INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. 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 material
submitted.
The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or notations 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 Him along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the Rim is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because o f
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a
good image o f the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part o f the material being photo­
graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning"
the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer
of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with
small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning
below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by
xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and
tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we
have filmed the best available copy.

University
Mkzrdfilms

International

3 0 0 N. Z E E B R O A D , ANN A R B O R , Ml 4 8 1 0 6
18 B E D F O R D ROW, L O N D O N WC1R 4 E J , E N G L A N D

8006185

R o h e r , J er r y L ee

AN ASSESSMENT OF MAINSTREAMING COMPETENCY IMPORTANCE
AND ABILITY RATINGS AS PERCEIVED BY MICHIGAN AREA
VOCATIONAL CENTER TEACHERS

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

PH.D.

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Afbor, MI 48106

1979

18 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4EJ, England

AN ASSESSMENT OF MAINSTREAMING COMPETENCY
IMPORTANCE AND ABILITY RATINGS AS PERCEIVED
BY MICHIGAN AREA VOCATIONAL CENTER TEACHERS

by
J e r r y L. R o iter

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan S ta te U n iv e rsity
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e requirem ents
f o r th e degree o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College o f Education
1979

ABSTRACT
AN ASSESSMENT OF MAINSTREAMING COMPETENCY
IMPORTANCE AND ABILITY RATINGS AS PERCEIVED
BY MICHIGAN AREA VOCATIONAL CENTER TEACHERS

By
J e r r y L. R o ite r

>

Purpose o f th e Study
The purpose o f t h i s study was tw o -fo ld .

F i r s t o f a l l i t was

intended to a s s e s s th e importance o f mainstreaming competencies as
perceived by Michigan Area Vocational Center t e a c h e r s .

Secondly,

th e study was intended t o a s c e r t a i n th e p erceived a b i l i t y o f
Michigan Area Vocational Center te a c h e rs to perform th e aforem entioned
mainstreaming competencies.
Mainstreaming i s a term commonly used to d e s c r ib e th e education
o f handicapped c h ild r e n in r e g u l a r classroom s.

With th e perceived

importance and p erceived a b i l i t y r a t i n g s contained in t h i s study
i t i s p o s s ib le to i d e n t i f y what mainstreaming competencies Michigan
Area Vocational Center te a c h e r s b e lie v e they need to understand
as well as to i d e n t i f y th e r e l a t e d degree o f need t o in c r e a s e th e
t e a c h e r s ' a b i l i t y to perform th e concerned com petencies.

This

inform ation can be u t i l i z e d to design te a c h e r t r a i n i n g programs
and i n - s e r v i c e programs which a p p r o p r i a te ly p repare te a c h e r s to
teach in a mainstreaming s e t t i n g .

Jerry L. Roiter
P opulation and Samples
The p o pulation f o r t h i s study was comprised o f 722 Michigan Area
Vocational Center te a c h e r s .

The te a c h e rs were employed a t Michigan

Area Vocational C enters in which only v o c atio n a l ed u catio n coursework
and no general edu catio n coursework i s o f f e r e d .
Two p ro p o rtio n a l samples were randomly s e l e c te d .

The i n i t i a l

sample surveyed c o n s is te d o f 143 te a c h e r s o r 20 p e rc e n t o f th e
p o p u la tio n .

Of th e s e te a c h e r s 80 responded f o r a t o t a l o f 56 p e rc e n t

o f th e sample.

A r e p l i c a t i o n survey which follow ed t h e i n i t i a l

survey c o n s is te d o f 72 te a c h e r s o r 10 p e rc e n t o f th e p o p u latio n .
33 te a c h e r s responded f o r a t o t a l o f 46 p e rc e n t o f th e r e p l i c a t i o n
sample.
Data C o lle c tio n and A nalysis
Data were c o ll e c t e d by means o f a q u e s tio n n a ire mailed to th e
te a c h e r s sampled.

P a r t I o f th e q u e s tio n n a ir e sought demographic

inform ation about th e re sp o n d en ts.

P a r t I I sought p e rc e p tio n s

o f th e importance o f 52 s e l e c te d mainstreaming competencies as well as
th e perceived a b i l i t y o f th e te a c h e rs to perform th e com petencies.
The c h i- s q u a re s t a t i s t i c (.0 5 le v e l o f s i g n i f ic a n c e ) was used to
determ ine r e l a t i o n s h i p s in response p a t t e r n s f o r s e l e c te d e x p la n a to ry
v a r i a b le s .
Summary o f th e Findings
The most ty p ic a l demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e respondents
were:
1.

Occupational Area:
55.2 p e rc e n t

Trade and I n d u s t r i a l E ducation,

Jerry L. Roiter
2.

Employment S t a tu s :

F u ll- tim e , 97 p e rc e n t

3.

Earned Educational Degree Level:

B achelors Degree,

35.8 p e rc e n t
4.

Years o f Vocational Education Teaching Experience:
3 to 5 y e a r s , 32.8 p e rc e n t

5.

Type(s) o f Handicap(s) o f S tudents Served:

Learning D isabled,

80.6 p e rc e n t
In th e i n i t i a l survey 49 o f th e 52 mainstreaming competencies
were r a t e d as being im portant by 73 p e rc e n t o r more o f th e re sp o n d en ts.
Of th e 52 mainstreaming com petencies, 47 had l e s s than 50 p e rc e n t o f
the respondents in th e "Can Do Well" c ateg o ry o f perceiv ed a b i l i t y .
The r e p l i c a t i o n survey had 48 o f th e 52 mainstreaming competencies
r a te d as being im portant by 70 p e rc en t o r more o f th e sample.

In th e

r e p l i c a t i o n survey 45 o f th e 52 mainstreaming competencies had l e s s
than 50 p e rc e n t o f th e respondents in th e "Can Do Well" c ateg o ry o f
perceived a b i l i t y .
The independent v a r i a b le s o f Occupational Area and Employment
S ta tu s were in a p p r o p r ia te f o r a n a ly s is by c h i-s q u a re s t a t i s t i c s due
to skewed respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

The independent v a r i a b l e o f

ty p e ( s ) o f handicapping c o n d itio n ( s ) was in a p p ro p r ia te f o r a n a l y s i s
due t o d a ta which were not m u tually e x c lu s iv e .
The independent v a r i a b le s o f Earned Educational Degree Level
and Years o f Vocational Education Teaching Experience had l i t t l e
e f f e c t on th e perceiv ed importance and a b i l i t y r a t i n g s o f th e
resp ond en ts.
The open-ended q u e stio n on th e q u e s tio n n a ir e y ie ld e d f i v e
su g g e stio n s f o r a d d itio n a l competencies to be added to th e q u e s tio n n a ir e .

This study i s d e d ic a te d to my w if e , Margaret Ann, and our c h il d r e n ,
Jeanne L ynnette, C ath erin e Ann, David Lee, and Diane E liz a b e th .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank Dr. Robert Poland, Dr. C a ste lle g Gentry, and
Dr. Frederick Ignatovich f o r t h e i r a s s is ta n c e as members o f my
doctoral committee.

T heir comments and guidance were very helpful

in form ulating and c a rry in g out t h i s research study.
Special thanks are extended to my committee chairman,
Dr. B i l l i e T. Rader, whose e x p e r tis e in mainstreaming and
resea rch techniques were in v alu ab le in th e production o f t h i s
research study.

In a d d itio n , Dr. R ader's s i n c e r i t y and a s s is ta n c e

a t any and a l l tim es have made i t a p lea su re to work with him.
P a r t i c u l a r thanks a re extended to my w ife , Margaret Ann,
whose understanding, s u p p o rt, and a s s i s t a n c e made i t p o s s ib le to
complete t h i s resea rch study.
A ppreciation i s f e l t f o r the y e ars o f support which my p a re n ts ,
Mr. and Mrs. Robert C. R o ite r , and my w i f e 's p a re n ts , Mr. and Mrs.
Earl S. P arker, have provided in the achievement o f t h i s g oal.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TA BLES............................................................................................................ iv

Chapter
1

THE PROBLEM...................................................................................................... 1
1
In tro d u c tio n ............................................................................ . . .
Statem ent o f the Problem ..................................................
5
O perational D e fin itio n s o f the V ariab les .............................. 6
Need f o r the S t u d y ................................................................................. 7
Purpose o f th e Study ........................................................................ 11
Basic Assumptions o f th e Study ................................................... 12
D e lim ita tio n s o f th e Study ........................................................... 13
L im itatio n o f the Study ............................................................... 13
D e fin itio n s o f Terms ........................................................................ 14

2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.......................................................................20
H is to r ic a l Development o f Mainstreaming .............................. 20
L e g is la tiv e Basis f o r Mainstreaming ...................................... 26
S tu dies Concerned With Mainstreaming Teacher
Education Competencies ........................................................... 28

3

RESEARCH PROCEDURES ................................................................................ 33
Population and Sample .................................................................... 33
Instrum ent Development .................................................................... 35
Instrum ent V a lid ity ........................................................................ 38
Survey Methodology ............................................................................ 39
Questions to be A nsw ered.................................................................. 40
Data A n a l y s i s ....................................................................................... 41

4

ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ............................................................................... 43
Overview o f Chapter Four ................................................................ 43
P r o f i l e o f the Respondents ........................................................... 44
Occupational A r e a ...........................................................................44
Employment S ta tu s ........................................................................ 45
Degree Level ................................................................................ 46
Years o f Teaching Experience
........................................... 47
Type(s) o f Handicap(s) o f Students Served ..................... 48
P r o f i l e o f Competency Importance Ratings ................................ 49
ii

iii
Chapter

Page

4

5

Research Questions
72
I n t r o d u c t i o n .................................................................... . 72
Question Number One ........................................................... 72
Q uestion Number Two ........................................................... 73
Question Number Three ....................................................... 73
Question Number F o u r ............................................................81
Question Number F i v e ............................................................82
Suggested A dditions to Competency L i s t ......................... 83
R e p lic a tio n Survey ..................................................................... 83
Summary o f Chapter Four ............................................................ 97
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 99
Summary................................................................................................... 99
The P r o b l e m ..............................................
99
Research Procedures ............................................................ 100
R e s p o n d e n t s ................................................................................ 101
P r o f i l e o f Respondents ........................................................ 102
R atings o f Competencies .................................................... 102
Conclusions ....................................... . . . . .
108
Recommendations .............................................................................. 109

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 112
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Michigan Area Vocational C enters Included in Sample. . . 116
APPENDIX B
Cover L e t t e r s and Q u estio n n aire

118

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

1

FREQUENCY

AND PERCENT COUNTS BY OCCUPATIONAL AREA . . .

44

2

FREQUENCY

AND PERCENT COUNTS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS . . .

45

3

FREQUENCY

AND PERCENT COUNTS BY DEGREE STATUS .................

46

4

FREQUENCY AND PERCENT COUNTS BY THE NUMBER OF YEARS
OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE ............................................................

47

FREQUENCY AND PERCENT COUNTS BY TYPE(S) OF
HANDICAP(S) OF STUDENTS SERVED ...........................................

48

RANKED TOPICAL AREAS BY AVERAGES OF MAINSTREAMING
COMPETENCIES' IMPORTANCE RATINGS .......................................

49

RANKED AND GROUPED MAINSTREAMING COMPETENCIES WITH
PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE AND ABILITY RATINGS ......................

61

CROSSTABULATION OF DEGREE LEVEL BY IMPORTANCE OF THE
COMPETENCY: "BE ABLE TO ARRANGE EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES WITH PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYERS" . . . . .

74

CROSSTABULATION OF DEGREE LEVEL BY IMPORTANCE OF THE
COMPETENCY: "UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONCEPT
'LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT' MEANS" ..........................

75

CROSSTABULATION OF DEGREE LEVEL BY IMPORTANCE OF THE
COMPETENCY: "BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE SPEECH
IMPAIRMENT CONDITIONS" ............................................................

76

CROSSTABULATION OF DEGREE LEVEL BY PERCEIVED ABILITY
TO PERFORM THE COMPETENCY: "BE ABLE TO WORK
WITH PARENTS IN PLANNING INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION
PLANS"..............................................................................................

77

CROSSTABULATION OF DEGREE LEVEL BY PERCEIVED ABILITY
TO PERFORM THE COMPETENCY: "BE ABLE TO ARRANGE
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES WITH PROSPECTIVE
EMPLOYERS"......................................................................................

78

5
6
7
8

9

10

11

12

iv

V

Table

Page

13

CROSSTABULATION OF DEGREE LEVEL BY PERCEIVED ABILITY
TO PERFORM THE COMPETENCY: "BE ABLE TO MAKE
PHYSICAL ADAPTATIONS IN THE CLASSROOM TO MEET
THE SPECIFIC NEEDS OF HANDICAPPEDSTUDENTS"........................... 79

14

CROSSTABULATION OF DEGREE LEVEL BY PERCEIVED ABILITY
TO PERFORM THE COMPETENCY: "HAVE A KNOWLEDGE
OF HOW TO ADAPT PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OF JOBS
TO FIT HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS".................................................. 80

15

CROSSTABULATION OFYEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE
BY IMPORTANCE OF THE COMPETENCY: "UNDERSTAND
THE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF TEACHERS DESCRIBED
IN PUBLIC LAW 94-482 AND PUBLIC ACT1 9 8 " ...............................82

16

REPLICATION SURVEY:
RANKED ANDGROUPED MAINSTREAMING
COMPETENCIES WITH PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE AND
ABILITY RATINGS ............................................................................... 86

CHAPTER ONE
THE PROBLEM
In tro d u ctio n
The i n t e n t o f t h i s study was to determ ine th e importance
o f s e le c te d competencies r e l a t e d to teaching handicapped persons
in r e g u l a r vocation al education c la s s e s as perceived by Michigan
Area Vocational Center te a c h e rs as well as to a sse ss the perceived
a b i l i t y o f Michigan Area Vocational Center Teachers to perform
th e se s t a te d competencies.

The education o f handicapped persons

in re g u la r classroom s i s commonly c a lle d "m ainstreaming", although
i t should be noted t h a t t h i s term i s not used in th e l e g i s l a t i o n
which pioneered th e p r a c t ic e .
The education o f handicapped persons in r e g u la r classrooms is
a re a lity .
and an

Furthermore i t i s a c i v i l r i g h t o f handicapped persons

o b lig a tio n o f our s o c ie ty .

The follow ing statem ent i l l u s t r a t e s

th e importance o f t h i s concept and th e support i t i s re c e iv in g :
H airston e t al v. D rosick, 423 F. Supp. (1976, 183):
A c h i l d 's chance in t h i s s o c ie ty is
through th e ed u catio n al p rocess. A major
goal o f th e ed u catio n al process i s th e
s o c i a l i z a t i o n process t h a t tak e s place
in th e r e g u la r classroom , with th e r e s u l t i n g
c a p a b i l i t y t o i n t e r a c t in a so c ia l way with
o n e 's p e e rs. I t i s th e r e f o r e im perative
t h a t every c h ild re c e iv e an education with
h is o r her peers i n s o f a r as i t i s a t a l l
p o s s ib le . This conclusion i s f u r t h e r
enforced by th e c r i t i c a l importance o f

1

2
edu cation in t h i s s o c i e t y .
I t i s an e d u c a tio n a l f a c t t h a t th e
maximum b e n e f i t s to a c h il d a re re c eiv e d
by placement in as normal environment as
p o s s ib le . The e x p e r t testim ony e s t a b l is h e d
t h a t placement o f c h ild r e n in abnormal
environments o u ts id e o f p eer s i t u a t i o n s
imposes a d d itio n a l psychological and
emotional handicaps upon c h ild r e n which,
added to t h e i r e x i s t i n g handicaps causes
them g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t i e s in f u t u r e l i f e .
A c h il d has t o le a r n to i n t e r a c t in a
s o c ia l way w ith i t s peers and th e den ial
o f t h i s o p p o rtu n ity during h is minor
y e a rs imposes added l i f e t i m e burdens
upon a handicapped in d iv i d u a l.
This e d u ca tio n al f a c t t h a t handicapped
c h ild r e n should be excluded from th e r e g u la r
classroom s i t u a t i o n only as a l a s t r e s o r t
i s recognized in fe d e ra l law.
We as a s o c i e t y a re becoming more aware o f th e r i g h t s o f
handicapped p e rso n s.

This awareness i s p h y s ic a lly evidenced by

th e in c r e a s e in parking spaces re se rv e d f o r th e handicapped,
ramps in p lac e o f s t e p s , lowered a p p lia n c e s , wider doorways and
numerous o th e r p h ysical a d a p ta tio n s o f f a c i l i t i e s .

Although

leg a l r i g h t s such as jo b and e d ucatio n o p p o r t u n it i e s a r e not
as v i s i b l e as physical p r o v is io n s , th ey too comprise an e s s e n t i a l
p a r t o f th e r i g h t s o f handicapped perso ns.
P a r t o f th e problem handicapped persons fa c e in t h e i r a ttem p ts
to a t t a i n equal o p p o r t u n it i e s i s s o c i e t y 's a t t i t u d e s toward them.
Based on i n c o r r e c t a n d /o r ill - i n f o r m e d b e l i e f s , members o f s o c i e t y
co ntinu e to f r e q u e n t ly reg a rd handicapped persons as being i n f e r i o r
to non-handicapped p e rso n s.

These b e l i e f s a re exem p lified by such

a c tio n s as i n c o r r e c t a s s o c i a t io n s o f phy sical impairments w ith

3

mental impairments.

N either a re th e s e i n c o r r e c t b e l i e f s confined

to value judgments o f a s u b je c tiv e n a tu r e .

There e x i s t even today

t e s t i n g and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n procedures which sometimes in a p p ro p r ia te ly
label

and place persons w ith in our s o c ie ty .

The p o s s i b i l i t y

m isplacing c h ild re n w ith in our school systems as a r e s u l t

of

o f such

assessment procedures was summarized by Reynolds and Birch (1977, 38)
when they wrote:
I t i s doubtful i f p re s e n t day assessment
procedures a r e , on t h e i r own, a ble to in d ic a t e
with s u f f i c i e n t c e r t a i n t y t h a t c h ild r e n w ill
need to be educated o u ts id e th e mainstream.
Actual e x p e rie n c e , f i r s t , in an in te g r a te d
s e t t i n g i s necessary before t h a t d ete rm in a tio n
can be made. Strong e f f o r t s should be made to
b u ild a p p ro p ria te i n s t r u c t i o n a l c a p a c ity in to
th e mainstream f o r every c h ild p o s s ib l e , thus
l im itin g e x tru s io n s to o th e r s e t t i n g s and
hurrying th e r e tu r n o f th o se c h ild re n who a re
removed from th e mainstream f o r any period
o f time.
The i l l e f f e c t s o f such assessment procedures were summarized
very well by Hobbs (1975, 1) when he s a id :
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n , o r in a p p ro p ria te c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . . .
can b l i g h t the l i f e o f a c h i l d , reducing o p p o r tu n ity ,
dim inishing h is competency and s e lf - e s te e m ,
a li e n a t in g him from o t h e r s , n u rtu rin g a meanness
o f s p i r i t , and making him l e s s a person than he
could become. Nothing l e s s than th e f u t u r e s o f
c h ild re n i s a t s ta k e .
An informed s o c ie ty can e lim in a te such m isconceptions and th e
d e trim e n ta l e f f e c t s r e s u l t i n g from them.

This w ill allow b e t t e r

r e a l i z a t i o n o f th e maximum p o te n tia l o f handicapped in d iv i d u a ls .
S o c i e t y 's understanding o f handicapping c o n d itio n s i s in c re a s in g .
Many o f th e causes and e f f e c t s o f handicapping c o n d itio n s have been
and a re being uncovered.

Advances in th e tre a tm e n t o f handicapping

4

c o n d itio n s have been so e f f e c t u a l t h a t some handicapping c o n d itio n s
can be rendered v i r t u a l l y n o n e x is te n t.

Diabetes i s one example o f

a handicapping c o n d itio n which, when t r e a t e d w ith i n s u l i n , can be
reg u la te d to allow d i a b e ti c s to a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e in our s o c ie ty .
P r io r to the development o f i n s u l i n , d i a b e t i c s were p h y s ic a lly
r e s t r i c t e d in t h e i r involvement in s o c ie ty and had s h o r t e r than
average l i v e s .

Another handicapping c o n d itio n which can now be

tr e a t e d to allow i t s v ictim s to lead normal l i v e s i s e p ile p s y .
D ila tin and o th e r s i m il a r m edications a re now given to e p i l e p t i c s
to help co n tro l t h e i r s e i z u r e s , th us making e p ile p s y another
handicapping c o n d itio n t h a t can, in some c a s e s , be rendered v i r t u a l l y
n o n e x is te n t.

With th e growth in understanding and th e tre a tm e n t o f

handicapping c o n d itio n s , th e p o te n tia l f o r handicapped persons to
lead normal l i v e s in our s o c ie ty i s e v e r in c r e a s in g .

S o c ie ty ,

t h e r e f o r e , has th e o p p o rtu n ity to a id in th e growth and development
o f handicapped persons.
Education play s a key r o l e in th e success o f handicapped persons
in our s o c i e t y , as i s evidenced in th e H airston e t al v. Drosick
d e c isio n (1976).

I t i s th e r i g h t o f handicapped persons to an

education w ith in our educational system and i t i s th e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
o f our e du catio nal system to provide handicapped persons w ith th e
most b e n e f ic ia l education p o s s ib le .

Knowledge, methods, and

reso u rces a v a i la b l e to e d u ca to rs provide a sound base upon which
to bu ild b e n e f ic ia l ed u catio n al programs f o r handicapped persons
in th e r e g u la r school system.

E s s e n tia l to th e success o f such

educational programs a re te a c h e r s who a re competent to work

5

e f f e c t i v e l y w ith handicapped s tu d e n ts .
Statem ent o f th e Problem
Although s tu d ie s dealin g with mainstreaming competencies f o r
te a c h e rs as a whole e x is te d a t the time o f t h i s s tu d y , th e re were no
s tu d ie s o f mainstreaming competencies designed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r
vo catio nal education te a c h e r s .

T h ere fo re , th e problem o f t h i s study

was to :
1.

Determine and compare what s t a te d mainstreaming competencies
Michigan Area Vocational Center te a c h e rs p erceiv e to be
im portant.

2.

Determine and compare Michigan Area Vocational Center
t e a c h e r s ' perceived a b i l i t y to perform s t a te d mainstreaming
competencies.

Answers to th e follow ing re s e a rc h questio n s were sought:
1.

Is th e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between occupational a re a s regarding
th e perceived importance o f and th e perceived a b i l i t y to
perform mainstreaming competencies?

2.

Is th e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between f u l l - t i m e vo cational
education te a c h e rs and p a rt-tim e vo cation al education
te a c h e rs regarding th e perceived importance o f and th e
perceived a b i l i t y to perform mainstreaming competencies?

3.

Is th e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between edu cation al degree l e v e ls
reg a rd in g th e perceived importance o f and th e perceived
a b i l i t y to perform mainstreaming competencies?

4.

Is th e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c a te g o r ie s o f y e a rs o f
vo catio nal education tea ch in g experience reg ardin g th e

6
perceived importance o f and th e p erceived a b i l i t y to perform
m ainstreaming competencies?
5.

