INFORMATION 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 with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a targe 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 will 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 of "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. University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA St. John's Road, Tyler's Green High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP10 8HR i 7900751 i STEWART, DOROTHY LOUISE THE EFFECT OF COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS ON MAINSTREAMING m j c h i g a n »s s p e c i a l EDUCATION STUDENTS INTO REGULAR EDUCATION, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, University Microrims International 300n. z t t B roao, ann arbor, mi 4,106 © Copyright by DOROTHY LOUISE STEWART 1978 P H , 0 , # 1970 THE EFFECT OF COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS ON MAINSTREAMING MICHIGAN'S SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS INTO REGULAR EDUCATION By Dorothy Louise Stewart A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State U n ive rsity in p a rtia l f u lf illm e n t o f the requirements f o r the degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f A d m inistration and Higher Education 1978 ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS ON MAINSTREAMING MICHIGAN’ S SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS INTO REGULAR EDUCATION By Dorothy Louise Stewart The author's purposes in th is study were: (1) to determine to what extent special education students are being mainstreamed in to regular education; (2) to determine what types o f disabled students are being so integrated; (3) to determine to what extent and what types o f contractual provisions address themselves to the mainstreaming o f special education students and (4) to determine what, i f any, issues teachers want negotiated in 1977-78 contracts. The problem to which the researcher in th is in ve stig a tio n addressed h e rs e lf was the problem o f the school ad m in istrator who faces the dilemma o f operating under mandates from the state and federal government re q u irin g th a t the school d i s t r i c t provide fo r education o f the handicapped student w ith in the mainstream o f general education and the teachers w ith in the d i s t r i c t negotiating to r e s t r ic t the numbers o f handicapped students placed in th e ir classrooms. The study consisted o f three major pa rts. The f i r s t was a survey o f fo u rth Friday count fig u re s o f special education Dorothy Louise Stewart students in 142 lo ca l school d is t r ic t s and 19 interm ediate school d is t r ic t s . The second survey consisted o f searching the 1976-77 nego­ tia te d contracts o f the same school d is t r ic t s and categorizing the kind and number o f items lis te d in the contracts re fe rrin g to spe­ c ia l education students mainstreamed in to regular education. The th ir d p a rt o f the study e n tailed a telephone survey w ith the UniServ D irectors o f the teachers' bargaining u n its to determine the extent o f concern and d ire c tio n the teachers would be pursuing in regard to mainstreaming in th e ir 1977-78 negotiated contracts. Twenty-nine fin d in g s are reported. 1. The major fin d in g s were: Of the 142 local d is t r ic t s stud ies, 127 reported pro­ grams fo r handicapped. 2. Of these 127 lo ca l d is t r ic t s and 19 interm ediate d is ­ t r i c t s , 2 small d is t r ic t s and 1 interm ediate d i s t r i c t reported no mainstreaming. 3. EMI, LD, E l, POHI, HI, VI and TMI students were main­ streamed. 4. While some d is t r ic t s did not mainstream students from a ll o f th e ir basic classroom programs, other d is t r ic t s had handi­ capped students spending up to 99 percent o f t h e ir time in general education. 5. One hundred twelve o f 135 contracts analyzed had pro­ v is io n s which could a ffe c t mainstreaming. Dorothy Louise Stewart 6. Seventy-one contracts had provisions under P rotection o f Teacher category which re la te d to the removal o f the handicapped student from the regular classroom o r g iv in g a d d itio n a l help to the teacher w ith such students. 7. There was much concern on the pa rt o f the teachers about mainstreaming. 8. Teachers want concessions made on the p a rt o f the admin­ is tr a tio n in the form o f more tra in in g , m aterials and compensatory time fo r th e ir pa rt in educating the handicapped c h ild . The fo llo w in g major conclusions were made: 1. The Michigan Department o f Education re p o rtin g o f mainstreaming is inadequate. 2. Most general educators do not fe e l adequately tra in e d to take on the problems o f mainstreaming. 3. I f the teachers' wishes, concerns and demands in connec­ tio n w ith mainstreaming are going to be met, i t w i ll req uire more resources in the form o f money and tim e, and consequently more general education teachers. 4. A dm inistrators are going to have increased problems because o f mainstreaming. They are going to somehow have to help solve what the teachers see as problems caused by i t . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to Sam Moore, my committee chairman, fo r his encouragement and c o n trib u tio n o f time and e f f o r t in working w ith me on the completion o f th is d is s e rta tio n . To the other committee members—Charles Henley, Louis Romano and Robert Trojanowicz— I wish to express many thanks fo r t h e ir a ssis­ tance. To the Michigan Education Association and State Department o f Education s t a f f who helped me, as well as Colonel W. Myers, who secured many o f the ha rd -to -g e t contracts fo r me, I express my ap pre cia tion . And to my good frie n d , Evelyn McLain, w ith ou t whose help, encouragement and support I would never have completed th is document, I say, "Thank you." 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B LE S ........................................................................................ vi LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................ v ii Chapter I. II. III. ............................................................................. 1 Statement o f the Problem ................................................ Purpose o f the S t u d y ........................................................ L im ita tio n s o f the S t u d y ................................................ D escription o f Terms ........................................................ Frequently Used Abbreviations ........................................ 2 4 5 6 11 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND A REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . 14 Mainstreaming—How the Concept S t a r t e d .................... Law Cases and L e g is la tio n Leading to Equal Education fo r the Handicapped.................................... The Mandatory Special Education Act and I ts Impact on Mainstreaming ................................................ The New Federal B il l o f Rights f o r the Handi­ capped and the Concept o f the Least R e s tric tiv e Environment ................................................ Is Mainstreaming Working? Some Pros and Cons . . . Typical Reservations .................................................... Adverse Reactions ............................................................ U n d if f e r e n t ia t e d ............................................... C o lle c tiv e Bargaining: The Power o f the Unions . . Teacher Unions View Mainstreaming ................................ A d m in istra tio n and Mainstreaming ................................ 14 23 26 27 30 31 33 36 41 PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY..................................................... 55 Sample P o p u la tio n ................... S u rv e y s ................................................................................... A nalysis o f State Department o f Education Special Education Forms SE-4061 ................................................ A nalysis o f Contracts ........................................................ 1977-78 N egotiation Survey ............................................ 55 55 INTRODUCTION iv 16 20 56 50 52 Chapter IV. V. Page RESULTS....................................................................................... 66 Analysis o f Mainstreamed Handicapped Students . . . C ontract Items A ffe c tin g Mainstreaming .................... Survey o f Forthcoming N egotiations A ffe c tin g Mainstreaming ................................................................... 66 67 103 SUMMARY, FINDINGS, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 118 Summary................................................................................... F in d in g s ............................................................................... Findings Related to the Analysis o f State Department Reports .................................................... Findings Related to the Analysis o f Contracts . . Findings Related to the Survey on Forthcoming C o n tra c ts ....................................................................... D is c u s s io n ........................................................................... C o n c lu s io n s ........................................................................... Recommendations ................................................................... Recommendations to A d m inistra to rs in the F ie ld o f General and Special Education ........................ Recommendations fo r F urther Research .................... 118 121 121 122 123 124 130 132 132 133 APPENDICES A. UNDUPLICATED COUNT OF HANDICAPPED SERVED IN SPECIAL EDUCATION AS OF FOURTH FRIDAY ........................ 136 A GUIDE TO WEIGHTING MAINSTREAMED PUPILS IN THE REGULAR CLASSROOM ................................................................ 137 C. MAP OF 17 REGIONS OF MICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION . 138 D. MAINSTREAMED HANDICAPPED STUDENTS FROM MICHIGAN STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 1976 FOURTH FRIDAY COUNT ....................................................................... 139 E. LETTER TO UNISERV DIRECTORS ............................................... 174 F. SPECIAL EDUCATION MAINSTREAMING SURVEY SHEET . . . . 175 ........................................................................................... 177 B. BIBLIOGRAPHY v LIST OF TABLES Table 1. D1. Page Analysis o f Items in Negotiated Contracts A ffe c tin g Mainstreaming .................................................... 73 Mainstreamed Handicapped Students From Michigan State Department o f Education 1976 Fourth Friday Count ........................................................................... 139 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. 2. Page One Hundred Forty-Two School D is tr ic ts With Programs Mainstreaming Handicapped Students: Fourth Friday 1976 ................................................................ 68 Handicapped Students in 142 School D is tr ic ts : Fourth Friday 1976 ................................................................ 69 v ii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Recent le g is la t io n , both s ta te and fe d e ra l, to g ethe r w ith e vo lvin g s o c ia l c o n d itio n s , combine to com plicate and make more d i f f i c u l t the p ro fe ssio n a l l i f e o f the school a d m in is tra to r. The fe d e ra l government, in e f f e c t , says th a t each c h ild has a r ig h t to the education best s u ite d f o r h is p o te n tia l. Antedating the fe d e ra l law, the S tate o f Michigan even more s tr in g e n tly says th a t a handicapped c h ild should have and has a r ig h t to education from b ir t h to age 25, no m atter how severe h is handicap. Caught between the s ta te S c y lla and the fe d e ra l Charybdis, the educational a d m in is tra to r in Michigan w h irls In the m idst o f p u b lic re s is ta n c e , demands and expectations and sometimes c o llid e s w ith the rocks o f the laws. In 1973 the Michigan s ta te le g is la tu re passed the Man­ d a to ry Special Education A c t. That o r ig in a l le g is la tio n now is in te rp re te d as re q u irin g th a t students id e n tifie d as needing special education be mainstreamed as much as p o ssib le in to general educa­ tio n cla sse s. Two years la t e r , P u blic Law 94-142, the Education o f A ll Handicapped C h ild ren A c t, was signed in to law , and took e f fe c t October 1, 1977. This law was Intended to put to an end d is c rim in a to ry treatm ent in education toward the student w ith a 2 handicap. One o f the fu n ctio n s o f the school a d m in is tra to r is to see th a t the schools in Michigan or anywhere comply w ith both the s ta te and fed era l laws. The p o lit ic iz a t io n o f people in the United States gen­ e r a lly and o f those connected in any way w ith schools p a r t ic u la r ly re s u lts in demands which press the harassed a d m in is tra to r con­ s ta n tly a g a in st the lim ita tio n s o f the fe d e ra l and s ta te le g is ­ la tio n . Parents demand th a t the school provide an education enabling th e ir c h ild re n to e n te r the mainstream o f s o c ie ty and th a t the school educate t h e ir c h ild re n to t h e ir f u l l e s t p o te n tia l, whatever th a t p o te n tia l might be. Teacher o rg a n iza tio n s demand optimum working c o n d itio n s and pay, p ro te c tio n from the u n ru ly s tu d e n t, a c c o u n ta b ility fo r what c h ild re n le a rn o r assuming r e s p o n s ib ility f o r the c h ild 's in d iv id u a l progress. Many general education teachers ask th a t they not be req uired to teach c h ild re n w ith special le a rn in g problems, arguing th a t they are not tra in e d to deal w ith such problems and need a d d itio n a l r e l i e f and a s s is ­ tance as the special education students are moved in to the general classroom. Voters refuse to approve increased school taxes to support the programs mandated by the s ta te , demanded by the p a re n ts, and adm inistered by school o f f i c i a l s . Statement o f the Problem There are strong in d ic a tio n s th a t placement o f the spe cia l education student in re g u la r education has caused some re a l problems f o r the general education teacher and, in tu r n , f o r the educational 3 a d m in is tra to r. In a recent a r t ic le in Education USA (1976), e n t it le d "Classroom Teachers Feel Caught in Mainstream," i t was s ta te d : In a recent NEA survey, teachers id e n tifie d mainstreaming as one o f t h e ir top ten problems. S p e c ific a lly , they complained about "m o d ific a tio n s not being made 1n the sizes o f classes" and the "la c k o f p re p a ra tio n o f re g u la r classroom te a c h e rs ." Teacher unions in P itts b u rg h , D e tro it and Chicago have already negotiated lim it s on the number o f handicapped c h ild re n to be mainstreamed in to a re g u la r c la s s . The school a d m in is tra to r faces the problem o f op era ting under a mandate from the s ta te re q u irin g th a t the school d i s t r i c t provide f o r education o f handicapped students w ith in the main­ stream o f general education and the teachers w ith in the d i s t r i c t n e g o tia tin g to r e s t r ic t the numbers o f handicapped students placed in t h e ir classrooms. The po pu la tio n o f handicapped students is in cre a sin g w h ile the po pulation o f general education is d e c lin in g . This 1s e s p e c ia lly tru e in the area o f le a rn in g d i s a b ili t i e s . Appendix A .) (See The educational a d m in is tra to r, however, must d ir e c t a l l education services f o r a l l stud en ts; in some in sta n ce s, th is re q u ire s spe cia l f a c i l i t i e s and equipment 1n the schools. The general education teachers want and need more tr a in in g 1n dealing w ith the many d if f e r e n t d is a b ilit ie s o f spe cia l education students placed 1n t h e ir classrooms. The problems connected w ith mainstreaming to which the researcher in t h is study addressed h e rs e lf were to determ ine: (1) the scope o f the mainstreaming process, th a t 1s, how much is a c tu a lly ta k in g place in M ichigan; (2) what kinds o f d i s a b ili t i e s 4 the s p e c ia l education students have who are being mainstreamed In to general education and (3) how teachers are atte m p tin g to so lve the problem o f mainstreaming through c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia ­ tio n s . In t h is connection, i t m ight be noted th a t the teacher o rg a n iz a tio n s re p re se n t both general and sp e cia l education teachers w ith in th e in d iv id u a l ba rgaining u n its and th a t the aims o f the two do no t always c o in c id e . Purpose o f the Study The a u th o r's purpose in the study was to in v e s tig a te the scope o f the problem w ith respect to q u a n tity , types o f d i s a b i l i ­ t ie s in v o lv e d , c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s and teacher concerns. To do t h is , i t was necessary to : 1. determ ine to what e xte n t sp e cia l education students are being mainstreamed in to re g u la r ed u ca tio n , i . e . , how much tim e the sp e cia l education student spends in general ed u ca tio n ; 2. determ ine what types o f d isa b le d students are being so in te g ra te d ; 3. determ ine to what e x te n t and what types o f c o n tra c tu a l p ro v is io n s are being addressed to the mainstreaming o f sp e c ia l education students and 4. determ ine what, i f any, Issues having to do w ith main- stream ing are re p o rte d to be issues teachers want n e g o tia te d in 1977-78 c o n tra c ts . 5 L im ita tio n s o f the Study 1. This study is lim ite d to lo cal school d is tr ic ts in the State o f Michigan. While a broad range o f the geographical area o f the state is covered and la rge , small and middle sized school d is tr ic ts are included, only 142 o f 567 school d is tr ic ts are included in th is sample. 2. The inform ation gathered at the Michigan State Depart­ ment o f Education regarding the exte nt, time and categories o f handicapped students integrated in to general education is only as good as the respondents were accurate in rep ortin g th is informa­ tio n to the State. 3. The inform ation on what has already been negotiated in to lo cal teacher contracts concerning the mainstreaming of special education students was accurate. The survey done w ith the local UniServ D ire cto rs, concerning teacher concerns in th is area and what fu tu re considerations they want negotiated in to new agreements, was lim ite d by th e ir responses to the survey. were re lu cta n t to divulge th is inform ation. Some I t should also be understood th a t not every item presented by the Michigan Education Association (MEA) or the D e tro it Federation o f Teachers (DFT) on behalf o f th e ir members is agreed upon by the board o f education and Incorporated in the master agreement o f the lo cal school d is t r ic t . 4. The researcher did not attempt to document every prob­ lem encountered by school adm inistrators as a re s u lt o f mainstream­ ing. (See Purpose o f Study.) 6 D escription o f Terms 1. Professional n e g o tia tio n s, c o lle c tiv e n e g o tia tio n s, c o lle c tiv e bargaining--These terms are used interchangeably in the lite r a t u r e and re fe r in th is study to the teachers' union or bargaining u n it and school boards working on teachers' co n tra cts. The two teachers' u n its re fe rre d to in th is study are the Michigan Education Association and the American Federation o f Teachers. 2. Special education—Those m od ifica tion s o f, or ad ditions to school practices intended fo r the "o rd in a ry" c h ild which are oriented to the development o f maximum s k ills and knowledge in the handicapped c h ild . These programs and ch ild re n id e n tifie d to receive these services are so id e n tifie d by an educational planning and placement committee (EPPC). 3. Educational planning and placement committee—A com­ m itte e o f an operating d i s t r i c t or agency whose members sha ll in clu de , as a minimum, a representative o f the a d m in istra tive personnel, in s tru c tio n a l personnel, diag no stic personnel and parents in v ite d to p a rtic ip a te when th e ir ch ild re n are involved. 4. Handicapped person—A person Id e n tifie d as severely m entally impaired, tra in a b le m entally im paired, educable m entally Impaired, em otionally Impaired, hearing Impaired, v is u a lly im paired, p h y s ic a lly and otherwise health Impaired, speech and language Impaired, homebound, h o s p ita liz e d , learning disabled, or having a combination o f two o r more o f these Impairments and re q u irin g special education programs and services. 7 5. Severely m entally impaired—A person who is id e n tifie d by an educational planning and placement committee, based upon a comprehensive evaluation by a school psychologist, c e r t if ie d psy­ c h o lo g ist or c e r tifie d consulting psychologist, and other p e rtin e n t in fo rm a tio n , as having a ll the fo llo w in g behavioral character­ is t ic s : a. Development a t a rate approximately 4-1/2 or more stan­ dard deviations below the mean as determined through in te lle c tu a l assessment. b. Lack o f development p rim a rily in the c o g n itiv e domain. 6. Trainable m entally impaired—A person id e n tifie d by an educational planning and placement committee, based upon a compre­ hensive evaluation by a school psychologist or c e r t if ie d c o n su lt­ ing p sych o lo g ist, and other p e rtin e n t in fo rm a tio n , as having a l l the fo llo w in g behavioral c h a ra c te ris tic s : a. Development a t a ra te approximately 3 to 4-1/2 standard de via tion s below the mean as determined through i n t e l ­ le c tu a l assessment. b. Lack o f development p rim a rily in the c o g n itiv e domain. c. U n sa tisfa cto ry school performance not found to be based on his s o c ia l, economic and c u ltu ra l background. 7. Educable m entally Impaired—A person Id e n tifie d by an educational planning and placement committee, based upon a compre­ hensive evaluation by a school p sych olog ist, c e r t if ie d psycholo­ g is t o r c e r t if ie d consulting psych olog ist, and oth er p e rtin e n t in fo rm a tio n , as having a l l the fo llo w in g behavioral c h a ra c te ris tic s : a. Development a t a ra te approxim ately 2 to 3 standard de via tio n s below the mean as determined through I n t e l­ le c tu a l assessment. 8 b. Scores approximately w ith in the lowest 6 p e rce n tile s on a standardized te s t in reading and a rith m e tic . c. Lack o f development p rim a rily in the co g n itive domain. d. U n satisfacto ry academic performance not found to be based on his s o c ia l, economic and c u ltu ra l background. 8. Em otionally im paired--A person id e n tifie d by an educa­ tio n a l planning and placement committee, based upon a comprehen­ sive evaluation by a school psychologist and social worker, a c e r t if ie d psych olog ist, a c e r t if ie d consulting psychologist, or a c e r t if ie d p s y c h ia tris t, and other p e rtin e n t in fo rm a tio n , as having one or more o f the fo llo w in g behavioral c h a ra c te ris tic s : a. D isru p tive to the le arn ing process o f other students or him self in the re g u la r classroom over an extended period o f tim e. b. Extreme withdrawal from social in te ra c tio n in the school environment over an extended period o f tim e. c. M anifestation o f symptoms characterized by diagnostic la b e ls such as psychosis, schizophrenia and autism. d. D isru p tive behavior which has resulted in placement in a ju v e n ile detention f a c i l i t y . 9. Hearing im paired--A person id e n tifie d by an educational planning and placement committee, based upon an evaluation by an a u d io lo g is t and o to la ry n g o lo g is t, and other p e rtin e n t in fo rm a tio n , as having a hearing Impairment which in te rfe re s w ith le a rn in g . 10. V is u a lly Impaired—A person id e n tifie d by an educa­ tio n a l planning and placement committee, based upon an evaluation by an ophthalm ologist, o r e q u iva le n t, and other p e rtin e n t In fo r ­ m ation, as having a visual Impairment which In te rfe re s w ith learning and having one o r more o f the fo llo w in g behavioral c h a ra c te ris tic s : 9 a. A c e n tra l visu a l a c u ity o f 20/70 o r le s s , in the b e tte r eye a fte r c o rre c tio n . b. A peripheral f ie l d o f v is io n re s tric te d to no greater than 20 degrees. 11. P h y s ic a lly and otherwise health im paired--A person id e n tifie d by an educational planning and placement committee, based upon an eva lu atio n by an orthopedic surgeon, in te r n is t, n e u ro lo g is t, p e d ia tric ia n o r e q u iv a le n t, and other p e rtin e n t in f o r ­ m ation, as having a physical o r oth er health impairment which in te rfe re s w ith le arn ing o r requires physical adaptation in the school environment. 12. Speech and language im paired—A person c e r t if ie d by a teacher w ith f u l l approval as a teacher o f the speech and language impaired who has earned a m aster's degree and has completed a t le a s t f iv e years o f successful teaching o f the speech and language im paired, as having one or more o f the fo llo w in g speech, o ra l language and verbal communication Impairments which in te rfe re s w ith le a rn in g o r so cia l adjustment: a. A r tic u la tio n which includes omissions, s u b s titu tio n s or d is to r tio n s o f sound. b. Voice w ith In a p p ro p ria te voice p itc h , ra te o f speaking, loudness o r q u a lity o f speech. c. Fluency o f speech d is tin g u is h e d by speech In te rru p tio n s (b lo c k s ), r e p e titio n o f sounds, words, phrases or sen­ tences which In te rfe re w ith e ffe c tiv e communication. d. I n a b ilit y to comprehend, form ulate and use fu n c tio n a l language. 10 13. Homebound—A person c e r t if ie d a t le a s t annually by a licensed physician as having a severe physical or oth e r health impairment preventing school attendance. 14. H o sp ita lize d --A person who cannot attend school because o f h o s p ita liz a tio n fo r a physical o r medical impairment, exclusive o f emotional impairment unless as an accompaniment to a physical or medical Impairment. 15. Learning d isa b le d —A person id e n tifie d by an educa­ tio n a l planning and placement committee, based upon a comprehen­ sive evaluation by a school psych olog ist or c e r t if ie d psychologist o r c e r t if ie d co n su ltin g psych olog ist or an eva lu atio n by a n e u ro lo g is t, or eq uivalen t medical examiner q u a lifie d to evalu­ ate neurological d ysfu n ctio n , and oth e r p e rtin e n t in fo rm a tio n , as having a ll the fo llo w in g c h a ra c te ris tic s : a. b. c. d. e. Disorder in one o r more o f the basic psychological pro­ cesses involved in understanding o r in using spoken or w ritte n language, which d iso rd e r may m anifest i t s e l f in im perfect a b i l i t y to lis t e n , th in k , speak, read, w r ite , s p e ll o r do mathematical c a lc u la tio n . M an ifesta tion o f symptoms characterized by d ia g n o stic la b e ls such as perceptual handicap, b ra in in ju r y , minimal brain d ysfu n ctio n , d ysle xia o r aphasia. 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 psycho-motor domains. I n a b ilit y to fu n c tio n in re g u la r education w ith o u t sup­ p o rtiv e special education se rvice s. U n sa tisfa cto ry performance not found to be based on s o c ia l, economic o r c u ltu r a l background. 16. Severely m u ltip ly im paired—A person id e n tifie d by an educational planning and placement committee, based upon a com­ prehensive evaluation by a school p sych o lo g ist, c e r t if ie d psycholo­ g is t o r c e r t if ie d co n su ltin g psych o lo g ist and an eva lu a tio n by a 11 n e u ro lo g is t, orthopedic surgeon, ophthalm ologist, o r o to la ry n ­ g o lo g is t and an a u d io lo g is t, and oth er p e rtin e n t in fo rm atio n such as previous medical records and any education h is to ry , as having a ll o f the fo llo w in g behavioral c h a ra c te ris tic s : a. Severe m u lt ip lic it y o f handicaps in the physical and c o g n itiv e domains. b. I n a b ilit y o r expected in a b ili t y to fu n c tio n w ith in oth er special education programs which deal w ith a sin g le handicap. c. 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 psychomotor domains. 17. Teacher c o n tra c t, w ritte n agreement, master agreement— A w ritte n document containing the m atters agreed to and signed by the lo ca l s t a f f org a n iza tio n and the board o f education a t the conclusion o f n e g o tia tio n s . 18. Mainstreaming—The in te g ra tio n o f special education students In to the re g u la r education classroom. 19. The le a s t r e s t r ic t iv e environment—A term f i r s t used by the fe d e ra l government and now beginning to replace the term mainstreaming. The term re fe rs to In te g ra tin g special education s tu ­ dents as much as possible in to re g u la r education or In to environments as near to re g u la r education as is p o ssib le . Frequently Used Abbreviations AFT American Federation o f Teachers BEH Bureau o f Education f o r the Handicapped CAUSE C itize n s A llia n c e to Uphold Special Education OFT D e tro it Federation o f Teachers 12 EI/ED E m otionally Im paired/D isturbed EMI/EMR Educable M e n ta lly Impaired/Retarded EPPC Educational Planning and Placement Committee GE General Education HEW H ealth, Education and Welfare HI Hearing Impaired IEP In d iv id u a liz e d Educational Program ISD Interm ediate School D is t r ic t LD Learning Disabled FTE F u ll Time Equivalency LEA Local Education Agency LRE Least R e s tr ic tiv e Environment LSD Local School D is t r ic t MEA Michigan Education A sso ciatio n MI M e n ta lly Impaired POHI P h y s ic a lly and Otherwise Health Impaired TC Teacher C onsultant TMI T ra in a b le M e n ta lly Impaired VI V is u a lly Impaired 13 References—Chapter I P e rio d ic a ls "Classroom Teachers Feel Caught in M ainstream .11 Education USA 19:16 (1976): 117. CHAPTER I I BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND A REVIEW OF LITERATURE Mainstreaming—How the Concept S tarted We can look a t our accomplishments and be proud o f the progress we have made; but s a tis fa c tio n w ith the past does not assure progress in the fu tu re . New developments, ideas, and fa c ts may show us th a t our past p ra c tic e s have become out-moded. A growing c h ild cannot remain s t a t ic —he e ith e r grows o r d ie s . We cannot become s a tis fie d w ith a jo b onet h ir d done. We have a long way to go before we can re s t assured th a t the d e sire s o f the parents and the educational needs o f handicapped c h ild re n are being f u l f i l l e d . Lloyd M. Dunn (1968), past p re sid en t o f the Council fo r Exceptional C hildren and D ire c to r a t George Peabody C ollege, read these words 1n the la s t re p o rt w ritte n by Ray Graham and s e rio u s ly considered the progress and la ck o f i t in r e la tio n to special education programs f o r m ild ly retarded c h ild re n in the United S tates. In 1967 Dunn wrote a scathing a r t ic l e c r it ic i z in g the s e lf-c o n ta in e d spe cia l education classroom f o r the educable men­ t a l l y retarded which was the program model o f the s ix t ie s . Dunn accused spe cia l educators o f fo s te rin g q u a n tity o f programs w ith little regard to q u a lit y . He f e l t general education shared in t h is g u i l t , saying th a t in la rg e measure special education had been a t the mercy o f the general education esta blishm e nt. Special education accepts the problem students and removes them from gen­ e ra l education, thus reducing general e d u ca tio n 's need to deal w ith In d iv id u a l d iffe re n c e s . 