th a t the pra c­
t ic e is p re v a le n t in t h is d i s t r i c t ; "No" means th a t the p ra c tic e is
not p re v a le n t in t h is d i s t r i c t ; "?" means th a t you do n o t fe e l th a t
you have s u f f ic ie n t in fo rm a tio n to make a d e te rm in a tio n .
PLEASE CHECK ONLY ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH ITEM.
Item Code
A.
A -l

Question

R e fe rra l System
Does the lo c a l s p e c ia l education department have a form al
procedure f o r re c e iv in g and processing a l l r e fe r r a ls ?
1.

A-2

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Does the sp e cia l education o f f ic e accept r e f e r r a ls from p a r­
ents and members o f the p ro fe s s io n a l community w ith p a re n ta l
consent?
4.

A-6

?

When a c h ild has a permanent d i s a b i l i t y o r a lo n g -te rm illn e s s
o r in ju r y , is an EPPC meeting held f o r him to determ ine h is
educational program?
3.

A-5

No

Is an Educational planning and placement committee m eeting
(EPPC) held whenever a person is re fe rre d f o r programs f o r the
m e n ta lly im p a ire d , e m o tio n a lly im p a ire d , he aring im p a ire d ,
v is u a lly im p a ire d , p h y s ic a lly and o th e rw ise h e a lth im p a ire d ,
le a rn in g d is a b le d , an d/o r se v e re ly m u ltip ly im paired?
2.

A-3

Yes

Yes

No

?

W ill the sp e cia l education o f f ic e accept a v e rb a l r e fe r r a l?
5.

Yes

No

?

219
i

220
B.

D ia g n o stic S ervices

B-27

Does the sp e cia l education o f f ic e re q u ire th a t data o f a
c lin ic a l nature be c o lle c te d f o r each d i s a b i l i t y group by
s p e c ifie d p ro fe s s io n a ls ?
1.

B-28

C-2

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Does the r e s p o n s ib ility f o r making changes in th e e d u ca tio n a l
s ta tu s o f the handicapped person r e s t w ith the S u p e rinten de nt
o r h is designee?
*

Vac

4 W « l

N
q
I1 W

9
•

Does the EPPC c o n s is t o f the fo llo w in g members, as a minimum?
1.
2.
3.
4.

A d m in is tra tio n
D ia g n o stic personnel
In s tr u c tio n a l and s u p p o rtiv e s t a f f
P arents, i f they choose to p a r t ic ip a t e
3.

C-13

?

Before any change in a handicapped stu d e n ts s ta tu s is made,
must an EPPC have made the recommendation?

9

C-6

No

Placement Procedures

1.
C-4

Yes

Does the sp e cia l education department r e f r a in from p la c in g
persons suspected o f being handicapped in s p e c ia l education
programs p r io r to d e te rm in a tio n o f e l i g i b i l i t y by an EPPC?
4.

C.

?

Does the EPPC see th a t s u f f ic ie n t c li n ic a l and e d u ca tio n a l
data are a v a ila b le to make a v e r if ic a t io n o f th e re fe rre d
s tu d e n t's e l i g i b i l i t y o r i n e l i g i b i l i t y f o r placement?
3.

B-32

No

A fte r the r e f e r r a l is rece ive d by the S p ecia l Education O ffic e
1s one s t a f f person assigned th e r e s p o n s ib ilit y o f c o lle c tin g
d ia g n o s tic d a ta , o r seeing th a t adequate d ia g n o s tic data is
c o lle c te d p r io r to the EPPC meeting?
2.

B-30

Yes

Yes

No

?

Are the recommendations o f th e EPPC implemented when, as a
minimum, the S uperintendent o r h is designee and th e pa ren ts
agree.
4.

Yes

No

?

221
C-29

May parents b rin g o u ts id e p ro fe s s io n a ls o r n o n -p ro fe ssio n a ls
to the EPPC meeting w ith them?
5.

C-30

D-l

E -l

a t the
No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Are s o c ia l worker s e rv ic e s , p sych o lo g ica l c o n s u lta tio n ,
teacher c o n s u lta n t s e rv ic e s and speech and language se rvice s
a v a ila b le in your d i s t r i c t f o r a l l handicapped students?
Yes

No

?

Follow-up
Does the spe cia l education department review a l l se rvice s
programs provided each stud en t a t le a s t annually?
1.

E-2

?