I s t h e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between ty p e ( s ) o f handicapping
c o n d itio n (s ) p r e s e n t in c la s s e s reg a rd in g th e perceived
importance o f and th e perceived a b i l i t y to perform
mainstreaming competencies?

6.

In terms o f im portance, what p r i o r i t i z e d rank a r e th e
mainstreaming com petencies a ssig n e d by Michigan Area
Vocational Center te a c h e rs ?

7.

What m ainstream ing competencies do Michigan Area
Vocational Center te a c h e r s b e lie v e should be added to
th e q u e s tio n n a ir e used in t h i s study?

O perational D e f in itio n s o f th e V a ria b les
This study was comprised o f two dependent v a r i a b le s and f i v e
independent v a r i a b l e s .
The dependent v a r i a b le s were:
1.

The p erceived importance o f s t a t e d mainstreaming
com petencies.

2.

The p erceived a b i l i t y o f Michigan Area Vocational Center
te a c h e r s to perform th e s t a t e d mainstreaming com petencies.

The independent v a r i a b le s were:
1.

C e r t i f i e d o ccu p a tio n al a r e a ( s ) c u r r e n t l y te a ch in g based
on th e fo llo w in g c a t e g o r i e s according t o Michigan v o c atio n a l
edu catio n c e r t i f i c a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s :

a g r i c u l t u r a l e d u c a tio n ,

d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a tio n , h e a lth e d u c a tio n , home economics
e d u c a tio n , o f f i c e e d u c a tio n , t r a d e and i n d u s t r i a l e d u ca tio n .

7

2.

Employment s t a t u s defined as f u l l - t i m e or p a rt- tim e
employment.

3.

Highest ed u catio n al degree earned based on th e follow ing
c a te g o r ie s :

l e s s than b a c c a la u re a te , Bachelor o f A rts /S c ie n c e ,

Master o f A rts/S c ie n c e , S p e c i a l i s t , Doctor o f E ducation/Philosophy.
4.

Years o f v ocatio n al education teaching ex perience based on
th e follow ing c a te g o r ie s :

l e s s than 2 y e a r s , 3 to 5 y e a r s ,

6 to 8 y e a r s , 9 to 11 y e a r s , 12 o r more y e a rs .
5.

Type(s) o f handicapping c o n d itio n (s ) in p re s e n t a n d /o r
p a st c la s s e s based on th e follow ing c a t e g o r i e s :

none,

emotional impairment, hearing impairment, le a rn in g d i s a b i l i t y ,
mental impairment, physical impairment, speech impairment,
v isu a l impairment.
Need f o r th e Study
The f i e l d o f education i s experiencing an in c re a s in g emphasis
on th e r i g h t s o f handicapped persons to a f r e e p u b lic education in th e
l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e environment t h a t t h e i r handicaps w ill allow them to
b e n eficially p a rtic ip a te .

This t h r u s t to provide a f r e e p u b lic education

i s supported by th e fe d e ra l law Public Law 94-142 (1975):
I t i s th e purpose o f t h i s a c t to a ssu re t h a t
a l l handicapped c h ild re n have a v a ila b le to
them, w ith in th e time perio ds s p e c i f i e d , a
f r e e a p p ro p ria te p u b lic education which
emphasizes sp e c ia l education and r e l a te d
s e r v ic e designed to meet t h e i r unique needs,
to a ssu re t h a t th e r i g h t s o f handicapped
c h ild re n and t h e i r p a re n ts o r guardians a re
p r o te c te d , to a s s i s t S t a te s and l o c a l i t i e s
to provide f o r education o f a l l handicapped
c h ild re n and to a s s e s s and a s s u re the
e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f e f f o r t s to educate
handicapped c h ild r e n .

8
Michigan has a ls o placed emphasis on p rovidin g b e n e f ic ia l education
f o r handicapped persons w ith th e passage o f P u blic Act 198 (1971).
This a c t :
. . . e s t a b l i s h e s th e r i g h t o f each handicapped
person in t h i s S t a te to such ed u ca tio n al
t r a i n i n g o p p o r t u n it i e s a s w ill f u l l y develop
h i s / h e r maximum p o t e n t i a l . In a d d itio n
i t pro v id es f o r th e r e s t r u c t u r i n g and
supplementing o f th e e x i s t i n g s t a t u t o r y
p ro v isio n s governing s p e c ia l ed ucatio n
programs and s e r v i c e s , t o in s u re t h a t
such programs and s e r v ic e s a re d e liv e r e d
t o each and every handicapped person
up to 25 y e a r s o f age in t h i s S t a t e .
According to Mark D. Zimmerman (1978) t h e r e a re an e stim a te d
4 6 -m illio n handicapped i n d iv id u a ls in th e United S t a t e s .

Approximately

10 to 12 p e rc e n t o f th e o v e r a ll sc h o o l-ag e p o p u latio n i s handicapped.
Due to th e com plexity and v a r i e t y o f ty p es o f h an dicap s, i t i s
im po rtant t h a t th e s e f i g u r e s be regarded as approxim ations.

Actual

counts can be made o nly when s p e c i f i c c a se s a re i d e n t i f i e d and then
i t i s o f te n d i f f i c u l t to d i s t i n g u i s h th o se c ase s which l i e on th e
border in terms o f handicapped/non-handicapped.
In Michigan t h e r e were re p o r te d to be 155,044 handicapped
school-aged c h ild r e n during 1977-1978 ( S t a te Special Education
S e rv ice s October 1 Count, 1977).

I t has been e stim a te d by a survey

o f s p e c ia l e d ucation c o o rd in a to r s (Goldhammer, Rader, & R eusch lein ,
1976) t h a t more than 5,909 handicapped s tu d e n ts have been mainstreamed
in to r e g u l a r v o c atio n a l e d u ca tio n classroom s in Michigan.
Although some handicapped s tu d e n ts a re a lr e a d y being mainstreamed
in to r e g u l a r c lassroom s, many o th e r s have y e t to be in clu d ed in
th e mainstreaming program.

One o f th e e f f o r t s included in mainstreaming

9

l e g i s l a t i o n i s d ir e c te d a t lo c a tin g handicapped s tu d e n ts who have
f a i l e d to be included in school population re c o rd s.

The reasons

why some handicapped stu d e n ts have n o t p re v io u sly been included in
th e se school population rec o rd s range from th e handicapped stu d e n t
who i s under p r iv a te su p e rv isio n to cases where handicapped s tu d e n ts
a re t o t a l l y removed from so c ial c o n ta c t and in extreme cases confined
e x c lu siv e ly and interm in ab ly to a household while t h e i r e x is te n c e i s
denied to th e r e s t o f s o c ie ty .
Whatever th e a c tu a l number o f handicapped s tu d e n ts in Michigan
who r i g h t f u l l y should be mainstreamed i s , t h e i r in c lu s io n in our
educational system w ill c e r t a i n l y have an impact.

L e g is la tio n

re q u irin g t h a t handicapped stu d e n ts be placed in th e r e g u la r
classroom w ill a f f e c t v i r t u a l l y every classroom te a c h e r , every
a d m in is tr a to r , and every counselor in th e S ta te o f Michigan.
V ir tu a lly a l l t e a c h e r s , t h e r e f o r e , need to be given i n s t r u c t i o n
in mainstreaming in o rd e r to meet th e sp e c ia l requirem ents t h a t
working with handicapped stu d e n ts in v o lv e s.
R. N. Evans addressed th e problem in th e 1976 r e p o r t o f the
National Workshop on Vocational Education f o r Special Needs S tudents
with the follow ing commentary:
Vocational education te a c h e r s w ith no sp e c ia l education
background a re teach in g sp e c ia l needs s t u d e n ts ,
and sp e c ia l education te a c h e rs a re try in g
to prepare th e se same types o f stu d e n ts f o r
employment. This s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s in pu blic
schools because th e r e a re v i r t u a l l y no te a c h e r
education programs with both ty pes o f s k i l l s .
In th e S ta te o f Michigan only th re e i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h igh er
ed u ca tio n , Central Michigan U n iv e rs ity , Michigan S t a t e U n iv e rs ity ,
and th e U n iv e rsity of Michigan, o f f e r p r e - s e r v ic e courses in th e

10
area o f m ainstream ing, and th e s e a re r e l a t i v e l y new developments.
A r e p o r t o f sp e c ia l needs c o o rd in a to rs f o r Vocational Education
in Michigan (Goldhammer, Rader, & R euschlein, 1976) showed t h a t th e r e
i s a need to develop in - s e r v i c e te a c h e r t r a i n i n g programs as well as
a need to develop i n - s e r v i c e te a c h e rs to d e l i v e r s p e c ia l education
and mainstreaming methods c ourses.
Mainstreaming i s complex in t h a t i t re q u ire s many adjustm ents
f o r s i t u a t i o n s not commonly found in th e r e g u la r classroom .

These

c o n s id e r a tio n s range from th e need t o make physical a d a p ta tio n s such
as wider a i s l e s in o rd e r t o accommodate wheelchair-bound stu d e n ts
to in c re a s in g communication between r e g u la r te a c h e rs and sp e c ia l
education te a c h e rs f o r th e purpose o f making in d iv id u a l handicapped
s tu d e n ts ' le a rn in g programs most e f f e c t i v e .
In o rd e r to provide e f f e c t i v e s e r v ic e s f o r handicapped stu d e n ts
i t w ill be necessary f o r te a c h e rs to a cq u ire mainstreaming competencies
which a re in a d d itio n to th e competencies re q u ire d in t r a d i t i o n a l
te a c h e r education programs.

In her a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d "Channeling

S tudents in to th e Mainstream" Nancy H artley (1978, 39) s t a t e s :
A 1976 r e p o r t by th e General Accounting O ffice
s t a t e d t h a t only 2 p e rc en t o f vo catio nal te a c h e rs
in th e school d i s t r i c t s sampled were tr a in e d
to work w ith sp e c ia l needs s tu d e n ts . Approxi­
m ately 78 p e rc e n t o f th e school d i s t r i c t s sampled
s t a t e d t h a t t h e i r v ocational te a c h e rs had
i n s u f f i c i e n t backgrounds t o work w ith th e s e
s tu d e n ts .
Dr. John P o r t e r , Michigan S uperinten dent o f Public I n s t r u c t i o n ,
expressed h is concern on t h i s to p ic w ith th e follow ing statem ent
(1978, 5):

11
I'ty hangup i s t h a t we've tr a in e d c e r t i f i e d people
to teach th e handicapped. Now w e 're saying
everyone can (teach th e handicapped). What
a re we saying here? There must be some unique
competencies te a c h e rs need in o rd e r to provide
q u a li t y s e r v ic e s to th e handicapped. I'm 100%
f o r th e education o f th e handicapped. But I'm
concerned t h a t kids might not g e t th e same
q u a li t y o f se rv ic e s in th e ( r e g u la r) classroom
as c h ild re n ta u g h t by s p e c i a ll y t r a i n e d te a c h e r s .
One e s s e n t i a l ste p in achieving an e f f e c t i v e mainstreaming program
i s to i d e n t i f y te a c h e r competencies n e cessary f o r mainstreaming in o rd e r
t h a t te a c h e r p re p a ra tio n programs may understand th e needs o f mainstreaming
te a c h e rs and th ere b y a p p ro p ria te ly prepare them to tea ch in a mainstreaming
se ttin g .
Purpose o f th e Study
Research has been conducted to determ ine th e competencies
te a c h e rs as a whole need f o r m ainstream ing.

At th e time o f t h i s

stu dy, however, no re s e a rc h was found t h a t was d i r e c t l y concerned
with determ ining th e competencies v ocational education te a c h e rs
perceiv e to be im portant in o rd e r to make mainstreaming work e f f e c t i v e l y
as well as to determ ine t h e i r perceived a b i l i t y t o perform th e s e
competencies.
The purpose o f t h i s study was tw o -fold.

I t was intended to a s s e s s

the importance o f mainstreaming competencies and to a s c e r t a i n th e
perceived a b i l i t y o f Michigan Area Vocational Center te a c h e r s to perform
the aforementioned com petencies.
I t i s intended t h a t th e f in d in g s o f t h i s study w ill prove useful
to te a c h e r t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s , te a c h e r p re p a ra tio n c e n t e r s ,
S ta te and local education a g e n c ie s, classroom t e a c h e r s , c o u n se lo rs,

12
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and s tu d e n ts involved in vocation al education
mainstreaming programs.

By knowing what competencies a re considered

to be im portant and th e corresponding perceived a b i l i t y to perform
th e competencies, te a c h e r t r a i n e r s can deal s p e c i f i c a l l y w ith the
e s s e n t i a l needs o f mainstreaming te a c h e r s .

Some o f th e more im portant

uses f o r t h i s s t u d y 's fin d in g s w ill be to in s u re t h a t competencies
ranked high in importance a re u t i l i z e d t o :
1.

provide a b a s is f o r designing vocational education
te a c h e r t r a i n i n g programs which in c o rp o ra te a p p ro p ria te
mainstreaming competencies.

2.

provide a b a s is f o r a more r e a l i s t i c approach to
v o c atio n a l education te a c h e r i n - s e r v i c e programs in
mainstreaming.

3.

provide a b a s is f o r improved S t a te and lo cal g u id e lin e s
f o r mainstreaming in v o catio nal e du cation.

4.

provide a b a s is f o r improved o p p o r tu n itie s f o r handicapped
s tu d e n ts by means o f a w ell-d esig n ed and p o s i t i v e l y implemented
d e liv e r y system o f vocation al education and m ainstream ing.

Basic Assumptions o f th e Study
The follow ing assumptions were made f o r t h i s study:
1.

Michigan Area Vocational Center te a c h e r s were s u f f i c i e n t l y
w ell-inform ed on th e concept o f mainstreaming to enable
them to r e a l i s t i c a l l y r a t e th e importance o f th e s t a te d
mainstreaming competencies.

2.

Michigan Area Vocational Center te a c h e rs were a c c u ra te in

13

t h e i r assessm ent o f t h e i r a b i l i t y to perform th e s t a t e d
mainstreaming com petencies.
D e lim ita tio n s o f th e Study
This study possessed th e follow ing d e l i m i t a t i o n s :
1.

The concern o f t h i s study was s o l e ly w ith Michigan Area
Vocational Center t e a c h e r s .

2.

The q u e s tio n n a ire f o r t h i s study could n o t f e a s i b l y c o n ta in
a l l p o s s ib le m ainstream ing competencies and was t h e r e f o r e
comprised o f mainstreaming competencies which were most
commonly found in o t h e r competency s tu d ie s a n d /o r were
i d e n t i f i e d as being im portant by e x p e r ts and p r o f e s s i o n a l s
involved in ed u catin g handicapped p erso ns.

3.

This study sought to i d e n t i f y th e p erceived a b i l i t y o f
Michigan Area Vocational Center te a c h e r s t o perform th e
s t a t e d m ainstream ing competencies and did n o t g a th e r d a ta
re g a rd in g th e implementation o f such com petencies.

L im ita tio n o f th e Study
Because th e p opu latio n o f t h i s stu d y c o n s is te d s o l e l y o f Michigan
Area Vocational Center t e a c h e r s , and because th e programs in which
they tea ch a re s o l e l y Michigan v o c atio n a l e d u ca tio n programs, th e
f in d in g s o f t h i s study a re lim ite d to t h i s same p o p u latio n and to
Michigan v o c a tio n a l e d u ca tio n programs.

The study d id n o t g a th e r d a ta

from th e e n t i r e p o p u latio n and t h e r e f o r e i s an approxim ation o f th e
p o p u latio n .

14

D e f in itio n o f Terms
For purposes o f t h i s study th e follow ing term s s h a ll be
i n t e r p r e t e d as fo llo w s:
Area Vocational C e n te r:

A secondary p u b lic school f a c i l i t y

designed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r o f f e r i n g vo catio n al edu cation co u rses.
This c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s h a ll n o t in clu d e p u b lic school f a c i l i t i e s
which o f f e r general education as well as v o c atio n a l e d ucation
c ou rses.
Competency:

" P ro fe ss io n a l a b i l i t y in clu d in g both th e a b i l i t y

to dem onstrate acq u ired knowledge and h ig h e r- le v e l c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n
( P e t e r , 1975, 8 ).
Handicapped:
"Handicapped person" means a person i d e n t i f i e d by
an e d u c a tio n a l planning and placement committee
as s e v e re ly m e n ta lly im p aired , t r a i n a b l e m en tally
im p aired , h earin g im p aired, v i s u a l l y im paired,
p h y s ic a lly and o th erw ise h e a lth im paired, speech
and language im paired, homebound, h o s p i t a l i z e d ,
le a rn in g d i s a b le d , o r having a combination o f
two o r more o f th e s e impairments and r e q u ir in g
s p e c ia l ed ucatio n programs and s e r v ic e s (Michigan
Special Education Code, 1977, 2 ).
S everely M entally Im paired:
"S everely m en tally impaired" means a person i d e n t i f i e d
by an e d u ca tio n al planning and placement committee,
based upon a comprehensive e v a lu a tio n by a school
p s y c h o lo g is t, c e r t i f i e d p s y c h o lo g is t o r c e r t i f i e d
c o n s u ltin g p s y c h o lo g is t, and o t h e r p e r t i n e n t in fo rm a tio n ,
as having a l l th e follow ing behavioral c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
(a) Development a t a r a t e approxim ately Ah o r more
sta n d ard d e v ia tio n s below th e mean as determined
through i n t e l l e c t u a l assessm ent, (b) Lack o f development
p r im a r ily in th e c o g n itiv e domain (Michigan Special
Education Code, 1977, 2 ).

15

T ra in a b le M entally Im paired;
"T ra in ab le m en tally impaired" means a person i d e n t i f i e d
by an e d u ca tio n al planning and placement committee,
based upon a comprehensive e v a lu a tio n by a school
p s y c h o lo g is t, c e r t i f i e d p s y c h o lo g is t o r c e r t i f i e d
c o n s u ltin g p s y c h o lo g is t, and o th e r p e r t i n e n t in fo rm a tio n ,
as having a l l th e follow ing behavioral c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
(a) Development a t a r a t e approxim ately 3 t o 4%
sta n d ard d e v ia tio n s below th e mean as determined through
i n t e l l e c t u a l assessm ent, (b) Lack o f development
p r im a rily in th e c o g n itiv e domain, (c) U n s a tis f a c to ry
school performance not found to be based on h is s o c i a l ,
economic and c u l t u r a l background (Michigan Special
Education Code, 1977, 2 ).
Educable M entally Im paired:
"Educable m entally impaired" means a person i d e n t i f i e d
by an ed u ca tio n al planning and placement committee,
based upon a comprehensive e v a lu a tio n by a school
p s y c h o lo g is t, c e r t i f i e d p sy c h o lo g is t o r c e r t i f i e d
c o n s u ltin g p s y c h o lo g is t, and o th e r p e r t i n e n t in fo rm a tio n ,
as having a l l th e follow ing behavioral c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
(a) Development a t a r a t e approxim ately 2 t o 3 sta n d ard
d e v ia tio n s below th e mean as determined through i n t e l l e c t u a l
assessm ent, (b) Scores approxim ately w ith in th e low est
6 p e r c e n t i l e s on a s ta n d a rd iz e d t e s t in reading and
a r i t h m e t i c , (c) Lack o f development p rim a rily in th e
c o g n itiv e domain, (d) U n s a tis f a c to ry academic performance
n o t found to be based on h is s o c i a l , economic and c u l t u r a l
background (Michigan Special Education Code, 1977, 2 - 3 ) .
Emotionally Im paired:
"Emotionally impaired" means a person i d e n t i f i e d by an
ed u ca tio n al planning and placement committee, based upon
a comprehensive e v a lu a tio n by a school p sy c h o lo g is t and
s o c ia l w orker, a c e r t i f i e d p s y c h o lo g is t, a c e r t i f i e d
c o n s u ltin g p s y c h o lo g is t, o r a c e r t i f i e d p s y c h i a t r i s t ,
and o th e r p e r t i n e n t in fo rm a tio n , as having 1 o r more o f
th e follow ing behavioral c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : (a) D isru p tiv e
to th e le a r n in g process o f o t h e r s tu d e n ts o r h im self in
th e r e g u l a r classroom over an extended period o f tim e.
(b) Extreme withdrawal from s o c ia l i n t e r a c t i o n in th e
school environment over an extended p e rio d o f tim e.
(c) M a n ife sta tio n s o f symptoms c h a r a c te r iz e d by d ia g n o s tic
l a b e l s such as p sy c h o sis, sc h izo p h re n ia and a utism .
(d) D isru p tiv e behavior which has r e s u l t e d in
placement in a j u v e n i l e d e te n tio n f a c i l i t y (Michigan
Special Education Code, 1977, 3 ).

16

Hearing Im paired:
"Hearing impaired" means a person i d e n t i f i e d by an
ed u catio n al planning and placement committee, based upon
an e v a lu a tio n by an a u d io lo g is t and o to la r y n g o lo g i s t,
and o th e r p e r t i n e n t inform ation as having a hearing
impairment which i n t e r f e r e s with le a rn in g (Michigan
Special Education Code. 1977, 3 ).
V isu a lly Im paired:
"V isu ally impaired" means a person i d e n t i f i e d by an
edu catio nal planning and placement committee, based
upon an e v a lu a tio n by an o p h th alm o lo g ist, o r e q u iv a le n t,
and o th e r p e r t i n e n t inform ation as having a v isu a l
impairment which i n t e r f e r e s w ith le a rn in g and haying
1 o r more o f th e follow ing behavioral c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
(a) A c e n tr a l visu al a c u ity o f 20/70 o r l e s s , in th e
b e t t e r eye a f t e r c o rre c to n . (b) A p e rip h e ra l f i e l d o f
v is io n r e s t r i c t e d to no g r e a t e r than 20 degrees
(Michigan Special Education Code, 1977, 3 ).
P h y s ic a lly and Otherwise Health Im paired:
" P h y s ic a lly and o therw ise h e a lth impaired" means a person
i d e n t i f i e d by an edu catio n al planning and placement
committee, based upon an e v a lu a tio n by an o rth o p ed ic
surgeon, i n t e r n i s t , n e u r o l o g i s t , p e d i a t r i c i a n o r e q u iv a le n t,
and o th e r p e r t i n e n t in fo rm a tio n , as having a physical o r
o th e r h e a lth impairment which i n t e r f e r e s w ith le a rn in g o r
r e q u ir e s physical a d a p ta tio n in th e school environment
(Michigan Special Education Code, 1977, 3 ).
Speech and Language Im paired:
"Speech and language impaired" means a person c e r t i f i e d
by a te a c h e r w ith f u l l approval as a te a c h e r o f th e
speech and language im paired, who has earned a m a s te r 's
degree and has completed a t l e a s t 5 y e a rs o f su c ce ssfu l
teach in g o f th e speech and language im paired, as having
1 o r more o f th e follow ing speech, o ra l language and
verbal communication impairments which i n t e r f e r e s with
le a rn in g or s o c ia l adjustm ent: (a) A r t i c u l a t i o n which
in clu d es om issions, s u b s t i t u t i o n s o r d i s t o r t i o n s o f
sound, (b) Voice w ith in a p p ro p r ia te voice p i t c h , r a t e
o f speaking, loudness o r q u a l i t y o f speech, (c) Fluency
o f speech d is tin g u is h e d by speech i n t e r r u p t i o n s ( b lo c k s ),
r e p e t i t i o n o f sounds, words, p h rases o r sentences which
i n t e r f e r e w ith e f f e c t i v e communication, (d) I n a b i l i t y to
comprehend, form ulate and use fu n c tio n a l language (Michigan
Special Education Code, 1977, 3 ).