14 15 "The entente o f mutual d e lu sio n between general and sp e cia l education th a t sp e cia l cla ss placement w i l l be advantageous to slow le a rn in g c h ild re n o f poor parents can no lo ng er be t o l e r ­ a te d ." W ith these words Dunn c a lle d f o r the embarkation o f an American re v o lu tio n in sp e cia l education. He admonished te a ch e rs, s ta te and lo c a l d ire c to r s and su p e rviso rs o f spe cia l education n o t to put t h e ir concerns f o r jo b s and s e c u rity they had b u i l t up over the years before s e lf-re s p e c t and to d is c o n tin u e the s e lf contained classes f o r educable m e n ta lly reta rd ed c h ild re n . Dunn's co n clu sio n th a t sp e cia l education s e lf-c o n ta in e d rooms were n o t doing th e jo b was based on d is c rim in a tio n la w s u its , as w e ll as e ffic a c y s tu d ie s . K irk (1964) found th a t re ta rd ed p u p ils make as much or more progress in the re g u la r grades as they do in sp e cia l educa­ t io n . S tudies by Hoelke (1966) and Smith and Kennedy (1967) continued to pro vid e s im ila r evidence. Johnson (1962) summarized th e s it u a t io n : I t is indeed paradoxical th a t m e n ta lly handicapped c h ild re n having teachers e s p e c ia lly tr a in e d , having more money (p e r c a p ita ) spent on t h e ir e d u ca tio n , and being designed to p ro ­ v id e f o r t h e ir needs, should be accom plishing the o b je c tiv e s o f t h e ir education a t the same o r a t a low er le v e l than s im i­ l a r m e n ta lly handicapped c h ild re n who have no t had these advantages and have been fo rc e d to remain 1n the re g u la r grades. E ffic a c y s tu d ie s on sp e c ia l day classes f o r o th e r m ild ly handicapped c h ild re n revealed the same r e s u lts . For example, Rubin, Senlson and Betwee (1966) found th a t d is tu rb e d c h ild re n d id as w e ll 1n th e re g u la r grades as in sp e cia l classes and concluded 16 th a t there is l i t t l e or no evidence th a t special class programming is generally b e n e ficia l to em otionally disturbed child ren as a s p e c ific method o f in te rve n tio n and co rre ctio n . Evidence such as th is was the reason Dunn called fo r a b e tte r way to serve child ren w ith m ild learning disorders. Law Cases and L e gisla tion Leading to Equal Education fo r the Handicapped Under the c o n s titu tio n a l p rin c ip le s o f due process and equal p ro te c tio n , as embodied in the F ifth and Fourteenth Amend­ ments, much le g is la tio n has evolved to help the handicapped. This has come about by guaranteeing due process, by ordering reme­ dies o f v io la tio n o f legal rig h ts , and by re q u irin g the profes­ sionals (and thus governments and the body p o lit ic ) to tre a t d is ­ abled persons as equals and on equal terms. According to Abeson (1974), the reason fo r th is le g is la tio n is th a t although human beings are d iv is ib le in to groups, human and c o n s titu tio n a l rig h ts are not. Behind these complex ju d ic ia l responses l i e two major themes: F ir s t, human and c o n s titu tio n a l rig h ts are not d iv is ib le and may not le g a lly be parceled out according to mental, emo­ tio n a l o r physical a ttrib u te s o f.a person; and secondly, the unequal person is e n title d to equal treatment under the law. A nationwide attack has been launched against pu blic schools th a t deny equal educational op po rtunities to handicapped persons. Paul Dimond (1973) termed th is a tta ck "the q u ie t revo­ lu tio n ." In a unanimous decision in Brown v. The Board o f Education (1954), the Supreme Court o f the United States ruled : 17 In these days i t is doubtful th a t any c h ild may reasonably be expected to succeed in l i f e i f he is denied opportunity o f an education. Such op po rtunity, where the State has undertaken to provide i t , is a rig h t which must be made ava ila b le to a ll on equal terms. This was the legal s ta rt o f the re vo lu tio n . The D is tr ic t o f Columbia case, Hobson v. Hanson (1967), concerned the tra ck system. The court ordered th a t tracks be abolished, contending th a t they discrim inated against the r a c ia lly and/or economically disadvantaged and therefore were in v io la tio n o f the F ifth Amendment to the C onstitution o f the United States. The im p lica tion s o f the c o u rt's ru lin g s fo r special education are q u ite c le a r. Special schools and classes are a form o f homogeneous grouping and tra ckin g . This fa c t was demonstrated in September, 1967, when the D is tr ic t o f Columbia (as a re s u lt o f the Hobson v. Hanson decision) abolished Track 5, in to which had been routed the slowest learning pupils in the D is tr ic t o f Columbia schools. These pupils and th e ir teachers were returned to the regular classrooms. A watershed case in providing equal access to public education fo r the handicapped was Pennsylvania Association fo r Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania (1971). A three-judge panel ordered the State not to apply any law which would postpone, t e r ­ minate, or deny m entally retarded child ren access to a p u b lic ly supported education, Including a pu blic school program, tu itio n or tu it io n maintenance, and homebound In s tru c tio n . The State was given one month to have the p l a i n t i f f child ren re-evaluated and placed in a program. I t was given one year to have a p u b lic ly 18 supported educational program fo r a ll retarded ch ild re n between ages 6 and 21. The Pennsylvania Association fo r Retarded Children case was followed by M ills v. Board o f Education (1972): judgment granted r e l ie f to the p la in t if f s . a summary Based on the equal pro tectio n and due process clauses o f the Fourteenth Amendment to the C o n stitu tio n o f the United States, the court ruled th a t: 1. The defendants must: a. Provide the p la in t if f s w ith a p u b lic ly supported education according to th e ir needs; and b. 2. 3. I n it ia t e e ffo rts to locate and assess other c h ild re n in the same s itu a tio n , so th a t appropriate placement can be made. Due process requires a hearing before exclusion or c la s ­ s ific a tio n in to special programs. W ithin 30 days, the D is t r ic t o f Columbia School Board is ordered to o ffe r appropriate educational f a c i l i t i e s to a ll known exceptional ch ild re n according to need ( i . e . , p u b lic school placement, grants fo r p riv a te t u it io n , e tc . ) . In Maryland Association fo r Retarded Children v. Maryland (1974), the decision was the same as in Pennsylvania A ssociation fo r Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, but in th is case the empha­ s is was on the p rin c ip le th a t a ll child ren can b e n e fit from some type o f educational program or service. In Maryland A ssociation fo r Retarded Children v. Maryland, the court made no d is tin c tio n between education and tr a in in g . Therefore, a ll ch ild re n were e n title d to an educational program and none was to be excluded on the basis o f uned uca bility. In the r ig h t to education lit ig a t io n , then, a c c o u n ta b ility means adhering to compulsory school attendance laws, e xtin g u ish in g 19 exclusionary and u n ju s tifia b le c la s s ific a tio n p ra c tic e s , a ffir m ­ ing the p rin c ip le th a t a l l persons are capable o f le a rn in g and developing ( Pennsylvania A ssociation fo r Retarded C hildren v. Pennsylvania, M ills v. Board o f Education, and Maryland Associa­ tio n fo r Retarded C hildren v. M aryland). the r ig h t o f the I t also means a ffirm in g handicapped to receive ap pro priate education and a ffirm in g the r e s p o n s ib ility o f the s ta te to deal f a i r l y , through procedural due process, w ith the handicapped, and addi­ t io n a lly , erasing and compensating fo r long-standing d e p riva tio n s and d is c rim in a tio n s , and providing a fre e education to a l l handi­ capped persons. In 1971, w hile the case o f Harrison v. Michigan was on the docket o f the Michigan Supreme Court, the le g is la tu re passed the Michigan Mandatory Special Education P u blic Act 198. the re v o lu tio n is a t le a s t p a r t ia lly won. I t seems Almost a l l states have in fo rce some type o f mandatory le g is la tio n re q u irin g th a t a t le a s t a p o rtio n o f t h e ir handicapped c h ild re n be provided w ith an education. P ublic Law 94-142, the Education o f A ll Handicapped C h il­ dren A ct, was signed in to law on November 21, 1975. took e ffe c t October 1, 1977. This law I t is one o f the most s ig n ific a n t pieces o f fed era l education le g is la tio n enacted by Congress in recent years. Schools in every p a rt o f the n a tion fe e l i t s im pact. The federal Act has been h a ile d as a “ B i l l o f Rights f o r the Handicapped," promising an end to tre a tin g persons w ith d is ­ a b il it ie s as second-class c itiz e n s . I t gives n a tio n a l re c o g n itio n 20 to the claim o f a handicapped in d iv id u a l to f ir s t - r a t e schooling (and, by extension, to a l l other p riv ile g e s o ffe re d by our s o c ie ty ). I t opens the way fo r the n a tio n 's schools to broaden t h e ir h o r i­ zons, no longer focusing s o le ly on "re g u la r" students, but g iv in g equal con sid era tion to those w ith handicaps--including placing such youngsters in re g u la r classrooms to the extent th a t i t is in t h e ir best in te re s ts . The Mandatory Special Education Act and I t s Impact on Mainstreaming The State o f Michigan, by enacting P ublic Act 198, the Mandatory Special Education A ct, in a d v e rte n tly created a la rg e r stage and e la b o ra te ly designed sets fo r the coming a ttra c tio n o f "M ainstream ing." The o f f ic ia l language s e ttin g the stage was: Sec. 252b. (1) For the 1973-74 school year and th e re a fte r the 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 evaluate and modify in cooperation w ith interm ediate school d i s t r i c t s , a s ta te plan f o r special education which sh a ll provide f o r the d e liv e ry o f special education programsand s e r­ vices designed to develop the maximum p o te n tia l o f every handicapped person. The plan sh a ll coordinate a l l special education programs and services. The Ad Hoc Task Force on auspices o f the Special Education, created under the State Department o f Education in 1977, cogently summarized the impact o f the law: I t e sta b lish e s the r ig h t o f handicapped persons, from b ir th through the age o f 25, to equal educational o p p o rtu n ity w ith in Michigan p u b lic schools. I t e sta b lish e s procedures f o r a c c o u n ta b ility in the d e liv e ry o f programs and services to those handicapped persons. 21 I t requires a system o f s ta te and in term ediate school d i s t r i c t (ISD) plans fo r the d e liv e ry o f special educa­ tio n programs and services. So the stage was b u ilt and the s e ts , the various categories o f handicaps re q u irin g special education, were o u tlin e d . Special education was by no means a fo re ig n concept to Michigan educators but th is law brought the magnitude o f the problem f o r c ib ly to the a tte n tio n o f both school a d m in istra tio n and the general p u b lic . Special education flo u ris h e d lik e the green bay tre e in M ichigan's e ffo r ts to educate it s handicapped persons, u s u a lly tending toward special classes, special rooms, special programs, special teachers, aides and th e ra p is ts . And most o f these "s p e c ia l" techniques segre­ gated the special education student from the re g u la r classroom, based upon the theory th a t a c h ild does b e tte r work and is more com­ fo r ta b le in a small class composed o f his peers. Michigan did it s utmost to provide the education th a t Dimond's "q u ie t re v o lu tio n " hoped to produce n a tio n a lly . T y p ify in g the burgeoning special education population between the passage o f P ublic Act 198 and i t s implementation in 1973, Michigan added another set to the special education stage, the category o f "Learning D is a b ilit y . " And the p a r tic ip a n ts , both on stage (students) and o f f (support services) increased phe­ nomenally. In 1975-76, fo r example, Michigan had 19,732 students c la s s ifie d as LD; 1n 1976-77, 26,007; and a pro je cte d 34,329 f o r 1977-78. See Appendix A. 22 In s h o rt, the Act i t s e l f and the Special Education Code promulgated by the Michigan Department o f Education has had the e f fe c t o f: in crea sing the number o f students a ffe c te d by special education; in crea sing the amount o f resources used to help these students; increasing the number o f programs; fo rc in g , in some cases, the in te g ra tio n o f these students in to the re g u la r education classes as much as p o s s ib le ; in crea sing the paper work and the fin a n c ia l burden on the schools; b rin g in g the parent in to the planning fu n c tio n o f arrang­ ing educational programs f o r these c h ild re n and e s ta b lis h in g the in te rm e d ia te school d i s t r i c t (ISD) as the agency to enforce compliance w ith the Code. The Ad Hoc Task Force h e re to fo re mentioned was a d ir e c t r e s u lt o f PA-198, c a lle d in to being by the S tate Superintendent o f P u b lic In s tru c tio n and d ire c te d to conduct a comprehensive in q u iry in to and to determine the s ta tu s o f sp e cia l education in the s ta te and how th a t sta tu s would be a ffe c te d by the a n tic ip a te d fe d e ra l r u lin g . P u b lic Law 94-142 proved to be the opening n ig h t c u rta in f o r the production “M ainstream ing." This law and o th e r recent le g is la t iv e and ju d ic ia l ru lin g s mandate th a t th e re be no e x c lu ­ sion from educational s e ttin g s , th e placement o f handicapped 23 students in to the le a s t r e s t r ic t iv e environm ent, assures id e n t i­ f ic a t io n procedures, and the maintenance o f an educational plan f o r each handicapped c h ild . The New Federal B i l l o f R ights f o r the Handicapped and the Concept o f th ¥ Least R e s tr ic tiv e Environment P u b lic Law 94-142, the s o -c a lle d B i l l o f R ights f o r the Handicapped, e s ta b lis h e s the r ig h t o f the handicapped person to (1) a fre e p u b lic education (2) in the le a s t r e s t r ic t iv e e n v iro n ­ ment in a p u b lic school system (3) in accordance w ith an in d iv id u a l­ ized e d u ca tio n a l p la n , and (4) the r ig h t to due process should the in d iv id u a l's r ig h ts need f u r t h e r p ro te c tio n . Of these fo u r , the most d i f f i c u l t o f im plem entation (because o f t h e ir s trin g e n c y ) f o r the school a d m in is tra to r appear to be the in d iv id u a liz e d educa­ tio n plan and the actu a l d e te rm in a tio n o f the le a s t r e s t r ic t iv e environment f o r the p a r t ic u la r c h ild . The d i f f i c u l t i e s in v o lv e d in making an in d iv id u a liz e d e d uca tion al plan f o r each handicapped c h ild are obvious. Special education in the Jackson, M ichigan, In te rm e d ia te School D i s t r i c t , f o r one, 1s pre pa rin g such plans a t the present tim e , but o n ly f o r th a t p a rt o f the c h ild 's education adm inistered by the s p e cia l education d iv is io n o f the d i s t r i c t . A plan f o r each c h ild to In c lu d e what he w i l l experience 1n th e re g u la r classroom , w ith the new requirem ent th a t the pa re n t p a r tic ip a te In such p la n , promises to be a horrendous ta sk f o r th e school a d m in is tra to r. 24 Events tra n s p irin g as a re s u lt o f previously enacted federal le g is la tio n (the Higher Education A ct, fo r instance, or the R e h a b ilita tio n Act o f 1973, which p ro h ib its d iscrim in a tio n or bias against the handicapped under any program or a c t iv ity receiving federal funds) provide a good in d ic a to r o f what lie s ahead as a re s u lt o f the "due process" provision o f Public Law 94-142. Lawsuits across the nation have forced schools to modify the environment to accommodate handicapped students. School f a c il it ie s constructed or alte re d since September 2, 1969, using federal funds, must be b a rrie r-fre e . Some colleges are in s t a ll­ ing ramps and special e le va to rs, showers th a t have seats fo r wheel cha ir users, campus signs in cluding B ra ille tra n s la tio n s , and the lik e , a ll w ith the aim o f displaying no bias against the handicapped. A U.S. D is tr ic t Judge in South Carolina ruled against Converse College because the college fa ile d to provide an in te r ­ preter fo r a deaf student. According to Education o f the Handi­ capped (August 3, 1977), th is case established th a t the in d ivid u a l has a p riva te r ig h t o f action under Section 504 o f the R ehabili­ ta tio n Act o f 1973. The "le a s t r e s tr ic tiv e environment" clause in Public Law 94-142 obviously is designed to insure th a t the a ffected c h ild spend as much time as possible in the general education classroom. Crulckshank (1977) quotes fiv e types o f educational programs from the "most r e s tr ic tiv e " (re s id e n tia l o r in s titu tio n a l programs) to the "le a s t r e s t r ic t iv e , " reg ular class placement. to say: He goes on "The fa c t o f the m atter Is th a t in terms o f current 25 educational p ra ctice s, the 'le a s t' may more often be the most r e s tr ic tiv e . . . . " Crulckshank speaks o f a t le a s t four fa cto rs c o n trib u tin g to make the "le a s t" the most r e s tr ic tiv e environment and concludes th a t: A c h ild placed in a so-called le a s t- r e s tr ic tiv e s itu a tio n who is unable to achieve, who lacks an understanding teacher, who does not have appropriate learning m ate rials, who is faced w ith tasks he cannot manage, whose fa ilu r e re s u lts in negative comments by his classmates, and whose parents r e fle c t fru s tra tio n to him when he 1s a t home, is indeed being re s tric te d on a ll sides. Confirming Cruickshank's apprehensions (as reported in Education o f the Handicapped, February 1, 1978), in Maine the parent o f a m entally retarded teenager has f ile d s u it, charging th a t the tra n s fe r o f her 15-year-old daughter from a regular pu blic school to a regional school fo r the handicapped vio la te s Public Law 94-142. The hearing o ffic e r reviewing the o rig in a l decision conceded th a t the public school would o ffe r the c h ild more op po rtunity "q u a n tita tiv e ly " to in te ra c t w ith nonhandicapped ch ild re n but said he was not convinced th a t the 80 minutes or so per day spent in Integrated in te ra c tio n during recess, lunch, social a c t iv it ie s , and a 30-minute music class was s ig n ific a n t in helping the teenager develop "appropriate adaptive social beha­ v io r ." The case 1s now 1n the United States Court fo r the Southern D ivisio n o f Maine, Portland. Before ta c k lin g the problem o f determining the le a st r e s t r ic t iv e environment fo r a p a rtic u la r c h ild , the school adminis­ tr a to r needs to know how much time the special education student is spending and then how much time th a t student could spend in 26 the general education classroom to ensure compliance w ith Public Law 94-142; hence, one o f the purposes o f th is study. Is Mainstreaming Working? Some Pros and Cons There appears to be general acceptance o f the mainstreaming concept, though many a u th o ritie s apparently feel compelled to express reservations or conditions attached to such acceptance. No such reservations are expressed by Edwin W. M artin, Deputy Commissioner o f Education and D irector o f the Bureau o f Education fo r the Handicapped, United States O ffice o f Education (1977): There are concerns about including more children w ith d is ­ a b ilit ie s in the schools, and we should be aware o f them. Some people are a fra id the disabled w ill negatively influence the education o f the nondisabled. There is not one study o f which I am aware th a t even suggests th a t th is has occurred, although many schools have offered such programs fo r yearsT Friends o f tne handicapped fe a r, on the other hand, tn a t the concept o f "mainstreaming" may be d is to rte d and re s u lt In o ffe rin g ch ild re n w ith handicaps less intensive education than they require. [Emphasis su p p lie d .] The National Association o f State D irectors o f Special Education reported in Education o f the Handicapped (February 1, 1978) th a t the states are doing a "reasonably good jo b " o f complying w ith Public Law 94-142. Milbauer (1977) says, "Mainstreaming in education w ill be p a rt o f our way o f l i f e 1n the years to come. And mainstreaming, lik e any new movement, c a lls fo r changes in a ttitu d e s , behaviors, and socioeducational s tru c tu re s ." She takes com fort, however, from the fa c t th a t the same teaching techniques used fo r teaching 27 the nonhandicapped c h ild are often useful w ith many d iffe re n t kinds o f exceptional c h ild re n . Doran (1975) reports on a Pontiac, Michigan, p ro je c t: When Whitmer Human Resources Center opened in Pontiac, Michigan, students were assigned to class areas by lo t , not by IQ o r fu n ctio n a l a b il it y , and only special educa­ tio n teachers knew which c h ild re n were retarded, © no tion ally impaired, o r learning disabled. . . . At the end o f the f i r s t year regular classroom teachers were asked to id e n tify the special ed students and assess th e ir achievement during th a t period. S u rp rising s t a t is t ic s : Not only had the achievement le vels o f special education students who had come from seg­ regated classrooms soared 25 per cent, but teachers fa ile d to id e n tify f u l l y 30 per cent o f these form erly segregated stu ­ dents. The re p o rt's conclusion: "Apparently, they had d is ­ appeared in to the mainstream." Beery (1974) recognizes mainstreaming as both a problem and an o p po rtunity fo r general education. Johnston (1972) reported th a t every teacher answering his opinionnaire agreed th a t class progress was not impeded by the presence o f the handicapped student. C o llie r and D ir r (1976) s ta te : But even now, the evidence overwhelmingly in dicates th a t the mainstream program w i l l produce a new breed o f stu ­ dents who, w h ile acknowledging th e ir handicaps, are ready to assume th e ir ro le s as productive members o f society. And the non-handicapped c h ild re n who are fo rtu n a te to attend classes w ith the handicapped w i ll be ready to accept d iffe re n ce s among people in whatever community s e ttin g they might fin d themselves in fu tu re years. Typical Reservations Forness (1974) 1s h ig h ly c r it ic a l o f the "la b e lin g " Involved 1n special education and d t e s a C a lifo rn ia p u b lic school system which established a "le a rn in g center" fo r handicapped ch ild re n 28 . . . on the basis o f th e ir educational or behavior d e f i­ c it s irre s p e c tiv e o f th e ir previous special education la b e ls . . . . Emphasis was on the s e ttin g s , tasks, and incentives necessary to move the c h ild toward f u l l par­ tic ip a tio n in a re g u la r classroom. D irr and Laughlin (1974) stress the need to re-examine the special classroom and p o in t to the questionable v a lid it y o f in te llig e n c e and achievement te sts used fo r placement. Reger (1974) argues th a t mainstreaming p rin c ip le s include not categorizing ch ild re n w ith gross diagnostic labels and the grouping o f c h ild re n , handi­ capped o r n o t, on the basis o f defined educational needs. Budoff and G o ttlie b (1974) re p o rt integrated educable m entally retarded were more in te r n a lly c o n tro lle d , had more po si­ tiv e a ttitu d e s toward school, and were more r e fle c tiv e in th e ir behavior a fte r one school year. Kaufman and others (1975), however, fe e l th a t the between-group research method is less e ffe c tiv e than w ith in -tre a tm e n t studies in measuring progress o f the student. Wilson and others (1975) re p o rt special class s tu ­ dents demonstrate s ig n ific a n tly less adjustment and in te n tio n a lity than reg ular class students. And B la tt (1975) notes there is no compelling research 1n support o f mainstreaming. Doll (1974/75) contends the success o f mainstreaming m ild ly handicapped ch ild re n depends to a large degree upon the a ttitu d e s and decision-making Involvement o f re g u la r class teachers. Elementary school p rin c ip a ls are reported In Education o f the Handicapped (May 21, 1976) as guardedly approving the Idea o f p u ttin g handicapped ch ild re n in regular classrooms but warning 29 th a t 1 t should be resorted to on ly i f handicapped youngsters can fu n c tio n su cce ssfu lly w ith o u t d is ru p tin g oth er students. M olloy (1975) notes the g e n e ra lly b e n e fic ia l e ffe c ts o f adding needed changes to accommodate handicapped students to re g u la r schools. B irch and Johnston (1975) also emphasize the importance o f e lim in a tin g a rc h ite c tu ra l b a rrie rs and f le x ib le space u t iliz a t io n to maximize the f e a s ib i lit y o f handicapped c h ild re n p a rtic ip a tin g in the re g u la r classroom. While Cooke, A p ollon i and Cooke (1977) observe th a t c h i l ­ dren seem to p re fe r to in te ra c t s o c ia lly w ith c h ild re n fu n c tio n ­ ing a t the same developmental le v e l, they conclude th a t the philosophy underlying mainstreaming is humane and ju s t and th a t i t is up to special educators to devise techniques to accomplish it s goals. Ross (1978) notes the p a r tic u la r d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered by the f u l l y mainstreamed hearing impaired c h ild unless he has the communication s k il ls to enable him to converse w ith r e la tiv e ease w ith h is teachers and classmates but adds th a t, la rg e ly through resource rooms, some successful mainstreaming has been accomplished. Nober (1977) describes a program designed by the Clarke School f o r the Deaf to a s s is t the lo c a l school d i s t r ic t s 1n the mainstreaming o f hearing Impaired c h ild re n . success. He, to o , re p o rts some 30 Adverse Reactions On the oth e r hand, a number o f educators are fe a rfu l o f the possible consequences o f mainstreaming: Shotel and others (1972) re p o rt th a t the resource room has l i t t l e e ffe c t on teacher a ttitu d e s and question the fe a s i­ b i l i t y o f b rin g in g em otionally m entally Impaired c h ild re n in to the grade o rg a n iza tio n a l p a tte rn . Gruen and others (1975) suspect a danger in mainstreaming in th a t f a ilu r e experiences o f the handicapped c h ild in the regu­ la r classroom would lead to less p o s itiv e re s u lts than success experiences. Childs (1975) says th a t a major unresolved issue is lack o f preparation and support fo r the re g u la r classroom teacher. Clark (1975) suggests mainstreaming is not the best method fo r educating secondary educable m entally impaired students, c it in g I n f l e x i b i l i t y o f secondary school p o lic ie s , la ck o f e v i­ dence o f the e ffe c t on th is p o p u la tio n , and inadequacy o f secon­ dary career education programs. Snyder, A p o llo n l and Cooke (1977) fe a r th a t w h ile peer im ita tio n is probably the most fre q u e n tly used ju s t if ic a t io n fo r e a rly in te g ra tio n , i t 1s questionable whether preschool retarded c h ild re n have the s k il ls to im ita te peers unless they are s p e c ia lly tra in e d to do so. Brinegar (1976) challenges some o f the assumptions th a t plague the mainstreaming movement: 31 The promise o f the le a s t r e s t r ic t iv e a lte rn a tiv e is th a t schools and parents w i ll a c tu a lly place the c h ild f i r s t . This ideal w i ll not be easy to a tta in i f f o r nothing else than th a t our technology and understanding s t i l l are not capable o f making c le a r-c u t decisions on what is t r u ly best fo r the c h ild . U n d iffe re n tia te d I t is suggested in the lite r a t u r e th a t one o f the prim ary concerns o f those involved w ith the mainstreaming movement is th a t o f the need fo r a d d itio n a l o r d iffe r e n t tra in in g fo r classroom teachers re ce ivin g the h ith e rto segregated special education s tu ­ dent. G illu n g and Rucker (1977), Payne and Murray (1974), Larsen (1975), and Budoff (1972) a l l address themselves to th is problem. Larsen recommends th a t teachers develop s k il ls in assess­ ing and re a ctin g to observable ra th e r than a n tic ip a te d student behavior, and th a t whenever po ssib le remedial e f f o r t s take place in the re g u la r classroom. The National A dvisory Council on Educational Professions Development (1976) reported th a t w h ile mainstreaming was not new, the concept was f a r ahead o f the teacher education f ie l d in the demands i t placed upon the special and the re g u la r education teachers. In December, 1976, Learning D is a b ilitie s Guide reported the same Council warned th a t unless there was increased federal support fo r special tr a in in g o f the n a tio n 's two m illio n p u b lic school teachers, mainstreaming could r e s u lt in poor education f o r both handicapped and nonhandicapped students. C haffin (1974) concludes there 1s in s u f f ic ie n t data base f o r determ ining e ffe c tiv e n e s s o f c u rre n t mainstreaming problems. 