Is the re a h ie ra rc h ic a l arrangement o f sp e cia l education
se rvice s a v a ila b le in y o u r d i s t r i c t In c lu d in g f u ll- t im e
re g u la r cla ss placement w ith s u p p o rtiv e h e lp ; p a rt-tim e
s p e cia l classes and p a rt-tim e re g u la r cla s s e s ; f u ll- t im e
sp e cia l cla ss placem ent, homebound and h o s p ita liz e d s e rv ic e s ;
and r e s id e n tia l placement?

4.
E.

No

Does the Special education program in c lu d e se rvice s on the
p re -p rim a ry , elem entary, ju n io r h ig h , and secondary le v e ls
f o r a l l handicapped students?

3.
D-4

o f t h e ir

Does the lo c a l sp e cia l education program In clu d e personal
adjustm ent t r a in in g , p re -v o c a tio n a l t r a in in g , v o c a tio n a l
t r a in in g , s k i l l s t r a in in g and w ork-study t r a in in g f o r a l l
handicapped students who can b e n e fit?

2.
D-3

Yes

?

Continuum o f Programs and Services

1.
D-2

Yes

May parents o f handicapped persons
berepresented
hearing by any person o f t h e ir choosing?
7.

D.

No

May parents p ro vid e testim o ny
o r evidence in support
p o s itio n on the c h ild 's placement a t the hearing?
6.

C-33

Yes

Yes

No

and
?

Is each student fo llo w e d f o r a t le a s t one ye a r fo llo w in g
te rm in a tio n o f sp e c ia l education programs and s e rv ic e s by the
s p e cia l education department?
2.

Yes

No

?

222
F.
F -l

Personnel
Are the ro le s o f va rio u s s p e c ia l education personnel c le a r ly
defined by the sp e cia l education o f f ic e in y o u r d i s t r i c t ?
1.

F-7

G-l

H-10

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

No

?

In s tr u c tio n a l Content
Does th e d i s t r i c t r e f e r students 16-25 who have term in ated
t h e ir programs to the fo llo w in g agencies: V ocational r e h a b ili­
t a t io n , Department o f E ducation, Bureau o f B lin d S e rv ic e s ,
Michigan Department o f S o cial S e rv ic e s , etc?
Yes

No

?

Is a c u rric u lu m plan w ith in d iv id u a l performance o b je c tiv e s
developed f o r each stud en t in accordance w ith h is needs 1n the
c o g n itiv e , a ffe c tiv e and psychomotor domains w ith sp e cia l
a tte n tio n to needs f o r personal adjustm ent t r a in in g , p re vo c a tio n a l tr a in in g and v o c a tio n a l t r a in in g 1n yo u r d i s t r i c t ?
2.

H-12

?

Are handicapped students assigned to ed uca tion al programs and
se rvice s which are housed in b u ild in g s which a llo w f o r in t e ­
g ra tio n to take place?

1.
H - ll

No

Are s p e cia l education f a c i l i t i e s in y o u r d i s t r i c t equal to
f a c i l i t i e s f o r re g u la r education?

3.
H.

Yes

Are a l l new schools in yo u r d i s t r i c t designed so th a t persons
who are in w heelchairs o r who are b lin d can s t i l l fin d them
accessible?

2.
G-9

?

F a c ilit ie s

1.
G-2

No

Are in -s e rv ic e t r a in in g and o th e r methods used to up-grade
personnel tr a in in g f o r sp e c ia l education s ta ff?
2.

G.

Yes

Yes

No

?

Are these performance o b je c tiv e s a v a ila b le to parents?
3.

Yes

No

?

223
I.
1-2

Leadership
Does the lo c a l sp e cia l education program plan in clu d e
philoso ph y, g o a ls, o b je c tiv e s and s tra te g ie s designed to
o b ta in meaningful and se q u e n tia l e d u ca tio n a l programming
f o r handicapped c h ild re n ?
1.

1-4

J -l

Yes

No

?

Are handicapped c h ild re n in your d i s t r i c t in te g ra te d In to
re g u la r classroom programs whenever a p p ro p ria te ?
Yes

No

?

Are in -s e rv ic e t r a in in g programs designed to acq ua in t
re g u la r teachers w ith the needs o f handicapped students?
2.

J-6

?

In te g ra tio n

1.
J-5

No

Does the lo c a l d i s - r i c t cooperate w ith M ichigan U n iv e rs itie s
by a llo w in g t h e ir in te rn s to work w ith sp e cia l education
services s ta ff?
2.

J.

Yes

Yes

No

?

Does the EPPC recommend re g u la r and s p e c ia l education programs
and services f o r each stud en t in accordance w ith h is needs and
a b ilit ie s ?
3.

Yes

No

?