17

Homebound:
"Homebound" means a person c e r t i f i e d a t l e a s t annu ally
by a lic e n s e d ph ysician as having a severe physical
o r o th e r h e a lth impairment preven tin g school atten d an ce
(Michigan Special Education Code, 1977, 4 ).
H o s p ita liz e d :
"H o sp italized " means a person who cannot a tte n d school
because o f h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n f o r a physical o r medical
impairment, e x c lu siv e o f emotional impairment u n le s s as
an accompaniment to a physical o r medical impairment
(Michigan Special Education Code, 1977, 4 ).
Learning D isa b led :
"Learning d isa b le d " means a person i d e n t i f i e d by an
ed u catio n al planning and placement committee, based upon
a comprehensive e v a lu a tio n by a school p s y c h o lo g is t o r
c e r t i f i e d p sy c h o lo g ist o r c e r t i f i e d c o n su ltin g p s y c h o lo g is t
o r an e v a lu a tio n by a n e u r o l o g i s t , o r e q u iv a le n t medical
examiner q u a l i f i e d t o e v a lu a te neuro lo g ical d y sfu n c tio n ,
and o th e r p e r t i n e n t in fo rm a tio n , as having a l l th e follow ing
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : (a) D isorder in 1 o r more o f th e b a sic
psychological processes involved in understanding o r in
using spoken or w r i t te n language, which d is o r d e r may
m an ifest i t s e l f in im p e rfec t a b i l i t y to l i s t e n , t h i n k ,
speak, re a d , w r i t e , s p e ll o r do mathematical c a l c u l a t i o n .
(b) M a n ifesta tio n o f symptoms c h a r a c te r iz e d by d ia g n o s tic
l a b e ls such as percep tu al handicap, b rain i n j u r y , minimal
b rain d y sfu n c tio n , d y sle x ia o r a p h a sia , (c) Development
a t l e s s than th e expected r a t e o f age group in th e c o g n it i v e ,
a f f e c t i v e o r psychomotor domains, (d) I n a b i l i t y to fu n c tio n
in r e g u la r education w ithout su p p o rtiv e s p e c ia l ed ucation
s e r v ic e s , (e) U n s a tis fa c to ry performance no t found to
be based on s o c i a l , economic o r c u l t u r a l background (Michigan
Special Education Code, 1977, 4 ).
Severely M u ltip ly Im paired:
"Severely m u ltip ly impaired" means a person i d e n t i f i e d by
an ed u catio n al planning and placement committee, based
upon a comprehensive e v a lu a tio n by a school p s y c h o lo g is t,
c e r t i f i e d p sy c h o lo g ist o r c e r t i f i e d c o n su ltin g p sy c h o lo g ist
and an e v a lu a tio n by a n e u r o l o g i s t , o rth o p ed ic surgeon,
o p h th alm o lo g ist, o r o t o la r y n g o lo g is t and an a u d i o l o g i s t ,
and o th e r p e r t i n e n t inform ation such as previous medical
reco rd s and any education h i s t o r y , as having a l l o f th e
follow ing behavioral c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : (a) Severe
m u l t i p l i c i t y o f handicaps in th e physical and c o g n itiv e domains.

18
(b) I n a b i l i t y o r expected i n a b i l i t y to fu n ctio n
w ith in o th e r sp e c ia l education programs which deal
with a s in g le handicap, (c) Development a t l e s s than
th e expected r a t e o f age group in th e c o g n itiv e ,
a f f e c t i v e or psychomotor domains (Michigan Special
Education Code, 1977, 4 ).
In -se rv ic e :

I n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s f o r in d iv id u a ls c u r r e n t ly

employed in th e f i e l d o f education f o r th e purpose o f updating
t h e i r knowledge and understanding o f r e le v a n t inform ation.
I n s t r u c t i o n may be rec eiv e d by means o f a c t i v i t i e s such as
workshops and c o n fe ren c es, and may be f o r c r e d i t o r n o n - c r e d it.
Mainstreaming:
An edu cation al placement procedure and process f o r
exceptional c h il d r e n , based on th e c o n v ic tio n t h a t
each such c h ild should be educated in th e l e a s t
r e s t r i c t i v e environment in which h is ed ucatio nal and
r e l a t e d needs can be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y provided. This
concept reco gnizes t h a t excep tional c h ild re n have a
wide range o f s p e c ia l ed u catio n al needs, varying
g r e a t l y in i n t e n s i t y and d u r a tio n ; t h a t th e re i s a
recognized continuum o f e du catio nal s e t t i n g s which
may, a t a given tim e , be a p p ro p ria te f o r an in d iv id u a l
c h i l d 's needs; t h a t t o th e maximum e x te n t a p p r o p r ia te ,
e x cep tional c h ild r e n should be educated w ith nonexceptional
c h il d r e n ; and t h a t s p e c ia l c l a s s e s , s e p a r a te sc h o o lin g ,
o r o th e r removal o f an exceptional c h ild from education
w ith nonexceptional c h ild r e n should occur only when
th e i n t e n s i t y o f th e c h i l d 's sp e c ia l education and
r e l a t e d needs i s such t h a t they cannot be s a t i s f i e d
in an environment inclu d in g nonexceptional c h il d r e n ,
even w ith th e p ro v isio n o f supplementary a id s and
s e rv ic e s (Je n k in s & Mayhall, 1976, 43).
P r e - s e r v ic e :

I n s t r u c t i o n rec eiv e d by in d iv id u a ls p r i o r

t o employment in th e f i e l d o f edu catio n .
Regular E ducation:

" 'R egular e d u c a tio n ' means education

o th e r than sp e c ia l education programs and s e r v ic e s " (Michigan
Special Education Code, 1977, 1).

19

Special Education Classroom:
"Special education classroom" means a classroom
which i s under th e d i r e c t i o n o f approved sp e c ia l
education personnel and in which a c h ild i s tau g h t
f o r a l l o r a p o rtio n o f h is school day (Michigan
Special Education Code, 1977, 2).

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The follo w in g review o f l i t e r a t u r e d e a ls w ith (1) th e h i s t o r i c a l
development o f m ainstream ing, (2) th e l e g i s l a t i v e b a s is f o r
m ainstream ing, and (3) d e s c r i p t io n s o f s tu d ie s concerned w ith
mainstreaming te a c h e r e d u ca tio n com petencies.
H is to r ic a l Development o f Mainstreaming
In o r d e r t o understand th e concept o f mainstreaming i t i s
im portant to be f a m i l i a r w ith th e major h i s t o r i c a l e v en ts which
have had an e f f e c t on th e development o f th e p r a c t i c e known as
s p e c ia l e d u ca tio n .
P r i o r to t h e 19th c en tu ry handicapped persons were t y p i c a l l y
n e g le c te d and r e j e c t e d by s o c i e t y .

"The h i s t o r y o f e d u ca tio n f o r

ex ce p tio n al c h ild r e n i s a sim ple s t o r y o f m assive n e g l e c t , d e n i a l ,
and r e j e c t i o n , " wrote Reynolds and Birch (1977, 14).

They c o n tin u e :

For every Helen K e lle r and th e o t h e r n o ta b le
few who re c e iv e d in te n s i v e s p e c ia l h e lp , te n s
o f thousand o f o th e r e x c e p tio n a l c h i l d r e n ,
both g i f t e d and handicapped, were doomed to
c o n s t r i c t e d l i v e s ; i t was b e lie v e d t h a t they
could not be t a u g h t , were n o t worth te a c h in g ,
o r could proceed on t h e i r own.
People e i t h e r did n ot c a re about th e handicapped, were a f r a i d
o f handicapping c o n d itio n s th ey did n o t understand o r were u n w illin g
to o f f e r a s s i s t a n c e to th e handicapped because o f th e personal
s a c r i f i c e i t would have inv olv ed.

20

21
The beginnings o f sp e c ia l education can be tra c e d back to th e
e a r l y y e a rs o f th e 19th century when a few dedicated people began
to t r y to break through the w alls o f ignorance which surrounded
the handicapped and which segregated them from th e r e s t o f s o c ie ty .
Through th e e f f o r t s o f such men as Gaspard I t a r d and Edouard Seguin,
who began studying and t r a i n i n g m entally handicapped c h il d r e n ,
Samuel G. Howe, who founded th e f i r s t school f o r th e b l in d ,
Thomas H. G allaud et and h is work with th e d e a f, and Louis B r a i l l e ,
who devised th e system o f t a c t i l e w ritin g by which th e b lin d could
be tau g h t to re a d , th e b a r r i e r s to understanding and edu cating the
handicapped began to be pulled down.
These i n i t i a l e f f o r t s and o th e rs which followed them to
o rganize schools to serve th e b lin d , th e d e a f , and th e m entally
handicapped c lo s e ly d u p lic a te d European r e s i d e n t i a l schools and
asylums.

One o f th e problems th e s e schools faced was t h a t a t t h a t

time th e re were no te a c h e r t r a i n in g i n s t i t u t i o n s which prepared
te a c h e rs w ith th e s k i l l s necessary to work with th e handicapped.
T h erefo re, th e te a c h e rs a t th e s e schools were forced to re c e iv e
o n -th e -jo b t r a i n i n g .
But securing q u a l i f i e d personnel to teach th e handicapped
was not th e only problem facin g th ese e a r l y schools and th e
handicapped them selves.

Although most s t a t e s e s ta b lis h e d r e s i d e n t i a l

schools a f t e r th e p r i v a t e schools had demonstrated t h a t handicapped
c h ild re n could indeed be ta u g h t, f a c i l i t i e s a t th e s e s ta te - s u p p o r te d
schools were lim ite d .

The c o st o f th e p r i v a t e schools was too

g r e a t f o r many o f th e f a m ilie s who had handicapped c h ild r e n .

Some

22
f a m ilie s j u s t d id n o t want to remove t h e i r c h il d on a permanent b a s is
from th e home environment even i f i t meant d e p riv in g th e c h il d o f
e d u ca tio n al o p p o r t u n i t i e s .

And some c h ild r e n w ith sev ere o r m u ltip le

handicaps could not gain adm ittance t o any schoo l.
The n ex t s te p in th e development o f educating handicapped
c h ild r e n came in th e e a r l y 20th c en tu ry when some s p e c ia l c la s s e s
and p u b lic day scho ols were being developed to serve th e handicapped
as community based programs.

The r e s i d e n t i a l scho ols a lr e a d y in

e x is te n c e played an im p ortan t p a r t in supplying th e programs with
le a d e r s h ip , c u r r i c u l a , and te a c h e r p r e p a r a tio n (Reynolds and B irc h ,
1977, 17).

But th e p ro g ress c o n trib u te d to th e s p e c ia l education

movement by th e s e community based sc h ools was slow.

The schools

were n o t s e t up t o handle th e e d u c a tio n a l needs o f c h ild r e n who
were d i f f i c u l t t o te a c h .

These slow l e a r n e r s , many o f whom had

r e p e a te d ly been held back from y e a r t o y e a r , were a ssign ed to
" s p e c ia l" rooms a p a r t from th e r e g u l a r classroom .

S tu d en ts

assign ed to th e s e " s p e c ia l" rooms a ls o became th e r e c i p i e n t s o f
dero g a to ry l a b e l s .

And when funding f o r such programs was l i m i t e d ,

as i t was during th e Depression o f th e 1 9 3 0 's , s p e c ia l edu catio n
programs were n o t expanded.
But th e schoo ls a re n o t e n t i r e l y to blame f o r th e slow advances
made in th e e d u ca tio n o f th e handicapped during th e s e y e a r s .
S o c i e t y 's a t t i t u d e s toward th e handicapped, e s p e c i a l l y toward th e
m en tally handicapped, d id much to h in d er any re a l development o f
e d u c a tio n a l programs t h a t could have helped such i n d iv i d u a ls .
p r e v a le n t a t t i t u d e in th e e a r l y y e a rs o f t h i s c e n tu ry was t h a t

A

23

mental r e t a r d a t i o n was g e n e r a lly a hop eless c o n d itio n (S loan, 1963).
Yet in s p i t e o f th e i n h o s p ita b le a t t i t u d e s which were dominant
a t t h a t time toward edu cating th e handicapped, c e r t a i n improvements
were being made.

A few u n i v e r s i t i e s such as Wayne S t a te U n iv e rs ity ,

E astern Michigan U n iv e rs ity , th e Teachers C ollege o f Columbia U n iv e rs ity ,
and th e U n iv e rs ity o f Wisconsin a t Milwaukee were implementing
programs to p rep are te a c h e r s t o work in e d u c a tio n a l systems f o r th e
handicapped.

Although th e s e te a c h e r s were being t r a i n e d as s p e c i a l i s t s

and n o t r e g u l a r classroom t e a c h e r s , and although t h e i r t r a i n i n g
c lo s e l y p a r a l l e l e d th e p r a c t i c e s in use a t r e s i d e n t i a l s c h o o ls , th e
beginnings o f programs which provided q u a l i f i e d personnel to work w ith
t h e handicapped were being developed.
During th e perio d from 1945 to 1970 a la r g e in c re a s e in th e
su p p o rt given by s o c i e t y to th e handicapped o c c u rre d .

I t came in th e

form o f programs designed to te a c h th e handicapped in p u b lic s c h o o ls.
I t was accompanied by new programs a t te a c h e r t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s
which prepared te a c h e r s in th e a re a o f s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n .
Special edu catio n en ro llm e n t f i g u r e s f o r t h i s p erio d i l l u s t r a t e
th e ra p id change which took p la c e .

Special e d u ca tio n e n ro llm e n ts

in c re a s e d as fo llo w s:
1948:
1963:

442,000 persons (Mackie, 1965)
1,660,000 persons (Mackie, 1965)

1971-1972:

2,857,551 persons (Bureau o f Education f o r th e
Handicapped, 1971)

The in c r e a s e in s p e c ia l education te a c h e r t r a i n i n g programs
f u r t h e r emphasizes th e growing su ppo rt f o r e d u ca tin g th e handicapped.
The number o f te a c h e r t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith sp e c ia l e d u ca tio n

24
programs grew as follow s:
1948:

approxim ately 77 i n s t i t u t i o n s

1954:

approxim ately 122

i n s t i t u t i o n s (Mackie &Dunn, 1954)

1973:

approxim ately 400

in stitu tio n s

1976:

approxim ately 600

i n s t i t u t i o n s (Reynolds

&B irch ,

1977)

A number o f f a c t o r s helped to bring about the in cre ased support
f o r educating handicapped persons.

F i r s t o f a l l , p a re n ts o f handicapped

c h ild re n began c o lla b o r a tin g as e a r l y as 1950 when a group formed
an o rg a n iz a tio n known as th e National A sso ciation f o r Retarded C itiz e n s
(Reynolds & B irch, 1977, 19).

O rganizations such as t h i s became

s o c i a l l y and p o l i t i c a l l y e f f e c t i v e in promoting s e r v ic e s f o r the
handicapped.

In response to p o l i t i c a l p re ssu re from concerned

p a re n ta l groups, many s t a t e s passed l e g i s l a t i o n d ir e c te d toward
the in c lu sio n o f handicapped persons in p u b lic schoo ls.

This

l e g i s l a t i o n made money a v a ila b le to help school systems finance
sp e c ia l education programs.
Another f a c t o r in th e tremendous growth r a t e o f sp e c ia l education
in t h i s p o s t - 1945 e ra was due to re se a rc h and work done with
World War II and Korean War handicapped v e te ra n s .

In many in s ta n c e s

knowledge gained in connection with war d i s a b i l i t i e s was t r a n s f e r a b l e
to non-war r e l a te d handicapping c o n d itio n s , thus providing an o v e ra ll
in c re a s e in the b e n e f ic ia l tre a tm e n t o f the handicapped.
While the p eriod from 1945-1970 brought an in c re a s e in the
understanding and trea tm e n t o f handicapping c o n d itio n s , ed ucatio nal
programs continued to se g re g a te handicapped persons from non-handicapped
persons.

I t has been during the 1970's t h a t th e r e has been a movement

25

to place handicapped persons in r e g u la r classroom s in as much as
t h e i r handicapping c o n d itio n s w ill perm it.
Reynolds and Birch (1977, 22-23) summarized th e h i s t o r i c a l
development o f sp e c ia l education and th e c u rr e n t tre n d o f th e
1970's known as mainstreaming in th e s e words:
The whole h i s t o r y o f education f o r exceptional
c h ild r e n can be to ld in terms o f one stead y tren d
t h a t can be describ ed as p ro g re s siv e in c lu s io n .
Exceptional c h ild re n have come, in a period
o f l e s s than two c e n t u r i e s , from t o t a l n e g le c t ,
f i r s t in to i s o l a t e d r e s i d e n t i a l s c h o o ls, f o r j u s t
a few — then in to i s o l a t e d community s e t t i n g s ,
mostly in th e form o f sp e c ia l c la s s e s f o r a
lim ite d p o pulatio n — and now i n to more in te g r a te d
arrangements f o r many c h ild r e n . In th e 197 0's ,
we a re in th e m idst o f what undoubtedly w ill
be recorded by f u tu r e h i s t o r i a n s as a remarkable
r e v e r s a l o f th e n e g a tiv e cascade t h a t s e n t th e s e
c h ild re n o f f to i s o l a t e d c la s s e s and c e n t e r s .
The agendas o f lo ca l school boards in communities
a l l a cro ss th e country now r e f l e c t th e in f lu x o f
c h ild re n w ith complex and severe edu catio nal
problems, p u p ils who had been s e n t o f f t o
h o s p i t a l s and r e s i d e n t i a l c e n te r s e a r l i e r ; and
v i r t u a l l y every school p rin c ip a l in every school
d i s t r i c t i s fac in g d i f f i c u l t q u e stio n s about th e
accommodation o f more excep tio n al c h ild r e n in
r e g u l a r classroom s. . .
This h i s t o r i c a l p e rs p e c tiv e su g g e sts t h a t th e c u r r e n t
mainstreaming tre n d i s n o t a minor pendulum swing o r
a temporary enthusiasm . There has been a ste a d y ,
p ro g r e s s iv e , in c lu s iv e tre n d in sp e c ia l education
from th e beginning, from unconcern to d i s t a l ( f a r away)
to proximal (near) arrangem ents. I t would be naive to
assume a s t r a i g h t l i n e , uncom plicated, and c o n tin u in g
tre n d but th e r e appear to be fundamental fo rc e s a t work
su ppo rting th e general tre n d toward more in c lu s iv e
arrangements f o r th e education o f c h ild re n w ith
s p e c ia l needs.

26
L e g is la tiv e Basis f o r Mainstreaming
The perio d o f th e 1960's and 1970's saw an extrem ely la r g e
in c re a s e in th e su p p o rt f o r p u b lic school programs d e d ic ated to
educating handicapped s tu d e n ts .

J u s t as t h i s e ra o f c i v i l r i g h t s

w itnessed an in c re a s in g awareness and o r g a n iz a tio n on th e p a r t o f
persons seeking to in su re e q u a l i t y in regard to such th in g s as
rac e and se x , th e r e too was an e f f e c t i v e u n i f i c a t i o n o f persons
d ed icated to th e achievement o f equal r i g h t s f o r handicapped
persons.

These s o c ia l and p o l i t i c a l groups gained th e s tr e n g th

and r e c o g n itio n necessary t o i n i t i a t e changes in s t a t e and fe d e ra l
r e g u la tio n s which r e f l e c t e d th e r e c o g n itio n o f handicapped p e rso n s'
r i g h t s to e q u ita b le and r e s p e c tf u l p o s itio n s in s o c ie ty .
C ertain p ieces o f c i v i l r i g h t s l e g i s l a t i o n which became law
during th e 1960's and 1970's have had an e f f e c t on th e passage o f
l e g i s l a t i o n reg ard in g th e r i g h t s o f handicapped in d iv id u a ls .

Much

o f th e l e g i s l a t i o n o f t h i s e ra aroused an awareness o f c i v i l r i g h t s
f o r people in our s o c ie ty .
Among th e s e p iec es o f l e g i s l a t i o n were:
C ivil Rights Act o f 1964:

Public Law 88-352

T i t l e IV:

Desegregation o f p u b lic education

T i t l e VI:

N ondiscrim ination in f e d e r a l l y a s s i s t e d programs

P ro h ib itio n o f Sex D iscrim in atio n :
T i t l e IX:

Education Amendments o f 1972

Vocational R e h a b ilita tio n Act:
T i t l e V:

Public Law 92-318

Public Law 93-112

N ondiscrim ination by reason o f handicap in
f e d e r a l l y a s s i s t e d programs

27
When handicapped persons saw th e leg al supp ort being provided f o r
a number o f f a c t io n s in our s o c ie ty who had in th e p a s t been t r e a t e d
u n equally and u n j u s t l y , th ey began to understand th ey too had r i g h t s
which were commonly denied them.

Handicapped persons n ot only

b e n e f i t t e d from c i v i l r i g h t s l e g i s l a t i o n which had been p a sse d , but
th ey a ls o began work to in s u re r i g h t s s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r th e handicapped
through l e g i s l a t i o n .
Three m ajor p ie c e s o f l e g i s l a t i o n which d i r e c t l y a f f e c t th e
r i g h t s o f handicapped i n d iv id u a ls and v o c atio n a l e d ucation a re
th e f e d e r a l P u b lic Law 94-142, th e Michigan Public Act 198, and
th e f e d e r a l P u b lic Law 94-482.

These t h r e e p iec es o f l e g i s l a t i o n

c o n ta in c o n d itio n s d i r e c t l y concerned w ith handicapped persons and
prov id e le g a l grounds which in s u re t h a t handicapped persons may
r e a l i z e equal r i g h t s and o p p o r tu n tie s in our s o c i e t y .

Major p ro v is io n s

s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t e d to each p iec e o f l e g i s l a t i o n in c lu d e :
I.

Federal P ublic Law 94-142 (1975)
A.

Free p u b lic e d u ca tio n f o r handicapped persons
from age 5 through age 21 by 1978 and from age
3 through age 25 by 1980

B.

Annual program plan s to be subm itted by th e
S t a t e Department o f Education to th e
U. S. O ffic e o f Education

II.

P ub lic Act 198 o f th e S t a te o f Michigan (1971)
A.

Free p u b lic edu catio n from b i r t h through age 25

B.

S t a t e and in te rm e d ia te school d i s t r i c t program p lans

28

III.

Federal Public Law 94-482 (1976) s t a t e s t h a t 10 p e rc e n t o f
vo cation al funds be s e t a s id e w ith 50 percent matching
expend iture by S t a te and lo cal funds to be used s p e c i f i c a l l y
f o r th e education o f th e handicapped.

J o i n t l y th e se th r e e p ieces o f l e g i s l a t i o n sp e cify re g u la tio n s
f o r th e follow ing:
1.