32 Barngrover (1971) reported th a t a survey revealed cla ss­ room teachers more o fte n favored re te n tio n o f special education classes w h ile the nonteaching educator tended to p re fe r reg ular class placement o f m ild ly exceptional c h ild re n . A Nazzaro (1973) survey revealed th a t mainstreaming and the la b e lin g or ca te g o rizin g o f d is a b ilit ie s were the most con­ tro v e rs ia l issues and 35 s ta te d ire c to rs o f special education f e l t the em o tion ally distu rbe d c h ild was the most d i f f i c u l t to program. Rosenkranz (1973) summarized fo u r T it le VI-B p ro je c ts and concluded th a t although th e re were advantages in mainstreaming, i t is not ap pro priate fo r a l l educable m en tally impaired students. A survey by Payne and Murray (1974) reports th a t the m a jo rity o f p rin c ip a ls accept mainstreaming; fu r th e r , the p r in c i­ pals rank in -s e rv ic e teacher tra in in g as the number one need o f re g u la r teachers and knowledge o f e x c e p tio n a litie s f i r s t in required teacher competencies. Budoff (1972) recommends mandatory continuing in -s e rv ic e tr a in in g f o r teachers and a d m in istra to rs a lik e . MacMillan and Semmel (1977), in eva lu atin g mainstreaming programs, conclude th a t: E valuation o f mainstreaming programs is e sse n tia l so th a t we can provide the best education p o ssib le f o r handicapped le a rn e rs--a n Im p o s s ib ility w ith o u t in fo rm a tio n regarding the e f fe c t o f program elements on c h ild -re la te d outcomes. . . . I t is e sse n tia l th a t evaluators describe in d e ta il the elements o f the programs they are evaluating so th a t others can a s c e rta in the s im ila r it y between th a t program and ones in which they are in vo lve d . . . . Moreover, considerable basic work has y e t to be done 1n developing Instrum ents and pro­ cedures a p pro priate f o r use w ith the handicapped learners 33 under co n sid e ra tio n . . . . Handicapped le a rn e rs deserve the best education we can p ro vid e , and the o n ly way th a t can be e sta b lish e d is v ia e va lu a tio n designed to c la r i f y programmatic components th a t promote desired changes in student behaviors. C o lle c tiv e B argaining: The Power o f the Unions The c le a r tren d in the United States today, according to Browne (1976), is fo r p o lit ic a l a c tio n to concentrate on issues o f members' economic b e n e fits , o rg a n iza tio n s e c u r ity , and p u b lic p o lic ie s th a t impinge on classroom te a chin g; c o lle c tiv e bargaining laws deal w ith a l l th re e . "Power is the name o f the game," so sta te s the Michigan Education A sso ciatio n (1977) in one o f i t s prom otional f l i e r s d ire c te d toward teachers. The f l i e r s go on to say MEA is the most in f lu e n t ia l educational lobby in the s ta te and has led the way in teacher bargaining across the country f o r the la s t 10 years. Pagen (1976) warns a d m in is tra to rs and school boards o f the power o f teacher unions, saying, "One o f the most im portant r e a lit ie s th a t boards o f education members and a d m in is tra to rs must le a rn is th a t n e g o tia tio n s in e v ita b ly b rin g changes in the way in which school d i s t r i c t s are o p era ted." He sees n e g o tia tio n s as an adversary pro­ cess In v o lv in g head-on meetings o f re p re s e n ta tiv e s o f two groups th a t are d iv id e d and have separate and s p e c ific purposes in mind. The A sso cia tio n f o r S upervision and C urriculum Development (May 1977) asked the question 1n I t s News Exchange: C o lle c tiv e bargaining between teachers and school boards has u s u a lly d e a lt p rim a r ily w ith wages and working con di­ tio n s . To what e x te n t do you b e lie v e such bargaining has had, o r w i l l have, an e ffe c t ( p o s itiv e o r negative) on cu rricu lu m and in s tr u c tio n issues? 34 Some o f the re p lie s were as fo llo w s : E rc e ll Watson: I t is assumed th a t teachers and school boards share a common in te re s t and concern f o r curriculum and in s tr u c tio n issues. I t is the board's r e s p o n s ib ility through i t s superintendent to e s ta b lis h mechanisms fo r the o rd e rly development o f programs and p o lic ie s on curriculum and in s tr u c tio n . E ssential is the a p pro priate involvement o f s t a f f w ith needed e xp e rtise working w ith a d m in is tra tio n , par­ e n ts , and students. C o lle c tiv e bargaining u s u a lly seeks to mandate the involvement o f teachers when boards f a i l to d is ­ charge t h e ir proper r e s p o n s ib ilitie s . Involvement by teachers in the d e cisio n making process should not be construed to mean a usurpation o f the board's le ga l a u th o rity . C o lle c tiv e bar­ g a in in g can keep boards and a d m in is tra tio n on t h e ir toes. — E rc e ll I . Watson, Dean o f the School o f Education a t M o n tc la ir State C ollege, Upper M o n tc la ir, New Jersey Harold V. Webb: We can o n ly th in k th a t c o lle c tiv e bargaining has " p r im a r ily " d e a lt w ith wages and working c o n d itio n s . Indeed, i f bargaining were lim ite d to those two c o n s id e ra tio n s , i t s e f fe c t on the cu rricu lu m , i f any a t a l l , would be m inim al. The r e a li t y is th a t bargaining has in c re a s in g ly involved ques­ tio n s o f p o lic y . When organized teachers, f o r example, in s is t upon n e g o tia tin g items such as class s iz e , or c u r r ic u la r selec­ t io n , they are eroding the policy-m aking fu n c tio n o f the school board and, in tu rn , o f the p u b lic the board represents. Cur­ r ic u la r de cisions are u ltim a te ly the p u b lic 's to make, and the p u b lic has elected school boards as i t s re p re s e n ta tiv e s . When t h is p u b lic p re ro g a tive In e ffe c t is turned over to the unions, re s u lts bode i l l f o r p u b lic education. — Harold V. Webb, Executive D ire c to r o f the N ational School Boards A s s o c ia tio n , Washington, D.C. Paul B. Salmon: I w i l l not make an o v e ra ll statement as to the q u a lit a t iv e e ffe c ts o f c o lle c tiv e bargaining on c u rric u ­ lum and in s tr u c tio n except to say th a t unions in v a ria b ly I n s is t upon the a p p lic a tio n o f s e n io r ity as the way f o r d e te r­ m ining who gets the best o f whatever th e re 1s. This has o fte n re s u lte d in a negative e ffe c t on cu rricu lu m and In s tru c tio n . For in sta n ce , sometimes when a re d u ctio n in fo rc e takes p lace , teachers who are p o o rly prepared o r even 111 prepared to teach su b je cts are required to teach them because o f s e n io r ity pro­ v is io n s In the negotiated c o n tra c t. S e n io rity as the s in g le c r it e r io n f o r d e cisio n making 1s a negative element 1n p ro ­ v id in g q u a lity in s tru c tio n f o r le a rn e rs . — Paul B. Salmon, Executive D ire c to r o f the American Associa­ t io n o f School A d m in is tra to rs , A rlin g to n , V ir g in ia . 35 Diane Gess: The e ffe c ts o f c o lle c tiv e bargaining on wages and working co n d itio n s on cu rricu lu m and in s tr u c tio n a l issues are s t i l l unresolved. However, th e re appear to be signs which mandate th a t educators review n e g o tia tio n goals and processes r e la tiv e to t h e ir impact on: (a) f r a c tio n a liz in g the educa­ tio n a l community in to w arring and competing groups, (b) fanning the f ir e s o f p u b lic d isco n te n t w ith the system o f p u b lic educa­ tio n , and (c) e lim in a tin g the f l e x i b i l i t y in school op e ra tio n and program development e s s e n tia l f o r teachers to be c re a tiv e and in n o va tive . There is no doubt th a t c o lle c tiv e bargaining is an e sse n tia l element o f m ain ta in in g the economic and pro­ fe ssio n a l sta tu s o f educators. With th is re c o g n itio n , 1 t is e sse n tia l th a t the th ru s t in the fu tu re be to in su re th a t the n e g o tia tio n process and goals r e f le c t a high degree o f s ta te s ­ manship and lead to improving communications both w ith in and ou tside o f the educational community. —Diane Gess, Elementary School A d m in is tra to r f o r the East Ramapo Schools, Spring V a lle y , New York From these re p lie s one can understand the importance and "power" th a t is exerted by the unions. When an Issue lik e main- streaming a ffe c ts the p o s itio n o f the teacher and c a lls f o r a lte r a ­ tio n o f s tru c tu re and in s tru c tio n a l techniques w ith in the classroom, the teachers w i ll re a c t. T h e ir re a c tio n w i l l be heard in the form o f the power o f c o lle c tiv e bargaining w ith lo c a l school boards. In 1970 the NEA e sta b lish e d UniServ as a means o f fu r th e r a s s is tin g lo c a l a s s o c ia tio n s. The goal o f the program, according to McDonnell (1976), is to provide one s t a f f member f o r every 1,200 teachers. Besides Increasing the e ffe c tiv e n e s s o f lo c a l o rg a n iza tio n s in n e g o tia tio n s , UniServ Insures th a t th e re is a mech­ anism a v a ila b le th a t w i l l m o b ilize teacher support and p a r tic ip a tio n when they are needed to make demands on o u ts id e agencies. UniServ is also used as an In form a tion network to keep s ta te and fe d e ra l leaders aware o f and responsive to membership needs. In the t h ir d 36 survey o f t h is stud y, which deals w ith teacher re a c tio n to mainstream ing, the UniServ D ire c to rs were the respondents to the survey. Teacher Unions View Mainstreaming Both AFT and NEA p u b lic ly endorse the concept o f mainstream­ ing but not w ith o u t some very s p e c ific r e s t r ic t io n s . These r e s t r ic ­ tio n s are reported in an e d it o r ia l in the NEA jo u rn a l, Today1s Education (1976): The NEA w i l l support mainstreaming handicapped students on ly when— I t provides a fa vo ra b le le a rn in g experience both fo r handicapped and f o r re g u la r students. Regular and special teachers and a d m in is tra to rs share e q u a lly in i t s planning and im plem entation. Regular and special teachers are prepared fo r these ro le s . A p p ro p ria te in s tr u c tio n a l m a te ria ls , sup po rtive s e rv ic e s , and p u p il personnel services are provided fo r the teacher and the handicapped stud en t. M o d ific a tio n s are made in cla ss s iz e , scheduling, and c u r­ ricu lu m design to accommodate the s h ift in g demands th a t mainstreaming crea tes. There is system atic e va lu a tio n and re p o rtin g o f program developments. Adequate a d d itio n a l funding and resources are provided f o r mainstreaming and are used e x c lu s iv e ly f o r th a t purpose. Both unions are in a somewhat d i f f i c u l t p o s itio n : t h e ir members c o n s is t o f both general and spe cia l educators and i t may be most d i f f i c u l t to please both groups, p a r t ic u la r ly when they are not in agreement on what is the best in s tr u c tio n a l m ilie u fo r the student. The NEA Reporter (1977) lis t e d the proposed NEA re s o lu tio n s f o r 1977. The re s o lu tio n s concerning mainstreaming are the same 37 as those lis te d above w ith the added p ro v is io n , " S ta ff re d u ctio n does not r e s u lt from m ainstream ing." The AFT, as reported in i t s jo u r n a l, American Teacher (1977), supports the basic in te n t o f PL 94-142 but fe e ls the implementation o f procedures ra is e s serious qu estio ns. Some o f the p o in ts o f con­ cern are in regard to the le a s t r e s t r ic t iv e environment concept. Teachers fe a r th is may be used as a b u d g e t-c u ttin g device th a t proves to be anything but b e n e fic ia l to e ith e r c h ild or teacher. The AFT p o s itio n , lik e th a t o f NEA, is th a t proper placement o f c h ild re n in re g u la r classrooms can on ly be accomplished w ith increased expenditures needed to l i m i t cla ss sizes and assure approp­ r ia t e support personnel and s e rv ic e s . They fe e l safeguards ag ainst abuses in the proposed re g u la tio n s are very weak. The AFT urges i t s teachers to watch f o r announcements o f req uired p u b lic hearings as s ta te s begin to draw up t h e ir plans f o r im plem entation o f the new laws. Teachers are very concerned about the mandatory enforcement o f laws th a t a f fe c t t h e ir r ig h t s . Learning D is a b ilit ie s Guide (1977) s ta te s te a ch e rs’ groups (NEA and AFT) have lodged p ro te s ts over PL 94-142. The NEA argues th a t most teachers are not prepared to mainstream la rg e numbers o f handicapped stud en ts. The AFT con­ tends th e “ due process" p ro v is io n s o f the law give a l l r ig h ts to handicapped c h ild re n and t h e ir parents and leave teachers ou t in the c o ld . For example, the re g u la tio n s say the e v a lu a tio n con­ ference should be scheduled a t the p a re n ts ' convenience, which could mean a l o t o f evening' hours f o r teachers. 38 The Bureau f o r Education o f the Handicapped (reported in Education USA, August 29, 1977) assured teacher groups who had com­ plaine d th a t the proposed re g u la tio n s on the IEP in the new fed era l laws d id not c o n s titu te a guarantee by the p u b lic agency and the teacher th a t a c h ild w i l l progress a t a s p e c ifie d ra te . The IEP re q u ire s a l i s t o f annual and s h o rt-te rm goals fo r the c h ild but BEH assures teachers they cannot be held accountable fo r the c h ild 's attainm e nt o f those goals. The teacher must, however, "make good f a it h e f f o r t s " to see th a t the c h ild achieves the o b je c tiv e s , and parents may p ro te s t i f they fe e l he/she does not. In P h ila d e lp h ia School D is t r ic t teachers are b rin g in g t h e ir union re p re se n ta tive s to IEP conferences (reported in Education o f the Handicapped, January 18, 1978). The Pennsylvania Secretary o f Education received an in te r p r e ta tio n o f the Buckley Amendment to the Family Educational R ights and P rivacy Act from Thomas McFee, Deputy A s s is ta n t Secretary f o r Management, HEW. McFee sa id , In those p a re n t-te a ch e r conferences in which in fo rm a tio n from student records is d is c lo s e d , i t is improper to include p a rtie s whose p a r tic ip a tio n is intended to p ro te c t the in te re s ts o f teachers ra th e r than the in te re s ts o f the s tu ­ d e n t, w ith o u t o b ta in in g the consent o f the s tu d e n t's parents. McFee b e lie ve s P h ila d e lp h ia 's p ra c tic e also v io la te s the Education f o r A ll Handicapped C hildren A ct (PL 94-142). In December, 1977, P h ila d e lp h ia 's Education Law Center f i l e d com plaints on b e h a lf o f two parents who charged t h e ir c h ild re n were denied IEP.'s because teachers refused to go In to IEP conferences w ith o u t a union re p re s e n ta tiv e . 39 Both n a tio n a l union leaders appear to be somewhat misinformed and s k e p tic a l o f the concept o f the le a s t r e s t r ic t iv e environment. John Rynor, president o f NEA, cautioned ( in Education o f the Han­ dicapped, 1976) about mainstreaming, h a ilin g i t as "a prom ising, democratic development, as American as apple p ie ," but he asked, "Can you ju s t imagine the p lig h t o f a teacher who is suddenly and f o r the f i r s t tim e presented w ith a b lin d c h ild , a s p a s tic , an emo­ t io n a lly distu rbe d c h ild —o r even a l l th re e —as a d d itio n s to the 40 'norm al' students?" A lb e rt Shanker, p re sid e n t o f United Federation o f Teachers, wrote in a March 20, 1977, New York Times e d it o r ia l commenting on the mainstreaming o f special education students: F ir s t i t is im portant th a t we know the handicaps o f the c h ild re n we are ta lk in g about, to understand the magnitude o f the problem fa cin g our school d i s t r i c t s . Involved a re — Hydrocephalic c h ild re n who were born w ith holes in t h e ir h e a rts , who tu rn blue p e r io d ic a lly and have water on the b ra in and tubes in t h e ir heads which d ra in o f f the excess w ater. When the tubes do not work p ro p e rly , they must be reshunted by a nurse in the school. Many schools do not have a nurse. C hildren w ith bones so b r i t t l e th a t i f they are touched the wrong way, t h e ir bones could break. C hildren w ith separations in t h e ir spines who are para­ lyzed from the w a is t down; these c h ild re n are on crutch es. C hildren who are amputees and double amputees. Cerebral p a lsie d c h ild re n , some o f whom are severely im paired. C hildren who s t i l l need to be taught t o i l e t t r a in in g , s e lf-fe e d in g and so f o r t h . A u tis tic c h ild re n , m ild ly retarded c h ild re n , c h ild re n w ith le a rn in g d is a b ilit ie s , and the e m o tio n a lly d is tu rb e d , in c lu d in g c h ild re n who are schizophrenic and a u t is t ic . 40 Shanker goes on to say, given the fa c t th a t most d i s t r i c t s are fa c in g f is c a l problems, i t is an easy o u t f o r a d m in is tra to rs to place most sp e cia l education c h ild re n in re g u la r education s e ttin g s , saving money in the process. He also sees problems in the IEP because th is team decides in which classes the c h ild w i l l be placed f o r the fo llo w in g ye a r. There is no way o f knowing who the c h ild 's teacher w i l l be a t th a t tim e . The r e s u lt is th a t an educational plan is developed w ith o u t the p a r tic ip a tio n o f the one person respon­ s ib le f o r c a rry in g i t o u t— the c h ild 's teacher. The NEA R eporter (1977) says cla ss s iz e form ulae may revo­ lu tio n iz e teacher c o n tra c ts . The Denver Classroom Teachers Asso­ c ia tio n used as a model the Lodi ( C a lifo rn ia ) Education A s s o c ia tio n 's 1974 weighted count f o r p u p ils . Under the form ula a "norm al" p u p il counts as one w h ile both g ifte d and slow le a rn e rs count 1.5 p u p ils . A c h ild w ith low in te llig e n c e o r w ith d is c ip lin e problems counts as two p u p ils ; an e m o tio n a lly d is tu rb e d o r non-E nglish-speaking c h ild counts as 2.5 p u p ils . Many school d i s t r i c t s throughout the s ta te and co u n try are lo o kin g a t t h is fo rm u la . The Board in Denver pro­ vided a $740,000 fund as p a rt o f the n e g o tia te d c o n tra c t f o r the ye a r. The fund was e s ta b lis h e d a f t e r the Denver Board received a mandate from the teachers to do something about reducing pressures connected w ith cla ss lo ad s. The money may be used to h ir e a d d i­ tio n a l teacher a id e s , s u b s titu te s , purchase m a te ria l, o r h ir e a d d i­ tio n a l teachers. Teacher's Voice (1977), the MEA jo u r n a l, re p o rts the problems o f the Lansing School D i s t r i c t . Lansing n e g o tia te d f o r each s p e cia l 41 education c h ild to be counted as th re e stu d e n ts. But according to the a r t i c l e , because the agreement was reached m id -ye a r, the im paired students were a lre a d y mainstreamed in to re g u la r classroom s. The teachers were compensated f o r the overload w ith a s a la ry supple­ ment but the in te n t o f the agreement was to achieve a normal cla ss load. The Michigan Education A s s o c ia tio n has put ou t a guide to w e ig htin g mainstreamed p u p ils in the re g u la r classroom . This guide is included in Appendix B. In summary, the lit e r a t u r e suggests the te a c h e rs ' unions are suspicious and ca u tio u s in t h e ir acceptance o f the sp e cia l education c h ild in the re g u la r education classroom . As quoted in an a r t i c l e from American Teacher (1977), "D espite a l l the good in te n tio n s . . . many p ro v is io n s o f the law could th re a te n te a c h e rs ' a b i l i t y to fu n c tio n in the classroom ." A d m in is tra tio n and Mainstreaming Most school a d m in is tra to rs b e lie v e the im plem entation o f m ainstreaming is a l i t t l e more complex than M olloy (1975), who c a te ­ g o r ic a lly s ta te d th a t "Most handicapped c h ild re n can be absorbed in to o rd in a ry schools by changing n o th in g b u t a d m in is tra tiv e p o lic y ." According to Coursen (1976), " S u p e r f ic ia lly , i t m ight appear th a t the a d m in is tra to r, who is n o t d ir e c t ly in vo lve d in I n s tr u c tio n , is sca rce ly a ffe c te d by m a instrea m ing ." However, 42 In mainstreaming, regular schools accept a re s p o n s ib ility fo r the handicapped th a t is p rim a rily ad m in istra tive ; they must provide services to handicapped students w ithout re s o rt­ ing to the a d m in istra tive expedient o f removing them to special s e ttin g s . In a d d itio n , i t is absolutely c ru c ia l to the success o f mainstreaming e ffo rts th a t adm inistrators, p a rtic u la rly p rin c ip a ls , provide support and leadership. B obbitt (1977) pleads " fo r acceptance o f the premise th a t sometimes the school needs to change so the student may change." Before the Ju ly , 1975, Deans' P roject Conference, Martin suggested th a t we must develop a concept th a t the learning needs o f a ll ch ild re n f a l l somewhere along a continuum o f se ve rity and require special in te rve n tio n a t c e rta in times fo r s p e c ific purposes. Heretofore, he argues, we have ignored the b a rrie r to e ffe c tiv e teaching caused by our societal fear o f differences and change. Achieving a "special education" fo r handicapped children by in te g ra tin g them in to regular education programs w ill not succeed w ithout m od ifica tion in the system. M illio n s o f han­ dicapped ch ild re n are now in regular classrooms; too f r e ­ quently th e ir fa te is fa ilu r e , fr u s tra tio n , and social is o ­ la tio n . . . . Our societal mechanisms fo r excluding handicapped child ren from schools; tra n s p o rta tio n ; pu blic parks, play­ grounds, and b u ild in g s; jobs; and social in te ra c tio n s have worked a ll too w e ll. Successful mainstreaming, he says, w ill only be accomplished when every teacher acquires more s k ills in dealing w ith a f u ll e r range o f behaviors, enabling them to approach a wider range o f c h ild re n 's behavior w ith confidence, unafraid o f someone who displays some d iffe re n c e . The same may be said o f the school ad m in istrator. At the same conference G ilhool (1975) pointed to several p i t f a lls beneath the fe e t o f the school ad m in istrator in connection w ith the expanding mainstreaming movement. Legal precedents require 43 th a t each c h ild , regardless o f handicap, have fre e access to the pu blic educational system and th a t system is required to provide the most appropriate education fo r th a t p a rtic u la r c h ild . To comply w ith the due process provisions o f applicable le g is la tio n , the most frequently used device has been the ad m in istrative hearing to answer the question, "How is what is appropriate fo r a p a rtic u ­ la r c h ild to be determined?" T h e o re tic a lly , he says, questions of money and whether the school d i s t r i c t c u rre n tly has the appropriate program are irre le v a n t. "The hearing examiner's duty is to decide on the record what the appropriate program is and to order th a t i t be provided." This s itu a tio n c le a rly places new demands upon the school a d m in istrator, along w ith the regular classroom teacher. By extension, Gilhool predicts th is trend w ill eventually a ffe c t general education. In response to G ilh o o l's remarks, Frein (1975) not q u ite fa c e tio u s ly speculates as to a possible need fo r in -s e rv ic e tra in in g fo r attorneys inasmuch as they apparently w ill be p a rtic ip a tin g in the re so lu tio n o f tensions between in d iv id u a l development and commu­ n ity needs and desires germane to mainstreaming. "What is the 'good l i f e 1 we want fo r a ll our people," she asks, "and how does such a goal a ffe c t the ways in which we modify schools?" She asserts th a t mainstreaming im plies success in the present education system, a careful look a t th a t system to see how the system can be modified to make success easier to a tta in , an examination o f the values underlying the meaning o f success in our c u ltu re , and a fu rth e r examination o f the s im ila r itie s and differences between our c u ltu ra l 44 values and those o f the re s t o f the world. And i t is those value- based educational decisions th a t promise the p o s s ib ility o f sub­ je c tin g the school a d m in istra to r to legal actions. L o rtie (1975) sees one o f the things happening in education as "the erosion o f conventional school organization" and th a t inasmuch as the school has t r a d it io n a lly la rg e ly re fle c te d the greater s o c ie ty , i t w i ll be expected to r e fle c t more diverse l i f e s ty le s and values, w ith an expected a lte ra tio n in organizational s tru c tu re . Thus, schools w ill be forced to invent new ways o f organizing learning to accommodate in d iv id u a liz e d needs. L o rtie says th a t "the basic d i f f i c u l t y is th a t public schools are a ll too often inadequately supplied w ith resources they need to f u l f i l l t h e ir mandate" and fin d s him self extremely skep tical about the chances fo r successful mainstreaming. Turnbull (1976), in addressing the Council o f Adm inistra­ to rs o f Special Education, looks a t the re s u lts o f recent le g is la ­ tio n and cogently remarks: The schools, and e sp e cia lly special education, are being asked to share t h e ir power to make decisions w ith others— c o u rts, le g is la tu re s , parents, consumer advocates, e tc. . . . The sharing o f power is a m atter th a t p u b lic school o f f ic ia ls w i ll re lu c ta n tly accept because tr a d it io n a lly they are not accustomed to having to share i t . And Brinegar (1976), the C a lifo rn ia h e re tic as he is sometimes c a lle d , asserts th a t "since appropriateness o f placement 1s often viewed q u ite d iffe r e n tly by the parents and educators" and since those d is p a ritie s are lik e ly to grow in number, schools must e ffe c t an education system “ based upon a decision th a t parents 45 have a moral r ig h t to make u ltim a te educational decisions" regarding th e ir c h ild re n . No one can deny th a t mainstreaming is causing changes. Huge (1977) observes th a t p rin c ip a ls who are e ffe c tiv e s t a f f develop­ ment leaders "accept the fa c t th a t change is in e v ita b le and th a t i t is the p r in c ip a l's re s p o n s ib ility to manage change to whatever degree p o s s ib le ." Cochrane and Westling (1977) suggest th a t main- streaming be presented by p rin c ip a ls as a team e f f o r t , thus enhanc­ ing chances fo r success. P rin cip a ls should become cognizant o f the c h a ra c te ris tic s o f m ild ly handicapped c h ild re n , they say, since the p rin c ip a l who simply d ire c ts the s t a f f to mainstream exceptional c h ild re n w ith ou t re a liz in g the educational im p lica tio n s w ill soon re a liz e there is a low p ro b a b ility fo r success based upon a sim­ p l i s t i c physical arrangement. Regular teachers like w ise should be educated to be cognizant o f such c h a ra c te ris tic s (see Payne and Murray, 1974, above). One element inherent in the ro le o f p rin c ip a l is leader­ sh ip , and th is element is o f paramount importance during the implementation o f mainstreaming. I f mainstreaming is to be more than an a d m in istra tive arrangement, i t must be f u l l y and m orally supported by the p rin c ip a l, and th is should be obvious to the fa c u lty . . . . I f mainstreaming is seen as a team e f f o r t by the fa c u lty , as presented by the p r in c ip a l, success is much more lik e ly . Cole and Dunn (1977) re p o rt th a t w hile the State Department o f Education must support, m onitor, and p o lice lo ca l provisions fo r handicapped c h ild re n , the lo cal school d is t r ic t s w i ll bear the brunt o f the paper work needed to implement the In d iv id u a liz e d edu­ c a tio n a l program fo r each c h ild , a program th a t must include 46 statements o f the c h ild 's present level o f performance, annual goals in clu din g short-term measurable objectives th a t f i t the longrange goals, the s p e c ific services to be provided fo r each c h ild , and an annual review v e rifie d by o b je ctive c r it e r ia and evaluation procedures used- This in d iv id u a liz e d education program then w ill serve as a kind o f contract binding a d m in is tra tio n , teachers, parents and c h ild to aim fo r c e rta in goals. "The burden o f proof fo r placement," Cole and Dunn a sse rt, "re s ts upon the school system." I t is th is co n tra ct th a t the school a d m in is tra to r, bound by law and beset by warring fa c tio n s , must f u l f i l l . Higher education faces many o f the problems occasioned by the mainstreaming movement. Budig (1977) points out th a t "Acade­ micians and p o litic ia n s a lik e argue fo r life lo n g learning oppor­ t u n it ie s , " a "must" in view o f the innovations needed to implement mainstreaming. A dm inistrators and teachers a lik e must face c o n tin ­ uing education i f mainstreaming is to be implemented e ffe c tiv e ly . Many o f the a u th o ritie s quoted in th is study stress again and again the need fo r the a c q u is itio n o f new s k ills by both ad m in istra to r and teacher. Horn (1975) points out th a t as we are accustomed to th in k in g o f e a rly obsolescence o f machines, so must we now accustom ourselves to recognize and prevent the e a rly obsolescence o f people. This concept applies to the educational f ie ld as to any oth e r. Higher education must devise and provide in s tru c tio n a l programs f o r upcoming teachers and ad m in istrators as w ell as programs designed to update curre nt s k il ls possessed by persons engaged in 47 these two fie ld s . I t is lik e ly th a t in the process, some o f our most cherished notions w ill need to be amended. Some form o f con d itio n a l tenure, fo r instance, may have to be in it ia te d to avoid the e a rly obsolescence o f ad m inistrators and fa c u lty a t a ll le ve ls o f learning. 48 References--Chapter I I Books B irch , Jack W., and Johnson, B. Kenneth. Designing Schools and Schooling fo r the Handicapped. S p rin g fie ld , 111 Charles C. Thomas, 1975, pp. 301-27. Hoelke, G. M. E ffectiveness o f Special Class Placement f o r Educable M e n ta lly- Retarded C h ild re n ! L in c o ln , Nebraska: U n iv e rs ity o f Nebraska, 1966. K irk , Samuel A. "Research in Education." In Mental R e ta rd a tio n . Edited by H. A. Stevens and R. Herber. Chicago: Univers it y o f Chicago Press, 1964. Rubin, E. Z .; Senison, C. B .; and Betwee, M. C. Em otionally Handicapped C hildren in the Elementary School. D e tro it: Wayne State U n iv e rs ity Press, 1966. P e rio d ica ls Abeson, Alan. "Movement and Momentum: Government and the Education o f Handicapped C h ild re n ." Exceptional C hildren 41:2 (1974): 109-17. "AFT Council Urges Teachers to Demand Improvements in New Handicapped Law." American Teacher (January 1977). A ssociation f o r Supervision and Curriculum Development. S ocietal Issues: C o lle c tiv e Bargaining and Curriculum 19:3 (1977): 6-7. Barngrover, E la in e. "Clearinghouse: A Study o f Educators' P re fe r­ ences in Special Education Programs." Exceptional Children 37:10 (1971): 754-55. Beery, K ulth E. "Mainstreaming: A Problem and an O pportunity fo r General E ducation." Focus on Exceptional C hildren 6:6 (1974): 1-7. B la tt, Burton. "The In te g ra tio n -S e g re g a tlo n Issue: Some Questions, Assumptions and F a cts." Family Involvement 8:2 (1975): 10-14. B o b b itt, W. L e s lie . "When Schools Change." 34:6 (1977): 441. Educational Leadership 49 B rinegar, L e s lie . Education o f the Handicapped 2 {May 21, 1976): 7. Browne, James. "Power P o litic s f o r Teachers, Modern S ty le ." Delta Kappan 58:2 (1976): 158-64. Budiq, Gene A. "What's Ahead fo r Hiqher Education?" Kappan 59:1 (1977): 13-14. Phi Phi Delta Budoff, M ilto n . "P roviding Special Education W ithout Special C lasses." Journal o f School Psychology 10:2 (1972): 199-205. ________, and G o ttlie b , Jay A. "Comparison o f E.M.R. Children in Special Classes With E.M.R. Children Who Have Been Reinte­ grated In to Regular Classes." Studies in Learning P o te n tia l 3:50 (1974). C h a ffin , J e rry D. "W ill the Real Mainstreaming Program Please Stand Up— (Or . . . Should Dunn Have Done I t ? ) . " Focus on Exceptional Children 6:5 (1974): 1-18. C h ild s, Ronald E. "A Review o f the Research Concerning Mainstream­ in g ." Journal f o r Special Educators o f the M entally Retarded 11:2 (1975): 106-12. C la rk, Gary M. "Mainstreaming fo r the Secondary Educable M entally Retarded: Is I t Defensible?" Focus on Exceptional C hildren 7:2 (1975): 1-6. "Class Size Formula May R evolutionize Teacher C o n tra cts." Reporter 16:5 (1977): 10. NEA Cochrane, Pamela V ., and W estling, David L. "The P rin c ip a l and Mainstreaming: Ten Suggestions fo r Success." Educational Leadership 34:7 (1977): 506-11. Cole, Robert W., and Dunn, R ita . "A New Lease on L ife f o r Educa­ tio n o f the Handicapped: Ohio Copes With 94-142." Phi D elta Kappan 59:1 (1977): 3-7. C o llie r , R ichard, and D ir r , Peter. "Mainstreaming the Handicapped: A C all to Commitment." The School A d m in is tra to r 33:4 (1976): 6-7. Cooke, Thomas; A p o llo n i, Tony; and Cooke, Sharon A. "Normal Pre­ school C hildren as Behavioral Models f o r Retarded Peers." Exceptional C hildren 43:8 (1977): 531-33. Crulckshank, W illia m M. "Least R e s tric tiv e Placement: A dm inistra­ t iv e W ishful T h in k in g ." Journal o f Learning D is a b ilitie s 10:4 (1977): 193-95. 50 Dimond, Paul R. "The C o n s titu tio n a l R ight to Education: The Q uiet R e v o lu tio n ." The Hastings Law Journal 24 (1973). D o ll, 6. F. "Classroom In te g ra tio n : Concerns and C a utio ns." Mental R etardation B u lle tin 2:3 (W inter 74/75): 108-11. Doran, Bernadette. " In to the M ainstream ." Colleges 2:3 (1975): 33-43. N a tio n 's Schools and Dunn, Lloyd M. "Special Education f o r the M ild ly Retarded— Is Much o f I t J u s tifia b le ? " Exceptional C hildren 35:1 (1968): 5-22. Education o f the Handicapped 2 (May 21, 1976): 6-7. _________3 (August 3, 1977): 5-6. ________ 3 (September 14, 1977): 7. _________4 (January 18, 1978): 1-2. _________4 (February 1, 1978): 2-6. Education USA 19:52 (August 29, 1977): 382. Forness, Steven R. L a b e lin g ." 445-50. "Im p lic a tio n s o f Recent Trends in Educational Journal o f Learning D is a b ilitie s 7:7 (1974): G illu n g , Tom B ., and Rucker, Chauncy N. "Labels and Teacher Expec­ ta t io n s . " Exceptional C h ild ren 43:7 (1977): 464-67. Gruen, Gerald E ., and o th e rs . " P r o b a b ility Learning in Retarded C hildren With D iffe r in g H is to rie s o f Success and F a ilu re in S chool." American Journal o f Mental D e ficie n cy 79:4 (1975): 417-23. Horn, Stephen. "O p p o rtu n itie s f o r the P u b lic Urban U n iv e r s ity ." Phi D elta Kappan 59:1 (1977): 14-16. Huge, James. "The P rin c ip a l as S ta ff Development Leader." Educational Leadership 34:5 (1977): 384-88. Johnson, G. 0. "S pecial Education f o r M e n ta lly Handicapped—A Paradox." Exceptional C h ild re n 19 (1962): 62-69. Kaufman, M a rtin J. "M ainstream ing: Toward an E x p lic a tio n o f the C o n s tru c t." Focus on Exceptional C h ild ren 7:3 (1975): 1-11. 51 Larsen, Stephen C. "The In flu e n c e o f Teacher Expectations on the School Performance o f Handicapped C h ild re n ." Focus on Exceptional C hildren 6:8 (1975): 1-14. Learning D is a b ilitie s Guide. W aterford, Conn.: c a tio n s , December 1976, pp. 1-2. C ro ft NEI P u b li­ M acM illan, Donald L ., and Semmel, Melvyn I . "E valuation o f Mainstreaminq Proqrams." Focus on Exceptional C hildren 9:4 (1977). McDonnell, L o rra in e M. "The In te rn a l P o litic s o f NEA." Kappan 58:2 (1976): 185-201. Mainstreaminq: Teachers Make I t Work." 1977): 4. "M ainstreaminq: What's I t A ll About?" (1976): 18-19. Phi Delta Teachers Voice (June 20, Today's Education 65:2 M a rtin , Edwin W. "The Deputy Commissioner o f the Bureau o f Educa­ tio n f o r the Handicapped Talks About Educational R ig h ts ." Teacher 94:9 (1977): 46. M ilb a u e r, Barbara. "The Mainstreaming P uzzle." (1977): 44-46. Teacher 94:9 M o llo y, L a rry . "The Handicapped C h ild in the Everyday Classroom." Phi D elta Kappan 56:5 (1975): 337-40. "NEA Warns o f Hazards in M ainstream ing." Education o f the Handi­ capped 2 (January 23, 1976): 5. Nober, Linda W. "G e ttin g Ready fo r PL 94-142: A Model f o r Support Services to Mainstreamed Hearing Impaired C h ild re n ." The V o lta Review 79:4 (1977): 231-49. Pagen, John. "N e g o tia tio n s , I t ' s Coming—Ready o r N o t." f o r Change 5:3 (1976): 16-17. C a ta ly s t Payne, Reed, and Murray, C harles. "P rin c ip a ls ' A ttitu d e s Toward In te g ra tio n o f Handicapped." Exceptional C hildren 41:2 (1974): 123-25. "Proposed NEA R e so lu tio n s, 1977." NEA Reporter 16:5 (1977). Reger, Roger. "What Does 'M ainstream ing' Mean?" Journal o f Learning D is a b ilit ie s 7:8 (1974): 513-15. 52 Rosenkranz, C atherine. "Another Look a t M ainstream ing." Memorandum 14:2 (1973): 31-34. Bureau Ross, Mark. "Mainstreaminq: Some Social C o n sid e ra tio n s." Review 80:1 (1978): 21-31. The V o lta Shanker, A lb e rt. "Where We Stand." New York Times, March 20, 1977. S h otel, Jay, and o th e rs. "Teacher A ttitu d e s Associated With the In te g ra tio n o f Handicapped C h ild re n ." Exceptional C hildren 38:9 (1972): 677-83. Smith, H. W., and Kennedy, W. A. "E ffe c ts o f Three Educational Programs on M en tally Retarded C h ild re n ." Perceptual and Motor S k ills 24 (1967): 174. Snyder, Lee; A p p o llo n i, Tony; and Cooke, Thomas P. "In te g ra te d S e ttin g s a t the E a rly Childhood Level: The Role o f Non­ retarded P eers." Exceptional C hildren 43:5 (1977): 262-70. W ilson, C liv e . " I n t e n t io n a lit y Judgment and Adoptive Behavior in M ild ly Retarded C h ild re n ." Slow Learninq C h ild 22:1 (1975): 5-12. "Words From Washinqton." 1977): 1-2. Learninq D is a b ilitie s Guide (October Pamphlets B rin eg ar, L e s lie . Mainstreaminq O rig in s and Im p lic a tio n s , pp. 18-20. Proceedings o f the J u ly 1975 Deans' P ro je cts Conference, U n iv e rs ity o f Minnesota. Reston, V ir g in ia : CEC, 1975. Coursen, David. "A d m in is tra tiv e Im p lic a tio n s o f M ainstream ing." School Leadership D ig e st, Second S e rie s, no. 7. A rlin g to n , V ir g in ia : N ational A sso ciatio n o f Elementary School P rin c ip a ls , 1976. D 1rr, Peter J . , and L a u g h lin , C. Ann. " In d iv id u a liz in g In s tru c ­ tio n f o r Handicapped C h ild re n ." A paper f o r the In s tru c ­ tio n a l Technology Course f o r Teachers. B u ffa lo : State U n iv e rs ity o f New York, B u ffa lo , Educational Research and Development Complex, 1974. F e rin , Jeanne B. Mainstreaming O rig in s and Im p lic a tio n s , pp. 16-18. Proceed1ngs o f the J u ly 19^5 Deans' P ro je c ts Conference, U n iv e rs ity o f Minnesota. Reston, V ir g in ia : CEC, 1975. 53 G ilh o o l, Thomas K. "Changing P u blic P o lic ie s Roots and Forces." In Mainstreaming O rig in s and Im p lic a tio n s , pp. 6-12. Proceedings o f the J u ly 1975 Deans' P rojects Conference, U n iv e rs ity o f Minnesota. Reston, V ir g in ia : CEC, 1975. L o r tie , Dan. Mainstreaming O rig in s and Im p lic a tio n s , pp. 14-16. Proceedings o f the J u ly 1975 Deans P rojects Conference, U n iv e rs ity o f Minnesota. Reston, V ir g in ia : CEC, 1975. M a rtin , Edwin. " In te g ra tio n o f the Handicapped C h ild In to Regular S chools." In Mainstreaming O rig in s and Im p lic a tio n s , pp. 3-6. Proceedings o f the J u ly 1975 Deans' P ro je cts Conference, U n iv e rs ity o f Minnesota. Reston, V ir g in ia : CEC, 1975. Michigan Department o f Education. Michigan Special Education Code as Amended January 14, 1977, Under the P rovisions o f P ublic Act 198 o f 1971. Lansing: Michigan Department o f Educa^ tio n , 1977. Michigan Education A ss o cia tio n . Power Where I t Counts. Lansing: Michigan Education A sso cia tio n , 1977. East N ational A dvisory Council on Education Professions Development. Mainstreaming: Helping Teachers Meet the Challenge. Washington, D.C.: N ational A dvisory Council on Education Professions Development, Summer 1976. Nazzaro, Jean. Second Dimension: Special Education A d m in istra to rs View the F ie ld . Washington, D.C.: CEC, Bureau o f Educatio n f o r the Handicapped, January 1973. T u rn b u ll, H. R uth erfo rd . fo r the Schools. o f A d m in is tra to rs v e n tio n , Chicago, Special Education and Law: Im p lic a tio n s Keynote address d e liv e re d to the Council o f Special Education, In te rn a tio n a l Con­ I l l i n o i s , A p ril 5, 1977. Unpublished Works Johnston, W illia m . "A Study to Determine Teacher A ttitu d e s Toward Teaching Special C hildren With Regular C h ild re n ." 1972. ERIC ED 065 950. Mandatory Special Education In M ichigan: Assessment and Recommend a tio n s . Report o f the Ad-Hoc Task Force on Special Edu­ c a tio n , J u ly 1977. 54 Legal C ita tio n s Brown v. Board o f Education Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). H arrison v. M ichigan, 350 F. Supp. 846 (E.D. Mich. 1972). Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 401, 497 (D.D.C. 1967). Maryland A sso ciatio n f o r Retarded C hildren v. Maryland, C ir. Ct. B altim ore Co., E quity no. 100/182/776 76 (May 3, 1974). M ills v. D.C. Board o f Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972). Pennsylvania A sso ciatio n fo r Retarded C hildren v. Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972). P ublic Law 94-142, 94th Congress, S. 6, November 29, 1975. R e h a b ilita tio n Act o f 1973, P ublic Law 93-112, 87 S ta t. 394 (29 U.S.C. 794). S tate o f M ichigan. 76th L e g is la tu re , Regular Session o f 1971. E n ro lled House B i l l no. 4475, PA-198. CHAPTER I I I PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY Sample P o pu latio n The Michigan Education A s s o c ia tio n has d iv id e d the area o f the s ta te o f M ichigan in to 17 re g io n s . From the 17 regions one county was selected from each re g io n f o r the study. From 3 to 28 c it ie s were used from each o f the c o u n tie s s e le cte d . This re s u lte d in a survey covering 142 school d i s t r i c t s throughout the s ta te o f M ichigan. T his sample p o p u la tio n r e fle c te d small and la rg e school d i s t r i c t s and was used f o r each o f th re e surveys. A copy o f the 17-region map is in clu de d in Appendix C. Surveys The f i r s t survey was done a t the M ichigan S ta te Department o f Education. I t co n siste d o f c o lle c tin g data from spe cia l education programs re p o rte d on form SE-4061 to the S ta te Department. The in fo rm a tio n taken from these forms was used to o b ta in answers to the fo llo w in g q u e stio n s: 1. How many sp e cia l education students re c e iv e se rvice s from re g u la r education teachers? 2. How much tim e do they spend in re g u la r education classes? 3. What c a te g o rie s o f handicapped students rece ive d these re g u la r education se rvice s? 55 56 The second survey co n siste d o f searching the 1976-1977 n e g o tia te d c o n tra c ts o f the 142 school d i s t r i c t s and c a te g o riz in g the kin d and number o f items lis t e d in the c o n tra c ts r e fe r r in g to sp e cia l education students mainstreamed in to re g u la r education. The t h ir d p a rt o f the study e n ta ile d a telephone o r personal in te rv ie w survey w ith the UniServ D ire c to rs who re p re se n t the 142 d i s t r i c t s se le cte d . The in fo rm a tio n from t h is survey concerned the d ir e c tio n the teachers would be pursuing in regard to mainstreaming in t h e ir 1977-1978 n e go tiate d c o n tra c ts . A n a lysis o f S tate Department o f Education Special Education Forms SE-4061 An a n a ly s is o f forms SE-4061 a t the M ichigan Department o f Education was done to o b ta in in fo rm a tio n as to the e x te n t o f mainstreaming and the c a te g o rie s o f handicapped students being mainstreamed in to re g u la r education cla sse s. These forms are sub­ m itte d to the S tate Department o f Education by lo c a l and interm e­ d ia te school d i s t r i c t s . The in fo rm a tio n obtained from the re p o rts was based on fo u rth F rid a y count fig u re s f o r the 1976-1977 school y e a r. The forms l i s t u n du plica te d count fig u re s f o r sp e cia l edu­ c a tio n students by category o f im pairm ent, type o f s e rv ic e given stud en t (whether support s e rv ic e o r basic classroom program ), and f u ll- t im e equivalency o f students in spe cia l education classroom s. In a n a lyzin g these re p o rts i t became apparent th a t the M ichigan S ta te Department had no exact count o f how much tim e was being spent in general education classes by sp e cia l education students 1n each lo c a l d i s t r i c t . 57 One o f the problems in o b ta in in g in fo rm a tio n on tim e spent by sp e cia l education students 1n general education classes is th a t many programs se rvin g sp e cia l education students are run by in t e r ­ mediate school d i s t r i c t s . The in te rm e d ia te school d i s t r i c t s ' re p o rts do no t show whether o r where the handicapped students are served by a lo c a l school d i s t r i c t . School d i s t r i c t s a lso must serve n o n -p u b lic school students who are handicapped. Although these numbers are s m a ll, they are in clu de d in the re p o rts to the S tate Department o f Education w ith o u t a breakdown between p u b lic and n o n -p u b lic schools. A t h ir d problem is th a t M ich ig a n 's Mandatory Special Education Law in clu d e s c h ild re n from b ir t h to 25 years o f age. The pre-school c h ild re n and those beyond high school are included in the fig u re s on these SE-4061 re p o rts . In most cases the o ld e r students would be tr a in a b le m e n ta lly im paired o r s e ve re ly m e n ta lly im paired and would n o t be in clu d e d in the m ainstream ing. Because o f the problem w ith the in te rm e d ia te counts, the in te rm e d ia te school d i s t r i c t s were in clu d e d in the a n a ly s is o f the SE-4061 re p o rts (Table D l) , fo llo w in g the school d i s t r i c t s served by them. In most cases th e in te rm e d ia te fo llo w s one s e rie s o f numbers b u t t h is is no t always tr u e , as in the Upper Peninsula where one in te rm e d ia te serves several c o u n tie s . There are g e n e ra lly two types o f s e rv ic e s rendered to han­ dicapped students housed 1n re g u la r p u b lic scho ols: classroom s e rv ic e and support s e rv ic e . s ta tio n a ry Teacher c o n s u lta n t s e rv ic e , speech th e ra p y, occu pa tion al th e ra p y , and p h ysica l therapy are considered support s e rv ic e s . These sup po rt s e rv ic e s are given to 58 special education students in special education classrooms and to students receiving th e ir education in general education class­ rooms. Because Form SE-4061 is based on an unduplicated count, only students receiving these support services in general education were counted. These handicapped students were therefore considered fu ll- tim e general education students. Because many special educa­ tio n classroom programs are considered to be resource rooms where handicapped students spend only short periods o f time w ith special education teachers, some school d is tr ic ts may c la s s ify these rooms as teacher-consultant service. There are some benefits to the school d i s t r i c t i f the teachers in these rooms q u a lify as teacherconsultants. Most special education classrooms are re s tric te d to 10 fu ll- tim e or 15 p a rt-tim e students. I f the teacher is c e r t i­ fie d as a teacher-consultant, she may serve 25 pa rt-tim e special education students. Another b e n e fit to the d is t r ic t th a t can be derived from having a c e r tifie d teacher-consultant serving the han­ dicapped students in i t s school is related to the fin a n c ia l formula fo r reimbursement o f special education programs. Under th is fo r ­ mula, the f u ll- tim e equivalency fo r special education students is subtracted from the to ta l cost o f the program by the amount o f the prorated membership money behind each student. tio n fo r students served by support service. There is no deduc­ The d i s t r i c t would then receive the state reimbursement behind each c h ild in it s general education count and the student could be spending up to h a lf his time receiving supportive services. 59 A percentage o f time spent in general education can be calculated fo r s ta tio n a ry classroom programs in special education because both number served and f u ll- tim e equivalency fig u re s are reported on the SE-4061 forms. One cannot, however, ca lcu la te from these fig u re s how many students in the special education classes are integrated in to general education; i . e . , a special education class could have 15 learning disabled students w ith a f u ll- tim e equivalency o f 10 students. One does not know from th is informa­ tio n whether a ll 15 students are spending pa rt o f th e ir day in general education classrooms or i f three students are spending most o f th e ir day in general education classes. With these problems considered, the analysis o f the in fo r ­ mation from the SE-4061 forms is re fle c te d in Table D1 (see Appendix D). Because tra in a b le m entally impaired, severely m entally impaired and severely m u ltip ly impaired students are usu ally not housed in reg ular p u b lic schools or integrated in to general educa­ tio n classrooms, these fig u re s are not included in the a n a lysis. Speech impaired students are included but are not added in to to ta l special education students. Speech impaired students are not con­ sidered special education students by any Michigan d is t r ic t s 1n th e ir m u ltip le count fig u re s . The Denver Plan fo r m u ltip le count o f special students does, however, include these students. Because th is Plan w i ll be considered 1n th is study and is being considered by several school d is t r ic t s 1n th is s ta te , the speech Impaired fig u re s were Included. Two d is t r ic t s , Bloom field H ills and Grosse P ointe, had reported in te g ra tio n o f tra in a b le m entally impaired 60 students. These fig u re s are therefore included in th e ir special education to ta ls . The f i r s t column in Table D1 (see Appendix D) is the number o f students reported in s ta tio n a ry classroom u n its . The next column is the number o f fu ll- tim e equivalencies fo r special edu­ ca tio n . From these fig u re s , the th ir d column was derived. This column in d ica te s the percentage o f time th a t the special education students spend in general education. "Support S ervice." The fo u rth column is labeled The "Total Special Education Students" column was a rrive d a t by adding special education students in column one to Support Service, column fo u r, excluding speech therapy. The la s t column was added to show the to ta l school population in re la tio n to the to ta l special education population. These fig u re s were not from Form SE-4061 but were found in The Michigan Education D ire cto ry Buyer's Guide 1976-1977. Analysis o f Contracts The same 142 school d is t r ic t s included in the analysis o f special education Form 4061 were used fo r the analysis o f co n tra cts. Most o f these contracts were reviewed a t the Michigan Education Association o ffic e s in Lansing, Michigan. There were, however, several contracts not Included in the MEA f ile s . The school d is ­ t r ic t s whose contracts were not included 1n the MEA f ile s were con­ tacted and 1n many cases copies o f the contracts were obtained. Contracts fo r the fo llo w in g d is t r ic t s were not obtainable and are 61 therefore not included in th is survey: 2D Garden C ity and Romulus, 5B Parchment, 7A Hazel Park, 15B McBain, Lake C ity , and Kalkaska. In a ll cases the contract th a t the d i s t r i c t was operating under during the 1976-1977 school year was included in the an alysis. Some school d is t r ic t s , however, may have been working under a 1974 or 1975 contract during th a t period; th e re fo re , the dates o f the con tract are included in Table 1. The contracts were analyzed fo r any provisions th a t would possibly a ffe c t the mainstreaming o f special education students in to general education. Review o f the contracts revealed th a t much o f the language used was the same or very s im ila r. Two c la s s if i­ ca tio n s, "P rotection o f Teachers" and "Special Student Programs," contained much o f the standard language p e rta in in g to special edu­ cation students. Because there was so much inform ation to c la s s ify , the data were divided in to seven categories. P rote ction o f Teachers and Special Student Programs were two o f the categories used. Others were No S p e cific Mention and Defined Provisions o f PA-198, the mandatory special education law. Class Size was used as a head­ ing fo r contracts th a t ca lle d fo r the w eighting o f special education students o r mentioned reduction in classes th a t included special education students. Three d is t r ic t s s p e c ific a lly talke d about low group o r special category schools having a reduction in enrollm ents. Because many o f the handicapped students are Included in these groups, these schools were counted under Class Size. Study Com­ m ittees were often re fe rre d to in contracts and were used in the schools to solve b u ild in g problems; consequently, Study Committees 62 was included as another category. The la s t column, O ther, was used fo r a ll co n tra ct p ro visio n s th a t could a ffe c t mainstreaming and d id not f a l l under one o f the oth er s ix categories. With P rotection o f Teachers, Study Committee and Special Student Programs ca te g o rie s, examples o f co n tra ct language are given. Where an a s te ris k appears under the category heading, a fu rth e r explanation fo llo w s the ta b le . Class Size uses an "R" to represent reduction in class size and where a s p e c ific weight fo r each special education student is included in the c o n tra c t, the number o f student count is lis te d . P rote ction o f Teachers is broken in to three categories: A, B, and C. Each uses a standard co n tra c t p ro v is io n , which precedes Table 1. An explanation o f nonstandard language used under th is category fo llo w s the ta b le . These pro visions are in d i­ cated by an a s te ris k as they are under oth er categories th a t need fu rth e r explanation. 1977-78 N ego tiatio n Survey The survey o f n e g o tia tio n s f o r the 1977-78 school year concerning mainstreaming o f special education students began in August, 1977, and the in te rvie w s continued through the f a l l o f 1977. The 142 school d is t r ic t s are represented by 38 UniServ D ire c to rs . One UniServ D ire c to r represents a l l d i s t r i c t s in d ica te d by the same number and le t t e r . re p re se n ta tive s. I t was possible to contact on ly 34 o f the 38 Each o f the rep re se n ta tive s f i r s t received a copy o f the survey questions, along w ith an in tro d u c to ry le t t e r 63 and a response sheet to In d ic a te when they would be a v a ila b le f o r a telephone discussion. I f the rep re se n ta tive did not want a t e le ­ phone o r personal in te rv ie w , he was to f i l l and re tu rn in the enclosed envelope. returned by m a il. in the questionnaire Twelve survey sheets were Six response sheets w ith dates and times set fo r a personal in te rv ie w o r phone c a ll were returned. in te rvie w s were conducted. ducted. Two personal Twenty telephone in te rvie w s were con­ In some instances several attempts to c a ll the UniServ D ire c to rs were needed to make the con tact. A ll in te rvie w s follow ed the questionnaire form at but some rep rese ntative s had much to add to the responses. Many o f them had much to say about a d m in is tra tiv e p o lic y and problems o f nego­ t ia t in g in th e ir respective school d is t r ic t s . The in fo rm atio n gathered from these in te rvie w s is re fle c te d by quoting the responses o f the UniServ D ire cto rs to the questions on the form in some instances. Questions re q u irin g "Yes" or "No" responses are given in numbers o f responses. Many o f the repre­ se n ta tive s gave s im ila r responses to many o f the questions but d i f ­ fered to such e x te n t, some being unique, th a t they are not counted and are arranged on ly as p e rtin e n t, quoted answers to the questions. From the responses i t is hoped th a t the reader w i l l get the general fe e lin g o f the rep rese ntative s o f the teaching s ta ffs o f the Included school d is t r ic t s . D e tro it was not Included in th is survey. Because i t is a f f i l i a t e d w ith the AFT, there is no UniServ D ire c to r representing t h is area. Ann Marie Ruder, Executive Board Member f o r the D e tro it 64 Federation o f Teachers, spoke a t U n iv e rs ity o f M ichigan's In s t it u t e on The Impact and Im p lic a tio n s o f State and Federal L e g is la tio n A ffe c tin g Handicapped In d iv id u a ls . Miss Ruder's to p ic was "The Impact and Im p lic a tio n s o f L e g is la tio n on C o lle c tiv e B arg aining ." Included in her presentation were answers to most o f the questions asked on the survey. While atten ding the in s t it u t e , the researcher talked fu r th e r w ith Miss Ruder about th is survey and the re s u lts o f her survey answers w i l l be tre a te d separately. 65 References—Chapter I I I Pamphlet Michigan Education D ire c to ry and Buyers Guide 1976-1977. Michigan: 1977. Lansing, Unpublished Work Ruder, Ann Marie. "The Impact and Im p lica tio n s o f L e g is la tio n on C o lle c tiv e B a rg aining ." Address to the U n iv e rs ity o f M ichigan's I n s t it u t e on The Impact and Im p lic a tio n s o f State and Federal L e g is la tio n A ffe c tin g Handicapped In d i­ v id u a ls , Ann Arbor, Michigan, May 1977. CHAPTER IV RESULTS This chapter is d ivid e d in to three major p o rtio n s : (1) Analysis o f Mainstreamed Handicapped Students, (2) Analysis o f C ontract Items A ffe c tin g Mainstreaming and (3) Results o f Survey on Forthcoming N egotiations A ffe c tin g Mainstreaming. Analysis o f Mainstreamed Handicapped Students An an a lysis o f mainstreamed handicapped students in 142 lo ca l d is t r ic t s and 19 interm ediate school d i s t r i c t s is shown in Table D1. (See Appendix D.) In Chapter I I I the methodology used in o b ta in in g th is in fo rm atio n is described. The to ta l special education population ranges from 4 to 7,716, w ith only 15 lo c a l d is t r ic t s having no special education programs. Of the 146 school d is t r ic t s w ith special education programs, only three Interm ediate d i s t r ic t s and two small lo c a l d is t r ic t s have no mainstreaming o f special education students. While some d is t r ic t s did not mainstream students from a l l o f th e ir special education classrooms, other d is t r ic t s had students from special education rooms spending up to 99 percent o f t h e ir tim e in general education. 66 67 An a n a lysis o f type o f special program and populations 1n the 161 school d is t r ic t s (shown in Figures 1 and 2) re fle c ts 119 d is t r ic t s schools. had 14,793 educable m entally impaired students in t h e ir One hundred th irte e n d is t r ic t s had a to ta l o f 9,635 le a rn in g disabled students in th e ir schools. Em otionally impaired students werethe th ir d la rg e s t population w ith 3,010 students in 92 d is t r ic t s . P h y s ic a lly and otherwise health Impaired students numbered 3,369 in 46 school d is t r ic t s . T h ir ty - s ix d is t r ic t s had programs f o r 2,178 hearing impaired students. V ision Impaired students numbered 908 and were found in 30 d is t r ic t s . Two d is t r ic t s in te ­ grated tra in a b le m entally impaired students. There were 53 students in th is special education category. N ine ty-thre e d is t r ic t s had programing f o r a to ta l o f 33,505 speech impaired students. There was a to ta l o f 38,946 special education students re ce ivin g services in 142 school d i s t r i c t s . impaired po pu la tion . This to ta l d id not r e f le c t the speech The 19 Interm ediate d is t r ic t s do not run K-12 re g u la r education programs; th e re fo re t h e ir special education num­ bers were housed w ith in the lo c a l schools and are Included 1n the 38,946 fig u re . C ontract Items A ffe c tin g Mainstreaming Of the 135 co n tra cts analyzed, 24 contained items a ffe c tin g mainstreaming In the area o f Class S ize. E ight mentioned reduction In class size when spe cia l education c h ild re n were Integ rated In to re g u la r classes. Nine d i s t r i c t s had a weighted formula f o r special education students. Three s p e c ifie d the number o f students as a 120 (93) 100 (92) S P E E C H E l E M I L D - -E d u c a b le M e n t a lly Im p a ir e d L e a r n in g D is a b le d S P E E C H - S p e e c h D is a b le d E l - E m o t io n a lly Im p a ir e d P O H I - P h y s ic a lly a n d O t h e r w is e H e a lt h 80 Im p a ir e d H I - H e a r in g Im p a ir e d V I - V is io n I m p a ir e d T M I - T r a in a b le M e n t a lly Im p a ir e d 60 o\ CD (46) P O H I 40 (36) H I (30) V I 20 (2) T M I I i i ■ ■ ■ ■ Figure 1 .—One hundred fo rty-tw o school d is tr ic ts w ith programs mainstreaming handicapped students: Fourth Friday 1976. 35000 ( 33.505) 30000 E M I - Educablr M entally Im paired L D ■ Learning Disabled SPEECH - Speeth Im paired E l- E m otionally Im paired P O III - Physically and Otherwise Health Impaired 23000 H I - Hearing Im paired V I - Vision Im paired T M I - Trainable M entally Im paired 20000 at 10 ( 14. 793) 13000 EMI ( 9. 635) 10000 LiL (8.010) El Jp O h nnn f (3.369) PO H I I f2. 178) ( 908) jp o o VI <33) TM I Figure 2 .—Handicapped students in 142 school d is tr ic ts : Fourth Friday 1976. 70 maximum f o r classes o f students re fe rre d to as low group students or special category schools. Eleven d i s t r i c t s lis t e d special c o n tra c t language concerning class s iz e . This spe cia l language is lis t e d a fte r Table 1 w ith the school d i s t r i c t a ffe c te d . Seventy-one d i s t r i c t s had items under P ro te c tio n o f Teachers category. There were thre e s p e c ific c o n tra c t language paragraphs labeled A, B, or C under th is heading, which fo llo w s Table 1. d i s t r i c t had only paragraph A. A and B. One Twenty d i s t r i c t s had both paragraph T h ir t y - f iv e had paragraph B. Eleven contained paragraph C and nine had a d d itio n a l non-standard language which is explained fo llo w in g Table 1. Twenty-two d is t r ic t s had e sta b lish e d Study Committees which could pursue b u ild in g problems th a t could in clu d e the problem o f mainstreaming. F ifte e n con tra cts mentioned the S tate Mandatory Special Education A ct (PA-198). T h irty -n in e o f the 135 d i s t r i c t s had no s p e c ific language th a t could a ffe c t mainstreaming. Twenty-three d i s t r i c t s had c o n tra c t language under the Special Student Program heading. Twenty-one o f the 23 c o n tra c ts used the standard language paragraph preceding Table 1 f o r th is p ro v is io n . T h irty -tw o d i s t r i c t s had c o n tra c t language and items th a t could not be c la s s ifie d under the s ix headings mentioned. items are included under the heading O th er. These Each o f these d i s t r i c t s 71 is lis t e d a f t e r Table 1 and each item is explained under the d is ­ t r i c t named. Standard Language Used in NEA Teacher C ontracts P ro te c tio n o f Teachers: A. The Board fu r th e r recognizes th a t the teacher may not f a i r l y be expected to assume the ro le o f warden or custodian fo r e m o tio n a lly d is tu rb e d students nor to be charged w ith the respon­ s i b i l i t y f o r psychotherapy. B. Whenever i t appears th a t a p a r tic u la r p u p il re q u ire s the a tte n tio n o f spe cia l counselors, s o c ia l w orkers, law en force­ ment personnel, physicians or o th e r p ro fe ssio n a l persons, the p r in ­ c ip a l w i l l take reasonable steps to a s s is t the teacher w ith respect to such p u p il. However, the p rin c ip a l w i l l take immediate steps to r e fe r th e student to the a p p ro p ria te agency upon w r itte n n o t if ic a ­ tio n o f the teacher. C. Whenever i t is the o p in io n o f the classroom teacher i t appears th a t the s e rv ic e o f a spe cia l p ro fe ssio n a l personnel is needed the p rin c ip a l w i l l see th a t the c h ild is re fe rre d through e sta b lish e d r e fe r r a l procedures f o r the s e rv ic e . The p rin c ip a l s h a ll keep the r e fe r r in g teacher informed o f the progress o f the r e f e r r a l. Study Committee: This study committee 1s e sta b lish e d f o r the purpose o f review ing m atters a ffe c tin g teacher personnel and f o r m a in ta in in g re g u la r communication between a s s o c ia tio n and a d m in is tra tio n . The 72 committee s h a ll be composed o f s ix a sso cia tio n members appointed by and in c lu d in g the p re sid e n t and s ix re p re se n ta tive s o f the adm inis­ t r a t io n appointed by and in c lu d in g the superintendent. Ad hoc subcommittees may be created and supervised by a d m in is tra tio n a s s o c ia tio n study committee to consider s p e c ific problems. Special Student Program: The p a rtie s recognize th a t c h ild re n having special p h y s ic a l, mental and emotional problems may re q u ire s p e cia lize d classroom experience and th a t t h e ir presence in the re g u la r classroom may in te r fe r e w ith the normal in s tr u c tio n a l program and place e x tra ­ o rd in a ry and u n fa ir demands upon the teacher. A ctio n w i l l be taken to meet t h e ir spe cia l needs. A ll the standard language p ro visio n s lis te d above were also found in the study by Corey (1975). Corey's study included the c o n tra cts o f 68 Michigan school d i s t r i c t s during the 1969-70 school yea r. He analyzed the 68 co n tra cts f o r a l l spe cia l education pro­ v is io n s . Table 1 .