Educational planning and placement committees (EPPC):
"Educational planning and placement committee"
means a committee o f an o p e ra tin g d i s t r i c t o r
agency whose members s h a ll in c lu d e , as a minimum,
a r e p r e s e n ta t iv e o f th e a d m in is tr a tiv e p erson nel,
i n s t r u c t i o n a l p e rso n n el, d ia g n o s tic personnel
and p a re n ts in v ite d to p a r t i c i p a t e when t h e i r
c h ild re n a re involved (Michigan Special Education
Code, 1977, 1).

2.

In d iv id u a liz e d education programs (IEP):

"An in d iv id u a liz e d

education program i s d efined as a w r itte n statem en t about
the o b j e c ti v e s , c o n te n t, im plem entation, and e v a lu a tio n o f
a c h i l d 's edu catio n al program" (Reynolds & B irch, 1977, 157).
3.

The r i g h t o f appeal where p aren ts an d /o r handicapped persons
d isa g re e w ith placement o f th e handicapped person.

4.

Funding s p e c i f i c a l l y d e sig n ated f o r th e education o f the
handicapped.

S tu d ies Concerned w ith Mainstreaming Teacher Education Competencies
Regular classroom te a c h e rs who work d i r e c t l y w ith handicapped
stu d e n ts a re o f extreme importance to th e success o f m ainstream ing.
These te a c h e rs w ill need a v a r i e ty o f competencies t h a t exceed those
which have been t r a d i t i o n a l l y re q u ire d in a classroom w ith no
handicapped s tu d e n ts .

29

In o rd e r to p repare te a c h e rs f o r mainstreaming i t i s n e c e ssa ry
to i d e n t i f y th e competencies th e y w ill need in o r d e r to fu n c tio n
e f f e c t i v e l y in a mainstreaming s e t t i n g .

Although a review o f l i t e r a t u r e

y ie ld e d no s t u d i e s o f mainstreaming competencies s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r
v o catio n al ed ucation t e a c h e r s , t h e r e a re s t u d i e s which deal w ith
mainstreaming competencies f o r te a c h e r s as a whole.

While i t i s not

p o s s ib le t o f u l l y equate mainstreaming competencies o f v o c a tio n a l
edu catio n te a c h e r s w ith te a c h e r s as a whole, th e s t u d i e s reviewed
provided a sound base upon which to s e l e c t competencies a p p r o p r ia te
f o r v o c atio n a l edu catio n t e a c h e r s .

The d e s ig n s , f i n d i n g s , and summaries

o f mainstreaming competencies s t u d i e s , which a re r e l a t e d h e r e a f t e r ,
provided v a lu a b le i n s i g h t i n t o th e complexity o f mainstreaming
competencies and th e means by which th ey may be i d e n t i f i e d .
The purpose o f a study invo lving 155 te a c h e rs in Alabama was
th e e s ta b lis h m e n t o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b je c tiv e s t h a t te a c h e r s perceived
as n e ce ssa ry f o r te a c h in g handicapped s tu d e n ts in th e r e g u l a r classroom
(Gear, 1976).
in fo rm a tio n .

A q u e s tio n n a ire was developed t o c o l l e c t th e d e s ire d
The study looked a t th e e f f e c t s o f school s i t e , degree

l e v e l , s p e c ia l e d u ca tio n t r a i n i n g , and te a ch in g ex p erien c e on mainstreaming
competencies i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .
The d a ta based on th e l o c a ti o n s o f schools showed t h a t te a c h e r s
in r u r a l sc h ools f e l t most cap ab le to perform competencies s t a t e d in
th e stud y.

The te a c h e rs in r u r a l sch o o ls were follow ed in c a p a b i l i t y

r a t i n g by te a c h e r s working in urban and suburban schools r e s p e c t i v e l y .
I t was noted in th e s tu d y , however, t h a t th e te a c h e r s in a l l o f th e
school s i t e s r a te d t h e i r c a p a b i l i t y to perform mainstreaming
competencies below adequate.

30
Respondents o f d i f f e r i n g degree l e v e ls perceived t r a i n i n g needs
e q u a lly .

As degree s t a t u s in creased th e r e was a corresponding

in c re a s e in th e perceived a b i l i t y to educate handicapped s tu d e n ts .
I t was rep o rte d t h a t sp e c ia l education course work had no e f f e c t
on th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t r a i n i n g needs but did in c re a s e th e lev el o f
s e lf -c o n f id e n c e .

Varying y e a rs o f tea ch in g experience had no

s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t r a i n i n g needs with
the exception o f goal s e t t i n g which in creased w ith in cre ased experience.
G ear's study i d e n t i f i e d fo u r s i g n i f i c a n t a re a s o f t r a i n i n g needs
f o r mainstreaming te a c h e r s :
1. Assessment o f stu d e n t needs
2. Resources f o r le a rn in g
3. P ro fe ssio n a l knowledge
4. Communication
A study conducted by Redden (1976) in v e s tig a te d mainstreaming
competencies among r e g u l a r education te a c h e rs in Kentucky.

The

te a c h e rs were employed by 24 elem entary, m iddle, and j u n i o r high
sch ools.

The te a c h e rs surveyed had been in a mainstreaming s e t t i n g

f o r 2 y e a rs .

The major competency c a te g o r ie s i d e n t i f i e d by the

study as e s s e n t ia l f o r e f f e c t i v e l y teach in g in a mainstreaming s e t t i n g
were:
1.

Developing O r ie n ta tio n S t r a t e g i e s f o r Mainstream

2.

Assessing o f Needs and S e ttin g Goals

3.

Planning Teaching S t r a t e g i e s and Useo f Resources

4.

Implementing Teaching S t r a t e g i e s

5.

F a c i l i t a t i o n o f Learning

6.

E valuation o f Learning

andU t i l i z a t i o n

Entry

o f Resources

31

In a workshop conducted by te a c h e rs from th e vocation al education
and sp e c ia l education departments a t th e U n iv e rs ity o f I l l i n o i s and
th e U n iv e rs ity o f Kansas (P helps, Allen & o t h e r s , 1976), 54 u n i v e r s it y
and S t a te department personnel were questioned about how they could
b e s t prepare te a c h e rs who w ill be involved w ith handicapped persons
and v ocational e d u catio n .

The workshop sought to develop a program

c o n ta in in g competencies which a re needed by te a c h e r s to e f f e c t i v e l y
teach handicapped persons.
Workshop p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to r a t e 49 ta s k s in terms o f
" c r i t i c a l i t y " (How im portant i s th e ta s k to th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f th e
i n s t r u c t i o n a l program?) and th e need f o r a d d itio n a l p re p a ra tio n to
perform th e ta s k .

As a r e s u l t o f th e data c o ll e c t e d s ix ta s k s were

i d e n t i f i e d as im portant in terms o f c r i t i c a l i t y and need.

The

ta s k s were:
1.

I d e n t i f y i n s t r u c t i o n a l tech niq ues a p p ro p ria te f o r sp e c ia l
needs l e a r n e r s

2.

Evaluate and upgrade th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f i n s t r u c t i o n

3.

Analyze s t u d e n ts ' occupational i n t e r e s t and a p titu d e s

4.

Plan a sequence o f modules o r u n its o f i n s t r u c t i o n according
to th e l e a r n e r s ' needs

5.

Develop i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a te r ia ls f o r s p e c ia l needs l e a r n e r s

6.

S e le c t o r modify i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a te r ia ls a p p ro p ria te f o r
d i f f e r e n t sp e c ia l needs l e a r n e r s

A vocation al education i n - s e r v i c e needs assessm ent o f 300
Michigan Upper Peninsula e ducation al p e rs o n n e l, conducted by th e
M arquette-Alger In term ed iate School D i s t r i c t in 1977, y ie ld e d a

32

stro n g emphasis in th e a rea o f mainstreaming.
contained 65 item s.

The survey instrum ent

In th e top ten p r i o r i t i e s f o r i n - s e r v i c e needs

were:
1.

Designing your curriculum to meet th e needs o f a l l stu d e n ts
(ranked f i f t h in p r i o r i t y )

2.

Developing a team approach to v o catio nal and s p e c ia l education
(ranked s i x t h in p r i o r i t y )

3.

A s s is tin g disadvantaged and handicapped s tu d e n ts in achieving
occupational and c a r e e r go als (ranked seventh in p r i o r i t y )

4.

Dealing w ith s tu d e n ts who a re behavior problems (ranked
te n th i n , p r i o r i t y )

The preceding s tu d ie s were read and th e competencies w ith in each
study were then recorded on a l i s t o f p o s s ib le competencies to be used
in t h i s study.

In c o n s u lta tio n w ith p ro fe s sio n a l persons involved in

m ainstream ing, th e l i s t was reviewed concerning th e relev an ce o f th e
competencies contained t h e r e i n .

Where s i m il a r competencies e x is te d ,

they were combined in to a s in g le competency.
u n re la te d to t h i s study were d e le te d .

Competencies which were

Competencies which were r e le v a n t

to t h i s study but were not found in th e previous s tu d ie s were added.
A ppreciation i s extended to those in d iv id u a ls and t h e i r s tu d ie s
t h a t have p re v io u s ly looked a t mainstreaming competencies f o r te a c h e rs .
The a s s i s t a n c e o f th o se previous s tu d ie s was in v a lu a b le in e f f i c i e n t l y
developing t h i s study o f mainstreaming competencies i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f
v o c atio n a l education te a c h e rs in Michigan.

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH PROCEDURES
This c h a p te r d e s c rib e s th e re s e a rc h d esign f o r t h i s stu d y .
Included in t h i s d e s c r i p t io n a re :

th e p o p u la tio n , th e sample and

sampling te c h n iq u e , th e in stru m en t development, in stru m e n t v a l i d i t y ,
d a ta c o l l e c t i o n , q u e stio n s to be answered, and th e d a ta a n a l y s i s .
P opulation and Sample
The p o p u latio n o f t h i s study was a l l Michigan Area Vocational
Center t e a c h e r s .

A t o t a l o f 24 Michigan Area Vocational Centers

were i d e n t i f i e d by Michigan Department o f E d u c a tio n 's Vocational Technical Education S e rv ice p e rso n n el.

C o l le c t i v e l y M ichigan’s

Area Vocational C enters employed 722 f u l l - t i m e and p a r t - t im e te a c h e r s
in 1977-1978 (Michigan Department o f E ducation, V ocational-T echn ical
Education S e r v ic e , 1978).

The sample f o r t h i s stu d y was 143 Michigan

Area Vocational Center te a c h e r s .

The sample re p re s e n te d 20 p e rc e n t

o f th e p o p u latio n o f v o c atio n a l education te a c h e r s a t each Area
Vocational C e n te r, randomly s e le c te d using an a lp h a b e tic a l l i s t of
te a c h e r s a t each c e n t e r .
Data were c o l l e c t e d by means o f a q u e s tio n n a ir e m ailed to
each te a c h e r in th e sample.

Enclosed w ith th e q u e s tio n n a ir e were

a cover l e t t e r and a postage paid r e t u r n envelope.

The te a c h e r s

were asked to r e t u r n th e q u e s tio n n a ire w ith in 2 weeks.

33

34

Of th e 143 te a c h e rs sampled 58 retu rn e d completed q u e s tio n n a ire s
on th e f i r s t m ailin g .
t o t a l sample.

This was the e q u iv a le n t o f 40 p ercen t o f the

In o rd er t o in c re a s e th e response r a t e a second

m ailing was made o f which 16 persons responded.

This was an

a d d itio n a l 11 p e rc en t o f th e sample f o r a t o t a l o f 51 p e rc en t.
Following th e second m a ilin g , q u e s tio n n a ire s were d e liv e re d to
r e p r e s e n ta t iv e s from th e d i f f e r e n t Area Vocational Centers in th e
sample.

These r e p r e s e n ta t iv e s were asked to p e rs o n a lly d e l i v e r

th e q u e s tio n n a ire s to th e in d iv id u a ls whose names appeared on the
q u e s tio n n a ir e s .

This method o f c o n ta c tin g persons r e s u l te d in

s ix more re tu rn e d q u e s tio n n a ire s o r 4 p e rc en t o f th e sample.
The f i n a l number o f respondents was 80 f o r a t o t a l o f 56 p ercen t
o f th e sample.

Of th e s e responses 13 q u e s tio n n a ire s were retu rn e d

with th e ex p la n atio n t h a t th e person being surveyed was no longer
employed a t th e given Area Vocational C enter.
In a d d itio n to th e i n i t i a l survey o f 143 t e a c h e r s , a r e p l i c a t i o n
survey was a ls o conducted.

The sample f o r th e second survey c o n siste d

o f 72 Michigan Area Vocational Center te a c h e rs or 10 p e rc e n t o f th e
p o p u latio n .

None o f th e 72 te a c h e rs surveyed was included in

th e f i r s t sample o f 143 te a c h e r s .
A q u e s tio n n a ir e , cover l e t t e r and postage paid r e t u r n envelope
were mailed to each o f th e 72 te a c h e rs .

The te a c h e rs were asked

to r e tu r n th e q u e s tio n n a ire w ith in 2 weeks.

T h ir t y - th r e e q u e s tio n n a ire s

were re tu rn e d f o r a response r a t e o f 46 p e rc e n t.

Of th e s e responses

s ix in d ic a te d t h a t th e person being surveyed was no lo nger employed
a t th e given Area Vocational Center.

Appendix A c o n ta in s a l i s t of

35

the Michigan Area Vocational Centers which employ th e vocatio nal
education te a c h e rs who c o n s t i t u t e th e population o f t h i s study.
Instrum ent Development
Although te a c h e r competencies survey instru m ents e x i s t in the
area o f m ainstreaming, they a re designed f o r general e d u ca tio n .
I t was f o r th e purpose o f s p e c i f i c a l l y addressin g v ocational
education te a c h e rs t h a t th e instrum ent f o r t h i s study was developed.
The instrum ent used in t h i s study was developed a f t e r having
s tu d ie d a v a r i e ty o f sources r e le v a n t to th e to p ic o f mainstreaming
competencies.
1.

These sources included:

Communication with t e a c h e r s , te a c h e r e d u c a to rs , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,
and o th e r in d iv id u a ls involved in an d /o r f a m i l i a r with
m ainstream ing.

2.

L it e r a t u r e concerning th e c on cept, f u n c tio n , and
implementation o f mainstreaming.

3.

Research p r o j e c ts which have been conducted on th e to p ic
o f mainstreaming competencies and r e l a t e d t o p ic s .

These

p r o je c ts based th e m a jo rity o f t h e i r in stru m en t development
on inform ation gathered from t e a c h e r s , sp e c ia l needs
edu cators and r e l a t e d persons involved in mainstreaming
implementation.
In l i g h t o f th e inform ation gathered from th e aforementioned
so u rc es, nine to p ic a l a re a s were i d e n t i f i e d .

These nine to p ic a l

a re a s were intended to address th e major concerns o f mainstreaming
competencies f o r v ocation al education te a c h e r s .
a re a s were:

The nine to p ic a l

36
1.

Mainstreaming Laws:

The leg a l g u id e lin e s which r e g u la te

th e o p e ra tio n o f mainstreaming o p p o r tu n itie s .
2.

A ttitu d e s :

a t t i t u d e s concerning handicapped persons held

by t e a c h e r s , s t u d e n ts , employers, p a r e n ts , and handicapped
persons.
3.

Resource and Support Systems:

S erv ices which a re designed

to improve th e o p e ra tio n o f mainstreaming programs.
4.

Learning S ty le s :

The d i f f e r i n g means by which stu d e n ts

l e a r n , i . e . v ideo, a u d io , p rin te d m a tte r , and o th e r
methods o f le a rn in g .
5.

Curriculum Design:

The designing o f c u r r i c u la which

b e st serve in d iv id u a ls and groups in le a rn in g environm ents.
6.

Teaching S t r a t e g i e s :

The methodology employed by a te a c h e r

to provide i n s t r u c t i o n .
7.

Communication:

Verbal and non-verbal i n t e r a c t i o n o f in d iv id u a ls

and groups.
8.

Student Assessment:

The means by which a te a c h e r and

o th e r p e r t i n e n t in d iv id u a ls a s s e s s a stu d e n t f o r placement
and develop h i s / h e r program.
9.

Employment O p p o rtu n itie s :

An awareness o f and planning

f o r th e employment o f s tu d e n ts when a p p ro p r ia te .
In a l l , 52 mainstreaming competency s ta te m e n ts , covering a l l
o f th e nine to p ic a l a r e a s , were assembled f o r th e in stru m en t.

The

competency sta te m e n ts were n o t organized c o n se c u tiv e ly by to p ic a l
a re a s but were randomly p lac ed .

I f th e competency sta te m e n ts had

been grouped according to to p ic a l a r e a , i t was f e l t t h a t th e

37

responding vo cation al education te a c h e r might record h i s / h e r
perceived im p o r ta n c e /a b ility r a t i n g s o f th e to p ic a l a re a as a whole
r a t h e r than h i s / h e r perceived im p o r ta n c e /a b ility r a t i n g s o f each
in d iv id u a l competency sta te m e n t.

In a d d it i o n , space was provided

a t the end o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire f o r th e responding v o c atio n a l education
te a c h e r to w r ite any mainstreaming competencies which he/she believed
to be im portant and which were not included in th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e 's
52 mainstreaming competency sta te m e n ts.
The goal o f th e competency statem ents was to address a l l o f
th e im portant concerns o f mainstreaming and y e t be o f a p r a c t ic a l
s i z e ; t h a t i s , t o be n o t too d e ta il e d and y e t d e s c r i p t i v e .

In some

in sta n c e s competencies o verlap in t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith two o r more
to p ic a l a re a s .

For th e purpose o f i n t e r p r e t i n g d a ta th e competencies

may be describ ed in terms o f a s p e c i f i c to p ic a l a re a .

However, i t

should be understood t h a t they may a p p r o p r ia te ly r e l a t e to o th e r
to p ic a l a re a s as w e ll.
The sc a le s which were used in t h i s study c o n s is te d o f an
importance s c a le and an a b i l i t y s c a l e .

The importance s c a l e was

designed to i d e n t i f y te a c h e r competencies t h a t a re im portant to
e f f e c t i v e l y mainstream handicapped s tu d e n ts in v o c atio n a l e d u ca tio n .
The importance s c a le was div ided in to two c h o ic e s :
Not Im portant.

Im portant,

Once im portant competencies were i d e n t i f i e d , th e

a b i l i t y s c a le was u t i l i z e d to a s s e s s which o f th e competencies in d ic a te d
a r e l a t e d need f o r more te a c h e r t r a i n i n g on t h a t p a r t i c u l a r competency.
The a b i l i t y s c a le was broken down in to th r e e c h o ic es:
Can Do Somewhat, and Cannot Do.

Can Do W ell,

I f a competency was r a te d high in

38

perceiv ed importance and had a correspondingly low r a t i n g in the
perceived a b i l i t y o f te a c h e r s to perform t h a t competency, the
in d ic a tio n i s t h a t th e r e i s a need t o b e t t e r prepare te a c h e rs on
t h a t to p ic and as such should w arrant the a t t e n t i o n o f te a c h e r
t r a i n i n g p ersonnel.

An example o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire and th e cover

l e t t e r s which accompanied i t a re lo c a te d in Appendix B.
Instrum ent V a lid ity
In o rd er to a s s e s s th e v a l i d i t y o f t h i s s t u d y 's competencies,
a p re lim in a ry design f o r a q u e s tio n n a ir e was d i s t r i b u t e d t o two
c la s s e s a t Michigan S t a te U n iv e rsity :
(ED 482:

one a course in mainstreaming

Mainstreaming th e Handicapped in Vocational E ducation),

and th e o th e r a course in re s e a rc h (ED 982:
Methods in Vocational E ducation).

Experimental Research

The s tu d e n ts possessed mainstreaming

and re s e a rc h exp erience which, i t was b e lie v e d , would be b e n e f ic ia l
in th e e v a lu a tio n o f and sugg estio n s f o r an a p p ro p ria te q u e s tio n n a ir e
f o r t h i s study.

The stu d e n ts in both c la s s e s were asked to f i l l o u t

th e q u e s tio n n a ire and to comment on th e c l a r i t y o f i n s t r u c t i o n s and
competency sta te m e n ts.

The stu d e n ts were asked t o add o r d e le te

competencies where th ey f e l t i t would improve th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f
th e q u e s tio n n a ire .

The comments and sugg estio n s f o r r e v is io n s

obtained from th e s e two c la s s e s were considered in reg ard to the
i n t e n t o f t h i s study and th e instru m en t was then re v is e d where the
s t u d e n ts ' su g g e stio n s seemed p e r t i n e n t .
Following th e s e changes v o c atio n a l education te a c h e rs then
reviewed th e q u e s tio n n a ir e and provided su g g e stio n s f o r change.

39

These vo catio nal education te a c h e rs were employed in a re a vo cational
programs which were tau g h t in f a c i l i t i e s t h a t a ls o ta u g h t general
education c ourses.

These te n te a c h e rs were n ot a p a r t o f th e population

o f t h i s study because t h i s study surveyed only te a c h e rs a t Michigan
Area Vocational Centers which a re fre e s ta n d in g and as such a re not
p h y s ic a lly connected w ith r e g u la r high schools.
These ten vocational education te a c h e rs were asked to f i l l out
th e q u e s tio n n a ir e and note remarks on th e q u e s tio n n a ir e concerning
c l a r i t y and rele v an c e.

These remarks were considered in reg ard to

th e i n t e n t o f th e study and changes were made acc o rd in g ly where
deemed a p p ro p r ia te .
In a d d itio n the competencies instrum ent was reviewed by a
sp e c ia l needs te a c h e r and an employee o f th e Michigan Department
o f Education Special Needs S e rv ic e s.
I t was w ith the help and suggestions o f th e s e i n d iv id u a ls t h a t
th e competencies instrum ent was v a lid a te d f o r face and c o n te n t
v a lid ity .

I t was intended t h a t th ese typ es o f v a l i d i t y show t h a t

th e competencies instrum ent:
1.

was a p p ro p ria te f o r th e group surveyed.

2.

contained s u f f i c i e n t d i r e c t i o n s f o r com pletion.

3.

contained r e l e v a n t competency statem en ts n e ce ssa ry to
answer the Questions o f t h i s study.

Survey Methodology
The d a ta f o r t h i s survey were c o lle c te d by th e use o f a
q u e s tio n n a ir e .

The q u e s tio n n a ir e was mailed to each o f th e 143

te a c h e rs in th e sample.

Included with th e q u e s tio n n a ir e were a

40
cover l e t t e r e x p la in in g th e purpose o f t h e survey and a postage
paid r e t u r n envelope.

Teachers were re q u e ste d to r e t u r n th e

q u e s tio n n a ir e w ith in 2 weeks.
A second m ailin g was made to th o se te a c h e r s who had n o t
responded by th e end o f th e 2 week p e rio d .

This m ailin g included

a d i f f e r e n t cover l e t t e r and a po stag e paid r e t u r n envelope.
Teachers were asked to r e t u r n th e q u e s tio n n a ire w ith in 2 weeks.
A f te r th e second m a ilin g , q u e s tio n n a ir e s were d e liv e re d to
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from th e Area Vocational C e n te rs.

These

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were asked to p e rs o n a lly d e l i v e r th e q u e s tio n n a ir e s
to th e i n d iv id u a ls whose names appeared on th e q u e s t io n n a ir e s .
These i n d iv id u a ls were th e te a c h e rs in th e o r i g in a l sample o f
143 te a c h e r s who had n o t p re v io u s ly responded.
Following th e c o l l e c t i o n o f d a ta from th e 143 te a c h e r s i n i t i a l l y
surveyed, a r e p l i c a t i o n survey was conducted.