--Analysis o f items in negotiated contracts a ffe ctin g mainstreaming. School D is tr ic t ^D etroit Contract Date Class Size Protection o f Teachers 75-77 Study Comm. Defi ned Provisions PA-198 No Specific Mention Special Student Oth< Program * X X * X * 2A Livonia 75-77 2 2A N o rth v ille 76-79 2B Grosse Pointe 76-79 2 ★ 2B -Warper Woods 75-77 2C Wayne-Westland 76-79 B* 2F Grosse li e 76-79 B 2F Riverview 72-76 2F Trenton 75-77 X 2F Wyandotte 75-76 X 2G Plymouth 76-79 X * 2G Van Buren 76-79 X * 21 A llen Park 75-79 *R X * 21 Lincoln Park 73-77 *R * * 21 River Rouge 74-76 X 3AB Columbia 75-77 X 3AB Concord 75-77 B 3AB East Jackson 76-77 B A B X X * X * B X Table 1 .—Continued. School D is tr ic t Contract Date Class Size Protection o f Teachers Study Comm. Defined Provisions PA-198 No S pecific Mention 3AB Grass Lake 76-77 3AB Hanover Horton 75-77 LG-19 3AB Jackson 75-77 2 3AB Michigan Center 75-77 3AB Napoleon 74-76 3AB Northwest 75-77 3AB Springport 76-78 3AB Vandercook Lake 74-76 3AB Western 76-77 3C Ann Arbor 75-78 4A Albion 76-78 4A B a ttle Creek 76-79 4A Del ton-Kellogg 76-78 B 4A Hastings 76-78 B 4A Thornapple-Kellogg 74-77 A B 5A Kalamazoo 76-78 5B Climax-Scotts 76-78 X 5B Comstock 75-77 X 5B Galesburg-Augusta 76-78 Special Student Other Program X B ★ * A B X LG-22 B X *R * B SCS-26 X X X * AB X *R B* B * X X * Table 1 .—Continued. School D is tric t C°Si*aCt cU$S oP™‘ ec« ° " Date Size f Teachers H rn«wn Defined Provisions pA_lg 8 No S pecific Mentio n 5B Gull Lake 76-78 5B Schoolcraft 75-77 x 5B Vicksburg 76-78 x 6A Warren 76-78 6F Anchor Bay 74-77 6F L'Anse Creuse 75-77 6F Mt. Clemens 76-77 7A Clawson 73-76 7A Ferndale 76-78 7A Troy 75-77 7 tLamphere 73-76 7B Birmingham 75-77 2* 7C Pontiac 76-78 2 7D Southfield 76-77 *R 7E Waterford 75-77 7F Royal Oak 76-79 7G Farmington 76-77 7H Bloomfield H ills 76-79 7H Rochester 76-77 Special Student Other Program B A B *x B B * X * X B X C X ★ * 2 C X Table 1 .—Continued. School n-sr D is tr ic t Contract Date Class Protection S1ze o f Teachers 8A Lansing 76-79 8B Dansville 76-77 B 8B East Lansing 75-77 A B 8B H aslett 76-77 C 8B Holt 76-79 8B Leslie 76-78 8B Mason 74-78 8B Okemos 76-78 8B Williamston 76-77 9A Grand Rapids 74-77 9B Godfrey-Lee 74-76 B 9B Godwin Heights 74-76 C 9B G randville 74-77 9B K e llo g g sville 75-77 9B Wyoming 76-79 3 <.. . r/Jnm x Defined No Provisions S pecific PA-198 Mention Special Student Other Program * x * x * V J 10A f F lin t 10B Carmen M I-2 * PI-3 B X R* B X A B X 75-77 75-78 os B* X A B X * X Table 1 . —Continued. School D is tr ic t Contract Date Class Size Protection o f Teachers Study Comm. 10B Grand Blanc 76-78 X 11A Sagi naw 76-79 X 11B Bridgeport 76-78 11B Buena Vista 76-78 11B Birch Run 75-78 11B Carol1ton 74-77 A B 11B Freeland 75-78 C 11B Saginaw Township 75-77 12A Bay C ity 75-78 12B Midland 76-77 13C Muskegon 76-80 13C Muskegon Heights 75-77 13C North Muskegon 76-77 13C Reeths-Puffer 74-77 14A A1cona 75-77 14A A1pena 76-79 14A A tlanta 76-77 14A Fairview 75-78 Defined Provisions PA-198 No S pecific Mention Special Student Other Program X * X B * X * 2 * X B X X R* B X A B X C X Table 1 .--Continued. o hnni m e tn v tt School D is tr ic Contract f\*x^ * Date Class Protection Study f T/\^/>Uftw*F p -..u Provisions Sp&ciTic Student Other n+hn»* Size o f Teachers Coran. pA_]98 M^ntion Program 14A Hillman 74-77 B 14A JohannesburgLewiston 75-77 A B 14A Mio AuSable 75-76 X 14A Onaway 75-76 X 14A Rogers C ity 74-75 A B 15B Buckley 75-78 B 15B Cadillac 75-77 X 15B Kingsley 75-77 X 15B Mesick 75-77 X 15B Pine River 76-77 X 15B Gerrish-Higgins 76-79 C 16A Big Bay de Noc 76-78 B 16A Brimley 76-77 B 16A Detour 76-77 A B 16A Engadine 76-77 C 16A Les Cheneaux 76-77 X 16A Manistique 76-77 X Table 1. —Continued. School Ots t r ic t Contract ^ Class Size Protection o f Teachers 16A Pickford 76-77 16A Rudyard 76-77 A B 16A Sault Ste. Marie 76-77 A B* 16A St. Ignace 76-77 B 16A Tahquamenon 76-77 16A W hitefish 75-77 17A Gwinn 76-78 B Ishpeming C ity 76-78 A B 17A Marquette C ity 75-78 17A Munising 75-77 A 17A Negaunee 76-78 A B 17A N.I.C.E. 75-77 C 17A Republi c-Mi chi gamme 76-78 B 17A Rock 76-77 B 17A Rock River 75-77 ISA Adams Township 76-77 B ISA 75-76 B 17A Baraga rnmm comm. Defined Provisions PA. 198 No S pecific Mention Special Student Other Program * * u> X X * Table 1 .--Continued. School D is tr ic t Contract Date Class Size Protection o f Teachers Study Comm. Defined Provisions PA-198 No S pecific Mention ISA Calumet 76-77 C ISA Chassell Township 74-75 A B 18A Forest Park 76-77 18A Hancock 74-77 C ISA L'Anse 76-77 A B ISA Lake Linden 76-77 ISA Osceola Township 75-76 18A Portage Township 76-77 ISA Stanton Township 76-77 X ISA West Iron County 76-79 X Total *R Special Student Other Program X A B X * X B 24 71 X 22 tAFT. ♦S pecific information on th is category follow s the table. 15 39 23 32 81 Class Size 2B Grosse Pointe When and where such students (meaning students who during 1972-73 were attending a self-contained adjusted learning class) are placed in the normal classroom, the Board sh a ll attempt to assign only one such student per classroom. In the event i t is necessary to exceed th is li m it o f one such student, the Board agrees th a t class size , when appropriate, w ill be reduced and th a t added support and assistance sh a ll be given the teacher w ith respect to s u ita b le le arn ing m aterials and/or teacher aides. The Board agrees to continue to seek methods o f expanding appropriate programs to serve such c h ild re n . 3C Ann Arbor Class size 1n the elementary schools sh a ll not exceed 30 students or 26 students in special category schools. Special category schools sh a ll be id e n tifie d by c r it e r ia in clu din g but not lim ite d to : id e n tifie d behavioral problems, peer acceptance, id e n tifie d home problems, rates o f absenteeism, le ve ls o f academic achievement, physical handicaps. These c r it e r ia are subject to examination and change upon mutual agreement o f the p a rtie s . 6F Mt. Clemens The severely handicapped c h ild s h a ll be considered as more than one student when re fe rrin g to class size . Those classes recognized by the a d m in istra tio n and teachers as containing a m a jo rity o f ch ild re n w ith exceptional learning d i f f ic u lt ie s w i ll 82 be lim ite d to o n e -h a lf the number as shown in a r t ic le 7-c. The philosophy o f reduced class o ffe rin g s w i ll be follow ed when i t has been determined th a t the class sizes are c o n s is te n tly too large. 7B Birmingham Each ca te g o rica l learning disabled elementary student s h a ll be considered by the Board to be two students in s ta ffin g p o s itio n s and/or purposes o f assigning students. I f class size exceeds 15 percent rounded to the highest whole student o f those established herein, and the secondary te a ch e r's d a ily class load exceeds 167 as set fo r th above, one o f the fo llo w in g a lte rn a tiv e s o r oth e r s im ila r a lte rn a tiv e s w i ll be implemented by the superin­ tendent: (a) Employ an aide, sectio ns, (b) H ire another teacher, (d) Balance sections, ( f ) $80.00 per p u p il per semester. (c) S p lit (e) A djust assignments. Other so lu tio n s may be accept­ able to the teacher and the superintendent. 7D S o u th fie ld In schools o r classes containing high concentration o f students w ith special le a rn in g problems, class s iz e s h a ll be reduced to a number which perm its optimum le a rn in g o p p o rtu n itie s fo r such p u p ils . The b u ild in g curriculum council s h a ll develop, coo rdina te , and implement programs f o r them. These m atters sh a ll be communicated to the a s s is ta n t superintendent in charge o f cu r­ riculum . I f a d d itio n a l funds are necessary, a recommendation s h a ll be made to the a d m in is tra tio n f o r approval by the Board. 83 7F Royal Oak Whenever a classroom has more than one mainstreamed special education o r SPERT p u p il, the teacher may apply f o r r e l ie f . The r e l i e f or assistance may include but not be lim ite d to the help o f a te a ch e r's a id e , removing the a d d itio n a l students from the classroom, or providing th a t teacher more m a te ria ls and equipment. Special Student Programs D etroi t Item 4: In the event a student is id e n tifie d by an Educa­ tio n a l Planning and Placement Committee as e lig ib le fo r Special Education services and is assigned to oth er than f u ll- t im e , s e lfcontained special education classrooms ( i . e . , mainstreamed), the fo llo w in g s h a ll occur: 4.1 The teacher s h a ll be made aware o f the placement o f a mainstreamed student. 4.2 The teacher s h a ll receive a l l possible assistance, advice, and m a te ria ls r e la tiv e to the needs o f the mainstreamed student. 4.3 The teacher sh a ll receive a l l p e rtin e n t in fo rm a tio n and be involved 1n educational decisions about the mainstreamed student. 4.4 Mainstreamed students sh a ll count as two (2) in a llo c a tin g s t a f f to b u ild in g s . 4.5 As n e a rly as p o ssib le , mainstreamed students s h a ll be balanced among teachers in a b u ild in g . Item 5: In the event th a t a c h ild re fe rre d fo r Special Education services Is determined not e lig ib le f o r such s e rv ic e , the classroom teacher s h a ll receive p e rtin e n t data, suggestions 84 and advice from the Educational Planning and Placement Committee and from oth e r appropriate supportive personnel. Item 6: In the event th a t the c h ild does not q u a lify fo r a Special Education program or se rv ic e , the teacher sh a ll receive a ll possible assistance, advice and se rvice from o th e r personnel to a s s is t in meeting the needs o f the c h ild . Some c h ild re n need tu to rin g , some should be in special classes, others need special resource teachers. Only those w ith minor handicaps w i ll be expected to succeed in re g u la r classroom s itu a tio n s . Item 7: The Board and the A ssociation recognize th a t there must be increased development o f programs to meet the needs o f students w ith academic d i f f i c u l t i e s not o f a nature to q u a lify them fo r Special Education se rvice s, but severe enough to markedly im pair t h e ir progress in the classroom. As an i n i t i a l step in dealing w ith the problems o f these students, the Board agrees to develop a p i lo t program in the 1976-77 school year designed to meet the needs o f these students. This program would be able to a s s is t students w ith d e fic ie n c ie s w ith o u t the necessity o f the formal screening procedure required under the Mandatory Special Education Act. This program w i l l be m u tu a lly agreeable to the Board and the A ssociation. This p i lo t program w i l l be implemented a t the onset o f the 1977-78 school year. 21 Lincoln Park Students w ith such a h is to ry who have been evaluated by special services departments w i l l be evenly d is trib u te d as f a r as 85 p o ssib le among the experienced teachers o f the a ffe c te d grade in each b u ild in g . Newly h ire d , inexperienced teachers s h a ll not be assigned such students w ith o u t v a lid and demonstrable reasons. A teacher requesting the tra n s fe r o f a student who he believes has a p h y s ic a l, m ental, or emotional problem, p re v io u s ly u n id e n tifie d , w i l l f i r s t r e fe r the student to the special services department f o r e v a lu a tio n . In the event th a t the request f o r tra n s fe r is denied, the teacher s h a ll have the r ig h t to have a conference w ith the p r in c ip a l, counselor, and/or ap p ro p ria te special services pe r­ sonnel . 6F Mt. Clemens In the event th a t such a c h ild is to be placed in a regu­ la r classroom, the fo llo w in g p ro v is io n s s h a ll be made: (1) The c h ild w i l l be placed in the re g u la r classroom upon the te a c h e r's f u l l knowledge and understanding o f the c h ild 's handicap. (2) The teacher w i l l be supplied w ith adequate m a te ria ls and s p e c ia liz e d equipment needed f o r the proper education o f the c h ild possessing a handicap, as determined by EPPC. (3) The services o f a c o n s u lta n t, who is a s p e c ia lis t in the s p e c ific area handicap, w i ll be made a v a ila b le to the classroom teacher. (4) The severely handicapped c h ild s h a ll be considered as more than one student when re fe rr in g to cla ss s iz e . 16A Big Bay de Noc Teachers b e lie v in g th a t such students are assigned to t h e ir classrooms may request t h e ir tra n s fe r and s h a ll present 86 arguments f o r such request to the a d m in is tra tio n , whose d e cisio n s h a ll be f in a l. However, the d e cisio n may be appealed by the teacher o rg a n iz a tio n by p la cin g i t on the agenda f o r the next Board meeting. The Board, recognizing the need f o r s p e c ia liz e d programs f o r such stud en ts, s h a ll implement such programs as soon as money and personnel are a v a ila b le in the d i s t r i c t . 18A Adams Township Such assignments w i l l be made when econom ically and educa­ t io n a lly fe a s ib le and w ith the concurrence o f the teacher in v o lv e d . Special a tte n tio n w i l l be given to reducing class siz e when special students are placed in a re g u la r classroom. P ro te c tio n o f Teachers 2C Wa.yne-Westland The proposed re c e iv in g teacher may, f o r ju s t and demonstrable cause, refu se to accept the special services c lie n t in h is /h e r regu­ la r classroom; lik e w is e , said teacher may, f o r ju s t and demonstrable cause, exclude a mainstream special se rvice s c lie n t from h is /h e r classroom subsequent to placement. F ollow ing a re c e iv in g te a c h e r's re fu s a l to accept o r d e cision to exclude a spe cia l services c lie n t , said teacher w i l l meet w ith an a s s is ta n t sup erinten de nt f o r student re la tio n s f o r the purpose o f e x p la in in g h is /h e r causes f o r such a c tio n . The a s s is ta n t superintendent s h a ll make a d e te rm in a tio n on the a ffe c te d te a c h e r's cause w ith in f iv e school days o f the date o f the above described meeting. I f h is d e te rm in a tio n is th a t the 87 teacher has f a ile d to show ju s t and demonstrable cause, the sp e cia l s e rvice s c lie n t may be placed in the a ffe c te d te a c h e r's classroom , in which case the A s s o c ia tio n may appeal d ir e c t ly through the American A r b itr a t io n A s s o c ia tio n in accord w ith i t s ru le s o f expedited a r b it r a t io n . The a r b it r a t o r 's d e c is io n s h a ll be f in a l and b in d in g . 3A and B Jackson The teacher not having sp e cia l education p re p a ra tio n w i l l no t be given the r e s p o n s ib ility f o r the care and in s tr u c tio n f o r a le g a lly c e r t if ie d e m o tio n a lly d is tu rb e d , m e n ta lly re ta rd ed o r s e v e re ly handicapped c h ild . Exceptions may be made when the c h ild 's b e h a vio ra l p a tte rn s have been c o n tro lle d and the se rvice s o f a c o n s u lta n t are a v a ila b le and the mutual o p in io n o f the c o n s u lta n t and th a t o f the c h ild 's teacher and p rin c ip a l are th a t he can fu n c tio n in a normal c la s s s e ttin g . 3A and B Western The tea che r s h a ll discuss the behavior o f the p a r tic u la r s tu d e n t w ith h is /h e r p r in c ip a l, make o u t proper r e f e r r a l form s, and meet w ith and c o n trib u te to any arranged EPPC m eeting. In the assignment o f students where an EPPC has in d ic a te d e s p e c ia lly heavy demands on the te a ch e rs, the fo llo w in g w i l l be considered: 1. Reducing o f cla ss s iz e . 2. S u p p o rtive a ssista n ce a v a ila b le to the teacher. 3. T ra in in g , in t e r e s t , experience o f the te a ch e r. 88 8B 4. The clim ate th a t w ill provide the best p o s s ib ilitie s o f success fo r the student. 5. The options th a t are ava ilab le. East Lansing, Okemos The pupil removed from the classroom shall not be returned thereto except upon the mutual agreement o f the school psychologist (p rim a rily employed by a local or county school d i s t r i c t ) , bu ildin g p rin c ip a l and teacher. 8B Leslie The Board recognizes it s re s p o n s ib ility to give a ll reason­ able support and assistance to teachers w ith respect to maintenance o f control and d is c ip lin e in the classroom. I t is likew ise recog­ nized th a t there may be cases where the service and/or a u th o rity o f personnel not normally on school payroll w ill need to be employed to serve the best in te re s t o f students. 12A Bay C it y The Board recognizes th a t i t is not fe a sib le fo r regular teachers to accept the re s p o n s ib ility fo r in s tru c tin g pupils who need special a tte n tio n or treatm ent; the p rin c ip a l w ill re fe r the case to the d ire c to r o f special education fo r action as o u tlin ed in the ad m in istrative procedures. 89 Other D e tro it Handicapped Children: State and federal funds shall be used to make special edu­ cation classes an in te g ra l part o f the D e tro it summer school program. Special education teachers w ill continue to be a le r t fo r children who appear to be able to return to regular grade or appear to be in need o f a d iffe re n t special education placement. Upon the recommendation o f a special education teacher, such ch ild re n , regardless o f the period o f time in the special education program, shall w ith in one semester of the recommendation be re-evaluated and/or retested and categorized in terms o f emotional, academic, and technical fa c to rs . Pursuant to such re-evaluation and/or re te stin g the pupil w ill then be ap pro priately placed. In-service tra in in g : The Board, upon recommendation o f the superintendent, w ill authorize additional in -s e rv ic e tra in in g workshops and meet­ ings to be conducted p rio r to and subsequent to the implementation o f new approaches to the teaching o f any subject. Regular teachers o f the subject, in clu din g special edu­ cation teachers, shall be given p r io r it y in these selections o f personnel fo r such workshops and meetings. teachers may also apply. R e lie f and resource 90 Improvement o f F a c ilitie s : Because of the co n fid e n tia l nature o f the services pro­ vided by supportive personnel, i . e . , social workers, psychologists, speech th e ra p is ts , and special education consultant s t a f f , each school shall provide, where appropriate, p riva te in te rvie w space and the use o f telephone service in a private s e ttin g fo r such supportive personnel. 2A Livonia Supportive personnel such as school social worker, psy­ c h o lo g is t, learning s p e c ia lis t, helping teachers and other approp­ r ia te personnel from the department o f pupil personnel service w ill be provided w ith in budgetary lim its . I t is normal th a t a small percentage o f these children may be present in any cla ss­ room, but occasionally there are extraordinary demands required o f classroom teachers because o f excessive number o f such c h ild re n , the se ve rity o f th e ir problems, or the in a b ilit y to make immediate placement in a special classroom. I f a fte r exhausting a ll recog­ nized avenues to minimize the extraordinary requirements in these s itu a tio n s , the teacher fe e ls more help is needed, a request may be made to the p rin c ip a l fo r the d ire c to r o f pupil personnel ser­ vice to in it ia t e a complete evaluation o f the s itu a tio n and take a d dition al appropriate action to reduce the extraordinary demands, i f such fu rth e r action is found needed. 91 2B Grosse Pointe No teacher s h a ll be required to adm inister any f i r s t aid or medication prescribed fo r a student. I t is the re s p o n s ib ility o f the teacher to exercise reasonable p ro te c tiv e a tte n tio n to a student and take immediate steps to n o tify the proper a u th o ritie s in the event o f a student in ju ry . Professional Growth Standards: Advancement from steps 4, 7, 10 o f the several schedules s h a ll only be possible by demon­ s tra tin g evidence o f professional growth. The s a tis fa c to ry com­ p le tio n o f a workshop o r other s im ila r experience which may not o ffe r college c re d it but which can be shown to bring d ire c t value to his teaching assignment, provided th is experience can be shown to be equivalent to a college course. 21 River Rouge No teacher sh a ll be required to earn a d d itio n a l c re d it hours as a condition o f m aintaining tenure or employment under the River Rouge tenure p o lic y . 2C Wayne Westland In -se rvice tr a in in g : When a student who has been id e n ti­ fie d as a special services c lie n t is mainstreamed in to a reg ular classroom, the receiving teacher s h a ll receive frequent and appropriate In -s e rv ic e tra in in g 1n advance o f the placement o f the special services c lie n t. In a d d itio n , the Board agrees to provide adequate on-going consultant services f o r the re ce ivin g teacher. 92 Paraprofessionals: The Board agrees to provide para- professionals to a s s is t special education teachers as sp e cifie d in P ublic Act 198. S u b stitu te s: The Board agrees to make every e f f o r t to provide q u a lifie d s u b s titu te s fo r special services paraprofessionals who are absent from t h e ir duty. 2F Riverview Emotional and D is c ip lin e Problems: Teachers are expected to n o tify the p rin c ip a l o f any student who may be em otionally disturbed or a severe d is c ip lin e problem. Procedures to be f o l ­ lowed by the p rin c ip a l sh a ll conform w ith the e x is tin g adminis­ tr a t iv e p o lic ie s , which w ill include e a rly psychological support and social work assistance and serious consideration o f the removal o f such p u p ils from the class. 2G Plymouth and Van Buren The Board acknowledges th a t exceptional ch ild re n re q u ire special education. Therefore, the Board agrees to continue the p o s itio n o f expanding appropriate programs to serve such c h ild re n . 21 A lle n Park Whenever possib le , special students s h a ll not be placed in the regular classroom o f a newly employed, inexperienced teacher. 21 Lincoln Park Students from special education classes w ill be in te gra ted in to re g u la r classrooms whenever th is would be e d u ca tio n a lly 93 b e n e ficia l f o r such students and in accordance w ith sound educa­ tio n a l p ra ctice s. The teachers' class load w ill be considered in placing such students. 3AB Jackson When inform ation concerning the p u p il's physical handicap is made known to the school, the p u p il's teachers w ill be so informed w ith in 10 school days. Each teacher w ill be furnished w ith appropriate and a v a ila b le inform ation a t the beginning o f each school year concerning the p u p il’ s medication supervision procedure. 3C Ann Arbor Once Pupil Personnel concurs w ith the need fo r fu rth e r diagnostic e va lu atio n, an EPPC Committee as provided by the state law sha ll w ith in one month (unless not otherwise possible) be convened fo r the purpose o f determ ining the stu d e n t's proper placement and/or other assistance. No student w ill be fo rm a lly or o f f i c i a l l y deemed in need o f special assistance and/or specialized classroom experience under the Mandatory Special Education Act unless and u n t il the EPPC so c e r t if ie s . The Board and the A ssociation s h a ll e s ta b lis h a jo in t committee composed o f three members selected by each fo r the pur­ pose o f m onitoring and assessing experiences encountered during the f i r s t year under Mandatory. Based on the Committee's evalua­ tio n o f 74-75 experiences, a system-wide p ilo t program fo r pro vid­ ing a d d itio n a l services to teachers w i ll be implemented fo r the 94 75-76 school year and w ill be tested fo r purposes o f negotiating contract provisions fo r school year 76-77. 5A Kalamazoo In the event adequate learning statio ns or space is not available to achieve class size reduction, i t is agreed th a t a teacher aide and/or special consultive service may be provided i f i t is the best so lu tio n m utually determined by the teacher, p rin ­ cip al and assista nt superintendent, and the association repre­ sentative. The Board w ill endeavor, where county and state special education funds allow , to provide services to children having physical, mental, emotional and perceptual handicaps as determined under the State guidelines fo r id e n tify in g and serving special education students. 6F Mt. Clemens During the course o f a school year, i f a c h ild is found to possess a ph ysica l, mental, or emotional handicap, the fo llo w in g steps w i ll be taken: (1) The teacher w ill take the re s p o n s ib ility fo r re fe rrin g the c h ild to the counselor and b u ild in g p rin c ip a l. (2) A fte r consultation and jo in t agreement between the teacher, counselor, and b u ild in g p rin c ip a l, the student may be removed from the classroom u n til fu rth e r steps can be taken to achieve a so lu tio n to the problem, (3) Students must be refe rre d to Special Educa­ tio n Department fo r evaluation. 95 7A Troy The Board and the Association sh a ll m utually work toward the establishment o f a c r is is room or an adjusted study room a t each middle school. 7A Ferndale Classes th a t do not have a reg ular lo ca tio n or time to meet but are convened by the D ire c to r o f Special Education when the need a ris e s ; the need is based on a ll or pa rt o f the fo llo w in g c r it e r ia : (a) The teacher is having considerable d i f f i c u l t y in c o n tro llin g the c h ild 's behavior. The behavior is such th a t the education o f other students in the room is endangered and the f o l ­ lowing steps have been follow ed: Several steps to fo llo w normal ro u tin e , b u ild in g le ve l procedures; teacher maintains anecdotal record; the p rin c ip a l then forwards a conference request to special education o f f ic e ; the c h ild is evaluated by a psychologist and reports are a v a ila b le . I f the d i s t r i c t has no special programs fo r which the c h ild is e lig ib le or the parents have refused ser­ vices under the provisions o f PA-198, placement outside a p u b lic school s e ttin g 1s not a va ila b le or ap pro priate, students on whom a teacher has submitted a special services conference request s h a ll obtain service w ith in 30 days o f re c e ip t in special educa­ tio n o ffic e . Extent o f the special services involvement w ill be the m utually agreed upon strateg y between teacher and special service person. The scheduling o f an EPPC s h a ll be determined by provisions o u tlin e d in PA-198. Based on the above in fo rm a tio n , 96 the D ire cto r o f Special Education convenes the c r is is committee a t a designated time and place. The c r is is committee shares a v a ila b le Inform ation on the c h ild , then recommends whatever action seems appropriate in order fo r the c h ild 's teacher and student in the classroom to proceed. The committee cannot force compliance but fun ction s to share ideas or to explore what might be done. The teacher and b u ild in g p rin c ip a l implement the plan. The com­ m itte e is convened a t the request o f the teacher and the b u ild in g p rin c ip a l a t a designated tim e, u su a lly fo u r weeks a fte r the i n i t i a l s ta ffin g , to discuss progress, or lack o f progress, and to evaluate mutual recommendations. The minutes o f the meeting are forwarded to a ll p a rtic ip a n ts . 7B Birmingham A special education student as defined by s ta tu te may be placed in to a regular classroom fo llo w in g a mandatory conference between the p rin c ip a l and special education student and the cla ss ­ room teacher involved. Both the special education teacher and the classroom teacher may o ffe r suggestions r e la tiv e to the placement o f such students. The p rin c ip a l w i ll give major consideration to suggestions o f the teachers involved in the placement o f such students. In order to meet the special needs o f students in the d i s t r i c t and provide exp erts' assistance to the classroom teacher as he encounters p a rtic u la r problems w ith students, the Board agrees th a t, to the extent possible and w ith in it s means, i t sh a ll continue to employ a u x ilia r y personnel, such as lib r a ria n s , 97 m ulti-m edia personnel, school psychologists, school social workers, speech and hearing th e ra p is ts , advising or c r i t i c teachers, teach­ ers o f the homebound or h o s p ita liz e d , counselors, remedial reading teachers, learning d is a b ilit y teachers, teachers o f the em otionally d istu rbe d, teachers o f the m entally handicapped, and teacher coun­ selors fo r the p h y s ic a lly handicapped. 7D S o u th fie ld Special education students w ill be provided special subject classes or integrated in to reg ular sections based upon the needs o f the students as arranged j o in t l y by the s t a f f and the adminis­ tr a tio n . 7F Royal Oak The Board recognizes th a t a c h ild w ith emotional or le a rn ­ ing d is a b ilit ie s is e n title d to the best professional e ffo r ts o f a ll teaching personnel. A teacher may re fe r the c h ild to the p rin c ip a l fo r evaluation by the school psychologist and/or other appropriate personnel. C onsultation, te s tin g , or examination shall be provided as soon th e re a fte r as a v a ila b ilit y o f needed personnel perm its. B: As e a rly as i t is possible a fte r above evaluation a meeting o f a l l involved s t a f f members w i ll be held to form ulate a recommendation fo r the appropriate program fo r the p u p il. C: During the period prescribed above, the teacher sh a ll receive a ll possible advice and assistance from school personnel r e la tiv e to working w ith the student. In the event th a t the 98 recommendation is to maintain the student in the regular classroom, appropriate supportive assistance w i ll continue to be given to the teacher. In the event the teacher believes th a t the s ta ffin g recommendation is not adequate, he may request a review by the committee which made the recommendation. D: In the event a c h ild is recommended to be placed in a special education program, placement sha ll be made as e a rly as possible. The c h ild who is awaiting such placement sh a ll be placed on the w a itin g l i s t fo r the program and the teacher shall receive a l l possible advice and assistance from other professional personnel r e la tiv e to meeting the needs o f the c h ild . 7H Bloomfield H ills No teacher w ill be required to adm inister f i r s t aid or medication prescribed fo r a student, nor sh a ll any teacher be required to tra n sp o rt any c h ild fo r any reason. I t is a n t ic i­ pated, however, th a t each teacher w ill act and react in such s itu a ­ tio n s in a p ro fe ssio n a l, reasonable and responsible manner, 8A Lansing Special Education S p e cifica tio n s 1, A ll Types A: Before a c h ild is placed in or removed from a special education program on the recommendation o f an EPPC, the p rin c ip a l, coordinator or d ire c to r sh a ll consult w ith the teacher involved. B: The Board, upon making a request o f the State Board o f Education fo r a d e via tio n from the ru le s as set fo r th in the Special Education Code pursuant to Rule 34 (1954 Admin. Code 99 R340.1734), or In f i l i n g a p e titio n fo r non-compliance pursuant to Section 242b o f the Mandatory Special Education Act (MCLA 340.252b), sh a ll advise the association o f it s in te n t before f i l i n g a request fo r such de via tio n or approval fo r non-compliance. C: Student records w ill be a va ila b le to the teacher p rio r to the placement o f the student, i f such records are on f i l e . D: Teachers may request an EPPC fo r a c h ild , a t which time r e c e r tific a tio n may be requested. E: The Board sh a ll provide school psychologists and speech and hearing th e ra p is ts to serve students. F: Whenever p ra c tic a b le , re tu rn in g teachers w ill be informed o f the coming y e a r's assignment (achievement le v e l) by the close o f the cu rre n t school year. I f changes in assignment are necessitated beyond th a t date, the D ire cto r o f Special Educa­ tio n w i ll make a reasonable e f f o r t to n o tify the teacher. Every e f f o r t w ill be made to avoid reassigning probationary elementary school teachers to d iffe r e n t achievement le v e ls , except fo r extenuating circumstances. S: The Special Education O ffic e sha ll d is tr ib u te a cur­ re n t l i s t o f lo c a l, county, s ta te , regional and national workshops, conferences, and meetings re la te d to special education by the opening day o f school. This l i s t w i ll be up-dated and d is trib u te d as needed. H: Except in extenuating circumstances, a ll Special Education teachers s h a ll continue to be served by Special Education 100 helping teachers in each o f the areas o f physical education, a r t , and music a t the present le v e l. 2. A committee composed o f the D ire c to r o f Special Education, one co o rd in a to r, a school p sych o lo g ist, and one teacher from each o f the Special Education areas appointed by the LSEA sh a ll meet a minimum o f three times a year to review the to ta l program and the process o f placement and e va lu a tio n o f students fo r the purpose o f c la r if ic a t io n and/or re v is io n and re p o rt to th e ir respective curriculum committees. 8B D a nsville Teachers are expected to keep aware o f c u rre n t trends and new s k il ls a v a ila b le . Except f o r teachers w ith in a year o r two o f re tire m e n t, a l l are required to complete e ith e r a c r e d it o r a n o n -cre d it course a t le a s t every two years in an area o f study d ir e c t ly re la te d to his teaching jo b . 8B M illia m sto n I f complete o b je ctive s f o r In d iv id u a l programs are man­ dated by e ith e r the s ta te o r lo c a l a d m in is tra tio n , then a d d itio n a l release time sh a ll be provided. T ra in in g s h a ll be provided in th is tim e frame to help the teachers w rite o b je c tiv e s th a t w i l l meet the standards o f the mandate. 9B Wyoming Recognizing th a t the use o f paraprofessionals is bene­ f i c i a l to the educational process as the teacher can be released from many nonteaching d u tie s to d ir e c t more a tte n tio n to those 101 a c t iv it ie s which are re la te d d ir e c t ly to in s tru c tio n , the Board agrees to employ paraprofessionals to the degree i t is fin a n c ia lly fe a s ib le . The Board fu rth e r agrees th a t those paraprofessionals who are employed to a s s is t teachers and students in the cu rre n t in d i­ v id u a liz e d programs, i . e . , the Westinghouse planned program, are in te g ra l and e sse n tia l to the success o f th a t program. To the degree p o ssib le , the Board w i ll provide f o r a s u b s titu te when a paraprofessional is unavailable fo r work. 11B B ridgeport Students suspected o f q u a lify in g fo r special education services w i ll be re fe rre d f o r eva lu atio n to the special education department. The student may be re fe rre d by any o f the fo llo w in g : classroom teacher, a d m in is tra to rs , parents, guardians, community agencies, ph ysicia n s, or oth er concerned p a rtie s , in compliance w ith P u blic Act 198. I t is understood th a t the procedure o u tlin e d in the law w i l l be follow ed and th a t th is procedure w i ll be pro­ vided in w r itin g to a l l teachers. 1IB B irch Run The Board acknowledges th a t exceptional c h ild re n re q u ire special education by s p e c ific a lly c e r t if ie d teachers. Therefore, the Board agrees to continue to seek methods o f expanding approp­ r ia t e programs to serve such c h ild re n . 102 13C Muskegon The Board fu r th e r recognizes th a t the teacher, o th e r than teachers o f special education, may not f a i r l y be expected to assume the r e s p o n s ib ility f o r severely e m o tio n a lly im paired s tu ­ dents. I t is acknowledged by both p a rtie s , however, th a t under the p ro v is io n s o f P ublic A ct 198, the determ ination o f a p p ro p ria te educational programs f o r the proper placement o f the students e n title d to special education services lie s w ith in the ju r is d ic ­ tio n o f the EPPC. In co n sid e ra tio n o f the EPPC fu n c tio n and pur­ pose when mainstreaming is considered, both the sending and re c e iv ­ ing teachers s h a ll be included as f u l l members o f the EPPC. While consensus is recognized to be the p re fe rre d method o f determ ining the placement o f students w ith in the EPPC process, EPPC de cisions must, a t the very le a s t, be based upon m a jo rity agreement. A fte r a stu d e n t, through the EPPC process has been e n ro lle d in a c la s s ­ room program f o r a t le a s t 30 days, and the re c e iv in g teacher has reason to question the appropriateness o f the EPPC placement, the b u ild in g p rin c ip a l s h a ll, a t the re c e iv in g te a c h e r's request, reconvene the EPPC to again examine the proper placement f o r the student under co n sid e ra tio n . In any case o f severely e m o tio n a lly d is tu rb e d c h ild re n , a c tio n o f the Board would be to r e lie v e the teacher o f the r e s p o n s ib ility w ith respect to such p u p ils . 16A W h ite fish Any p u p il who is determined by the a d m in is tra tio n , a f t e r c o n s u lta tio n w ith a p p ro p ria te , q u a lifie d p ro fe ssio n a l people, to 103 be incapable o f a d ju s tin g to the re g u la r classroom, w i l l be removed from such re g u la r classroom, i f such removal is in con­ formance w ith a p p ro p ria te s ta te laws and re g u la tio n s . 17A Gwinn When a teacher o f a spe cia l class is absent, the p r in c i­ pal o f the b u ild in g w i ll provide a s u b s titu te teacher fo r the special c la s s . Provided, however, th a t t h is p ro v is io n sh a ll not apply in case o f la y - o f f o f special class teachers. 18A Adams Township The p a r tie s , to a s s is t the teacher, w i ll cooperate to increase the psychological te s tin g program, and to c o rre la te such a c t iv it ie s w ith the re g u la r classroom a c t iv it ie s o f the teacher so as b e tte r to meet the needs o f special students in the com­ m unity. E ffo r ts should be made by the a d m in is tra to r to reduce the amount o f paper work re q u ire d o f teachers so th a t the la rg e s t pos­ s ib le percentage o f tim e may be spent in planning and teaching. Survey o f Forthcoming N egotiations A ffe c tin g Mainstreaming The fo llo w in g re s u lts represent the answers to the 10 questions asked on the survey. Question 1: No: Have teachers in the d i s t r i c t s you represent voiced concern about the mainstreaming o f special education students In to general education? Three responses L ittle : One response 104 Minimum: Yes: One response The o th e r 35 UniServ D ire c to rs responded a ffir m a tiv e ly to th is question w ith remarks th a t ranged from "They sure are" to "Are you kid ding ?" Question 2: What is t h e ir (teachers) p rin c ip a l concern in th is area (mainstreaming special education students in to general education)? T ra in in g Not tra in e d to work w ith special education students. "F e a r"—they do not know how to deal w ith the problems. Not tra in e d to deal w ith the problems. Having teachers p ro p e rly prepared and tra in e d to bring youngsters in to the re g u la r classroom environment. Not q u a lifie d to handle needs o f special education c h ild re n . A ttitu d e o f teachers—The teachers involved are insecure; they have not had special education tr a in in g . I n a b il it y to handle the s itu a tio n ; need more tr a in in g . T h e ir personal la ck o f e xp e rtise to deal w ith the problem. Not tra in e d in handling special education students. Are they equal to the task? Not tra in e d ; no in -s e rv ic e to help them. Feeling Inadequate to teach these students; fe e l need f o r In -s e rv ic e tr a in in g . A n xie ty about no tr a in in g in these areas. Time They have l i t t l e tim e to spend person-to-person teaching o r g e ttin g to g e th e r special m a te ria ls o r le a rn in g how to use sp e cia l m a te ria ls i f they rece ive them. EPPC's--Time f o r planning meetings. 105 Teachers must spend much e x tra tim e w ith special education stud en ts. Students do not le a rn and they are fru s tra te d . Is the special education student in the re g u la r education f o r a purpose or 1s he ju s t dumped there? Time spent w ith these students. The a d d itio n a l work caused. Time away from general education students. A d d itio n a l d u tie s . Time to prepare f o r in d iv id u a liz e d le a rn in g . Extra pre-planning and p re pa ratio n tim e. Class Size Cannot g ive tim e to special education students th a t they need w ith la rg e classes. Class s iz e : Three responses. Reduction in cla ss siz e . Resource centers are in some b u ild in g s o n ly , causing a la rg e r co n ce n tra tio n o f special education students in some schools. The State recognizes l i m i t f o r c h ild re n in special education. When they are mainstreamed in to classes o f 28, no considera­ t io n is given. Special education students are not counted in o f f i c i a l class counts. They should count as two re g u la r education students. Special education students count th re e but a d m in is tra tio n is not reducing cla ss s iz e , merely paying e x tra money f o r over­ lo ad . I t is not w orking. Overcrowded classes w ith l i t t l e f o r le a rn in g . tim e to maximize p o te n tia l Some general education parents have reacted adversely to spe cia l education students in the over-crowded re g u la r classroom. T h e ir i n a b i l i t y to work as "s p e c ia l ed" teachers 1n classrooms w ith a la rg e number o f o th e r (n o t spe cia l education) students. 106 Class s iz e — cannot fu n c tio n and g ive proper care f o r regu­ la r o r sp e cia l education students w ith such la rg e cla sse s . In d iv id u a liz in g Having the m a te ria ls s u ite d to the le v e l o f the sp e cia l education stu d e n t. In d iv id u a l d iffe re n c e s . Cost o f s u p p lie s . No c o n s id e ra tio n given f o r the type o f handicap o r the te a c h e r's p e rs o n a lity . Cannot be b la n ke t screening a t EPPC's o f spe cia l education c h ild re n . Not a l l o f them should be mainstreamed. Regular education is not the le a s t r e s t r ic t iv e environm ent f o r a l l spe cia l education stud en ts. Mainstreaming program has no c o n tin u ity . Teachers are in the d a rk, in c lu d in g sp e cia l education people. Cheated in re g u la r and spe cia l programs. They are fr u s tr a te d . Being able to in d iv id u a liz e in s tr u c tio n fo r handicapped students and s t i l l pro vid e normal le a rn in g experiences f o r rem aining 29 stud en ts. Standards The students cannot keep up and may f a i l . t h e ir standards high . They must keep E I problems—d is c ip lin e to m aintain proper le a rn in g environm ent. Do no t fe e l they can p ro vid e adequate education f o r sp e cia l education c h ild . D e tra cts from re g u la r education c h ild 's education a ls o . I b e lie v e mainstreaming in many, many cases is n o t the answer and th a t we should be heading back to the method used by m yself 10 years ago, I . e . , teaching re a l l i f e experiences f o r liv in g on t h e ir own once they graduate. Many o r most re g u la r teachers do no t want to be bothered by below-average people. P sych olo gists and s o c ia l workers fe a r la w s u its from la b e lin g and p la c in g students 1n sp e cia l ed uca tion . They want to know i f MEA m a lp ra c tic e insurance w i l l cover them. 107 I f th e re is not space enough f o r th e wheel c h a ir s , the re g u la r classroom is a more r e s t r ic t iv e environm ent. Concern over u ltim a te r a m ific a tio n s o f tre n d . A d m in is tra tio n does not f u l l y understand the problem. The d i s t r i c t is t r y in g , e co no m ica lly, to get around the problem. The answer v a rie s in th is area from d e p riv in g le a rn in g tim e o f o th e r students in the classroom ; the te a c h e r's fe e lin g o f i n a b i l i t y to help these c h ild r e n , p u ttin g them in to general student atmosphere; students cannot cope; students doing home­ work w ith resource te a ch e r; some people are ju s t not a llo w in g students in the classroom. Problem w ith se ve re ly p h y s ic a lly and m e n ta lly im p aire d. D i s t r i c t uses aides when sp e cia l education teachers go to in - s e rv ic e . Support Services W hile in le a rn in g c e n te rs , no problem , bu t la ck o f support se rv ic e f o r classroom teacher when sp e cia l education students are mainstreamed. C onsultants no t much h e lp . Every teacher has one h o u r's planning tim e , e ith e r f i r s t th in g in the morning o r the la s t th in g in the a fte rn o o n . C o nsu ltan t can o n ly work w ith 10 teachers per week. There has to be more than token support from a d m in is tra tio n in tim e and money. No c o n s u lta n t s e rv ic e on d e a lin g w ith c la s s . Change the ro le s o f s o c ia l w orkers, p s y c h o lo g is ts , and teacher c o n s u lta n ts . They are n o t th e re to help the tea che r. Question 3 : W ill you be n e g o tia tin g f o r any c o n s id e ra tio n s f o r the general education tea che r because o f mainstreaming? A lready have two f o r one. Next c o n tra c t, yes: Twenty-one responses. No. No, ju s t want co n tract: Two responses. 108 No, but wish we would. No, m ostly but w i l l w ith one d i s t r i c t . Yes, t r ie d ; d id no t succeed: Three responses. Unsure a t th is tim e : Three responses. P o ssib ly. Yes, we have in c o n tra c t now stud en t can be removed from cla ss i f presence is d e trim e n ta l to the re s t o f the c la ss bu t teach­ ers are a fr a id to use the p ro v is io n as they fe a r they w i l l get a black mark a g a in s t them. Question 4 : W ill you be using the MEA sample g u id e lin e s f o r con­ t r a c t language concerning mainstreaming? No: S ix responses. Yes: Eleven responses. I w ish. D o n 't know y e t. D o n 't th in k so. D o n 't know what i t is . Not much. S im ila r in some cases. Unsure. Probably. P o ssib ly. Some. Question 5: W ill c o n s id e ra tio n s take the form o f m u ltip le count on c h ild re n la b e le d sp e cia l education? Yes Already have, two fo r one: Three responses. 109 Yes, d e fin ite ly . Tried la s t year. Try again th is year—d o n 't want to burden teachers w ith too many students. Yes: Three responses. Tried fo r Denver's weighted system—d id n 't get i t . Committee to work th is year on new weighted formula. Possibly. I wish. Possibly weighted system. Denver Plan. Yes, Denver Plan. W ill go a t Denver Plan. Denver Plan next contract. Yes, but did not get our demands. Two fo r one count fo r students from learning resource centers. Yes: That is the in te n t o f the Association, but we are having great d i f f ic u lt y g e ttin g any class size adjustments in any area o f our in s tru c tio n a l program. Need but c o u ld n 't get i t la s t time—w ill t r y again. Possibly: Two responses. Possibly; any changes must be ta ilo re d to local s itu a tio n . This would appear to be the easiest way to qu a n tify the issue fo r s im p lic ity in enforcement o f the con tract. Yes, weighted formula to give class r e l ie f to regular educa­ tio n teacher. Yes—but teachers are a fra id Board w ill use paraprofessionals and increase class sizes. Teachers d o n 't want paraprofes­ sionals. 110 Just want a con tract. Don't think so. Not a negotiable item any more. Had two fo r one, fo u r to s ix years ago. I t d id n 't work. One teacher got too many special education students and lowered class size d id n 't help. Now we want a more even d is trib u tio n o f these students. Don't know ye t. Most people d o n 't know because they haven't takenanyassess­ ment as to how to attack the problem. Question 6: W ill you be requesting any extra planning time fo r general education teachers because o f mainstreaming? The two fo r one helps in th is area: Eight responses. No; may be a good idea, though. I d o n 't believe i t is necessary i f the class size is small enough. Yes, but d id n 't get i t . Must have consultant help before p u ttin g student in the mainstream. Teachers want to go to EPPC*s. Teachers want to go to EPPC. These meetings should be scheduled a t a time a ll teachers can attend or give enough advance notice o f meeting so the teachers can put th e ir concerns in w ritin g fo r presentation a t meeting. Maybe They d o n 't know because they haven't taken the time to analyze the problem. Possibly: Five responses. Ill General I t takes forever to get an EPPC. They take up to e ig h t months. Teachers want i t voluntary whether to go to EPPC. Most teachers are glad to go to EPPC fo r help. We attempted to negotiate such a provision—also 12 half-days a year instead o f 10 fo r conferences w ith parents and plan­ ning time to b e n e fit a ll youngsters. Not mentioned by teachers. Yes, we want resource help to precede the c h ild 's coming in to regular classroom. Question 7: No, i t ' s day. W ill you be negotiating fo r any in -se rvice tra in in g or special college course work compensation because o f mainstreaming? in d ivid u a l a t bu ildin g le v e l. No: Four responses. No. This should be. We have one in -se rvice No opportunity fo r in -se rvice w ith our hourly contract. Unknown, d o n 't know. Yes: Three responses. Yes, in -s e rv ic e w ith release time to go. Asked fo r in -se rvice tra in in g but d id n 't get i t . Some. Some want in -s e rv ic e tra in in g but people who have had some fe e l th a t i t is not th a t b e n e fic ia l. Most lik e ly . Possibly. Yes, they want in -s e rv ic e tra in in g . No, they do not want special college course work compensation. 112 Have expressed concern about In -s e rv ic e tra in in g . They have not d ir e c t ly talked about special college course work but many have talked about re -tra in in g . We have a new special education d ire c to r. We w ill have extensive in -s e rv ic e fo r special and general education. We did attempt to get a d d itio n a l time in our in -s e rv ic e and conference a r t ic le . Yes, in -s e rv ic e but not special college course work. Yes, we need re -tra in in g . D e fin ite ly . Yes, we tr ie d . We got more money fo r in -s e rv ic e but same amount o f hours. We also tr ie d to get more college hours paid fo r . We w i ll be going fo r more in -s e rv ic e tra in in g in our next co n tra ct. We want teachers to get in -s e rv ic e tra in in g before g e ttin g the special education student. . . . Want to be given the o p po rtunity to go to summer workshops. We already have c re d it fo r special college course work. There is no in -s e rv ic e or college course tra in in g p re sen tly set up o r th a t has been negotiated, in v o lv in g mainstreaming. Want in -s e rv ic e tra in in g w ith extra pay a fte r school. Question 8 : L is t any other type o f consideration you w i ll be ne go tiatin g fo r due to mainstreaming. W ill not open as we have two fo r one count f o r special education students. Unknown, a t th is tim e. Bread and b u tte r issue on ly. Have a p ilo t program which we saw as being u s e fu l. Committee to come up w ith suggestions. We want paraprofessionals to help w ith mainstreaming. Want more m a te ria ls. Reduced class size . 113 We are working w ith NEA on the problem. None: Two responses. Rights o f c h ild re n a ffe cte d . Class size already in . A d d itio n a l aides fo r the teachers. Denver Plan. There are no considerations lis te d inasmuch as people have not examined i t . In d is t r ic t s where there has been an id e n tifia b le problem, we fo llo w the prototype in various shapes and forms. Perhaps paraprofessionals. Question 9 : Teachers both fo r and against i t . I f you have completed negotiations fo r any 1977-78 c o n tra c t, is there any language in the co n tra ct con­ cerning mainstreaming o f special education students? There is no language in v o lv in g mainstreaming in most o f the co n tra cts. We w i ll not t r y anything d iffe r e n t fo r '77-78. No: Yes: Nine responses. Seven responses. Three-year co n tra ct not up y e t. W ill not negotiate t i l l '78-79. U n fo rtun ately no language th a t deals d ir e c t ly w ith the main­ streaming; perhaps there is l i t t l e o f i t being done. Yes, expanded language. We haven't fin is h e d y e t but th is issue w on't be resolved in co n tra ct ta lk s th is year. Yes, but not accepted y e t (1 1 /7 /7 7 ). 114 Question 10: Which d is t r ic t s are these (See Question 9) and to what does the con tract language pertain? Committee developed to come up w ith a class size weighting formula fo r special education students. Board w ill adhere to State guidelines w ith regard to teacher load in special-ed rooms; 15 students, not 25; as fo r a con­ s u lta n t, th is w ill help w ith loads w ith in b u ild in g s. Results o f negotiations were referred fo r study by curriculum development co u n cil. At both the elementary and secondary le ve ls those special education students, as determined by the B uilding In s tru c tio n a l Team, scheduled in to the regular in s tru c tio n a l program sha ll count as two in the class count. G uidelines: P h ysically handicapped—count two. M entally handicapped—count three. R e lie f procedure expanded. S p e c ific a tio n on the kind o f mainstreaming. S p e c ific a tio n on physical space in room. No special education students in a s p lit- c la s s . D is a b ility areas: LD, EMI, H I, and El count two. This year $227,000 spent fo r r e l i e f —kindergarten and grade 1 th is year maximum down 25-28. Two fo r one count. In most instances, mainstreaming is very minute in the d is ­ t r ic t s involved. Most o f the d is t r ic t s are sm all. Because o f th a t, the amount o f mainstreaming is ju s t beginning; th e re fo re , the e ffe c ts o f i t are ju s t hardly g e ttin g to be no tice a b le , and is the real reason fo r the lack o f knowledge as to where they stand. A dditio na l Comments: The p rin c ip a l sets the tone o f the b u ild in g . I f he accepts special education students and makes them p a rt o f the program, so do the teachers. Crossing d i s t r i c t lin e s and having special education students in your class who would not normally go to your school causes a big problem. Teachers who were elementary teachers are now s h ifte d to ju n io r high because o f change in enrollm ents. 115 Most concerned about need fo r in -s e rv ic e and class size con­ sid e ra tio n s. We d o n 't want paraprofessionals; we want to work fo r more teachers w ith sm aller class size . Aides are no good. Teachers in our d i s t r i c t w ill lean more to s e c re ta ria l help now. Aides are re s tric te d . They c a n 't tu to r. They have to be w ith a teacher a ll the time. There seems to be close lia is o n w ith the Oakland Interm ediate Schools on much o f.th e mainstreaming plan. We are working w ith NEA on the problem. Going to Denver in January to ta lk w ith the D ire cto r o f the Denver Education Association. They have $730,000 set aside fo r classroom r e l ie f fo r teachers w ith mainstreamed special education students. Teachers are ju s t becoming aware o f it s impact in these d is t r ic t s . W ill be nego tiatin g on next co n tra ct. D e tro it Public Schools As noted in Chapter I I I , the D e tro it Public Schools (DPS) were not included in the survey but were treated separately in an in te rvie w w ith Miss Ruder fo llo w in g a p u b lic meeting in which the concerns o f the DFT about mainstreaming were discussed. possible items to be negotiated were: Among more in -s e rv ic e tr a in in g , w ith time o f f fo r teachers to attend meetings; weighted class size provisions fo r special-education ch ild re n who attend reg ular edu­ cation classes; compensatory time f o r extra paper work connected w ith IE P 's; compensatory time fo r teachers attending meetings fo r special education students and more aides and m aterials in the classrooms to a s s is t the teacher w ith the extra burden o f in d i­ v id u a liz in g fo r handicapped students. 116 The 1977-79 teacher co n tra ct was negotiated fo r before the beginning o f the 1977-78 school year began. th is co n tra ct was obtained from the DFT. DPS A copy o f There was one a d d itio n a l item included in the co n tra ct th a t was not included in the 1975-77 co n tra ct which may a ffe c t mainstreaming. I t is as fo llo w s : In-S ervice T raining Teachers sh a ll not be required to attend more than a to ta l o f three in -s e rv ic e tra in in g sessions and workshops per semester which are held outside o f regular school hours and are conducted in compliance w ith the Federal court mandate. 117 References--Chapter IV Unpublished Work Corey, Carlton C. "The Perceived E ffe cts o f C o lle c tiv e Negotia­ tion s on Aspects o f Special Education in M ichigan." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Michigan State U n iv e rs ity , 1975. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The researcher's purpose in the study was to : (1) d e te r­ mine to what extent special education students in Michigan are being mainstreamed in to re g u la r education; (2) to determine what types o f disabled students are being so in te g ra te d ; (3) to determine to what extent and what types o f contractual pro visions address themselves to the mainstreaming o f special education students and f in a ll y (4) to determine what, i f any, issues having to do w ith mainstream­ ing are reported to be issues teachers want negotiated in 1977-78 c o n tra cts. This study also provides base lin e data concerning the above mentioned m a te ria l fo r a period o f time p r io r to the im ple­ m entation o f the new Federal laws (PL 94-142 and PL 93-112, sec. 504) which should encourage more mainstreaming o f special education students. The review o f the lite r a t u r e included many aspects o f the mainstreaming concept. These areas were: 1. mainstreaming—how the concept was s ta rte d ; 2. law cases leading to equal education f o r the handicapped; 3. the Mandatory Special Education Act and i t s Impact on mainstreaming; 118 119 4. the Federal B i l l o f Rights fo r the Handicapped and the concept o f the le a s t r e s t r ic t iv e environment; 5. is mainstreaming working?—some pros and cons; 6. c o lle c tiv e bargaining—the power o f the unions; 7. teachers' unions' view o f mainstreaming and 8. a d m in is tra tio n and mainstreaming. No e f f o r t was made in th is study to produce a comprehensive or exhaustive review o f the lite r a t u r e on the su b je ct o f mainstream­ in g. To the co n tra ry , the lim ite d review was included to give merely some in d ic a tio n o f the wide range o f problems attached to mainstreaming and some idea o f the d iv e r s ity o f opinion by concerned p a rtie s as to p r io r it ie s , and to p o in t to possible p e r ils f o r the school a d m in is tra to r by the am biguities o f language used to des­ c rib e the goals o f mainstreaming. Some o f the fin d in g s in the review o f lit e r a t u r e evidenced th a t the re is no competent research which demonstrates th a t mainstreaming is a sup erior method o f educating handicapped students. There is also much evidence th a t n e ith e r special nor general edu­ cators are prepared, a t th is tim e, w ith knowledge and planning fo r the e ffe c tiv e implementation o f programs placing special educa­ tio n students in general education classrooms. I t was also found th a t the ro le o f the school a d m in is tra to r w i ll need re d e fin itio n to in clude problems, planning and curriculum changes which w i l l now in clude the handicapped c h ild . The lite r a t u r e also pointed to laws and mandates from the s ta te and federal government which d ic ta te how the schools w i l l 120 operate and what curriculu m changes w i l l need to be in it ia t e d to conform to these mandates. The c o lle c tiv e bargaining se ctio n o f the review o f l i t e r a ­ tu re touched on the a d m in is tra to r's view o f how c o lle c tiv e bargain­ ing has a ffe c te d the cu rricu lu m and the ro le o f the a d m in is tra to r in making these d e cisio n s. Unions were seen as g a in in g power in the decision-m aking processes, much o f which was p re v io u s ly e n t ir e ly the a d m in is tra to r's domain. very c a u tio u s ly . These unions also viewed mainstreaming There was a preponderance o f warnings and compen­ satio ns asked f o r by union leaders before handicapped c h ild re n w i ll be accepted in the re g u la r classroom. The researcher addressed h e rs e lf to the fo llo w in g questions: 1. which school d i s t r i c t s reported handicapped student programs? 2. how many handicapped students were reported? 3. what were the handicaps o f the rep orted students? 4. how much o f the handicapped s tu d e n t's day is spent in re g u la r education? 5. what are the number and content o f c o n tra c t items which could a ffe c t mainstreaming in the 76-77 co n tra c ts o f these school d is t r ic t s ? and 6. what Issues are issues r e la tin g to mainstreaming th a t teachers would li k e to see nego tiate d in to t h e ir f o r t h ­ coming con tract? To answer these questions the study was d iv id e d In to th re e p a rts . Questions one through fo u r were answered through an a n a ly s is o f 142 lo c a l and 19 in te rm e d ia te d i s t r i c t re p o rts to the State Department o f Education. Question f iv e was answered by analyzing 121 the same d i s t r i c t s ’ teacher-board c o n tra c ts . The f in a l question was answered through a survey which was completed p rim a rily by telephone in te rv ie w w ith 38 UniServ D ire c to rs th a t represent the 142 school d i s t r i c t s . Findings The fin d in g s are presented in th re e d is t in c t p a rts : the f i r s t p e rta in in g to the a n a ly s is o f State Department re p o rts , the second to the a n a lysis o f co n tra c ts and the t h ir d to the re s u lts o f the survey. Findings Related to the A nalysis o f State Department Reports 1. Of the 142 lo c a l school d i s t r i c t s s tu d ie d , 127 reported programs f o r the handicapped. 