This c o n s is te d o f

72 te a c h e r s n o t in th e o r i g in a l sample o f 143 t e a c h e r s .
72 te a c h e r s c o n s t i t u t e d 10 p e rc e n t of th e p o p u la tio n .
was made t o t h i s sample.

These
One m ailing

Included were a cover l e t t e r , th e q u e s t io n n a ir e ,

and a postage paid r e t u r n envelope.

The te a c h e r s were asked to

r e t u r n th e q u e s tio n n a ire w ith in 2 weeks.
Questions to be Answered
Answers t o th e fo llow ing q u e s tio n s were sought:
1.

Is t h e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between occu pational a re a s reg a rd in g
th e p erceived importance o f and th e perceiv ed a b i l i t y to
perform mainstreaming competencies?

41
2.

Is th e re a r e l a t i o n s h i p between f u l l - t i m e v o cation al
education te a c h e rs and p a rt- tim e vocation al education
te a c h e rs regarding th e perceived importance o f and th e
perceived a b i l i t y t o perform mainstreaming competencies?

3.

Is th e re a r e l a t i o n s h i p between e du catio nal degree le v e ls
regarding th e perceived importance o f and th e perceived
a b i l i t y t o perform mainstreaming competencies?

4.

Is th e re a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c a te g o r ie s o f y e a rs o f
vo cational education tea ch in g experience regarding th e
perceived importance o f and th e perceived a b i l i t y to
perform mainstreaming competencies?

5.

Is th e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between ty p e (s ) o f handicapping
c o n d itio n (s ) p re s e n t in c la s s e s reg ard in g the perceived
importance o f and th e perceived a b i l i t y to perform
mainstreaming competencies?

6.

In terms o f importance, what p r i o r i t i z e d rank a re th e
mainstreaming competencies assigned by Michigan Area
Vocational Center te a c h e rs?

7.

What mainstreaming competencies do Michigan Area Vocational
Center te a c h e r s b e lie v e should be added to th e q u e s tio n n a ire
used in t h i s study?

Data A nalysis
The d a ta procured from th e responses were analyzed using the
" S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r Social Sciences" (SPSS).

A nalysis was done

on th e Control Data Corporation (CDC) 6500 Computer a t Michigan S ta te
U n iv e rsity .

42
The d e s ir e d a n a l y s i s was achieved by th e use o f:
1.

2.

Frequencies Subprogram
A.

Mean

B.

Frequencies

C.

Percentages

C rosstabs Subprogram
A.

C hi-square

B.

S ig n if ic a n c e (.0 5 l e v e l)

Since th e v a r i a b l e s being considered in t h i s study were
c a t e g o r i c a l , th e aforem entioned s t a t i s t i c s were deemed a p p r o p r ia te
f o r a n alyzin g th e r e l a t e d d a ta .

CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
For th e purpose o f a n a ly s is th e 67 responses from persons employed a t
th e Michigan Area Vocational Centers were used.

These 67 responses

r e p r e s e n t 51.5 p ercen t o f th e sample which was 130 a f t e r e lim in a tin g
th e 13 r e tu r n s t h a t were no longer employed a t th e s i t e surveyed.
Overview o f Chapter Four
The f i r s t p o rtio n o f t h i s ch ap ter concerns th e p r o f i l e o f th e
respondents by demographic v a r ia b le s .
The second p o rtio n o f t h i s c h ap ter i s devoted to answering the
qu estion regarding th e p r o f i l e o f the importance o f th e competencies
contained in th e q u e s tio n n a ire as r a te d by a l l o f th e respondents.
The perceived a b i l i t y r a t i n g s which were c o r r e la te d w ith th e importance
r a t i n g s a re provided in t h i s p o rtio n a ls o .
The t h i r d p o rtio n o f t h i s c h a p te r addresses f i v e demographic
r e l a t i o n s h i p q u e stio n s to which answers were being sought by t h i s survey.
The f o u rth p o rtio n o f t h i s c h a p te r concerns su ggestio ns made by
th e respondents f o r competency statem en ts to be added to th e q u e stio n n a ire
used in t h i s study.
The f i f t h p o rtio n o f t h i s c h a p te r concerns th e r e p l i c a t i o n survey
and i t s r e l a t e d p r o f i l e o f importance o f th e competencies.
The l a s t p o rtio n o f t h i s c h a p te r i s a summary o f Chapter Four.

43

44
PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
Table 1 i s a d e s c r ip tio n o f th e number and sample percentage
o f respondents in each o f th e s ix c a te g o r ie s o f Occupational Areas.
Of th e six c a te g o r ie s Trade and I n d u s t r i a l Education had th e l a r g e s t
number o f respondents w ith a t o t a l o f 37, o r 55.2 p e rc en t o f the
response group.

The few est number o f respondents from any one

categ o ry was 3, o r 4 .5 p e rc en t o f th e response group, from th e
D i s t r i b u ti v e Education a re a .

This was c lo s e ly followed by A g ric u ltu ra l

Education which had 4 respo nden ts.

The remaining c a te g o rie s were

O ffice Education w ith 9 re sp o n d en ts, Health Education w ith 7 re sp o n d en ts,
and Home Economics Edcuation w ith 7 respondents.

TABLE 1
FREQUENCY AND PERCENT COUNTS BY OCCUPATIONAL AREA

Occupational Area

Frequency

Percent

A g ric u ltu r a l Education

4

6.0

D i s t r i b u ti v e Education

3

4 .5

Health Education

7

10.4

Home Economics Education

7

10.4

O ffice Education

9

13.5

37

55.2

67

100.0

Trade & I n d u s t r i a l Education

Totals

45

Table 2 p re s e n ts data p e rta in in g to th e employment s t a t u s
o f th e respondents.

The two c a te g o rie s in t h i s t a b l e a re f u l l - t i m e

and p a rt-tim e employment.

Of th e 67 resp o n d en ts, 65 were employed on

a f u l l - t i m e b a sis f o r a t o t a l o f 97 p e rc en t o f th e response group.
The 2 remaining respondents were re p o rte d as 1 employed p a rt- tim e and
1 no response to th e q u e stio n .

TABLE 2
FREQUENCY AND PERCENT COUNTS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS

Employment S ta tu s

Frequency

Percent

F u ll-tim e

65

97.0

P a rt-tim e

1

1.5

No Response

1

1.5

67

100.0

T o ta ls

Contained in Table 3 a r e d a ta which d e sc rib e th e frequency
and p e rc en t o f respondents in each o f th e f i v e c a te g o rie s o f
Degree Level.

The m a jo rity o f th e resp o n d en ts, 65.7 p e rc e n t, had

a Bachelors degree o r l e s s .

Within t h i s m a jo rity were 20 resp o n d en ts,

o r 29.9 p e rc e n t o f th e response group, who had l e s s than a Bachelors
degree.

These respondents a re c e r t i f i e d to teach in v ocational

programs based on work experience in t h e i r occupational a r e a .
Of th e remaining respondents 22 had a Masters degree.

One

respondent had th e S p e c i a l i s t degree and no respondents had the

46
Doctoral degree.

The t o t a l number o f respondents was q u i te evenly

divided among th e f i r s t th r e e c a te g o r ie s o f Degree S t a t u s , namely
Less than B achelors, Bachelors Degree, and Masters Degree.

The

two h ig h e s t Degree S ta tu s c a te g o r ie s were, with th e exception o f
one respon dent, devoid o f respondents.

TABLE 3
FREQUENCY AND PERCENT COUNTS BY DEGREE STATUS

Degree S ta tu s

Frequency

Percent

Less than Bachelors

20

29.9

Bachelors Degree

24

35.8

Masters Degree

22

32.8

S p e c i a l i s t Degree

1

1.5

Doctoral Degree

0

0

T o ta ls

67

100.0

Contained in Table 4 a re data p e r ta in in g to Teaching Experience
in y e a rs t h a t th e respondents have had.

The category o f 3 to 5 y e ars

o f teach in g experience contained 32.8 p e rc en t o f th e respondents and
as such was th e l a r g e s t group w ith in any one categ o ry .

The category

o f 6 to 8 y e a rs o f tea ch in g experience was th e second l a r g e s t with
28.4 p e rc en t o f th e response group.

The m a jo r ity , 61.2 p e rc en t o f

resp o n d en ts, t h e r e f o r e , had 3 t o 8 y e a rs o f teaching ex p erien ce.

47
Of th e respon dents 4 had l e s s than 2 y e a rs o f te a c h in g e x p erien c e.
At th e o th e r extreme o f the c a t e g o r i e s , 9 resp ond ents had 12 o r more
y e a rs o f tea ch in g e x p e rie n c e .

TABLE 4
FREQUENCY AND PERCENT COUNTS
BY THE NUMBER OF YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Teaching Experience in Years

Frequency

P ercen t

4

6 .0

3 to 5

22

32.8

6 to 8

19

28.4

9 t o 11

12

17.9

12 o r more

9

13.4

No response

1

1.5

67

100.0

Less than 2

T o ta ls

Table 5 r e p o r t s th e number o f resp ond en ts who have had handicapped
s tu d e n ts in t h e i r c l a s s e s and what ty p es o f impairments th e s tu d e n ts
have had.

In t h i s c ateg o ry i t was p o s s ib le f o r resp ond en ts to i d e n t i f y

more than one impairment s in c e many o f th e resp o n d en ts have had s tu d e n ts
in t h e i r c la s s e s who have had a v a r i e t y o f im pairm ents.

The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f impairments i s n o t an e x a c t sc ie n c e and t h i s
t a b l e should be viewed in t h a t l i g h t .

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

o f impairments may vary between sc h o o ls , s t a f f , and f a c u l t y .

48
The most p re v a le n t type o f impairment i d e n t i f i e d was Learning
Disabled with 80.6 p e rc en t o f th e response group responding t h a t they
have had stu d e n ts with lea rn in g d i s a b i l i t i e s in t h e i r c l a s s e s .
Not f a r behind in frequency o f occurrence was th e presence o f
Emotionally Impaired stu d e n ts in c l a s s e s .

A t o t a l o f 70.1 p e rc e n t of

th e response group have had Emotionally Impaired s tu d e n ts in t h e i r c l a s s e s .
The impairments rep o rte d l e a s t f re q u e n tly were Speech, 34.3 p e rc e n t;
V isu a l, 37.3 p e rc e n t; and Hearing, 38.8 p e rc e n t.

Of th e response group

11.9 p e rc e n t in d ic a te d never having had any stu d e n t who was handicapped.
This in d ic a te s t h a t 88.1 p ercen t o f th e respondents have tau g h t
handicapped stu d e n ts in t h e i r c l a s s e s .
TABLE 5
FREQUENCY AND PERCENT COUNTS
BY TYPE(S) OF HANDICAP(S) OF STUDENTS SERVED
Type o f Handicap

Frequency

Percent

Emotionally Impaired

47

70.1

Hearing Impaired

26

38.8

Learning Disabled

54

80.6

Mentally Impaired

29

43.3

P h y s ic a lly Impaired

38

56.7

Speech Impaired

23

34.3

V isu a lly Impaired

25

37.3

8

11.9

None

Note: Respondents could respond to as many handicaps
as needed to d e s c rib e t h e i r s tu d e n ts .

49
PROFILE OF COMPETENCY IMPORTANCE RATINGS
Table 6 c o n ta in s th e nine t o p ic a l a re a s which encompass th e
52 competencies o f t h i s stu d y .

The to p ic a l a re a s a r e ranked by th e

averaged percentage r a t i n g s o f importance f o r a l l o f th e competencies
w ith in each to p ic a l a re a .

The t o p ic a l a re a ranked h ig h e s t in importance

was A ttitu d e s w ith an average competency importance r a t i n g o f 92.9
p e rc e n t.

The to p ic a l a rea o f Communication re c e iv e d a s i m i l a r r a t i n g

w ith an average competency importance r a t i n g o f 92.5 p e rc e n t.
The to p ic a l a re a s o f Resource and Support Systems, Teaching
S t r a t e g i e s , Curriculum Design, S tud ent Assessment, Employment
O p p o rtu n itie s , and Learning S ty le s had average competency importance
r a t i n g s t h a t ranged from 89.6 p e rc e n t to 81.35 p e rc e n t.
The t o p ic a l a re a ranked low est in importance was Mainstreaming
Laws w ith an average competency importance r a t i n g o f 73.51 p e rc e n t.

TABLE 6

1

6

95.5

11

94.0

17

98.5

37

95.9

40

80.6

A ttitu d e s

Average
Competency
Importance
Rating

Competency
Importance
Rating

Topical Area

Competency
Number

P rio rity
Rank

RANKED TOPICAL AREAS BY AVERAGES
OF MAINSTREAMING COMPETENCIES' IMPORTANCE RATINGS

92.9

50

3

4

7

91.0

32

94.0

5

94.0

34

89.6

39

85.1

43

86.6

50

94.0

10

83.6

15

88.1

16

85.1

25

88.1

26

80.6

28

95.5

33

86.6

41

97.0

47

95.5

52

77.6

4

85.1

9

86.6

13

95.5

Communication

92.5

Resource & Support Systems

89.86

Teaching S t r a te g ie s

Curriculum Design
(Continued on next page)

Average
Competency
Importance
Rating

Competency
Importance
Rating

2

Topical Area

Competency
Number

P rio rity
Rank

Table 6, Continued

87.77

86.58
(Average f o r
a ll of P rio rity
Rank #5)

51
Table 6, Continued

$
so -a*
•i- c

s~ ta
a. a:

Topical Area

Curriculum Design
(Continued)

6

7

8

>>
a
c
a>
•M Saj a>
0.-0
e e
O 3
O Z

>> <u

o o
c c
a> a
+j +j cn
0) i- £
OL O 'r
E Q.+J
O E <0
O fH CC

19

86.6

20

76.1

42

89.6

2

97.0

3

94.0

12

91.0

14

77.6

21

92.5

22

56.7

27

91.0

30

86.6

35

88.1

44

88.1

18

86.6

23

80.6

38

94.0

45

82.1

8

80.6

31

82.1

Student Assessment

Employment O p p o rtu n ities

>» <U
o a
c c
<u <u <a
0>+J 4-> D>
<a <u s- e
s. ao'i0) E Q. +■>
> o E JS
< U H K

86.58
(Average f o r
a ll of P rio rity
Rank #5)

86.26

Learning S ty le s

85.825

81.35

52
Table 6, Continued
>>

u
c
a>
-M i.
<u <u
Q..O
E E

>,
+j
•r*
s_
o
•r- C

t - nj

o. cm

Topical Area

Mainstreaming Laws

>>
a)
a u

>> a>

c c
a> (O
4-> 4-> cn
(U & -c
Q. O *•“
E Q.4->

u a
c c
a> a» «o
CT>4-> 4-> CT)
ia t i i . c
I. D. O i~
d> E 0.-M

oz=

okhq;

e c o i-to s

1

80.6

24

56.7

29

79.1

36

89.6

46

41.8

48

73.1

49

83.6

51

83.6

0 3

O E Id

50E«g

73.51

The competencies in Table 7 a re ranked and grouped according
t o th e percentage o f respondents who i d e n t i f i e d th e competencies
as being im portant.

They a re l i s t e d by p r i o r i t i e s s t a r t i n g with

th e competency which had th e h ig h e s t percentage o f respondents
id e n tif y in g i t as being im portant and descending through the
competency which had th e lowest percentage o f respondents id e n tif y in g
i t as being im portant.

In t h i s survey th e lowest percentage o f

respondents i d e n tif y in g a competency as being im portant was 41.8.
Once th e competencies were l i s t e d by p r i o r i t i e s , they were
then divided in to groups by th e p e rc e n t o f th e respondents r a t i n g th e
competency as being im portant.

The groups were broken down as fo llo w s:

53
Group #1:

95.0-100.0 p e rc e n t o f the response group i d e n t i f i e d
th e competency as being im portant.

Group #2:

9 0.0 -94.9 p e rc en t o f th e response group i d e n t i f i e d
the competency as being im portant.

Group #3:

8 5 .0 -8 9 .9 p e rc e n t o f th e response group i d e n t i f i e d
th e competency as being im portant.

Group #4:

8 0 .0 -8 4 .9 p e rc e n t o f th e response group i d e n t i f i e d
th e competency as being im portant.

Group #5:

75.0 -7 9 .9 p e rc en t o f th e response group i d e n t i f i e d
th e competency as being im portant.

Group #6:

4 1 .8 -7 4 .9 p e rc en t o f th e response group i d e n t i f i e d
th e competency as being im portant.

Also in Table 7 a re th e a b i l i t y r a t i n g s which were assign ed to
each o f th e competencies.

These a b i l i t y r a t i n g s a re recorded in

Table 7 in percentages o f a l l respondents who i d e n t i f i e d t h e i r
perceived a b i l i t y to perform each competency in one o f th r e e c a te g o r ie s :
Can Do Well, Can Do Somewhat, Cannot Do.

The a b i l i t y r a t i n g s were

recorded beside t h e i r corresponding competency importance r a t i n g s .
In Group #1 o f th e Importance r a t i n g s th e r e were e ig h t competencies.
Of th e s e e ig h t competencies th r e e were concerned w ith a t t i t u d i n a l f a c t o r s :
Competency #17:

"Understand th e s e lf - c o n c e p ts held by

handicapped s t u d e n ts ."
Competency #6:

"Be a b le to f o s t e r a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p

between handicapped and non-handicapped s tu d e n ts ."
Competency #37:

"Be aware o f employer a t t i t u d e s toward

handicapped employees."

54
Four o f th e s e e ig h t competencies in Group #1 were concerned with
teaching methods and d e liv e r y :
Competency #41:

"Be a b le t o p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e handicapped

stu d e n ts f o r t h e i r achievem ents."
Competency #13:

"Be a b le t o plan educational programs which

provide handicapped stu d e n ts with th e maximum number of
jo b o p p o r tu n itie s t h e i r impairments w ill a llo w ."
Competency #47:

"Be a b le to provide sa fe le a rn in g c o n d itio n s

in th e classroom (s) and the l a b ( s ) . "
Competency #28:

"Be a b le to e s t a b l i s h a system f o r recording

stu d e n t progress in terms o f s t a te d o b j e c t i v e s . "
One competency in Group #1 was concerned with th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
o f impairments:
Competency #2:

"Be ab le to recognize s tu d e n ts with physical

impairm ents."
Of a l l 52 competencies contained in th e q u e s tio n n a ir e ,
Competency #17 received th e l a r g e s t percentage o f importance r a t i n g s
w ith 98.5 p e rc en t o f th e respondents id e n tif y in g i t as being im portant.
The r a t i n g o f perceived a b i l i t y to perform Competency #17 shows
19.4

p ercen t o f th e respondents fe e l they can "understand th e se lf-c o n c e p ts

held by handicapped s tu d e n ts ."

Both Competency #13 and Competency #37

receiv ed s i m i l a r l y low r a t i n g s by respondents in th e Can Do Well
c a te g o ry , with 19.4 p e rc en t o f respondents f e e l in g t h a t th ey a re
"ab le to plan educational programs which provide handicapped stu d e n ts
w ith th e maximum number o f jo b o p p o r tu n itie s t h e i r impairments w ill
a llo w ," and 28.4 p ercen t o f th e response group re p o r tin g t h a t they

55
Can Do Well th e competency "be aware o f employer a t t i t u d e s toward
handi capped employees."
In Group #2 o f th e Importance r a t i n g s th e r e were te n com petencies.
Of th e s e ten competencies Competency #21, "Be a b le t o rec o g n ize hearing
impairment c o n d it i o n s ," re c e iv e d th e low est Can Do Well r a t i n g a t
17.9 p e rc e n t.

Also r e c e iv in g a low Can Do Well r a t i n g in Group #2

was Competency #12, "Be a b le t o rec o g n ize mental impairment c o n d itio n s ,"
w ith 22.4 p e rc e n t.
Group #3 o f th e Importance r a t i n g s co n ta in e d 16 com petencies,
l a r g e s t number o f competencies in any one group.

Of th e s e 16 competencies

six had lower than 21 p e rc e n t Can Do Well r a t i n g s :
Competency #36:

"Be knowledgeable o f th e r i g h t s o f handicapped

s tu d e n ts t o employment."
Competency #15:

"Be a b le t o prov id e p r e s c r i p t i v e te a ch in g

m ethods."
Competency #18:

"Have knowledge o f ag en cies a s s i s t i n g in th e

employment o f handicapped s t u d e n ts ."
Competency #19:

"Be a b le to develop, w ith th e a s s i s t a n c e o f

s p e c ia l e d u ca tio n p e rs o n n e l, an in d iv id u a liz e d ed u ca tio n al
plan which b e s t s u i t s each handicapped s t u d e n t 's le a rn in g
sty le ."
Competency #4:

"Be a b le to work w ith p a re n ts in planning

in d iv id u a liz e d e d u c a tio n a l p la n s ."
Competency #43:

the

"Be knowledgeable o f s tu d e n t re c o rd s

a v a i l a b l e to v o c a tio n a l edu catio n t e a c h e r s ."

56
The percentage o f respondents who rep o rte d t h a t they fe e l "knowledgeable
o f th e r i g h t s o f handicapped stu d e n ts to employment" (Competency #36)
was 19.4.

Those o f th e response group who rep o rte d f e e l in g "ab le to

provide p r e s c r i p t i v e teaching methods" (Competency #15) was 14.9 p e rc e n t.
The lowest Can Do Well r a t i n g in Group #3 was 13.4 p e rc e n t o f th e
respondents re p o rtin g t h a t they "have knowledge of agencies a s s i s t i n g
in th e employment o f handicapped s tu d e n ts "

(Competency #18).

Those o f th e response group who rep o rte d f e e l in g t h a t they Can Do
Well Competency #19, which was concerned with th e development o f
in d iv id u a liz e d ed ucational plans f o r each handicapped s tu d e n t, was
19.4 p e rc en t.

Competency #43 which d e a l t w ith stu d e n t rec o rd s a v a i la b l e

to vocational education te a c h e rs re c eiv e d a Can Do Well r a t i n g o f
20.9 p e rc en t.

Those o f th e response group who f e l t t h a t they Can

Do Well th e competency "be able to work with p a re n ts in planning
in d iv id u a liz e d education plans" (Competency #4) was 16.4 p e rc e n t.
Group #4 o f th e Importance r a t i n g s included te n competencies.
Four o f th e se te n competencies had lower than 15 p e rc e n t Can Do Well
ra tin g s:
Competency #51:

"Understand th e im p lic a tio n s o f th e S t a te

Department o f E d u ca tio n 's plans r e l a t e d to handicapped
stu d e n ts ."
Competency #31:

"Be a b le to match i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods to

handicapped stu d e n ts based on m edical, p s y c h o lo g ic a l, and
d ia g n o s tic f i n d in g s ."
Competency #26:

"Be a b le t o implement le a rn in g c e n t e r s ,

c r i t e r i o n r e fe re n c e t e s t s , team te a c h in g , and media
to b e n e f i t handicapped s t u d e n ts ."

57
Competency #1:

"Understand the leg al r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f

te a c h e rs described in Public Law 94-142 and Public Act 198."
Competencies #51 and #31 were very low in t h e i r Can Do Well r a t i n g s .
The percentage o f respondents who f e l t t h a t th ey "understand th e
im p lic a tio n s o f th e S ta te Department o f E d u c a tio n 's plans r e l a t e d
to handicapped stu d e n ts" (Competency #51) was 1 0 .4 , and 7 .5 p ercen t
o f th e response group rep o rte d being "able to match i n s t r u c t i o n a l
methods to handicapped s tu d e n ts based on m edical, p sy c h o lo g ic a l, and
d ia g n o s tic fin d in g s " (Competency #31).

Competency #1 which d e a l t with

th e leg a l a sp e c ts o f te a c h e rs as d e scrib e d in Public Law 94-142 and
Public Act 198 rec eiv e d a Can Do Well r a t i n g o f 14.9 p e rc e n t.

Those

o f th e response group who rep o rte d t h a t they a re "ab le to implement
le a rn in g c e n t e r s , c r i t e r i o n re fe re n c e t e s t s , team te a c h in g , and media
to b e n e f it handicapped stu d e n ts " (Competency #26) was 13.4 p e rc e n t.
Group #5 o f th e Importance r a t i n g s contained f o u r com petencies.
Three o f th e fo u r competencies had lower than 11 p e rc en t Can Do Well
ratin g s:
Competency #29:

"Be knowledgeable o f th e r i g h t s o f handicapped

s tu d e n ts under Public Law 94-142 and Public Act 198."
Competency #14:

"Be a b le to u t i l i z e stu d e n t rec o rd s ( t e s t

s c o r e s , psychological r e p o r t s , and performance i n d ic a t o r s )
to e v a lu a te th e c a p a b i l i t i e s and p o t e n t i a l o f handicapped
s t u d e n ts ."
Competency #52:

"Understand th e fu n c tio n s o f p r o s t h e t i c devices

f o r handicapped p e rso n s."
The competency d e alin g with th e leg al a sp e c ts o f handicapped stu d e n ts
as d e scrib e d in Public Law 94-142 and Public Act 198 receiv ed a Can Do

58
Well r a t i n g o f 10.4 p e rc en t o f th e response group f o r Competency #29.
Competencies #14 and #52 had very low Can Do Well r a t i n g s , w ith 4 .5
p e rc e n t o f th e respondents re p o r tin g t h a t they Can Do Well th e
competency "be a b le to u t i l i z e stu d e n t rec o rd s ( t e s t s c o r e s , psychological
r e p o r t s , and performance i n d ic a t o r s ) to e v a lu a te th e c a p a b i l i t i e s
and p o t e n t i a l o f handicapped s tu d e n ts " (Competency #14), and 6.0
p e rc e n t o f th e response group re p o r tin g t h a t th ey "understand th e
fu n c tio n s o f p r o s t h e t i c devices f o r handicapped persons" (Competency #52).
Group #6 o f th e Importance r a t i n g s contained th e competencies
r a te d lowest in importance by th e resp o n d en ts.

Group #6 included

fo u r competencies:
Competency #48:

"Understand due process procedures reg ard in g

c o n te ste d placements o f handicapped s tu d e n ts ."
Competency #22:

"Be a b le to a d m in iste r and i n t e r p r e t formal

assessm ent instrum en ts f o r handicapped s t u d e n ts ."
Competency #24:

"Understand what th e concept ' l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e

environment' means."
Competency #46:

"Understand th e h i s t o r i c a l development o f

m ainstream ing."
All fo u r o f th e s e competencies had lower than 21 p e rc e n t Can Do Well
ratin g s.

The percentage o f respondents who f e l t t h a t th ey Can Do Well

t h e competency "understand what th e concept ' l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e
environment' means" (Competency #24) was 20.9 p e rc e n t.

Competencies

#46 and #48 had id e n t i c a l Can Do Well r a t i n g s w ith 6 .0 p e rc e n t of
t h e response group re p o rtin g t h a t they "understand th e h i s t o r i c a l
development o f mainstreaming" (Competency #46), and 6 .0 p e rc e n t o f
th e response group re p o rtin g t h a t they "understand due process procedures

59
regarding c o n te ste d placements o f handicapped stu d e n ts" (Competency #48).
Competency #22, "be a b le to a d m in iste r and i n t e r p r e t formal assessment
instrum ents f o r handicapped s t u d e n ts ," received a Can Do Well r a t i n g
o f 0 .0 p e rc e n t.
Of th e 52 competencies included in t h i s survey, th e respondents
r a te d a l l but th r e e r e l a t i v e l y high in importance (73.1 p e rc e n t or
above).

The th re e competencies which received th e lowest r a t i n g s

of importance were as follo w s:
Competency #22:

"Be a b le to a d m in iste r and i n t e r p r e t formal

assessm ent instrum ents f o r handicapped s t u d e n ts ."

This

competency was r a te d as being im portant by 56.7 p e rc e n t
o f th e response group.
Competency #24:

"Understand what the concept ' l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e

environm ent' means."

This competency was r a te d as

being im portant by 56.7 p e rc en t o f th e response group.
Competency #46:

"Understand th e h i s t o r i c a l development

o f m ainstream ing."

With 41.8 p e rc en t o f th e response group

id e n t i f y i n g t h i s competency as being im p o rtan t, Competency #46
rec eiv e d th e lowest importance r a t i n g o f th e 52 mainstreaming
competencies contained in t h i s survey.
The h ig h e s t r a t i n g by respondents in th e Can Do Well categ o ry was
67.2 p e rc e n t.

This r a t i n g was given t o Competency #28:

"Be a b le to

e s t a b l i s h a system f o r reco rd in g stu d e n t p ro g ress in terms of
s t a t e d o b j e c ti v e s ."

This competency was included in Group #1, the

group o f competencies i d e n t i f i e d by 95.0-100.0 p e rc e n t o f the response
group as being im portant, ranking e ig h th in p r i o r i t y .

The low est r a t i n g

60
in th e Can Do Well categ o ry was given to Competency #22:

"Be a b le

to a d m in iste r and i n t e r p r e t formal assessm ent in stru m ents f o r
handicapped s tu d e n ts ."

This competency, included in Group #6 which

contained th e competencies r a t e d low est in importance by th e resp o n d en ts,
rec eiv e d a r a t i n g o f 0.0 p e rc en t o f th e response group who rep o rte d
t h a t they Can Do Well t h i s competency.

TABLE 7
RANKED AND GROUPED MAINSTREAMING COMPETENCIES WITH PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE AND ABILITY RATINGS

sQ . 0)
3
O E
i. 3
ca z

>>
u

>>
+J

e

s_
O
e
S_ (O
CL oc

•1“

at
■M S<u a>
O .J3
E E
O 3
c_> z

Mainstreaming Competency Statement

+J
£
<o
+->
s_
o
a.
E
1—1

+J
c
(O
+J
Jo
■p a.
o E
Z >~I

r—
a>
3
O
o
£
(0
o

+J
n>
o -c:
O 2
a)
£ E
<o O
o to

o
a
+j
o
£
£
(0
O

17

Understand the se lf-c o n c e p ts held by handi­
capped stu d e n ts .

98.5

0

19.4

44.8

28.4

2.5

2

Be a b le to recognize stu d e n ts with physical
impairments.

97.0

1.5

47.8

46.3

1.5

2.5

41

Be able to p o s itiv e ly r e in f o r c e handicapped
stu d e n ts f o r t h e i r achievements.

97.0

0

61.2

31.3

0

6

13

Be able to plan educational programs which
provide handicapped stu d e n ts with th e
maximum number o f jo b o p p o rtu n itie s t h e i r
impairments w ill allow.

95.5

1.5

19.4

56.7

16.4

6

6

Be able to f o s t e r a p o s itiv e r e l a ti o n s h i p
between handicapped and non-handicapped
s tu d e n ts .

95.5

1.5

55.2

32.8

4.5

6

37

Be aware o f employer a t t i t u d e s toward
handicapped employees.

95.5

1.5

28.4

47.8

13.4

1

Table 7, Continued

Mainstreaming Competency Statement
Be a b le to provide sa fe lea rn in g c on ditio ns
in th e classroom (s) and the l a b ( s ) .

+>
c
ID
+->
so
CL
E
t—)

95.5

P
c
ID
P
So

P CL
O E
Z i—'

1.5

r
i—“
CD
3
O
a
c
ID
O

61.2

P
ID
Of
a %
(U
C E
■D O
o cr>

25.4

o
a
p
o
c
c
ID
O

4.5
CD

Be a b le to e s t a b l i s h a system f o r recording
stu d e n t progress in terms o f s ta te d
o b je c tiv e s .

95.5

1.5

67.2

22.4

3.0

no

Table 7, Continued

r—

+j
c

+>

a)

ao
+»

o
O.
E
i—i

c
id
+sjo
+■» QO
E
^ i—i

Be able to i d e n t i f y occupations and s k i l l s
which match th e c a p a b i l i t i e s o f handicapped
s tu d e n ts .

94.0

3 .0

Be aware o f and understand a d m in is tr a to r ,
te a c h e r , p a re n t, and stu d e n t a t t i t u d e s
toward handicapped stu d e n ts .

94.0

3 .0

28.4

61.2

1.5

Be ab le to u t i l i z e p a ra p ro fe ssio n a ls
and v o lu n te ers in th e classroom.

94.0

3 .0

50.7

31.3

9 .0

Understand when to involve s p e c i a l i s t s ,
such as a p sy c h o lo g is t, speech t h e r a p i s t ,
e t c . , in c o n s u lta tio n .

94.0

3.0

38.8

38.8

10.4

Be a b le to use o bserv atio n and o th e r
informal methods to a s s e s s handicapped
s t u d e n t s ’ classroom performances.

94.0

1.5

43.3

47.8

1.5

Be a b le to develop p o s i t iv e and a c tiv e
communications with handicapped stu d e n ts .

94.0

1.5

49.3

40.3

1.5

id

+j
J-

Mainstreaming Competency Statement

3

O

a
c
id
o

28.4

O

a
C
id
o

+J
Id
j=

3
at
E
o
oo

55.2

o
c
c

id
o
9.0
a*
CO

Table 7, Continued

■p

+->

to
■p
so
Q.
E

cO

•p a.
O E

a
c
o<a

Be a ble to recognize hearing impairment
co n d itio n s.

92.5

4 .5

17.9

Be able to recognize mental impairment
c o n d itio n s.

91.0

3.0

22.4

55.2

14.9

Be ab le to recognize v isu a l impairment
c o n d itio n s.

91.0

6.0

29.9

46.3

13.4

Be ab le to provide handicapped studen ts
with communication s k i l l s necessary
f o r interview ing f o r a jo b and performing
the d u tie s o f a procured jo b .

91.0

7.5

29.9

53.7

7.5

c

Mainstreaming Competency Statement

c

-P

O

a>
o

-p

to
a 501
c B

p
o
cc

l_> CO

o

O -£

10 o

47.8

CO

25.4
ai
4*

Table 7, Continued

u

a. a>
3
O E
t- 3
cn z

$r—
■

iO JC

f- C
S- ID
a. oc

20

&
c

0)
4J 5o) a>
O.J3
E E
O 3
O Z

36

Mainstreaming Competency Statement
Be knowledgeable o f th e r i g h t s o f handicapped
stu d e n ts to employment.

+tjo
so
CL
E

89.6

4->

0)

4-> CL

aO
c

ao sz
3
<u

C_J>

O

c
+tjo
io

7 .5

to

19.4

+>
to

C E
to o

C/5

46.3

ao
+j

o
c
c
to

o

23.9
cn

20

42

Be a b le to ob tain and u t i l i z e parental
knowledge o f t h e i r handicapped c h ild to
f u r t h e r th e understanding o f t h a t
handicapped stu d e n t.

89.6

20

34

U t i li z e se rv ic e s provided by school
psy ch o lo g ists.

89.6

4 .5

32.8

38.8

17.9

23.5

15

Be a b le to provide p r e s c r ip tiv e teaching
methods.

88.1

6.0

14.9

52.2

23.9

23.5

35

Be

ab le to ev aluate rea d in ess s k i l l s .

88.1

3.0

23.9

40.3

23.9

23.5

44

Be a b le to a c c u ra te ly e v alu ate handi­
capped stu d e n ts f o r occupational
placement.

88.1

9.0

26.9

47.8

17.9

23.5

25

Be a b le to conduct a c t i v i t i e s which
promote p o s itiv e i n te r a c tio n o f handi­
capped stu d e n ts with non-handicapped
s tu d e n ts .

88.1

9.0

43.3

40.3

7.5

6.0

28.4

53.7

9.0

tn

Table 7, Continued

r—

a .
3
O
S_
CD

s.

<u
-Q

E

3
Z

4-5
•i—

So

•r- £

z . ta
Q . CC

Z
c
a>
+» i .
0 ) 0)
CL J 3

E

E

O 3
U Z

Mainstreaming Competency Statement

C
CO
+j
i.
O
Q.
E
i
—i

4->
C

(1)
3

4-»
s-

a

a 3

c
rO
O

C

a)
E

O

CO

(O

o

+-> a .
O E
Z t-1

O

+»
10
O 4=

(O o

o
a
4->

o

£
£
<o
o

28.5

18

Have knowledge o f agencies a s s i s t i n g in the
employment o f handicapped stu d e n ts .

86.6

10.4

13.4

49.3

26.9

28.5

19

Be able to develop, with th e a s s is ta n c e of
sp ecial education p erson nel, an in d iv id u a lize d
educational plan which b e st s u i t s each
handicapped s t u d e n t's lea rn in g s t y l e .

86.6

7 .5

19.4

50.7

19.4

28.5

43

Be knowledgeable o f stu d e n t records
a v a ila b le to vocational education
te a c h e rs.

86.6

9.0

20.9

46.3

25.4

28.5

33

Be ab le to make physical adap tatio n s in
the classroom to meet the s p e c i f i c needs
o f handicapped s tu d e n ts .

86.6

10.4

31.3

44.8

11.9

28.5

9

Understand the fu n ctio n s o f th e educational
planning and placement committees.

86.6

9.0

40.3

40.3

13.4

28.5

30

Be a ble to recognize speech impairment
c o n d itio n s.

86.6

10.4

35.8

50.7

4.5

Table 7, Continued

s.
a. at
3 -S
O
S- E
3
CDZ

S’
C
a>
•i—
•P sSaj
<u
O C Q.J3
•rE
S._ O
<H
0 OE
3
Q
o z
33

4

c
«C
-p
so
CL

Mainstreaming Competency Statement
Be ab le to work with p a re n ts in planning
in d iv id u a liz e d education p lans.

85.1

c

1C
■P
s-

o
■p a.
o E

9.0

<u
o
C
3

(0
<_>
16.4

■<Pa
O J=
a at
s
c E
(C o

O </)

50.7

o

a

o

c
c
o<a
23.9
CvTlt
■

33

39

U t i li z e se rv ic e s provided by school
so c ia l workers.

85.1

10.4

23.9

52.2

11.9

33

16

Be a b le to implement tu to r in g o f
handicapped stu d e n ts by non-handicapped
stu d e n ts .

85.1

10.4

31.3

47.8

10.4

Table 7, Continued

>>

s-

Q . 0)
3 ja

O E

S- 3
CD Z

c

>i
■P
•r—

s-

O
•r
SCL

•P

<u

J*

C
(0
OS

36

- P S0 ) 0)
O ..Q

E E

O 3
CJ Z

Mainstreaming Competency Statement
51

c
<o
-t->
so
Cl
E
t—i

Understand the im p lica tio n s o f the
S ta te Department o f E ducation's plans
r e l a te d to handicapped s tu d e n ts .

83.6

■P

c

(O
•p

so
CL
E

•P
O
Z i- t

13.4

r"
f—
0)
3
O
Q
E
>0

o

10.4

+J

<o
O f
O 3
0)
c E
<o o
c_)to

44.8

o
o
■p

o
c
c
(O
o

37.3
cn
oo

36

49

Understand school d i s t r i c t and building
procedures regarding contested placements
of handicapped s tu d e n ts .

83.6

11.9

28.4

43.3

11.9

36

10

Be ab le to provide parents o f handicapped
stu d en ts with a d e s c rip tio n o f goals and
techniques used to teach t h e i r handicapped
c h ild .

83.6

10.4

29.9

44.8

16.4

38.5

31

Be able to match in s tr u c tio n a l methods to
handicapped stu d en ts based on m edical,
p sycho lo gical, and d ia g n o s tic fin d in g s .

32.1

10.4

7.5

49.3

32.8

38.5

45

Have a knowledge o f how to adapt physical
c o n d itio n s o f jo b s to f i t handicapped
in d iv id u a ls .

82.1

11.9

20.9

47.8

16.4

Table 7, Continued

Mainstreaming Competency Statement

+->
c
03
4->
i.
O
CL
E=
i—i

■P
e
<d
+J
so
P Q.
O £
Z l-H

0)
3
O
o

c

to
c_>

■fj
(O
O -C
o s
(P
c S
03 O
C_>{/>

o
a
•P
o
c
c
IS
o

50.7

23.9

Be able to implement lea rn in g c e n te r s ,
c r i t e r i o n re fe ren c e t e s t s , team tea ch in g ,
and media to b e n e fit handicapped
stu d e n ts .

80.6

Understand the legal r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f
tea ch e rs described in Public Law 94-142
and Public Law 198.

80.6

13.4

14.9

40.3

31.3

Be aware o f th e a t t i t u d e s o f non-handicapped
employees toward handicapped employees.

80.6

16.4

25.4

47.8

19.4

Be ab le to arrange employment o p p o rtu n itie s
with pro sp ectiv e employers.

80.6

14.9

31.3

35.8

20.9

Understand c h ild development and learn in g
th e o r ie s .

80.6

13.4

31.3

49.3

13.4

16.4

13.4

cn

10

Table 7, Continued

sO . (U
3 X )
O
S- 3
(S z

E

>»
o
c
O)

4 ->
•r—
S-

+»
O)

O J *
• I-

C

Q .

CC

s- ta

SO)

0 .^ 3

E E

O
3
C_> Z

Mainstreaming Competency Statement

+J
c
*0
+J
s.
o
QEi
i—

-M
C
ta
+j
so
+-> Q.
O E
Z l-H

r*
3
O
O
c
(O
<_>

+J
<a
o x:
a 3
a>
£= E
ta o
o cn

o
o
-t->
o
c
c
BJ
O

45

29

Be knowledgeable o f th e r i g h t s o f
handicapped stu d e n ts under Public Law
94-142 and Public Act 198.

79.1

14.9

10.4

35.8

40.3

46.5

14

Be a ble t o u t i l i z e stu d e n t records
( t e s t sc o re s , psychological r e p o r t s ,
and performance in d ic a to r s ) to ev alu ate
the c a p a b i l i t i e s and p o te n tia l o f
handicapped s tu d e n ts .

77.6

19.4

4 .5

49.3

35.8

46.5

52

Understand th e fu n ctio n s o f p r o s th e tic
devices f o r handicapped persons.

77.6

14.9

6 .0

40.3

43.3

48

20

Be a b le to in d iv id u a liz e commercially
a v a ila b le programs and t e x t s .

76.1

20.9

23.9

47.8

16.4

Table 7, Continued

>>
o

cl

3

u

at

jQ

O E
S- 3

c3 Z

•p
*»■
s-

O X
•I- c
S- <0
CL OL

4 ->

c

C

QJ
+ j S-

<u at
E E
O 3
o z

<0

so

CL-Q

CL

Mainstreaming Competency Statement

+->

c<13
+>
S_

o
+-> Q.
O E

Ot
<o
o -C
o 2

o
a
+j
o

o

c E
<c o
o to

O

6 .0

38.8

41.8

25.4

61.2

oo
c

<13

at

<0

49

48

Understand due process procedures regarding
co n tested placements o f handicapped
stu d e n ts .

73.1

20.9

50.5

22

Be a b le to adm in ister and i n t e r p r e t formal
assessment instrum ents f o r handicapped
stu d e n ts .

56.7

35.8

50.5

24

Understand what th e concept " l e a s t
r e s t r i c t i v e environment" means.

56.7

26.9

20.9

25.4

35.8

52

46

Understand th e h i s t o r i c a l development
o f mainstreaming.

41.8

52.2

6.0

32.8

47.8

72
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In tro d u c tio n
I t was th e in te n t io n o f t h i s survey to answer q u e stio n s concerning
th e importance o f c e r t a i n mainstreaming competencies and vo cational
education te a c h e r s ' a b i l i t i e s to perform the same competencies.

The

competencies were r a te d in terms o f both importance and a b i l i t y as
perceived by Michigan Area Vocational Center te a c h e r s .

These te a c h e rs

a ls o provided demographic inform ation d e sc rib in g t h e i r "Occupational
A rea(s) o f Teaching, Employment S t a t u s , Educational Degree Level,
Years o f Vocational Teaching Experience, and Type(s) o f Handicapping
C o ndition(s) Students Served Have Had."
This study s e t f o r t h f i v e q u e stio n s to be answered in terms o f
d a ta c o lle c te d from th e resp o n d en ts.

The f i v e q u e stio n s sought to

determ ine whether o r not th e r e was any r e l a t i o n s h i p between each o f
t h e f i v e demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and th e corresponding te a c h e r
r a t i n g s o f p erceived importance and perceived a b i l i t y t o perform th e
competencies contained in th e q u e s tio n n a ire .
Question Number One
Question Number One was as fo llo w s:
" Is t h e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between occupational a re a s
reg ard in g th e perceived importance o f and th e perceived
a b i l i t y to perform mainstreaming competencies?"
The c ateg o ry o f Trade and I n d u s t r i a l Education had 37 respondents
f o r a t o t a l o f 55.2 p e rc e n t o f a l l resp o n d en ts.

This r e p r e s e n ts a

h ig h ly skewed p ro p o rtio n o f the response group.

Due to th e degree

73
of d i s p a r i t y in th e number o f respondents in each o f th e s i x c a te g o r ie s
o f Occupational Areas, a n a ly s is by Occupational Area would be meaningless
to conduct.
Question Number Two
Question Number Two was as fo llo w s:
" Is th e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between f u l l - t i m e v ocational
education te a c h e rs and p a rt- tim e vocatio n al education
te a c h e rs regarding th e perceived importance o f and th e
perceived a b i l i t y to perform mainstreaming competencies?"
In o rd e r to do any a n a ly s is o f th e d a ta c o lle c te d in terms o f
Employment S t a tu s , i t i s n ecessary to have a reasonably equal number
o f respondents in both th e f u l l - t i m e and p a rt- tim e c a te g o r ie s .
Because th e r e was only 1 p a rt- tim e respondent and th e r e were 65
f u l l - t i m e respon dents, i t was u s e le s s to a ttem p t to draw any conclusions
based upon Employment S ta tu s .
Question Number Three
Question Number Three was as follo w s:
" I s th e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between ed u ca tio n al degree
l e v e ls regarding th e perceived importance o f and th e
perceived a b i l i t y to perform mainstreaming competencies?"
Because th e r e was only one respondent with a S p e c i a l i s t Degree, the
c a te g o r ie s o f Masters and S p e c i a l i s t were grouped to g e th e r in o rd er to
e lim in a te empty c e l l s in th e c r o s s ta b u la tio n t a b l e s .
In terms o f Earned Educational Degree Levels and t h e i r corresponding
importance r a t i n g s , th r e e competencies were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d
a t th e .05 l e v e l.