2. In the 142 lo c a l school d i s t r i c t s and 19 in te rm ed ia te school d i s t r i c t s , th e re was a t o t a l o f 38,946 handicapped students. 3. N in e ty -th re e d i s t r i c t s had programs serving 33,505 speech impaired students. T his fig u r e is not included in the to ta l handicapped fig u r e above. 4. One hundred nineteen d i s t r i c t s had programs f o r 14,793 EMI students. 5. One hundred th ir te e n d i s t r i c t s had programs fo r 9,635 LD students. 6. N inety-tw o d i s t r i c t s had programs f o r 8,010 El students. 7. F o rty -s ix d i s t r i c t s had programs f o r 3,369 POHI students. 8. T h ir t y - s ix d i s t r i c t s had programs f o r 2,178 HI students. 122 9. 10. T h ir ty d is t r ic t s had programs f o r 908 VI students. Two d i s t r i c t s mainstreamed TMI stud en ts. There were 53 TMI students in these two d i s t r i c t s . 11. Three in te rm e d ia te and two small lo c a l d i s t r i c t s th a t had programs reported no mainstreaming. 12. While some d i s t r i c t s did not mainstream students from a l l o f th e ir basic classroom programs, o th e r d i s t r i c t s had handi­ capped students from these programs spending up to 99 percent o f t h e ir tim e in general education. 13. A ll supportive se rvice programs fo r handicapped s tu ­ dents are counted as being 100 percent o f the tim e in general education. Findings Related to the A n alysis o f Contracts 1. One hundred tw elve o f the co n tra cts analyzed had pro­ v is io n s which could a ffe c t mainstreaming. 2. Twenty-three o f the co n tra cts analyzed made no spe­ c i f i c mention th a t could be construed as a ffe c tin g m ainstream ing. 3. Tw enty-four co n tra c ts had class s iz e p ro v is io n s r e la tin g to the handicapped student. 4. Seventy-one co n tra c ts had p ro v is io n s under P ro te c tio n o f Teaching category which re la te d to removal o f the handicapped c h ild o r g iv in g a d d itio n a l help to the teacher w ith such student in the classroom. 5. Twenty-two co n tra cts had an e sta b lish e d study committee to solve b u ild in g problems. 123 6. F ifte e n d i s t r i c t s defined p ro visio n s o f the Mandatory Special Education Act (PA-198) w ith in t h e ir c o n tra c ts . 7. Twenty-three c o n tra c ts had p ro visio n s f o r e s ta b lis h in g special student programs f o r students th a t teachers thought m ight be in need o f special education. 8. T h irty -tw o d i s t r i c t s had a d d itio n a l p ro v is io n s which d id n o t f i t any o f the above-mentioned c la s s ific a tio n s . These p ro v is io n s range from no teacher being req uired to a d m in iste r f i r s t aid and m edication to procedures f o r the classroom teacher to fo llo w in r e fe rr in g a student f o r special education. Findings Related to the Survey on Forthcoming Contracts 1. There is much concern on the p a rt o f the general educa­ tio n teacher about the mainstreaming o f special education students. The general education teachers fe e l over-burdened already and c e r ta in ly expect to be w ith the advent o f mainstreaming. 2. Teachers fe e l fe a r and resentment toward t h e ir new ro le in educating the handicapped stud en t. Most general education teachers do not fe e l adequately tra in e d to take on the problems o f mainstreamed handicapped c h ild re n . 3. Teachers want concessions made in the form o f more t r a in in g , m a te ria ls and compensatory tim e f o r t h e ir p a rt in educat­ ing the handicapped c h ild . They do no t want to take on added r e s p o n s ib ilitie s w ith o u t such concessions as reduced cla ss s iz e , release tim e f o r added paper work and in -s e rv ic e t r a in in g , and in some in sta n ce s, a d d itio n a l help in the form o f teacher aide s. 124 4. Class siz e re d u c tio n by w e ig htin g sp e cia l education students as two o r th re e students in c la ss s iz e count is a very popular tre n d in teacher n e g o tia tio n s . 5. There are va ryin g approaches to the problem o f main- stream ing, w ith teacher requests and demands d if f e r in g among school d is tr ic ts . 6. Not a l l o f the teacher demands by the unions are met by the school boards. 7. There is some in d ic a tio n th a t these issu e s, although im p ortan t to the te a ch e rs, are used as "tra d e o f f " issues by the unions to secure h ig h e r s a la rie s and s h o rte r work years f o r the teachers. D is c u s sio n This study was based on data de rive d from the S tate Depart­ ment o f Education forms used f o r fo u rth F rid a y count o f sp e cia l education stu d e n ts, excerpts from lo c a l teacher-board c o n tra c ts and a survey o f UniServ D ire c to rs re p re se n tin g those same school d is tr ic ts . The survey o f the forms used by the S tate Department o f Education f o r counting sp e cia l education students and determ ining the amount o f tim e spent by these students in spe cia l education rooms showed th a t in most cases sp e cia l education students are mainstreamed. The types o f d i s a b ili t i e s mainstreamed in c lu d e EMI, E l, LD, H I, VI and POHI. Speech im paired students a re , o f course, f u l l tim e in re g u la r education w ith speech p a th o lo g is ts g iv in g 125 these c h ild re n therapy u s u a lly on a once-a-week b a s is . I t was s u rp ris in g to fin d two d i s t r i c t s which had some mainstreaming f o r TMI s tu d e n ts. T ra in a b le students in most d i s t r i c t s are not housed in re g u la r p u b lic schools. Many tim es in te rm e d ia te school d i s t r i c t s run the tr a in a b le centers which a lso house SMI stu d e n ts. In te ­ g ra tin g TMI students in to re g u la r cla ss s e ttin g s is c e r ta in ly a new concept. The lo c a l d i s t r i c t s vary in t h e ir approach to m ainstream ing, w ith some d i s t r i c t s being very co n se rva tive in the amount o f tim e the handicapped students from basic classroom programs spent in general e d uca tion , to d i s t r i c t s which h ig h ly in te g ra te the students from these programs. Both D e tr o it and B lo o m fie ld H i lls have c la s s ­ room programs f o r hearing im paired students where mainstreaming is v i r t u a l l y no t ta k in g place. Grand Rapids, on the o th e r hand, has 32 percent in te g ra tio n o f t h e ir hearing im paired students from ba sic classroom programs f o r hearing im p a ire d . There a lso seems to be a tre n d f o r la rg e c i t i e s to have la rg e r EMI p o p u la tio n s w ith fewer LD s tu d e n ts. The reve rse o f t h is is tru e in the suburbs o f these la rg e d i s t r i c t s . The v a rio u s d is tr ib u tio n s o f handicaps, w ith some d i s t r i c t s having high counts o f El w ith low er counts o f EMI o r LD students and high versus low percentage o f mainstreaming o f these s tu d e n ts, suggest unevenness in diag no sis and tre a tm e n t o f sp e cia l education students among lo c a l d i s t r i c t s . Many sp e cia l education students re c e iv e o n ly support s e r­ v ic e . In sm a lle r d i s t r i c t s th e support s e rv ic e , as w e ll as some basic classroom programs, ts run by in te rm e d ia te school d i s t r i c t s . 126 This along w ith only FTE count figu res reported to the State Department made i t impossible fo r the researcher to determine exactly how many special education students were being mainstreamed and how much o f th e ir school day was being spent in general edu­ cation. The use o f the fo u rth Friday count figu res also may portray a conservative fig u re . Many programs s ta rt w ith l i t t l e or no main- streaming a t the beginning o f the year and ste a d ily increase the time handicapped students spend in general education as the year progresses. The analysis o f contract items a ffe c tin g mainstreaming showed a d e fin ite increase from 1969-70 when Corey (1975) in v e s ti­ gated Michigan contracts fo r special education excerpts. Although there are no comparison data from th a t time on the increase in mainstreaming th a t has taken place since the passage o f the Manda­ to ry Special Education Act (PA 198), i t is known th a t there has been a sub stan tial increase in the special education populations since th a t time. Learning d is a b ilitie s , which was not a special education category u n til the passage o f the Act, alone accounts fo r a large increase in students considered handicapped. Many o f the standard language passages were found to be the same as those found by Corey in his study and many o f Corey's fin d in g s s t i l l pe rtain to the contracts reviewed in th is study. Among these are: 1. a number o f contract items had a p o te n tia lly detrim ental e ffe c t on the educational programs fo r handicapped ch ild re n ; 127 2. there was l i t t l e support found in the contracts fo r an in te g ra tio n o f special education and regular students; 3. there appeared to be considerably more concern in the contracts fo r procedures fo r ge tting children in to special education classes than fo r ge tting them out and 4. throughout the contracts which s p e c ific a lly mention the handicapped c h ild in the regular classroom there appears to be a mood or tone which seems to re fle c t a fear or re je c ­ tio n o f the c h ild who deviates s ig n ific a n tly from the norm. This review o f contract data substantiates the fin d in g s o f Sosnowsky and Coleman (1971) and Corey (1975) th a t the primary a tte n tio n given to the "handicapped c h ild " mainly centers around the d is ru p tiv e c h ild . The provisions lis te d under Protection of Teachers in Table 1 are re fle c tiv e o f both the "mood and tone" to which Corey refers and to the predominance o f a tte n tio n being given to the handicapped student described as d is ru p tiv e . Seventy-one o f the 135 school d is tr ic ts included passages under th is heading. This was by fa r the la rg e st c la s s ific a tio n used in the contracts studied th a t de alt w ith special education students in the regular classroom. T h irty -n in e d is tr ic ts made no s p e c ific mention in th e ir contracts which could a ffe c t mainstreaming. Most o f these were small d is t r ic t s , many in the Upper Peninsula, which had no special education programs. There also were a few suburbs o f D e tro it which as ye t had not negotiated contracts fo r the 76-77 school year. I t was discovered when interview ing UniServ D irectors in the th ir d pa rt o f th is study, th a t most d is tr ic ts wanted a reduc­ tio n in class size and compensatory tim e, as well as tra in in g 128 because o f the mainstreaming. These concessions were no t, however, in many cases negotiated in to the contracts. The survey on forthcoming contracts c e rta in ly shows gen­ eral education teachers are very concerned about th e ir roles in educating the special education student. There were few p o s itiv e statements about the w illin g n e ss o f general educators to take on added re s p o n s ib ility and work connected w ith the handicapped s tu ­ dent in regular education, w ithout a d d itio n a l tra in in g and compen­ satio ns. This is confirmed in the lite r a tu r e and in statements from both Ryor and Shanker, heads o f both teacher unions. The lite r a tu r e , as well as statements from the survey, describes the a d m in is tra to r's ro le as c r it ic a l in the mainstreaming process. One UniServ D ire c to r noted th a t the a d m in istra to r set the tone o f the b u ild in g and teachers were accepting or not accept­ ing o f the special education c h ild in accordance w ith th is tone. I t seems to fo llo w th a t there is not only a need fo r pre- and re-educating the classroom teacher but a need fo r e s ta b lis h in g continuing education in school a d m in istra tio n to fa m ilia riz e school a d m in istra to rs, not o n ly w ith the language used in describing the handicap but w ith the a p plica ble laws and re g u la tio n s themselves, fo r they are the ones who must reco ncile the contending forces o f general and special education teachers w ith in th e ir own schools. A dm inistrators also need more f a m ilia r it y w ith special education in general in order to knowledgeably evaluate special education teachers w ith in th e ir ju r is d ic t io n , which is a necessary p a rt o f th e ir re s p o n s ib ilitie s as a d m in istra to rs. A dm inistrators w i ll be 129 dealing w ith more parents o f handicapped ch ild re n and must improve th e ir techniques o r acquire d iffe r e n t techniques to deal w ith th is p o litic iz e d segment o f the p u b lic . The lite r a t u r e , as w ell as some o f the UniServ D ire c to rs ' conments, s tro n g ly suggests th a t in many cases mainstreaming may not be in the best In te re s t o f the handicapped c h ild ; indeed in some cases, i t may prove to be the more r e s t r ic t iv e environment. There were many d is t r ic t s in the survey in which teachers wanted the weighted class count fo r the special education c h ild . I t was f e l t th a t these students required more o f the teacher's time than a re g u la r student and w ith the sm aller class size the teacher could b e tte r meet the needs o f the student. The Denver Plan seemed to be the weighted class plan being investigated by most o f these school d is t r ic t s . Other than reduced class size there were many approaches to helping the teacher. rooms; others did not. Some wanted aides in the cla ss­ There was fe a r on the p a rt o f teachers in a t le a s t one d i s t r i c t th a t aides would take jobs th a t could or should go to teachers. M a te ria ls, tr a in in g , compensatory time fo r attending meetings, extra paper work and preparation were other discussed helps th a t the teachers would lik e to see negotiated in to th e ir co n tra cts. Many d is t r ic t s in s is te d th a t teachers needed In -s e rv ic e tra in in g but 1 t seemed th a t a t le a s t some o f the teachers are not w illin g to attend in -s e rv ic e meetings th a t are held outside reg ular school hours. I t was noted th a t although many Items Including in -s e rv ic e tra in in g were mentioned as needed by teachers because 130 o f the mainstreaming in an in te rvie w about th is c o n tra c t, when the D e tro it 1977-79 con tract was negotiated the only new item added was th a t teachers would not be forced to attend more than three in -se rvice s a semester a fte r school hours. Corey noted th a t w ith the advent o f the Mandatory Special Education A ct, programs and services to the handicapped c h ild would be removed from the arena o f negotiations and placed on the stage o f law and lit ig a t io n . With the impetus o f the federal laws jo in in g the State A ct, th is should be doubly tru e but negotiations do seem to have an e ffe c t on what happens to the handicapped c h ild . Nego­ tia tio n s w ill indeed become a la rg e r fa c to r in how schools w ill comply w ith the mandates o f the law, e sp e c ia lly as schools move the handicapped c h ild from the special education classroom in to the mainstream o f the regular teacher's classroom. Conclusions 1. The Michigan Department o f Education re p o rtin g o f main- streaming is inadequate. There is no way o f determining the exact amount o f time an in d iv id u a l c h ild is spending in the regular classroom. The State Department o f Education does not know in to which p a rtic u la r school d i s t r i c t the c h ild is in te gra ted because ISD programs are housed in the lo c a l schools, but which schools is not known. 2. School a d m in istrators must prepare themselves fo r the onslaught o f mass mainstreaming by way o f continuing education— in p u b lic re la tio n s s k ills (needed to deal w ith parents, teachers and 131 th e ir respective o rg a n iza tio n s), in understanding and the im p li­ cations o f federal and state mandates w ith regard to mainstreaming, and in the a c q u is itio n o f more technical knowledge o f the f ie ld o f special education so as to enable them to observe in t e llig e n t ly , plan, and make o b je c tiv e evaluations o f teachers and programs in v o lv ­ ing the handicapped student w ith in th e ir ju r is d ic t io n . 3. School ad m in istra to rs, too, must recognize the growing power o f the unions and the in cre a sin g ly im portant ro le they w ill play in negotiating teacher con tracts. They should be in cre a sin g ly aware o f and prepared to cope w ith problems a ris in g from demands made in these n e g o tia tio n s, e sp e cia lly now w ith regard to the mainstreaming concept. Mainstreaming is a fa c t and school adm inistra­ to rs , to meet the challenge succe ssfu lly, must be con stan tly a le r t and aware o f possible p i t f a lls hidden in the sometimes ambiguous language o f negotiated contracts as w ell as in the laws themselves. 4. The em otionally impaired or the unruly c h ild seems to be the one o f greatest concern to teachers, as evidenced by the co n tra ct provisions a llu d in g to teachers not actin g as custodians, parole o ffic e r s , guardians, e tc . The general tenor o f some o f these provisions verges on the sa rca stic and appears to r e f le c t resentment o r anger, o r both, on the p a rt o f teachers. 5. I f the teachers' wishes, concerns and demands 1n con­ nection w ith mainstreaming are going to be met, i t w i ll re q u ire more resources 1n the form o f money and tim e, and, consequently, more general education teachers. 132 6. School adm inistrators are going to have increased problems because o f mainstreaming as they are going to have to somehow help solve what the teachers see as problems caused by it. Whether they agree or disagree, the teacher's problem even­ tu a lly becomes the a d m in is tra to r's problem. Recommendations Recommendations to Adm inistrators in the F ie ld o f General and Special Education 1. In lig h t o f needs made evident by the onset o f main- streaming, some research is required to determine how necessary changes in the tra in in g o f both general and special education teachers can be accomplished. Special education teachers, instead o f being tra in e d in techniques o f teaching special education in small iso la te d groups, must be tra in e d in techniques fo r teaching compensatory s k ills in lig h t o f the p a rtic u la r handicap o f the c h ild . These s k il ls are needed by the c h ild in the re g u la r cla ss­ room— in s h o rt, how to get along in a re g u la r classroom s e ttin g . The general education teacher needs to acquire some understanding o f the various handicaps, to do more d ia g n o stic, p re s c rip tiv e teaching in lig h t o f the In d iv id u a l needs o f each c h ild , to acquire some knowledge o f the special education vocabulary to deal w ith the handicapped c h ild and his special education teacher. These changed s k ills would enable the general education teacher to fu n ctio n more e f f ic ie n t ly 1n a mainstreamed classroom and would f a c il it a t e communication between general and special education 133 teachers, both o f which would f a c il it a t e the a d m in is tra to r's task. Once i t is determined how these changed s k il ls are to be acquired by both general and special education teachers, an impetus to such tra in in g changes would be provided by the school ad m in istra to r him self becoming aware o f the need fo r such changes in the s k ills o f the teachers under his ju r is d ic t io n and by his encouragement or enforcement o f th e ir a c q u is itio n . 2. There is also a need fo r e s ta b lis h in g continuing edu­ cation in school ad m in istra tio n to fa m ilia riz e the school adminis­ tr a to r , not only w ith the language used in describing the handicap but w ith the a p plica ble laws and re g u la tio n s themselves, fo r they are the ones who must reco ncile the contending forces o f general and special education teachers w ith in t h e ir own schools. The adm inistrators need more f a m ilia r it y w ith special education in general in order to knowledgeably evaluate special education teach­ ers w ith in th e ir ju r is d ic t io n , which is a necessary p a rt o f th e ir re s p o n s ib ilitie s as a d m in istra to rs. A d m inistra to rs w i ll bedeal­ ing w ith more parents o f handicapped c h ild re n and must increase th e ir techniques or acquire d iffe r e n t techniques to deal w ith th is p o litic iz e d segment o f the p u b lic . Recommendations fo r Further Research 1. One wonders i f in lig h t o f the d e c lin in g enrollm ent o f general education students, teachers through t h e ir negotiators are looking a t mainstreaming as a way o f salvaging jobs by crea ting more openings fo r general education teachers through class size 134 re d u ctio n . An analysis o r comparison o f i n i t i a l demands made a t co n tra ct n e g o tia tio n sessions and the f in a l compromises a rriv e d a t m ight, in p a rt, answer th is question. 2. Nowhere in the lit e r a t u r e o r forthcom ing from any State Department o f Education o r the Federal Government is there a d e s c rip tio n o f how one is to determine what is the le a s t r e s t r ic ­ tiv e environment f o r a handicapped c h ild . I f an instrum ent could be devised to take in to account a ll the p h y s ic a l, social and edu­ c a tio n a l components necessary f o r making th is d e cisio n , one would be on much safe r ground in making the decision to mainstream a handicapped c h ild . 3. Mainstreaming is aimed a t being b e n e fic ia l fo r c h ild re n . The only way th a t outcome can be evaluated is by securing inform a­ tio n about the c h ild re n . There should be studies in it ia t e d to evaluate the e ffe c t o f mainstreaming both in achievement and a d ju s t­ ment o f the re g u la r and the handicapped student. When such evalua­ tio n s are made, i t may very w ell prove th a t mainstreaming does n o t, a fte r a l l , provide the best education possible f o r a l l handicapped c h ild re n . 135 References—Chapter V P e rio d ica l Sosnowsky, W. P ., and Coleman, T. W. "Special Education in the C o lle c tiv e Bargaining Process." Phi Delta Kappan 52 (1971): 610. Unpublished Work Corey, C arlton C. "The Perceived E ffe cts o f C o lle c tiv e Negotia­ tio n s on Aspects o f Special Education in M ichigan." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Michigan State U n iv e rs ity , 1975. APPENDICES APPENDIX A UNDUPLICATED COUNT OF HANDICAPPED SERVED IN SPECIAL EDUCATION AS OF FOURTH FRIDAY APPENDIX A UNOUPltCATEO COUNT OF HANDICAPPED SERVED IN SPECIAL EDUCATION AS OF 4th FRIDAY Coa*. Progs. Inst. Progs. Total Actual 76-77 Actual 76-77 Actual 76-77 * of Students ( of Students f of Students 3-21 3-21 3-21 1 of K-12 Population* 1976-77 Total Actual 75-76 t of Students 3-21 X of K-12 Populations* 1975-76 .015 .016 .005 -.04 .32 .02 .12 .00 -.05 HI El 31,805 11,717 2,581 772 34,386 12,489 .006 35,695 10.404 ID HI VI POHIpUH) S»L 26,007 2,740 1,099 4.S8S 65,730 -0298 306 36 -0- 26,007 3,038 1,405 4,621 65,730 .012 .001 .001 .002 .029 19,732 2,982 1,251 4,625 69.460 .009 .001 .001 .002 .030 143,683 3,993 147,676 .066 144,149 .063 I Increase Projected *** of Students t of Students in 1976-77 for 1977-78 .20 Projector * of k -i: Populatir 1977-71 33,011 14,987 .015 .007 34,329 3,099 1.S74 4,621 62,443 .016 .001 .001 .002 .029 154,064 .070 * 1976*77 School Age K-12 Population * 2,238,700 (unaudited count as of Oct. 1, 1976) ** 1975*76 School Age K-12 Population * 2,282,900 (audited count as of Sept. 26, 197S) *** Projected School Age K-12 Population for 1977-79 based on 2% decrease of 1976-77 from 1975-76 - 2,193,900 NOTES: 1. Non-Public Schools reported 757 handicapped students In 197S-76 and 1,331 handicapped students In 1976-77. It is uncertain as to whether these counts include only those students being served by the non-public schools or whether they include sow students being served through public school ancillary services. I. Handicapped persons being served by Dept, of Social Services in 11 of their facilities were not reported For these counts or in the School Age Population figures. 3. Handicapped persons in Dept, of Correction facilities have not been identified and were not reported in these counts or in the School Age Population figures. Presentedby: Or. Olane Hudson, Consultant for MichiganStats Department of Education at Special Education Director's Conference heldat Weber's Inn- Ann Arbor, Mi. Augutt 1977 APPENDIX B A GUIDE TO WEIGHTING MAINSTREAMED PUPILS IN THE REGULAR CLASSROOM APPENDIX B A GUIDE TO WEIGHTING MAINSTREAMED PUPILS IN THE REGULAR CLASSROOM1 Student Category Weight Factor 1. T ra in a b le M e n ta lly Impaired 3.0 2. Educable M e n ta lly Impaired 2.5 3. Learning D is a b ility 4. Severe Hearing Handicapped Moderate Hearing Handicapped 5. 2 -2 .5 (Dependent on nature and s e v e rity ) 2.5 2.0 V is u a lly Handicapped B lin d P a r t ia lly Seeing 6. P h y s ic a lly Handicapped 7. Severe M u ltip le Handicapped 8. E m otio na lly Impaired 3.0 2.5 1 .5 -2 .5 (Dependent on nature and s e v e rity ) 3.0 (w ith aides) 2-3 .0 (Dependent on nature and s e v e rity ) Each o f the lis t e d w eight fa c to rs is a r e la tiv e w eighting based on M ichigan's average p u p il-te a c h e r r a t io in the re g u la r classroom (23.8) and s ta te re q u ire d cla ss size f o r various ca te ­ go rie s o f special education stud en ts. (Special Education Rules, S tate Department o f E d uca tion.) p Special education students as defined by the Michigan Department o f Education, G uidelines f o r Special Education Programs and Services in M ichigan. 137 APPENDIX C MAP OF 17 REGIONS OF MICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION APPENDIX C MAP OF 17 REGIONS OF MICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION nai D lh < * C n U b{ t ( N i tN tio v ta n 7 M IG C mtiivim im m i ■ « iif w i nifwi mr IK M ty O K lfK . I l PI N l c^ro* wiltuill P O ltO U M O * O C r*« * IOSCO ott ■ mas M l O f t 'P I LlC*ft W ■ 4 P * V '0 T ■ C 4 .M V 0 M IllO fi iiM 138 if M * w i APPENDIX D MAINSTREAMED HANDICAPPED STUDENTS FROM MICHIGAN STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 1976 FOURTH FRIDAY COUNT APPENDIX D Table Dl.~-Mainstreamed handicapped students from Michigan State Department o f Education 1976 fo u rth Friday count. School D is tr ic t D e tro it EMI El LD HI VI POHI Speech Total Livonia EMI El LD VI Speech Total 2A N o rth v ille EMI El LD Total SE Room Students FTE Students % o f Time in GE 3,945 708 645 276 279 857 3,072 681 527 276 184 498 — — 6,710 4,962 16 105 282 186 21 65 123 86 9 38 56 54 57 22 3 18 0 34 42 — — — — 594 283 52 2 34 65 101 .2 5.0 9.5 14.7 99 87 86 87 Support Service FT GE Total SE Students 338 166 291 84 60 67 7,271 8,277 4,283 874 936 360 339 924 79 221 95 14 850 1,259 184 503 281 35 --------------------- Total Student Pop. — 7,716 264,510 — 1,003 30,717 2 34 65 101 5,300 Table D l.— Continued. Ohnoi ni*et-iv+ School D is tr ic t SE Room students FTE Students nf ^ ™ S E ? !!! FT GE Total SE Students J°£ L pop 2B LD Speech Total 2B Grosse Pointe EMI TMI El LD Speech Total 2D Garden C ity EMI El LD HI Speech Total Romulus EMI El LD HI VI POHI Total 48 9.9 79 ------ ------ - - 48 9.9 79 27 25 67 55 15.0 22.5 57.8 36.0 45 1 13 45 — 48 172 172 26 ------ 29 80 558 693 — — 174 131.3 25 206 217 265 17 112.0 94.6 84.5 17.0 57 57 68 — — - - - - — 705 308.1 — 56 57 104 70 7 2 4 244 29.9 33.8 20.4 1.0 .2 .6 85.9 48 67 71 86 90 85 65 - — 308 308 — — - — — _ - - ------ 48 1,333 53 25 96 135 — 309 10,695 206 217 265 17 — 705 9,975 57 104 70 7 2 4 244 4,086 Table D l.— Continued. School D is tr ic t 2F Grosse lie “ EMI LD Speech Total stu d S ts FTE S tu L ts ^ 13.3 4.4 34 77 20 19 -39 17.7 17 3 29 7 1 8 2F Riverview EMI El LD Speech Total ~?9 76 67 2F Wyandotte EMI El LD Speech Total 105 49 24 — 178 78.8 49.0 4.0 25 83 ------ ------ 82.8 53 2F Trenton EMI El LD HI Speech Total 30 1 4 73 -108 59 67 72 —_ ------ 708 — — 80 “ SO - - 30 1 4 73 Support ------ - —— _ _ __ 17 _— ----------- 119 779 ------ - Tntal SE Students 20 19 - - 39 17 3 29 ------ ~49 778 10 114 30 11 118 73 ------ 3,533 105 49 24 293 293 245 369 Total Student Pop. 232 6,500 6,112 Table D1 . —Continued. ptp School D is tr ic t 2G Plymouth EMI El LD POHI VI Speech Total 2G Van Buren EMI El LD VI Speech Total 21 River Rouqe EMI El LD Speech Total 21 A llen Park EMI LD Speech Total * oin f GE students Students 77 140 101 6 1 -325 45.5 42.0 51.8 6.0 1.0 139.3 57 66 32 164 50.1 6.2 31.3 24 81 81 - - 41 70 49 — 31 38 ------ — ------ — - - -262 ----- --- 87.6 67 99 17 15 38.3 2.5 14.9 61 85 1 « Support Service FT GE - - ------ 131 55.7 57 19 80 -99 12.1 19.7 36 75 ------ ------ 31.8 68 539 608 8 10 9 136 163 ------ 20 151 171 —_ - - 143 143 T t t (.p Students Total Student P()p> 77 171 139 6 1 - - 394 14,289 66 40 174 9 ro ------ 289 7,489 99 17 35 - - TsT 3,503 19 80 — 99 4,378 Table D1 . —Continued. School D is tr ic t 21 Lincoln Park EMI El LD HI VI Speech Total SE Room Students FTE Students 101 20 103 86.4 8.0 30.0 20 20.0 24? 14474 % o f Time in GE 14 60 71 41 Wayne ISP POHI Speech Total 2 3 3 2 1 323 334 180 120 300 3AB Columbia EMI LD Total 34 __7 41 15.7 4.0 19.7 3AB Concord EMI El LD POHI Total 34 1 2 _2 39 22.5 38 29 67 3AB E, Jackson EMI LD Total Support Service FT GE Total SE Students Total Student Pop. 103 23 106 2 21 255 8,157 180 TSO 54 43 52 34 _7 41 2,250 22.5 42 34 1 2 2 39 1,164 22.6 41 85 60 38 _2£ 67 1,797 4.4 27.0 Table D1.--Continued. School D is tr ic t SAB Grass Lake LD SAB Hanover Horton LD 3AB Jackson EMI El LD HI VI POHI Speech Total SE Room students FTE Students nf [ n ge ft ge Total SE Students CI ° ! £ L pjjjj 3.7 63 10 979 16 4.1 74 16 1,430 105 17 54 29 2 23 71.8 12.6 17.5 16.0 .6 17.0 32 26 68 45 60 26 135.5 4T 344 382 _ 10 3AB Michiqan Center EMI LD Total 39 19 58 21.8 6.0 27.8 44 68 52 3AB Northwest EMI LD Total 40 27 67 23.1 8.2 31.3 10 2.2 5 25 4 4 110 42 54 33 6 23 m 12,594 39 19 58 1,958 42 70 53 40 27 67 4,000 78 10 1,201 SAB Napoleon No special education rooms 3AB Sprinqport LD Table 01.—Continued. p r Dnrtm School D is tr ic t 3AB Vandercook Lake EMI LD Total Western EMI LD Total Jackson ISD El LD HI VI POHI Speech Total 3C Ann Arbor EMI El LD HI VI Total Washtenaw ISD t»0HI Speech Total ^ SlippOPt Tn-fal Students Students CTC o f Time in GE Service FT GE Stu(jents 6 16 22 3.0 5.1 8.1 50 68 63 5 26 31 2.4 3.2 5.6 52 88 82 46 29 46 29 - — — — — — — — - - — — — — — 75 75 — 94 236 190 15 6 941 60 63 24 10 4 161 — — - - — — — — — — 36 73 87 33 33 83 _ — — — 72 110 24 16 53 559 834 2 2 ----------- ------ 65 75 T40 CC T o ta l Student Pop. 6 16 22 1,440 5 26 31 2,410 118 139 24 16 53 — 350 96 238 190 15 6 945 65 — 65 18,768 Table D l.—Continued. School D is tr ic t 4A Albion EMI El LD Speech Total 4A Thornapple Kellogg EMI El LD POHI Speech Total 4A Del ton Kelloqq LD Speech Total 4A Hastings EMI El LD Speech Total FIE tudents % o f Time in GE Support Service FT GE Total SE Students 41.2 11.7 14.8 26 2 64 --- 56 12 41 --- - - 67.7 38 5.7 2.2 11.0 19 76 69 - - - - ------ ------ 18.9 63 1.3 89 - - ------ 1.3 89 45.3 10.3 11.9 18 21 70 — 67.5 — 37 - - 103 103 — 26 13 114 153 16 50 66 _— - ------ 173 173 Total Student Pop. --- W 3,246 7 9 61 13 -P* cn ------ 90 2,180 28 — “ 28 2,475 55 13 39 — 107 4,000 Table 01.