The remaining 49 competencies were n ot s i g n i f i c a n t

74
a t th e .05 l e v e l .
Table 8 c o n ta in s d a ta reg a rd in g th e importance r a t i n g o f
Competency #23, "Be a b le to a rra n g e employment o p p o r t u n it i e s with
p ro sp e c tiv e em ployers."
.0213.

This competency had a s i g n i f ic a n c e le v e l o f

The c h i- s q u a re v alue f o r t h i s competency was 7.694 w ith

2 degrees o f freedom.

T herefore th e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p

between te a c h e rs w ith l e s s than a B ach elo rs, B a ch e lo rs, and Masters
and S p e c i a l i s t Degrees on th e importance r a t i n g s each c ateg o ry gave
to t h i s competency.

Teachers w ith Masters and S p e c i a l i s t Degrees

r a te d t h i s competency h ig h e s t in importance w hile th e c ate g o ry o f
Bachelors Degrees r a te d th e competency low est in im portance.

Teachers

w ith Less than a Bachelors Degree gave t h i s competency importance
r a t i n g s between th e o th e r two groups.

TABLE 8
CROSSTABULATION OF DEGREE LEVEL BY IMPORTANCE OF THE COMPETENCY:
"BE ABLE TO ARRANGE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES WITH PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYERS"

Degree Level

Im portant

Not Im portant

18
90.0

2
10.0

Bachelors

14
66.7

7
33.3

M asters and S p e c i a l i s t

22
95.7

1
4.3

Less than Bachelors

Frequency
P e rce n t

RAW CHI-SQUARE = 7.694 WITH 2 DEGREES OF FREEDOM
SIGNIFICANCE = .0213

75
Table 9 co n ta in s d a ta regarding th e importance r a t i n g o f
Competency #24, "Understand what th e concept ' l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e
environment' means".
.0172.

This competency had a s ig n if ic a n c e le v e l o f

The c h i-sq u a re value f o r t h i s competency was 8.121 with

2 degrees o f freedom.

T herefore th e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p

between te a c h e rs with l e s s than a B achelors, B achelors, and Masters
and S p e c i a l i s t Degrees on th e importance r a t i n g each category gave to
t h i s competency.

Teachers w ith Less than a Bachelors degree ra te d

the competency h ig h e s t in importance while te a c h e rs w ith a Bachelors
Degree ra te d th e competency low est in importance.

Masters and S p e c i a l i s t

Degree t e a c h e r s ' r a t i n g s were between th e o th e r two groups.

TABLE 9
CROSSTABULATION OF DEGREE LEVEL BY IMPORTANCE OF THE COMPETENCY:
"UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONCEPT 'LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT' MEANS"

Degree Level

Less than Bachelors

Im portant

Frequency
Percent

Not Important

14
93.3

1
6.7

Bachelors

9
47.4

10
52.6

Masters and S p e c i a l i s t

15
68.2

7
31.8

RAW CHI-SQUARE = 8.121 WITH 2 DEGREES OF FREEDOM
SIGNIFICANCE = .0172

76

Table 10 co n ta in s d ata reg arding th e importance r a t i n g o f Competency
#30, "Be a b le to recognize speech impairment c o n d itio n s ."
had a s ig n if ic a n c e le v e l o f .0483.

This competency

The c h i-s q u a re value f o r t h i s

competency was 6.062 w ith 2 degrees o f freedom.

T herefore th e r e was a

s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between te a c h e rs with l e s s than a B achelors,
B achelors, Masters and S p e c i a l i s t Degrees on th e importance r a t i n g s each
catego ry gave to t h i s competency.

Teachers w ith Masters and S p e c i a l i s t

Degrees r a te d th e competency h ig h e s t in importance w hile te a c h e rs w ith
Bachelors Degrees ra te d th e competency low est in im portance.

The r a t i n g s o f

te a c h e rs with l e s s than a Bachelors Degree were between th e o th e r two groups.
TABLE 10
CROSSTABULATION OF DEGREE LEVEL BY IMPORTANCE OF THE COMPETENCY:
"BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE SPEECH IMPAIRMENT CONDITIONS"
Degree Level
Less than Bachelors
Bachelors
Masters and S p e c i a l i s t

Frequency
P ercent

Important

Not Important

18
90.0

2
10.0

17
77.3

5
22.7

23
100.0

0
0

RAW CHI-SQUARE = 6.062 WITH 2 DEGREES OF FREEDOM
SIGNIFICANCE = .0483
In a d d itio n to th e preceding th r e e competencies which d e a l t w ith
r e l a t i o n s h i p s in importance r a t i n g s , th e r e were fo ur competencies with
perceived a b i l i t y r a t i n g s which had a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p a t th e
.05 lev e l in terms o f Earned Educational Degree L evels.

The remaining

77

48 competencies were no t s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .05 l e v e l .
Table 11 c o n ta in s d a ta reg ardin g th e a b i l i t y r a t i n g o f Competency #4,
"Be a b le to work with p a re n ts in planning in d iv id u a liz e d education p la n s ."
This competency had a s ig n if ic a n c e le v e l o f .0388.

The c h i-s q u a re value

f o r t h i s competency was 10.099 with 4 degrees o f freedom.

T herefore th e r e

was a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between te a c h e rs with l e s s than a B achelors,
B achelors, and Masters and S p e c i a l i s t Degrees on th e a b i l i t y r a t i n g s each
category gave to th e competency.

Teachers in th e Masters and S p e c i a l i s t

Degree category had th e h ig h e s t perceived a b i l i t y r a t i n g in th e Can Do
Well catego ry.

Teachers w ith Bachelors Degrees had th e lowest perceived

a b i l i t y r a t i n g in th e Can Do Well c ateg o ry .

Teachers w ith Less than a

Bachelors Degree had a b i l i t y r a t i n g s between th e o th e r two groups.
TABLE 11
CROSSTABULATION OF DEGREE LEVEL BY PERCEIVED ABILITY TO PERFORM THE
COMPETENCY: "BE ABLE TO WORK WITH PARENTS IN PLANNING INDIVIDUALIZED
EDUCATION PLANS"
Can Do Well

Degree Level

Can Do Somewhat

Cannot Do

3
15.8

12
63.2

4
21.1

Bachelors

2
10.0

8
40.0

10
50.0

Masters and S p e c ia li s t

6
27.3

14
63.6

2
9.1

Less than Bachelors

Frequency
Percent

RAW CHI-SQUARE = 10.099 WITH 4 DEGREES OF FREEDOM
SIGNIFICANCE = .0388

78
Table 12 c o n ta in s d ata regarding th e a b i l i t y r a t i n g o f Competency #23,
"Be a b le to a rran ge employment o p p o r tu n itie s w ith p ro sp e c tiv e em ployers."
This competency had a s i g n i f ic a n c e lev e l o f .0189.

The c h i-s q u a re

value f o r t h i s competency was 11.804 w ith 4 degrees o f freedom.
Therefore th e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between te a c h e rs with
Less than a B achelors, B achelors, and Masters and S p e c i a l i s t Degrees
on th e a b i l i t y r a t i n g s each categ o ry gave to t h i s competency.

Teachers

w ith Less than a Bachelors degree had th e h ig h e s t perceived a b i l i t y
r a t i n g in th e Can Do Well c ateg o ry .

Teachers w ith Bachelors Degrees

had th e low est perceived a b i l i t y r a t i n g in th e Can Do Well categ o ry .
Masters and S p e c i a l i s t Degree t e a c h e r s ' perceived a b i l i t y r a t i n g s were
between th e o th e r two groups.

TABLE 12
CROSSTABULATION OF DEGREE LEVEL BY PERCEIVED ABILITY TO PERFORM
THE COMPETENCY: "BE ABLE TO ARRANGE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES WITH
PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYERS"

Cannot Do

Can Do Well

Can Do Somewhat

9
47.4

8
42.1

2
10.5

Bachelors

3
17.6

5
29.4

9
52.9

Masters and S p e c i a l i s t

9
39.1

11
47.8

3
13.0

Degree Level

Less than Bachelors

Frequency
Percent

RAW CHI-SQUARE = 11.804 WITH 4 DEGREES OF FREEDOM
SIGNIFICANCE = .0189

79
Table 13 co n ta in s d a ta regard in g th e a b i l i t y r a t i n g o f
Competency #33, "Be a b le t o make physical a d a p ta tio n s in th e classroom
to meet th e s p e c i f i c needs o f handicapped s t u d e n ts ."
had a s ig n if ic a n c e lev e l o f .0474.

This competency

The c h i-s q u a re value f o r t h i s

competency was 9.619 with 4 degrees o f freedom.

T herefore th e r e was

a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between te a c h e rs w ith Less than a B achelo rs,
B achelors, and Masters and S p e c i a l i s t Degrees on th e a b i l i t y r a t i n g s
each category gave t o t h i s competency.

Teachers w ith l e s s than

Bachelors Degrees had th e h ig h e s t perceived a b i l i t y r a t i n g s in th e Can
Do Well categ ory.

Teachers w ith Masters and S p e c i a l i s t Degrees had the

lowest perceived a b i l i t y r a t i n g s in th e Can Do Well c ateg o ry .

Teachers

w ith Bachelors Degrees had perceived a b i l i t y r a t i n g s between th e o th e r
two groups.

TABLE 13
CROSSTABULATION OF DEGREE LEVEL BY PERCEIVED ABILITY TO PERFORM
THE COMPETENCY: "BE ABLE TO MAKE PHYSICAL ADAPTATIONS IN THE
CLASSROOM TO MEET THE SPECIFIC NEEDS OF HANDICAPPED STUDENTS"

Can Do Well

Can Do Somewhat

Cannot Do

8
42.1

10
52.6

1
5.3

Bachelors

6
33.3

6
33.3

6
33.3

Masters and S p e c i a l i s t

7
31.8

14
63.6

1
4 .5

Degree Level

Less than Bachelors

Frequency
Percent

RAW CHI-SQUARE = 9.619 WITH 4 DEGREES OF FREEDOM
SIGNIFICANCE = .0474

80
Table 14 c o n ta in s d a ta regard in g th e a b i l i t y r a t i n g o f
Competency #45, "Have a knowledge o f how to adapt physical c o n d itio n s
o f jo b s to f i t handicapped i n d iv i d u a ls ."
s ig n if ic a n c e lev e l o f .0141.

This competency had a

The c h i-s q u a re value f o r t h i s competency

was 12.484 with 4 degrees o f freedom.

T herefore th e r e was a

s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between te a c h e rs w ith Less than a B achelors,
B achelors, and Masters and S p e c i a l i s t Degrees on th e perceived a b i l i t y
r a t i n g s each category gave to t h i s competency.

Teachers with Less than

Bachelors Degrees had th e h ig h e s t perceived a b i l i t y r a t i n g s in th e Can
Do Well c ateg o ry .

Teachers w ith Bachelors Degrees had th e low est perceived

a b i l i t y r a tin g s in th e Can Do Well c ateg o ry .

Teachers w ith S p e c i a l i s t

and Masters Degrees had a b i l i t y r a t i n g s between th o se o f th e o th e r
two groups.
TABLE 14
CROSSTABULATION OF DEGREE LEVEL BY PERCEIVED ABILITY TO PERFORM
THE COMPETENCY: "HAVE A KNOWLEDGE OF HOW TO ADAPT PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
OF JOBS TO FIT HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS"

Degree Level

Can Do Well

Can Do Somewhat

Cannot Do

9
50.0

5
27.8

4
22.2

Bachelors

2
10.5

12
63.2

5
26.3

Masters and S p e c i a l i s t

3
15.0

15
75.0

2
10.0

Less than Bachelors

Frequency
Percent

RAW CHI-SQUARE « 12.484 WITH 4 DEGREES OF FREEDOM
SIGNIFICANCE = .0141

81
Question Number Four
Question Number Four was as fo llo w s:
" I s t h e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between c a te g o r ie s o f y e a rs
o f v o c a tio n a l e d ucation te a c h in g exp erience reg a rd in g
th e perceived importance o f and th e perceiv ed a b i l i t y
to perform mainstreaming competencies?"
In reg a rd to s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between each o f th e f i v e
c a t e g o r i e s o f y e a rs o f v o c atio n a l e d ucation te a ch in g ex p erien c e th e r e
was one competency which had a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p a t th e .05
le v e l in r e l a t i o n to importance r a t i n g s .

The rem aining 51 competencies

had no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r importance a t th e .05 l e v e l .
Table 15 c o n ta in s d a ta reg a rd in g th e importance r a t i n g o f
Competency #1, "Understand th e leg a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f te a c h e r s
d e sc rib e d in P ublic Law 94-142 and P u blic Act 198."
had a s i g n i f ic a n c e le v e l o f .0052.
w ith 4 degrees o f freedom.

This competency

The c h i- s q u a r e value was 14.783

T herefore th e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t

r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e c a te g o r ie s o f y e a rs o f v o c a tio n a l e d u ca tio n
tea ch in g ex p erien ce on th e importance r a t i n g s each c ate g o ry gave to
t h i s competency.

Teachers w ith l e s s than 2 y e a rs o f v o c atio n a l

edu cation te a ch in g e x p erien c e r a te d t h i s competency h ig h e s t in
im portance.

Teachers w ith 6 t o 8 , 9 t o 11, and 3 t o 5 y e a r s o f

v o c a tio n a l education te a ch in g e xperience r a te d t h e competency
r e s p e c t i v e l y lower.

Teachers w ith 12 o r more y e a rs o f v o c atio n a l

ed u ca tio n tea ch in g e xperience r a te d t h i s competency low est in
im portance.

82
TABLE 15
CROSSTABULATION OF YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE BY IMPORTANCE
OF THE COMPETENCY: "UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF
TEACHERS DESCRIBED IN PUBLIC LAW 94-142 AND PUBLIC ACT 198"

Years o f Experience

Less than 2

Frequency
Percent

Important

Not Important

4
100.0

0
0

3 to 5

19
95.0

1
5.0

6 to 8

16
88.9

2
11.1

9 to 11

10
90.9

1
9.1

12 o r more

4
44.4

5
55.6

RAW CHI-SQUARE = 14.783 WITH 4 DEGREES OF FREEDOM
SIGNIFICANCE = .0052
No s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s were found between each o f th e
f i v e c a te g o r ie s o f y e a rs o f v ocational education teach in g experience
on th e perceived a b i l i t y r a t i n g s o f competencies.
Question Number Five
Question Number Five was as follow s:
" Is th e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between ty p e (s ) o f handicapping
c o n d itio n s p re s e n t in c la s s e s regard in g th e perceived
importance o f and th e perceived a b i l i t y to perform
mainstreaming competencies?"

83
I t i s im possible to answer t h i s q uestio n due to th e f a c t
t h a t te a c h e rs who responded could respond to several d i f f e r e n t
types o f handicapping c o n d itio n s .

This provided d ata which were

not m utually e x c lu siv e .
SUGGESTED ADDITIONS TO COMPETENCY LIST
Space was provided a t th e end o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire f o r respondents
to suggest mainstreaming competencies which they believ ed should be
added t o th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e 's l i s t o f 52 mainstreaming competency
sta te m e n ts.

The follow ing f i v e competencies were provided in t h i s

a v a ila b le space:
1. "Be a b le

to see in d iv id u a l psychological d i f f e r e n c e s

(between handicapped s tu d e n ts ) who can cope w ith everyday
problems r e g a r d le s s o f handicapping c o n d itio n s and those
who use i t as a c r u tc h ."
2. "Make handicapped s tu d e n ts aware o f t h e i r l i m i t s . "
3. "Be a b le

t o implant a p o s i t iv e self-im ag e in handicapped

s tu d e n ts ."
4. "Support

s t a f f sharin g te c h n iq u e s."

5. "Be a b le

to have, as f a r as p o s s ib l e , handicapped stu d e n ts

a t t a i n s e l f - a t t a i n e d g o a ls ."
REPLICATION SURVEY
Following th e i n i t i a l survey o f 143 Michigan Area Vocational
Center te a c h e r s , a r e p l i c a t i o n o f th e survey was conducted.

The

r e p l i c a t i o n surveyed 72 Michigan Area Vocational Center te a c h e rs who

84
were a p a r t o f th e p o p u latio n o f t h i s study which was n o t included
in th e i n i t i a l survey.
from 33 t e a c h e r s .

One m ailing was made which y ie ld e d respo nses

Six q u e s tio n n a ir e s were re tu r n e d due t o th e

concerned te a c h e r s no lo n g er being employed a t th e a d d re ss surveyed.
The remaining 27 resp onses were used f o r a n a l y s i s .
Table 16 c o n ta in s th e ranking o f competencies by perceived
importance as ra te d by th e response group in th e r e p l i c a t i o n
survey.

Also included a r e th e r a t i n g s o f th e t e a c h e r s ' p erceived

a b i l i t y to perform th e com petencies.

The competencies a r e arranged

in Table 16 according to Group Numbers j u s t as th e competencies
o f th e i n i t i a l survey were arranged in Table 7.

The groups d e s ig n a te

th e percen tag e o f respo ndents r a t i n g th e competency as being im p o rtan t.
The groups a r e :
Group #1:

9 5 .0 -100 .0 p e rc e n t o f th e r e p l i c a t i o n response
group i d e n t i f i e d th e competency as being im p o rtan t.

Group #2:

9 0 .0 -9 4 .9 p e rc e n t o f th e r e p l i c a t i o n response
group i d e n t i f i e d t h e competency as being im po rtan t.

Group #3:

8 5 .0 -8 9 .9 p e rc e n t o f th e r e p l i c a t i o n response
group i d e n t i f i e d t h e competency as being im po rtan t.

Group #4:

8 0 .0 -8 4 .9 p e rc e n t o f th e r e p l i c a t i o n respon se
group i d e n t i f i e d t h e competency a s being im po rtan t.

Group #5:

7 5 .0 -7 9 .9 p e rc e n t o f th e r e p l i c a t i o n response
group i d e n t i f i e d th e competency as being im p o rtan t.

Group #6:

4 0 .7 -7 4 .9 p e rc e n t o f th e r e p l i c a t i o n response
group i d e n t i f i e d th e competency as being im p ortant.

85
In comparison with th e i n i t i a l survey, the r e p l i c a t i o n survey
had a l l but fo u r competencies ra te d as being im portant by 70 percent
o r more o f th e response group, w hile th e i n i t i a l survey had a l l but
th r e e o f th e competencies s i m il a r ly r a t e d .

Competency #22, "Be a b le

to a d m in iste r and i n t e r p r e t formal assessm ent in stru m ents f o r
handicapped s t u d e n ts ," and Competency #46, "Understand th e h i s t o r i c a l
development o f m ainstream ing," were r a te d low in importance in both
th e i n i t i a l and th e r e p l i c a t i o n survey.

D iffere n ce s in low importance

r a t i n g s o f competencies between th e i n i t i a l and th e r e p l i c a t i o n survey
occurred in th r e e in s ta n c e s .

Competency #9, "Understand th e fu n c tio n s

o f th e ed ucational planning and placement com m ittees," and Competency #15,
"Be a b le to provide p r e s c r i p t i v e tea ch in g methods," were r a te d low
in importance in th e r e p l i c a t i o n survey but n o t in th e i n i t i a l
survey.

Competency #24, "Understand what th e concept ' l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e

environment' means," was r a te d low in importance in th e i n i t i a l survey
but not in th e r e p l i c a t i o n survey.

TABLE 16
REPLICATION SURVEY: RANKED AND GROUPED MAINSTREAMING COMPETENCIES
WITH PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE AND ABILITY RATINGS

s_
CL CD
3 X)
OE
S- 3
CDZ

T—
r™
CD
3
O
Q

>>
+J
•r—
S.
o JC
•1“ c
S- (0
CL OC

>>
o
c
CD
-*-> SO) O)
O.X3
E E
O 3
O Z

2 .5

5

Understand when to involve s p e c i a l i s t s , such
as a p sy c h o lo g ist, speech t h e r a p i s t , e t c . ,
in c o n s u lta tio n .

100.0

0

37.0

44.4

11.1

2.5

3

Be a ble to use observation and o th e r informal
methods to a sse ss handicapped s tu d e n ts '
classroom performances.

100.0

0

55.6

37.0

3.7

2.5

47

Be a b le to provide sa fe lea rn in g cond itio n s
in the classroom (s) and th e l a b ( s ) .

100.0

0

63.0

33.3

0

2.5

2

Be a b le to recognize stu d e n ts with physical
impairments.

100.0

0

66.7

25.9

3.7

7.5

45

Have a knowledge o f how to adapt physical
c on ditions o f jobs to f i t handicapped
in d iv id u a ls .

96.3

3.7

29.6

37.0

29.6

7 .5

27

Be a b le to recognize visu al impairment
c o n d itio n s.

96.3

3.7

33.3

48.1

14.8

Mainstreaming Competency Statement

+->
c
re
+->
So
Q.
Ei
i—

-P
c
<e
+J
so
+» QO E
Z r—i

C
re

c_>

+»
10
O -E

o

3
CD

C E

re o
C_> CO

o

a

•P
O
c
c
re
o

Table 16, Continued

sCL <u
3 -o

o E

S- 3
CD Z

•r*
sO
•rsD-

-V
C
ta
C£.

>>
U
c
ai
■*-> ia i <u
Q .-Q

-M

E E

O 3
o z

Mainstreaming Competency Statement

c
•M
So
Q.
Es•
1—

-M
C
03
■M
S+j o
a.
O E
Z t-H

ra)
z
o
c
rO
u

+J
re
O -E
O 3
<u
C E
n> o
O GO

o

O
o
+->
o
c
c
to

o

7.5

50

Be a b le to u t i l i z e p a ra p ro fe ssio n a ls and
v o lu n te ers in the classroom.

96.3

3.7

33.3

48.1

11.1

7.5

30

Be a b le to recognize visu al impairment
c o n d itio n s.

96.3

3.7

44.4

48.1

0

7.5

32

Be able to develop p o s itiv e and a c tiv e
communication w ith handicapped stu d e n ts .

96.3

0

63.0

27.0

0

7.5

41

Be a ble to p o s itiv e ly r e in f o r c e handicapped
stu d en ts f o r t h e i r achievements.

96.3

0

70.4

29.6

0

Table 16, Continued

&
C
s-

Q. <D
3JQ
O £
S. 3
CDZ

•r

s-

O
•i- e
S- (B
O. Q£

V

+
■
> s.
a>
Q.J3

£ E

O 3
O Z

Mainstreaming Competency Statement

-P
c
ro
-t->
So
a.
E
»
—
i

+>
c
rO
+»
So
4-> a.
o £
z *-«

r—
.
<
U
O
a
c
to
o

+J
rO
O-C
o 3
at
C£
to o
o«/>

o
a
+»
o
c
c
<0
o

15

36

Be knowledgeable o f th e r i g h t s o f handicapped
stu d e n ts to employment.

92.6

7 .4

18.5

44.4

33.3

15

44

Be a b le to a c c u ra te ly e v alu ate handicapped
stu d e n ts f o r occupational placement.

92.6

7 .4

25.9

51.9

18.5

15

37

Be aware o f employer a t t i t u d e s toward
hand icapped employees.

92.6

7.4

29.6

44.4

22.2

15

21

Be ab le to recognize hearing impairment
c o n d itio n s.