—Continued. Students ^ o in f Time ^ 176.4 70.1 46.3 22.8 9.3 51.1 17 1 82 9 23 25 ktp School D is tr ic t 4A B a ttle Creek EMI El LD HI VI POHI Speech Total Calhoun ISD EMI El LD HI VI POHI Speech Total 5A Kalamazoo EMl El LD HI VI POHI Total — — 376.0 32 189.6 .3 - - - - ------ — — - - — ------ — Support Service FT GE 10 -----— - - - 511 521 cp c+11,40n*c Students 213 81 165 25 12 68 — 564 114 4 22 6 3 18 261 428 114 194 22 6 3 18 M_ 198 178 134 68 1 60 639 189.6 .3 153.0 144.2 117.7 54.0 23 19 13 21 — — 44.6 513.5 27 20 — — — — — Total Student pop 9,145 — 357 13,395 Table D1 . —Continued. School D is tr ic t SE Room Students 5B Climax Scotts LD 5B Comstock ~ EOT El LD Speech Total 5B Galesburg Augusta EMI El LD Speech Total 5B Gull Lake EMI LD Speech Total 5B Parchment EMI El LD Speech Total FTE Students % o f Time in GE 8 2.6 67 26 49 8 25 31 2 42 37 75 Support Service FT GE 8 — 34 ------ 60 49 8 189 223 117 — — — 83 48 43 66 4 10 36 2 3 45 50 70 “ 80 41" 49 46 23 12 14 74 39 — — — "69 26 62 133 733 31 10 19 18 10 12 42 — — — — — — 60 40 33 37 Total SE Students — 24 — 68 92 — - - — 69 69 Total Student Pop. 852 — 3,109 66 28 10 W 1,299 46 23 — 69 3,826 31 10 19 — 60 2,250 Table D1.--Continued. ftp School D is tr ic t 5B Schoolcraft El 5B Vicksburg EMI LD Speech Total Kalamazoo ISD EMI El VI POHI Speech Total 6A Warren EMI El LD HI VI POHI Speech Total Students Students * oin f Time GE 9 8.3 8 32 11 — 43 23.6 5.1 26 54 28.7 33 30 22 30 22 — — — - - 42 53 95 7 ----- - — 52 — --- 52 ------ 128 55 306 71 29 98.5 36.6 144.7 55.5 17.9 — 589 Support Service n G£ 23 33 53 22 38 ------ - - - - ------ 353.2 40 --- 45 10 264 326 56 41 137 — - - 84 1,111 1,429 T A 4 .al cF UStudents l I . n. 9 Total Student pop 904 32 53 - - 85 3,000 37 22 45 10 -tk to --- 114 184 96 443 71 29 84 ------ 307 31,498 Table D l.—Continued. School D is tr ic t Mt. Clemens EMI El LD POHI Total Anchor Bay LD El POHI Speech Total Chippewa Valley EMI LD Speech Total L'Anse Creuse EMI El LD Speech Total SE Room Students FTE Students 67 32 19 27 145 51.1 25.8 18.4 25.8 121.1 24 20 3 4 16 27 7.3 73 — — — — — — — — — 27 7.3 73 70 47 29.8 27.4 57 42 — — nf * i n cf — 117 57.2 51 133 83 39 78.4 75.0 22.5 41 10 42 — — 255 175.9 — 31 GE ft — — - - _ — — 25 8 150 183 — — 216 216 5 30 15 268 318 Total SE Students 67 32 19 27 145 Total Student Pop. 5,700 27 25 8 — 60 4,045 70 47 — 117 5,000 138 113 54 — 305 8.255 Table D1.--Continued. School D is tr ic t Macomb ISD EMI El LD HI VI POHI Speech Total Students m . Students o f Time gE — 83 83 — — — — — — — — — -83 — — 83 — 30 13 85 18.8 7.7 71.9 7A Clawson EMI El LD Speech Total T2JT 98.4 23 7A Ferndale EMI El LD HI POHI Speech Total 92 107 69 21 35 — 324 40 29 11 20 8 57 73 84 5 77 — 37 41 16 — — 108 67 Service FT GE Jotal SE Students 62 62 83 3 12 70 44 3 12 70 44 313 504 7 - ------ 225 332 20 - - - - 257 277 Total Student Pop. — 274 8,255 37 13 85 ------ 135 3,947 112 107 69 21 35 _ — 344 6,173 Table Dl.---Continued. School D is tr ic t 7A Hazel Park EMI El LD POHI Speech Total *7A Lamphere EMI El LD Speech Total 7A Troy EMI El LD Speech Total SE Room Students FTE Students % o f Time in GE 204 212 85 27 177.5 196.4 74.0 24.0 13 7 13 12 — — 528 471.9 TT 32 49 9 30 42 9 6 — 14 Support Service FT GE 44 40 --- 6 265 355 ----- 8T To 88 86 175 47 47 121 47 45 31 349 215 38 59 21 317 32.2 15.1 8.6 46 28 73 - - — — — — — Total Studenl Pop. 248 252 85 33 — 6T8 8 32 49 17 195 203 "98 33 121 — "90 Total SE Students --- 86 28 445 506 203 4T0 7,023 4,195 9,000 7B Birminqham “ EMI El LD POHI Speech Total 397 55.9 86 — — — 49 527 576 59 21 317 49 — 446 12,516 Table D1 . —Continued. ptc School D is tr ic t 7C Pontiac EMI El LD HI VI POHI Speech Total 7D Southfield EMI El LD Speech Total 7E Waterford EMI El LD HI POHI Speech Total Students ctl.io n tc Students 421 356 145 58 16 82 336.9 142.0 98.1 53.2 16.0 58.8 ^ o finTime 6E Support Service GE Tn+ai cc 'r* Students 20 94 98 19 11 515 454 164 69 16 131 60 32 8 27 — 49 797 1,068 17349 1,078 705TF 94 68 210 73.4 60.2 98.1 21 94 12 68 53 210 372 23177 38 195 217 45 36 17 134.0 140.7 36.3 31.3 17.0 31 35 19 13 3 5 0 30 — — 5T0 448 458 372" 36 16 195 253 61 36 17 692 744 562 Total Student pop 19,508 cn Go 17,009 Table D l.—Continued. School D is tr ic t 7F Royal Oak EMI El LD HI VI POHI Speech Total 76 Farminqton EMI El LD POHI Speech Total 7H Bloomfield H ills EMI TMI El LD HI Speech Total etof Total Student Pop. Support Service FT GE Total SE Students 28 10 11 19 7 51 — 25 103 155 93 8 9 30 561 959 200 181 154 47 15 74 — 671 35 104 144 14 63 23 58 80 119 190 509 90 640 257 54 25 55 168 20 532 800 908 14,500 105 28 113 143 461 -850 23 8 37 48 444 — 560 78 72 67 66 4 — 34 27 -46 73 28 376 550 132 28 159 216 489 — 1,024 8,373 SE Room Students FTE Students 97 26 61 39 6 44 -273 70.2 23.3 54.2 31.6 5.6 21.4 — 206.3 94 135 341 70 of Time in GE 12,763 Table D l.—Continued. Students ^ o1n f Time GE 31.0 3.7 17.6 37 26 12 ftp School D is tr ic t 7H Rochester EMI El LD Speech Total Oakland ISD “ El HI Total 49 5 20 ~ 74 ------ ------ 52.3 29 17 11 28 17 11 28 - 13 66 225 304 - — — Tfl+ai cr Students Total Student pop_ 49 18 86 » m 10,185 17 11 “ 28 ui 8A Lansinq EMI El LD HI VI POHI Speech Total 374 175 101 63 296 164 92 54 124 -837 110 7T6 T5 8B Dansvilie LD 16 2 87 8B East Lansing El LD Speech TotaT Support Service FT GE — 56 6 9 14 — 11 — — ____ — — — ------- 68 168 84 25 30 22 1,469 1,866 — 59 41 125 225 tn 442 343 185 88 30 146 1,234 29,140 16 1,122 59 41 — Too 5,032 Table Dl.—Continued. School D is tr ic t 8B H aslett EMl El LD POHI Total cc D«„m Students ctc * Students 33 33 ------ — — ------ ------ — - - __ — “ 33 33 ------ 39 24 33.5 .7 14 97 H olt EMI LD El Total "63 34.2 46 Leslie EMI LD Total 27 20 47 3.7 2.1 5.8 86 89 88 Mason EMI LD Total 66 57 123 56.2 6.7 62.9 15 88 49 38 10 27.3 10.0 62 Okemos EMI El LD Total — - - - - ------ “ 48 37.3 ------ — 22 Support ^G E 6 Tn+al r r Students Total Stpjjpnt 33 14 18 17 82 2,029 39 58 25 122 4,585 27 20 47 1,879 — 66 57 123 3,500 43 20 16 79 81 30 16 127 3,355 ------ 14 18 17 49 - - 34 25 59 - — — — - - Table D l.—Continued. School D is tr ic t 8B Williamston EMI El Total Inqham ISD EMI El LD HI VI POHI Speech Total 9A Grand Rapids EMI El LD HI VI POHI Speech Total 9B Godfrey Lee EMI Speech Total SE Room Students Students o f Time jn 25 17 42 3.0 2.5 5.5 88 85 87 50 21 50 11 48 — — — - - — — — — 61 78 380.6 324.1 265.4 87.8 16.8 154.6 31 18 50 32 50 23 — 71 554 397 527 130 33 202 — T7M3 12 -12 — ------ — Total SE Students py w -p ----------- 121 50 - - 35 25 110 505 846 44 33 71 35 13 26 1,931 2,153 229.3 33 9 25 _ _ --- 41 41 — 9 25 25 17 42 Total Student Pop. 1,850 121 100 21 35 25 110 — 412 598 430 598 165 46 228 — 2,065 39,385 12 — 12 1,215 Table D l.—Continued. ptc School D is tr ic t Students & Support ° T T™ in GE S! : v’ “ FT GE cr Students Total St“ ^ n t Pop. 9B Godwin Heiqhts "TUI — El LD Total 9B K ello gg sville EMI El POHI Speech Total 9B Wyominq EMI El LD POHI Speech Total 54 60 64 59 11.8 30.0 8.2 2 47 57 - - - - 50.0 43 5 15 37 63 — — 20 59 368 61 9 2 52 25 — - - - - 438 T5 ----------- 22 --- 174 196 — 29 96 125 26 39 33 285 383 28 27 33 88 2,514 34 57 19 - - TTo 4,300 8 41 29 _ _ ” 78 2,261 402 167 12 33 _ _ 6,839 158 9B Grandville EMI El LD Speech Total 13 11 12 36 Table D l.—Continued. ptc Qt../ion+c Students School D is tr ic t % o f1nTime GE Kent ISD EMI HI VI POHI Speech Total Support Service n GE 396 114 30 6 9 555 10A F lin t EMI El LD HI VI POHI Speech Total 663 217 335 110 28 129 474 156 175 84 18 119 29 28 48 24 36 8 TT48? 1,026 31 10B Carmen EMI El LD Speech Total 74 8 186 -268 51.7 4.8 25.2 30 40 86 81.7 70 92 - - -------- 13 15 15 884 ,019 -------- - 189 189 T . , QF c*,,,!--*Students Total Student pop 396 114 30 6 - - 546 755 217 335 123 43 144 cn to — 1,617 38,465 74 8 186 — 268 8,150 Table D l.—Continued. School D is tr ic t 10B Grand Blanc EMI El LD POHI Speech Total Genesee ISD El LD HI POHI Total 11A Saginaw EMI El LD HI VI POHI Speech Total 1IB Birch Run EMI El LD Total SE Room Students FTE Students 39 43 27 29.6 19.3 11.1 - ------ ofTim e 24 55 59 — ------ 109 60.0 — 45 26 26 — ------ — — - - — — ------ — — "26 26 — 415 108 44 30 21 39 319.8 85.8 25.7 23.8 13.0 39.0 23 21 42 21 38 — Service - — — 9 188 197 - - 63 75 76 FIT 12 44 — — 15 43 972 1,086 — — 657 507.1 23 49 1 26 76 39.0 1.0 .4 40.4 20 - - - - - - 99 47 _ — — Total SE Students J P S l!. Student 39 43 27 9 — 118 7,875 26 63 75 76 240 427 152 44 30 36 82 — 771 18.026 49 1 26 76 2,734 Table 0 1 .--Continued. School D is tr ic t 11B Bridgeport EMI El LD Total 11B Buena Vista EMl El LD Speech Total 11B C arrollton EMI El LD Speech Total SE Room Students FTE Students % o f Time in GE 40 7 55 102 21 4 12 37 47 43 78 64 93 21 15 68.1 17.2 1.8 27 18 88 129 87.1 51 55 24 47.8 54.4 22.4 1W 124.6 T 37 33 100 20 29.8 32.2 59.1 18.2 20 2 41 9 190 139.2 27 Support Service FT GE — 40 7 55 102 Total Studenl Pop. 5,245 93 21 15 106 706 6 1 7 Total SE Students 18 25 34 182 759 129 3,060 69 80 58 m 2,150 11B Freeland No special education program 1IB Saginaw Township EMI El LD HI Speech Total 30 228 258 67 33 100 20 220 7,541 Table Dl.--Continued. Ohnni n-ic+i»{r+ School D is tr ic t SE Room Students FTE Students nf * 280 40 6 8 32 — 366 153.4 29.7 4.9 .2 25.8 214.0 10 13 10 13 — — — 23 — 50 35 22 2 8 29 36 51 33 27 — - - \n ^ S iJ K n ! f t GE Total SE Students c llS If Pop Saginaw ISP Homebound students only 12A EMI El LD HI POHI Speech Total Bay Arenac ISD El LD Speech Total Midland EMI El LD VI POHI Speech Total 70 55 45 3 11 ------ TM — 45 26 18 97 10 — TT7 42 — — — 25 579 604 - - — — — 3?r 129 T29 25 16 15 8 — 450 FfT 280 40 6 8 57 — 391 15,515 10 13 — 23 95 71 60 11 11 — 248 11,513 Table D l.“ Continued. rr Dnrun School D is tr ic t Midland ISD EMI El LD POHI VI HI Speech Total 13C Muskegon EMI El LD HI VI POHI Speech Total 13C Muskeqon Heights EMI El Speech Total St(jdents PTC Students 9 7 8 3 9 7 8 3 — ^ SUPpOPt Tn*l-al CC Total ofT im e Service Students Student - - — ---------------- ------ — - - ------ — ------ ~27 27 ------ 216 207 231 49 10 128 142.4 141.2 44.0 39.7 7.5 104.7 34 32 81 19 25 18 --- --- MT 479.5 43 155 7 104.8 5.7 32 19 — - - - - 162 110.5 17 — 32 — 7 5 1 63 93 — 164 - - 25 6 194 320 709 — — 98 98 26 7 8 10 5 1 ------ 57 216 371 231 74 16 322 ------ 1,230 9,500 155 7 — 162 3,325 Table Dl.~Continued. School D is tr ic t SE Room Students ftp c+l.iontc Students * o finT1me GE 13C Reeths Puffer EMI El LD Speech Total 146 34 77 13C North Muskegon LD Speech Total 16 — 16 3 81 Muskegon ISP POHI Speech Total 14A Alcona EMI El Speech Total 14A Alpena EMI LD 78 75 76 — - — ~3 8T Tn+al r r IStudents ? "}' I* — 85 16 45 — — 162 162 T?6 Total Student p()p> 4,136 16 20 20 _ — T6 1,008 CTl --- -- 14 19 -33 72 41 51 HI VI POHI Speech Total 19 4 11 85 16 45 Support Service n GE — — 3.7 8.7 74 55 — - - 12.4 62 72 26 10 -- 37 80 — — — T64 --108 — — 34 36 186 222 36 -36 -60 60 14 19 — “ 33 -35 1 1 2 192 231 1,419 72 41 86 1 1 2 - - 203 8,540 Table D1.—Continued. School D is tr ic t 14A A tlanta EMI El LD Total pr D„ m Students 4 2 8 14 e rr Students 1.0 .3 1.2 2.5 * o fT Ire 75 85 85 82 Support Service — — — — Trt+al pr St(jdents 4 2 8 14 14A Fairview No special education program 19 9 53 — 19 14A Hillman EMI El LD Total 4 2 17 23 2.8 .4 5.8 9.0 30 80 66 61 — — — — 4 2 17 23 14A Mio AuSable No special education program 14A Rogers C ity EMI 640 532 14A Johannesburg Lewiston El 14A Onaway EMI LD Total Total Student 730 900 18 11 “ 59 10.5 4.6 157T 42 58 48 — — — 18 11 29 1,400 14 14 — — 14 1,300 Table Dl.--Continued. SE Room Students FTE Students % o f Time in GE Support Service FT GE Total SE Students Coor ISO EMI El LD HI VI POHI Speech Total 95 20 146 4 -1 — 266 48.7 12.8 54.4 3.5 -r.7 — 120.1 49 36 63 --12 — 55 25 --2 19 4 363 413 120 20 146 6 19 5 — 316 15B Buckley EMI El LD POHI Total 3 I 9 1 14 1.0 .2 1.1 .2 2.5 67 80 88 80 82 — — — 3 1 9 1 15B Cadillac EMI HI Total 94 9 103 43.1 5.1 48.2 54 43 53 — — — School D is tr ic t — 330 94 9 103 15B Gerrish Higgins No special education program 15B Kalkaska EMI El LD Total Total Student Pop. 4,066 1,720 35 28 41 T04 15.3 9.6 18.7 43.6 56 66 54 58 — -_ — 35 28 41 104 1,899 Table D1.--Continued. SE Room Students FTE Students % o f Time in GE 15B Kingsley EMI El Total 40 7 47 7.9 2.5 10.4 80 64 78 15B McBain LD 13 1.8 15B Mesick EMI 36 15B Pine River EMI 15B Lake C ity EMI School D is tr ic t Wexford Missaukee ISD El Speech 16A Biq Bay de Noc EMI 16A Brimley LD Support Service FT GE Total SE Students Total Student Pop. — 40 7 47 745 86 — 13 750 12.5 65 — 36 755 33 20 40 — 33 1,400 22 15.3 30 — 22 — — — — — — — — 8 272 280 8 — 8 25 10 60 — 25 613 9 6 33 — 9 521 Table 01.--Continued. ftp School D is tr ic t Students ct..Hon+c Students % o f Time i n GE Support Service FT GE T . , c-r JS J Students 16A Detour No special education program 16A Enqadine EMI El LD POHI Total 428 5 2 11 1 "T9 5 5 2 11 2 11 1 T9 ~19 1 16A Les Cheneux No special education program 512 27 — 27 14 a 27 48 48 55 55 "27 16A Pickford No special education program 16A Rudyard EMI LD Speech Total 540 168 16A Manistique EMI Speech Total Total Student popt 2,600 475 26 23 4.6 4.9 82 79 49 "975 8T 26 23 91 91 “49 2,135 Table Dl.—Continued* pr School D is tr ic t 16A Sault Ste. Marie EMI El LD POHI Speech Total 16A St. Ignace EMI Speech Total 16A Tahquamenon EMI LD Speech Total Q n A m rTC ^ SUppOPt Tribal S t in ts 9 10 42 10 71 3.4 7.5 8.0 5.1 — 24.0 62 25 81 49 — 66 ---136 136 9 10 42 10 — 71 4,858 16 — 16 8.1 — 8.1 49 — 19 — 41 41 16 — 16 1,150 24 8 — ~32 12.4 2.9 -25.3 48 64 -2T — -60 “ 60 24 8 — ~1Z 1,789 — ofJ ™ in GE FT GE S ^denU Total Students 16A W hitefish No special education program Eastern Upper Peninsula ISD HI C C **» *■ * Pop. 115 — — — 11 11 17 18 — 35 11.9 17.4 30 4 — 16 — — 68 68 17 18 — 35 17A Ishpeming EMI LD Speech Total — 29.3 1,670 Table Dl.--Continued. School D is tr ic t 17A Gwinn EMI Speech Total 17A Marquette EMI LD POHI Speech Total SE Room Students Students Support T t , <-F 36 28 22 -- 28 22 95 95 32 69 13 25 59 64 -101 —-- 38 TO 17A Neqaunee EMI LD Speech Total 18 5 -“ 23 18 1 T9 104 47.5 10 --- TOT --- — -62 5 210 215 „ ----- 34 34 „ vm m 80 --- T7 64 64 —— 5? 3,250 32 69 5 — 106 5,174 10 54 —— 47.5 —— “ 36 170 10 10 Total ^ 36 -36 17A Munising EMI Speech Total 17A N.I.C.E. LD Speech Total * ptp --- To 1,510 18 5 --- “ 23 2,007 104 77 77 T04 1,782 Table 01.—Continued. School D is tr ic t 17A Republic Michiqamme EMI LD Speech Total 17A Rock EMI SE Room Students FTE Students % o f Time in GE 10 18 10.0 3.5 — ------ 81 ------ Support Service FT GE 28 13.5 57 20 10 21 9 57 — — - - ------ Total SE Students 10 18 — 18 445 21 347 17A Rock River No special education program Marquette ISD EMI El HI VI POHI Speech Total Total Studenl Pop. 446 — 20 22 - - 20.0 12.5 — — 43 12 22 ----- 12 42 22 14 11 42 32.5 23 14 11 149 208 ISA Adams Township EMI 15 7.2 52 — 15 654 18A Barqa EMI 30 23 23 — 30 789 18A Calumet EMI El Total 50 12 62 28.9 11.8 40.7 42 2 34 50 12 62 2,051 — ------ — - - ------ — ------ — — — - — — 101 Table Dl. —Continued. School D is tr ic t SE Room Students FTE Students % o f Time in GE Support Service FT GE cr B tt Students 18A Chassell Township No special education program 18A Forest Park EMI LD Speech Total 18A Hancock EMI Total Student Pop. 353 7 16 7 8 50 13 15 35 34 27 21 7 16 Ji 39 “23 910 34 1,200 ISA L'Anse No special education program 1,155 18A Lake Linden No special education program 736 ISA Osceola Township No special education program 434 19A Portage Township El 18A Stanton Township No special education program 1,258 200 Table D1 . —Continued. School D is tr ic t 18A West Iron County EMI LD Speech Total FTE Students % o f Time in GE 6 39 5.0 11.8 17 70 — - - — 45 5 ------ 16.8 63 2 60 - _ _ 5 2 60 Support Service FT GE — — Total SE Students Total Student Pop. 6 39 82 82 45 5 98 6 109 10 98 6 TT4 — 1,865 173 Cheboygan, Otsego, Presque Is le ISD HI LD VI Total SE Room Students APPENDIX E LETTER TO UNISERV DIRECTORS APPENDIX E LETTER TO UNISERV DIRECTORS 2748 Glenbridge Ann A rbor, Michigan August 29, T977 The mainstreaming o f special education students in to general education classrooms has presented new problems in education. I am a doctoral student a t Michigan State U n iv e rs ity . I have been working w ith Dr. J a m ille Webster and w ith the s t a f f a t the Michigan Education A ssociation o ffic e s in Lansing and w ith the State Department o f Education on these problems. Your name was given to me as the D ire c to r o f the Uniserv u n it and the person to contact about teacher concerns on the mainstreaming issue and what c o n tra c t considerations are being negotiated in your area. Because your in p u t is o f v it a l importance to the study I would lik e to ta lk to you p e rso n a lly, a t le a s t by telephone. I also know you are very busy a t th is time o f year w ith n e g o tia tio n s ; th e re fo re , I am enclosing a survey sheet f o r you to look over. I f you do not want me to phone you, please f i l l in the survey sheet and mail i t back to me in the enclosed envelope. I f you would lik e to have more in p u t o r have some d e fin ite opinions to express or a d d itio n a l in f o r ­ mation th a t w i l l help w ith the study, I w i l l c a ll you the week o f September 12th. Should you want me to c a ll a t a s p e c ific tim e, j o t the date and tim e on the enclosed form and re tu rn i t to me. Because I know th is is an issue th a t is a concern to you and to a ll teachers in your d i s t r i c t the re s u lts o f the study w i l l be given to the MEA and I am sure they w i ll pu blish these re s u lts in your news­ le t t e r . Thank you f o r your time and in te re s t. S in ce re ly, Dorothy Stewart 174 APPENDIX F SPECIAL EDUCATION MAINSTREAMING SURVEY SHEET APPENDIX F SPECIAL EDUCATION MAINSTREAMING SURVEY SHEET N e g o tia to r: School D is tr ic ts Represented: (Please add o r d e le te i f not c o rre c t) 1. Have teachers in the d i s t r i c t s you represent voiced concern about the mainstreaming o f special education students in to general education? 2. What is t h e ir p rin c ip a l concern in t h is area? 3. W ill you be n e g o tia tin g f o r any con sid era tion s f o r the general education teacher because o f mainstreaming? 4. W ill you be using the MEA sample g u id e lin e s f o r co n tra c t language concerning mainstreaming? 5. W ill con sid era tion s take the form o f m u ltip le count on c h ild re n labeled special education? 6. W ill you be requesting any e x tra planning tim e f o r general education teachers because o f mainstreaming? 175 176 7. W ill you be n e g o tia tin g f o r any in s e rv ic e tr a in in g or special c o lle g e course work compensation because o f mainstreaming? 8. L is t any o th e r type o f c o n sid e ra tio n you w i ll be n e g o tia tin g f o r due to mainstreaming. 9. I f you have completed n e g o tia tio n s fo r any 1977-78 c o n tra c t, is there any language in the c o n tra c t concerning mainstreaming o f special education students? 10. Which d i s t r i c t s are these and to what does the c o n tra c t language p e rta in ? BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books B irc h , Jack W., and Johnson, B. Kenneth. Designing Schools and Schooling f o r the Handicapped. S p rin g fie ld , 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1975. Hoelke, G. M. E ffe ctive n e ss o f Special Class Placement f o r Educable M e n ta lly Retarded C hildren^ L in c o ln , Nebraska: U n iv e rs ity o f Nebraska, 1966. K irk , Samuel A. "Research in E duca tion." In Mental R e ta rd a tio n . Edited by H. A. Stevens and R. Herber. Chicago: U niver­ s it y o f Chicago Press, 1964. Rubin, E. Z .; Senison, C. B .; and Betwee, M. C. E m otionally Handicapped C hildren in the Elementary School. D e tro it: Wayne State U n iv e rs ity Press, 1966. P e rio d ic a ls Abeson, Alan. "Movement and Momentum: Government and the Education o f Handicapped C h ild re n ." Exceptional C hildren 41:2 (1974): 109-17. "AFT Council Urges Teachers to Demand Improvements in New Handicapped Law." American Teacher (January 1977). A sso cia tio n f o r S upervision and C urriculum Development. S o cie ta l Issues: C o lle c tiv e Bargaining and C urriculum 19:3 (1977): Barngrover, E la in e . "C learinghouse: A Study o f Educators' P re fe r­ ences in Special Education Programs." Exceptional C hildren 37:10 (1971): 754-55. Beery, K u ith E. "M ainstream ing: A Problem and an O pportunity f o r General E d uca tion." Focus on Exceptional C hildren 6:6 (1974): 1-7. B la t t , Burton. "The In te g ra tio n -S e g re g a tio n Issue: Some Questions, Assumptions and F a c ts ." Family Involvement 8 :2 (1975): 10-14. 177 178 B o b b itt, W. L e s lie . "When Schools Change." 34:6 (1977): 441. B rin eg ar, L e s lie . Educational Leadership Education o f the Handicapped 2 (May 21, 1976): 7. Browne, James. "Power P o lit ic s f o r Teachers, Modern S ty le ." D elta Kappan 58:2 (1976): 158-64. Budig, Gene A. "What's Ahead f o r Higher Education?" Kappan 59:1 (1977): 13-14. Phi Phi Delta B udoff, M ilto n . "P ro vid in g Special Education W ithout Special C lasses." Journal o f School Psychology 10:2 (1972): 199-205. ________ , and G o ttlie b , Jay A. "Comparison o f E.M.R. C hildren in Special Classes With E.M.R. C hildren Who Have Been R einte­ grated In to Reqular C lasses." Studies in Learninq P o te n tia l 3:50 (1974). C h a ffin , J e rry D. "W ill the Real Mainstreaming Program Please Stand Up— (Or . . . Should Dunn Have Done I t ? ) . " Focus on Exceptional C hildren 6:5 (1974): 1-18. C h ild s , Ronald E. "A Review o f the Research Concerning Mainstreamin q ." Journal f o r Special Educators o f the M en tally Retarded 11:2 (1975): 106-12. C la rk , Gary M. "Mainstreaming f o r the Secondary Educable M en tally Retarded: Is I t D efensible?" Focus on Exceptional C hildren 7:2 (1975): 1-6. "Class Size Formula May R e vo lu tio n ize Teacher C o n tra c ts ." Reporter 16:5 (1977): 10. "Classroom Teachers Feel Caught in Mainstream." 19:16 (1976): 117. NEA Education USA Cochrane, Pamela V ., and W estling, David L. "The P rin c ip a l and Mainstreaming: Ten Suggestions fo r Success." Educational Leadership 34:7 (1977): 506-11. Cole, Robert W., and Dunn, R ita . "A New Lease on L ife f o r Educa­ t io n o f the Handicapped: Ohio Copes w ith 94-142." Phi D elta Kappan 59:1 (1977): 3-7. C o llie r , R ichard, and D 1 rr, P e te r. "Mainstreaming the Handicapped: A C a ll to Commitment." The School A d m in is tra to r 33:4 (1976): 6-7. 179 Cooke, Thomas; A p o llo n i, Tony; and Cooke, Sharon A. "Normal Pre­ school C hildren as Behavioral Models f o r Retarded P eers." Exceptional C hildren 43:8 (1977): 531-33. Cruickshank, W illia m M. "Least R e s tric tiv e Placement: A d m in istra ­ t iv e W ishful T h in k in q ." Journal o f Learning D is a b ilitie s 10:4 (1977): 193-95. Dimond, Paul R. "The C o n s titu tio n a l R ight to Education: The Q uiet R e v o lu tio n ." The Hastings Law Journal 24 (1973). D o ll, G. F. "Classroom In te g ra tio n : Concerns and C autions." Mental R etardation B u lle tin 2:3 (W inter 74/75): 108-11. Doran, Bernadette. " In to the Mainstream." Colleges 2:3 (1975): 33-43. N a tio n 's Schools and Dunn, Lloyd M. "Special Education f o r the M ild ly R etarded--Is Much o f I t J u s tifia b le ? " Exceptional C hildren 35:1 (1968): 5-22. Education o f the Handicapped 2 (May 21, 1976): 6-7. ________ 3 (August 3, 1977): 5-6. ________ 3 (September 14, 1977): 7. _________4 (January 18, 1978): 1-2. _________4 (February 1, 1978): 2-6. Education USA 19:52 (August 29, 1977): 382. Forness, Steven R. L a b e lin g ." 445-50. "Im p lic a tio n s o f Recent Trends in Educational Journal o f Learninq D is a b ilitie s 7:7 (1974): G illu n g , Tom B ., and Rucker, Chauncy N. "Labels and Teacher Expec­ ta t io n s . " Exceptional C h ild ren 43:7 (1977): 464-67. Gruen, Gerald E ., and o th e rs . " P ro b a b ility Learning in Retarded C hildren With D iffe r in g H is to rie s o f Success and F a ilu re in S chool." American Journal o f Mental D e ficie n cy 79:4 (1975): 417-23. Horn, Stephen. "O p p o rtu n itie s f o r the P u b lic Urban U n iv e rs ity ." Phi D elta Kappan 59:1 (1977): 14-16. Huge, James. "The P rin c ip a l as S ta ff Development Leader." Educational Leadership 34:5 (1977): 384-88. 180 Johnson, G. 0. "Special Education f o r M e n ta lly Handicapped—A Paradox." Exceptional C hildren 19 (1962): 62-69. Kaufman, M artin J. "Mainstreaming: Toward an E x p lic a tio n o f the C o n s tru c t." Focus on Exceptional C hildren 7:3 (1975): 1-11. Larsen, Stephen C. "The In flu e n ce o f Teacher Expectations on the School Performance o f Handicapped C h ild re n ." Focus on Exceptional C hildren 6:8 (1975): 1-14. Learning D is a b ilitie s Guide. W aterford, Conn.: c a tio n s , December 1976. C ro ft NEI P u b li­ M acM illan, Donald L ., and Semmel, Melvyn I . "E va lu a tio n o f Mainstreaming Programs." Focus on Exceptional C hildren 9:4 (1977). McDonnell, Lo rraine M. "The In te rn a l P o lit ic s o f NEA." Kappan 58:2 (1976): 185-201. Mainstreaminq: Teachers Make I t Work." 1977): 4. "Mainstreaming: What's I t A ll About?" (1976): 18-19. Phi Delta Teachers Voice (June 20, Today's Education 65:2 M a rtin , Edwin W. "The Deputy Commissioner o f the Bureau o f Educa­ tio n f o r the Handicapped Talks About Educational R ig h ts ." Teacher 94:9 (1977): 46. M ilba uer, Barbara. "The Mainstreaming P u zzle ." (1977): 44-46. Teacher 94:9 M olloy, L a rry . "The Handicapped C h ild in the Everyday Classroom." Phi D elta Kappan 56:5 (1975): 337-40. "NEA Warns o f Hazards in M ainstream ing." capped 2 (January 23, 1976): 5. Education o f the Handi­ Nober, Linda W. "G e ttin g Ready f o r PL 94-142: A Model f o r Support Services to Mainstreamed Hearing Impaired C h ild re n ." The V o lta Review 79:4 (1977): 231-49. Pagen, John. "N e g o tia tio n s , I t ' s Coming—Ready o r N o t." f o r Change 5:3 (1976): 16-17. C a ta ly s t Payne, Reed, and Murray, C harles. " P r in c ip a ls ' A ttitu d e s Toward In te g ra tio n o f Handicapped." Exceptional C h ild ren 41:2 (1974): 123-25. 181 "Proposed NEA R e so lu tio n s, 1977." NEA R eporter 16:5 (1977). Reger, Roger. "What Does 'M ainstream ing' Mean?" Journal o f Learning D is a b ilit ie s 7 :8 (1974): 513-15. Rosenkranz, C a th erine . "Another Look a t M ainstream ing." Memorandum 14:2 (1973): 31-34. Ross, Mark. "M ainstream ing: Some Social C o n s id e ra tio n s ." Review 80:1 (1978): 21-31. Shanker, A lb e r t. "Where We S ta n d ." Bureau The V o lta New York Times, March 20, 1977. S h o te l, Jay, and o th e rs . "Teacher A ttitu d e s A ssociated W ith the In te g ra tio n o f Handicapped C h ild re n ." E xceptional C h ild ren 38:9 (1972): 677-83. Sm ith, H. W., and Kennedy, W. A. "E ffe c ts o f Three Educational Programs on M e n ta lly Retarded C h ild re n ." Perceptual and Motor S k ills 24 (1967): 174. Snyder, Lee; A p p o llo n i, Tony; and Cooke, Thomas P. "In te g ra te d S e ttin g s a t the E a rly Childhood L e ve l: The Role o f Non­ re ta rd e d P e ers." E xceptional C h ild re n 43:5 (1977): 262-70. Sosnowsky, W. P ., and Coleman, T. W. "S pecial Education in the C o lle c tiv e B argaining P rocess." Phi D elta Kappan 52 (1971): 610. W ilson, C liv e . " I n t e n t io n a lit y Judgment and A doptive Behavior in M ild ly Retarded C h ild re n ." Slow Learning C h ild 22:1 (1975): 5-12. "Words From W ashington." 1977): 1-2. Learning D is a b ilit ie s Guide (October Pamphlets B rin e g a r, L e s lie . M ainstreaming O rig in s and Im p lic a tio n s , pp. 18-20. Proceedings o f the J u ly 1975 Deans' P ro je c ts Conference, U n iv e rs ity o f M innesota. Reston, V ir g in ia : CEC, 1975. Coursen, David. "A d m in is tra tiv e Im p lic a tio n s o f M ainstream ing." School Leadership D ig e s t, Second S e rie s , no. 7. A r lin g to n , V ir g in ia : N a tio n a l A s s o c ia tio n o f Elementary School P r in c ip a ls , 1976. 182 D ir r , Peter J . , and L a u g h lin , C. Ann. " In d iv id u a liz in g In s tr u c ­ t io n f o r Handicapped C h ild re n ." A paper f o r the In s tr u c ­ tio n a l Technology Course f o r Teachers. B u ffa lo : S tate U n iv e rs ity o f New York, B u ffa lo , Educational Research and Development Complex, 1974. F e rin , Jeanne B. Mainstreaming O rig in s and Im p lic a tio n s , pp. 16-18. Proceedings o f the J u ly 1975 Deans' P ro je c ts Conference, U n iv e rs ity o f Minnesota. Reston, V ir g in ia : CEC, 1975. G ilh o o l, Thomas K. "Changing P u b lic P o lic ie s Roots and F orces." In Mainstreaming O rig in s and Im p lic a tio n s , pp. 6-12. Proceedings o f the J u ly 1975 Deans' P ro je c ts Conference, U n iv e rs ity o f Minnesota. Reston, V ir g in ia : CEC, 1975. L o r t ie , Dan. Mainstreaming O rig in s and Im p lic a tio n s , pp. 14-16. Proceedings o f the J u ly 1975 Deans' P ro je c ts Conference, U n iv e rs ity o f Minnesota. Reston, V ir g in ia : CEC, 1975. M a rtin , Edwin. " In te g r a tio n o f the Handicapped C h ild In to Regular S ch o o ls." In Mainstreaming O rig in s and Im p !ic a tio n s , pp. 3-6 . Proceedings o f tne J u ly 1975 Deans' P ro je c ts Conference, U n iv e rs ity o f M innesota. Reston, V ir g in ia : CEC, 1975. M ichigan Department o f E ducation. M ichigan Special Education Code as Amended January 14, 1977, Under th e P ro v is io n s o f P u b lic Act 198 o f 1971. Lansing: Michigan Department o f Educat io n , 1977. M ichigan Education A s s o c ia tio n . Power Where I t Counts. Lansing: Michigan Education A s s o c ia tio n , 1977. M ichigan Education D ire c to ry and Buyers Guide 1976-1977. M ichigan: 1977. East Lansing, N a tio n a l A d visory Council on Education P rofessions Development. M ainstream ing: H elping Teachers Meet the C hallenge. Washington, D.C.: N ation al A d viso ry Council on Education P rofessions Development, Summer 1976. Nazzaro, Jean. Second Dimension: Special Education A d m in is tra to rs View the F ie ld . Washington, D .C .: CEC, Bureau o f Educa­ tio n f o r the Handicapped, January 1973. T u rn b u ll, H. R u th e rfo rd . f o r th e Schools. o f A d m in is tra to rs v e n tio n , Chicago, Special Education and Law: Im p lic a tio n s Keynote address d e liv e re d to th e Council o f S pecial E ducation, In te r n a tio n a l Con­ I l l i n o i s , A p r il 5, 1977. 183 Unpublished Works Corey, Carlton C. "The Perceived E ffects o f C o lle ctive Negotiations on Aspects o f Special Education in Michigan." Ph.D. d is ­ s e rta tio n , Michigan State U n ive rsity, 1975. Johnston, W illiam . "A Study to Determine Teacher A ttitu d e s Toward Teaching Special Children With Regular C h ild ren ." 1972. ERIC ED 065 950. Mandatory Special Education in Michigan: Assessment and Recommenaations. Report o f the Ad-Hoc Task Force on Special Educa tio n , July 1977. Ruder, Ann Marie. "The Impact and Im plications o f L e g isla tio n of C o lle ctive Bargaining." Address to the U n ive rsity o f Michigan's In s titu te on The Impact and Im plications o f State and Federal L e g isla tio n A ffe c tin g Handicapped In d i­ vid u a ls, Ann Arbor, May 1977. Legal C ita tion s Brown v. Board o f Education Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Harrison v. Michigan, 350 F. Supp. 846 (E.D. Mich. 1972). Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 401, 497 (D.D.C. 1967). Maryland Association fo r Retarded Children v. Maryland, C ir. Ct. Baltimore Co., Equity no. 100/182/776 76 (May 3, 1974). M ills v. D.C. Board o f Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972). Pennsylvania Association fo r Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972). Public Law 94-142, 94th Congress, S. 6, November 29, 1975. R e h a b ilita tio n Act o f 1973, Public Law 93-112, 87 S ta t. 394 (29 U.S.C. 794). State o f Michigan. 76th L e g isla tu re , Regular Session o f 1971. Enrolled House B il l no. 4475, PA-198.