92.6

3.7

33.3

44.4

22.2

15

42

Be a b le to obtain and u t i l i z e p arental
knowledge o f t h e i r handicapped c h ild to
f u r t h e r th e understanding o f t h a t
handicapped s tu d e n t.

92.6

7 .4

33.3

44.4

14.8

15

39

U t i l i z e s e rv ic e s provided by school so c ial
w orkers.

92.6

7 .4

40.7

33.3

22.2

15

12

Be a ble to recognize mental impairment
c o n d itio n s.

92.6

3.7

44.4

37.0

14.8

Table 16, Continued

>>

s.

■r-

E

• r- C

Cl at
3 -O

O

t- 3

O

■P

Z

c

«u

so

■P s.
<t> 0)
Q.-Q

j-

O 3

re
CL. OC

re
so

■P

Q.

E E

O Z

Mainstreaming Competency Statement

•P
C

d>

-P

o
Q

re
so

-P Q .
O E

re

o

-P

re

o
Q

o JC
o sV

-P

C_5 CO

o

E
re o
C

O
c
c
re

15

25

Be a b le to conduct a c t i v i t i e s which promote
p o s itiv e in te r a c t io n o f handicapped stu d en ts
with non-handicapped stu d e n ts .

92.6

3.7

48.1

48.1

3.7

15

28

Be a b le to e s t a b l i s h a system f o r recording
stu d e n t progress in terms o f s ta te d o b je c tiv e s .

92.6

3.7

59.3

37.0

3.7

Table 16, Continued

>>

s.
0 .0 1
3 -O
O E
S- 3
ca z

•1—
So
•1- c
s- «o
O. DC

o
c
0)
-p i0) 0)
Q. X>
E E
O 3
o z

Mainstreaming Competency Statement

-P
c
ro
-P
5O
CL
E
i—i

-P
C
(0
-p
So
•p a .
o E
Z •-<

"ai
3
O
a
c
to
o

■p
<d
o
a s
a>
C E
<o o
O <S)

o
a
•p
o
c
c
(0
o

25

1

Understand th e leg al r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f
te a c h e rs described in Public Law 94-142
and Public Act 198.

88.9

11.1

11.1

44.4

37.0

25

7

Be a b le to provide handicapped stu d e n ts with
communication s k i l l s necessary f o r interview ing
f o r a jo b and f o r performing th e d u tie s o f a
procured jo b.

88.9

3.7

11.1

74.1

3.7

25

52

Understand th e fu n ctio n s o f p r o s th e tic
devices f o r handicapped persons.

88.9

11.1

14.8

44.4

33.3

25

17

Understand the s e lf-c o n c e p ts held by
handicapped s tu d e n ts .

88.9

7 .4

25.9

51.9

22.2

25

49

Understand school d i s t r i c t and b uilding
procedures dealing with handicapped s tu d e n ts .

88.9

11.1

25.9

48.1

18.5

25

31

Be a b le t o match i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods to
handicapped stu d e n ts based on m edical,
psy ch o lo g ical, and d ia g n o s tic fin d in g s .

88.9

7 .4

29.6

22.2

44.4

Table 16, Continued

r—

sQ. <D
3 -O
P
S. 3E
ca z

$
E
o
■r- e
s- <o
Q. OC

c
0)
+■> s<U tt)
Q..O
E £
O 3
O Z

-M

+J

(O
+J

(O
+->

e

so

a.

Mainstreaming Competency Statement

£
t—
i

<u

c

3

s_
o

O
o

4-> Q .
O E
Z i- h

+J
<e

O JC
a
S

ao
■M

c
«ts
o

ai
C E
ia o
o oo

o
c:
c
CJ

25

33

Be able to make physical a d ap tatio n s in the
classroom to meet th e s p e c i f i c needs o f
handicapped stu d e n ts.

88.9

3.7

37.0

44.4

14.8

25

38

Be able to i d e n t i f y occupations and s k i l l s
which match the c a p a b i l i t i e s o f handicapped
stu d e n ts .

88.9

7.4

40.7

30.7

22.2

25

40

Be aware o f th e a t t i t u d e s o f non-handicapped
employees toward handicapped employees.

88.9

11.1

40.7

40.7

11.1

25

11

Be aware o f and understand a d m in is tr a to r ,
te a c h e r , p a re n t, and stu d e n t a t t i t u d e s
toward handicapped stu d e n ts.

88.9

11.1

48.1

44.4

0

25

6

Be a b le to f o s t e r a p o s itiv e r e l a ti o n s h i p
between handicapped and non-handicapped
stu d e n ts .

88.9

7.4

59.3

40.7

Table 16, Continued

u

Q. <D
3 J3
O E
S- 3
CDZ

$
•r

so
•r- e
S- IQ
O. Q£

&
C
tu
+-> S-

+>
c
4IQ
->

0) 0)

s-

001

0 .- 0

E E

O 3
O Z

Mainstreaming Competency Statement

+c->

0)

i.

O
a

4ra-5
o

-M Q.
O E

4->

<a
OX
<u

a 3
C

E

o|Q

IQ O
O
CO

oo
4->
o
c
c

<IQ_>

32

29

Beknowledgeable o f the r i g h t s o f handicapped
stu d e n ts under Public Law 94-142 and Public
Act 198.

85.2

14.8

14.8

44.4

33.3

32

19

Be ab le to develop, with the a s s is ta n c e o f
sp e cia l education p erso nnel, an in d iv id u a liz e d
educational plan which b e st s u i t s each
handicapped s t u d e n t's le a rn in g s t y l e .

85.2

14.8

14.8

66.7

14.8

32

43

Be knowledgeable o f stu d e n t records a v a ila b le
to vocational education te a c h e rs.

85.2

14.8

37.0

25.9

25.9

Table 16, Continued

+j
c
(0
-M
so

a.

Mainstreaming Competency Statement

<U
A3
+J
1.
O
+-> a.
O

o
c

B

<o
o

<0

Of
a»

a 3

o
Q
+->

o

c B
(Oo

c
c
(0
O

O (/>

Be ab le to work with p aren ts in planning
in d iv id u a liz e d education plans.

81.5

14.8

18.5

51.9

18.5

U t i l i z e se rv ic e s provided by school
p sy chologists.

81.5

11.1

25.9

37.0

25.9 io
CO

Be a b le to e v alu ate re a d in e ss s k i l l s .

81.5

14.8

25.9

40.7

25.9

Group
Number

Table 16, Continued

&
5
+ J S-

+j
•ru

O

• r-

ai ai
C
L-Q

E

E E

S-

«0

0

2

O-

DC

O

Z

39

a>
CO

+J
s-

+>

CL

+> CL

o

S .

o

O

Mainstreaming Competency Statement

51 Understand th e im p lica tio n s o f the S ta te
Department o f E ducation's plans r e la te d
to handicapped s tu d e n ts .

CO

E

o
a

+J
CO

aO £3

CO
O

a)
C E
CO o
o cn

£

ao

+»
o
c
£

oCO

77.8

22.2

3.7

48.1

40.7

39

18

Have knowledge o f agencies a s s i s t i n g
in th e employment of handicapped stu d e n ts .

77.8

18.5

7 .4

44.4

44.4

39

23

Be a ble to arrange employment o p p o rtu n itie s
with pro spective employers.

77.8

18.5

22.2

55.6

22.2

39

13 Be able to plan educational programs which
provide handicapped stu d en ts with the
maximum number o f job o p p o rtu n itie s t h e i r
impairments w ill allow.

77.8

18.5

22.2

51.9

22.2

39

26

77.8

18.5

29.6

44.4

22.2

Be ab le to implement learn in g c e n te r s ,
c r i t e r i o n refe re n c e t e s t s , team te a c h in g ,
and media to b e n e f it handicapped stu d e n ts .

■*

Table 16, Continued

sQ. CD
3 -Q
9 3E
SCD Z

+J
•r—
So
•r- C
J- <0
a . cc

44

>>
a
c
<D
+J Sai a>

-t->

14

C

3

S-

-M

0

a.

-t-» Q-

+»

CLJD
E E

O 3
o z

-M

C
<
O

Mainstreaming Competency Statement

E

hh

0

(

0

SO

o E
Z

CD
O

c

<o

O

+J
(O

O -c

0 2
(

c E

<oo

O

O C/5

D

C

Q
+j
0
e

<a

CJ

Be ab le to u t i l i z e stu d e n t records ( t e s t
sc o re s , psychological r e p o r t s , and performance
in d ic a to r s ) to e v alu ate th e c a p a b i l i t i e s
and p o te n tia l o f handicapped stu d e n ts.

74.1

22.2

18.5

44.4

37.0

44

16

Be able to implement tu to rin g o f handicapped
stu d e n ts by non-handicapped stu d e n ts.

74.1

18.5

25.9

55.6

14.8

44

24

Understand what th e concept " l e a s t
r e s t r i c t i v e environment" means.

74.1

18.5

29.6

18.5

40.7

44

8

Understand c h ild development and le a rn in g
th e o r ie s .

74.1

22.2

29.6

55.6

7.4

44

10

Be able to provide p aren ts o f handicapped
stu d e n ts with a d e s c rip tio n o f goals and
techniques used to teach t h e i r handicapped
c h ild .

74.1

22.2

33.3

59.3

7.4

Understand due process procedures regarding
con tested placements o f handicapped stu d e n ts .

70.4

25.9

7.4

40.7

44.4

47.5

48

Table 16, Continued

r—

sCL 0 )
3 -O
O E
S- 3
o z

$
•r—
i.
O
•r- e
L . to
C l. O '

47.5

+->
c
«o
■p
s-

§

•fj s .
O) 0 )
Q .J 3
E E
O 3
O Z

20

Mainstreaming Competency Statement

o
Q.
E
i—i

+■»
c
«o
+J
s-

o
+J Q.
o e

z

•

25.9

+»
(O

3E
O
O
C
«d
u

14.8

o x:
o 2
C

<u
E

(0 o
O bO

63.0

o

a

+j

o

c
c
<d
o

Be a b le to in d iv id u a liz e commercially a v a ila b le
programs and t e x t s .

70.4

14.8

Understand th e fu n ctio n s o f the educational
planning and placement committees.

63.0

29.6

14.8

51.9

25.9

49.5

9

49.5

15

Be able to provide p r e s c r i p t iv e teaching
methods.

63.0

29.6

22.2

33.3

40.7

51

22

Be ab le to ad m in ister and i n t e r p r e t formal
assessment instrum ents f o r handicapped
stu d e n ts.

44.4

51.9

0

22.2

74.1

52

46

Understand th e h i s t o r i c a l development of
mainstreaming.

40.7

55.6

7 .4

33.3

44.4

97
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER FOUR
The most ty p ic a l demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e respondents
were:
1.

Occupational Area:

Trade and I n d u s t r i a l E ducation,

55.2 p e rc e n t
2.

Employment S ta tu s :

F u ll- tim e , 97 p ercen t

3.

Earned Educational Degree Level:

Bachelors Degree,

35.8 p e rc e n t
4.

Years o f Vocational Education Teaching Experience:
3 to 5 y e a r s , 32.8 p e rc en t

5.

Type(s) o f Handicap(s) o f S tudents Served:

Learning

D isabled, 80.6 p e rc en t
In th e i n i t i a l survey 49 o f 52 mainstreaming competencies were
r a te d as being im portant by 73 p e rc en t o r more o f th e respon dents.
Of th e 52 competencies 47 had l e s s than 50 p e rc e n t o f th e respondents
in th e Can Do Well categ o ry o f perceived a b i l i t y to perform those
competencies.

The r e p l i c a t i o n survey had 48 o f th e 52 mainstreaming

competencies r a te d as being im portant by 70 p e rc en t o r more o f the
sample.

Of th e 52 competencies 45 had l e s s than 50 p e rc en t o f th e

r e p l i c a t i o n s u rv e y 's respondents in th e Can Do Well categ o ry o f
perceived a b i l i t y to perform tho se competencies.
The independent v a ria b le s o f Occupational Area and Employment
S ta tu s were in a p p ro p ria te f o r a n a ly s is by c h i-s q u a re s t a t i s t i c s
due to skewed respondent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

The independent v a r ia b le

o f ty p e (s ) o f handicapping c o n d itio n (s ) was in a p p r o p r ia te f o r a n a ly s is
due to d ata which were not m utually e x c lu siv e .

98
The independent v a r ia b le o f Earned Educational Degree Level
y ie ld e d th re e competencies w ith s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s on importance
r a t i n g s and fo u r competencies with s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s on
perceived a b i l i t y r a t i n g s .

The remainder o f th e competencies had

no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
The independent v a r i a b le o f Years o f Vocational Education
Teaching Experience had one competency w ith a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p
on importance r a t i n g s .

The remaining importance and perceived a b i l i t y

r a t i n g s had no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between th e c a te g o r ie s o f
Years of Vocational Education Teaching E xperience.
The open-ended q uestio n on th e q u e s tio n n a ir e y ie ld e d f i v e
su ggestio n s f o r a d d itio n a l competencies to be added t o the
q u e s tio n n a ir e .
1.

These f i v e sug gestio n s were:

"Be a b le

to see in d iv id u a l psychological d if f e r e n c e s

(between handicapped s tu d e n ts ) who can cope w ith everyday
problems r e g a r d le s s o f handicapping c o n d itio n s and th o se
who use i t as a c r u tc h ."
2.

"Make handicapped s tu d e n ts aware o f t h e i r l i m i t s . "

3.

"Be a b le to implant a p o s i t i v e se lf-im ag e in handicapped
s tu d e n ts ."

4.

"Support s t a f f sharin g te c h n iq u e s."

5.

"Be a b le t o have, as f a r as p o s s ib le , handicapped stu d e n ts
a t t a i n s e l f - a t t a i n e d g o a ls ."

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
The Problem
The purpose o f t h i s study was to i d e n t i f y what mainstreaming
competencies Michigan Area Vocational Center te a c h e rs perceived to
be im portant in o rd er to s u c c e s s f u lly teach handicapped s tu d e n ts in
r e g u la r classroom s.

In a d d itio n to importance, th e study sought

to i d e n t i f y how a b le th e te a c h e rs perceived them selves to be to
perform s e le c te d mainstreaming competencies.
The l e g i s l a t i v e and so c ia l su pp ort given to a f r e e a p p ro p ria te
p u b lic education f o r handicapped persons in s u re s t h a t p r a c t i c a l l y
every te a c h e r , cou nselor and a d m in is tr a to r involved in education w ill
be involved in educating handicapped persons in r e g u la r classroom s.
In o rd e r t o e f f e c t i v e l y and p r o f i c i e n t l y teach handicapped stu d e n ts
in r e g u l a r classrooms i t i s necessary f o r te a c h e r s to re c e iv e a p p ro p ria te
i n s t r u c t i o n and p re p a ra tio n in a v a r i e t y o f methods.

I t i s intended

t h a t t h i s study w ill provide guidance f o r te a c h e r education i n s t i t u t i o n s ,
te a c h e r p re p a ra tio n c e n t e r s , and S t a te and lo c a l education agencies
in th e p re p a ra tio n o f te a c h e rs to tea ch handicapped stu d e n ts in r e g u la r
classroom s.
The population o f t h i s study was 722 Michigan Area Vocational

99

100
Center te a c h e rs .

These tea ch e rs rep re se n te d a l l of th e te a c h e rs

employed a t th e 24 f r e e -s ta n d in g Michigan Area Vocational Centers.
Free-standing c e n te rs a re those c e n te rs n o t p h y sic a lly connected
to educational f a c i l i t i e s which provide both general education
courses and vocational education courses.

Those c e n te rs which a re

p h y sic a lly connected w ith general education f a c i l i t i e s were not a
p a r t o f t h i s study.
The sample f o r t h i s study was 143 Michigan Area Vocational
Center te a c h e rs .

This was a 20 percent sample o f the p opulation.

The te a c h e rs were randomly se le c te d from an a lp h a b e tic a l l i s t o f
the 722 vocational education tea ch e rs employed a t the 24 Michigan
Area Vocational C enters.
A r e p l i c a t io n survey was conducted follow ing th e completion
o f th e survey o f 143 te a c h e rs .

The sample f o r th e r e p l i c a t io n

survey was 72 Michigan Area Vocational Center te a c h e rs .

These 72

te a c h e rs rep re se n te d a 10 percent sample o f the p op ulatio n.

The

te a c h e rs were randomly s e le c te d from an a lp h a b e tic a l l i s t o f th e 722
vocational education tea ch e rs employed a t th e 24 Michigan Area
Vocational C enters.

None o f th e te a c h e rs in the r e p l i c a t io n survey

were included in the o rig in a l survey o f 143 te a c h e rs.
Research Procedures
As a p a r t o f t h i s study th e answers to seven q uestio n s were
sought.
The c o lle c tio n o f data was achieved by th e use o f a q u e s tio n n a ire .
The f i r s t p a r t o f the q u e stio n n a ire sought demographic inform ation o f
th e respondents.

The second p a r t o f th e q u e stio n n a ire was concerned

101
w ith i d e n t i f y i n g th e perceived importance and p erceived a b i l i t y
t o perform s e l e c te d mainstreaming competencies as r a t e d by Michigan
Area Vocational Center t e a c h e r s .

A cover l e t t e r , q u e s t io n n a ir e ,

and postage paid r e t u r n envelope were m ailed to each o f th e 143
te a c h e rs sampled.

The te a c h e rs were asked to r e t u r n th e q u e s tio n n a ir e ,

completed, w ith in 2 weeks.
A second m ailing was made to th o se te a c h e r s sampled who did not
respond to th e f i r s t m a ilin g .

The second m ailing c o n ta in e d a d i f f e r e n t

cover l e t t e r than th e f i r s t m a ilin g , a q u e s tio n n a ir e and a postage
paid r e t u r n envelope.

The te a c h e rs were asked to r e t u r n th e

q u e s t io n n a ir e , com pleted, w ith in 2 weeks.
In o rd e r to g e t resp o n ses from th e te a c h e r s sampled who had not
y e t responded a f t e r th e second m a ilin g , q u e s tio n n a ir e s were d e liv e r e d
to r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from th e d i f f e r e n t Michigan Area Vocational C enters.
The q u e s tio n n a ir e s were enclosed in postage paid r e t u r n envelopes
which included th e name o f th e te a c h e r being sampled.
Following th e survey o f 143 te a c h e r s a r e p l i c a t i o n survey was
conducted.

A cover l e t t e r , q u e s t io n n a ir e , and postage paid r e t u r n

envelope were m ailed to 72 te a c h e r s n o t p re v io u s ly sampled.

These

72 te a c h e rs were asked t o r e t u r n t h e q u e s t io n n a ir e , com pleted, w ith in
2 weeks.
Respondents
Of 143 te a c h e rs surveyed t h e r e were 80 q u e s tio n n a ir e s r e tu r n e d .
Of th e s e 80 r e t u r n s , 13 were unusable and as such were s u b tr a c te d from
th e 143 te a c h e rs surveyed.
The d a ta co ntained in t h i s stu d y r e p r e s e n t th e resp o n ses o f

102
67 (5 1.5 p e rc e n t o f th e sample) Michigan Area Vocational Center
te a c h e r s in an i n i t i a l survey o f 130 t e a c h e r s .

An a d d itio n a l

33 respon ses (41.7 p e rc e n t o f th e sample) were o b tain ed from a
r e p l i c a t i o n survey o f 72 t e a c h e r s .

27 completed responses were

used f o r a n a l y s i s .
P r o f i l e o f Respondents
A p r o f i l e o f th e most f r e q u e n t ly o c cu rrin g demographic
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f resp o n d en ts i s as fo llo w s:
1.

Occupational Area:

Trade and I n d u s t r i a l Education,

55.2 p e rc e n t o f th e respon se group.
2.

Employment S ta tu s :

F u ll- tim e , 97.0 p e rc e n t o f th e

response group.
3.

Earned Educational Degree Level:

B achelors Degree,

35.8 p e rc e n t o f th e respon se group.
4.

Number o f Years o f Teaching Experience:

3 to 5 y e a r s ,

32.8 p e rc e n t o f th e respon se group.
5.

Type(s) o f Handicap(s) o f S tu d e n ts Served:

Learning

D isabled, 80.6 p e rc e n t o f th e response group.
R atings o f Competencies
A t t it u d i n a l and Communication competencies re c e iv e d th e h ig h e s t
importance r a t i n g s .

Mainstreaming Laws competencies re c eiv e d th e

low est importance r a t i n g s .
Of th e 52 competencies contained in th e q u e s t io n n a ir e , 48 competencies
were r a t e d as being im p o rtan t by 7 5 .0 p e rc e n t o r more o f th e response
group.

In th e importance range from 95.0 p e rc e n t to 100.0 p e r c e n t,

103
Group #1, th e te a c h e rs i d e n t i f i e d e ig h t com petencies.

These competencies

emphasized a t t i t u d i n a l and methodological concerns o f m ainstreaming.
Competency #17, "Understand th e s e lf -c o n c e p ts held by handicapped
s tu d e n ts ," was ra te d as being im portant by more o f th e t e a c h e r s ,
98.5 p e rc e n t, than any o th e r s in g le competency.

Competency #17

had 19.4 p e rc e n t o f the te a c h e rs who sa id they "Can Do Well" t h i s
competency.

Competency #13, "Be a b le to plan e ducation al programs which

provide handicapped s tu d e n ts w ith th e maximum number o f jo b o p p o r tu n itie s
t h e i r impairments w ill a llo w ," a ls o had a low "Can Do Well" a b i l i t y
r a t i n g , 19.4 p e rc e n t, but a high importance r a t i n g a t 95.5 p e rc e n t.
In th e 90.0 to 94.9 p e rc en t importance range, Group #2,
Competencies #21, "Be a b le to recognize hearing impairment c o n d itio n s ,"
and #12, "Be a b le to recognize mental impairment c o n d itio n s ," had
low "Can Do Well" a b i l i t y r a t i n g s .

Competency #21 was ra te d "Im portant"

by 92.5 p e rc e n t o f th e respondents w ith a c o r r e la te d "Can Do Well"
a b i l i t y r a t i n g o f 17.9 p e rc e n t.

Competency #12 had "Im portant" and

"Can Do Well" r a t i n g s o f 91.0 p e rc e n t and 22.4 p e rc e n t, r e s p e c t iv e ly .
In Group #3, th e 85.0 to 89.9 p e rc en t importance ran ge, f iv e
competencies had low "Can Do Well" a b i l i t y r a t i n g s .

Competency #6,

"Be knowledgeable o f th e r i g h t s o f handicapped s tu d e n ts to employment,"
had an "Im portant" r a t i n g o f 89.6 p e rc en t and a "Can Do Well" r a t i n g o f
19.4 p e rc e n t.

Competency #15, "Be a b le to provide p r e s c r i p t i v e tea ch in g

methods," had an "Im portant" r a t i n g o f 88.1 p e rc en t and a "Can Do Well"
r a t i n g o f 14.9 p e rc e n t.

Competency #18, "Have knowledge o f agencies

a s s i s t i n g in th e employment o f handicapped s t u d e n ts ," had an "Important"
r a t i n g o f 86.6 p ercen t and a "Can Do Well" r a t i n g o f 13.4 p e rc e n t.

104
Competency #19, "Be able to develop, with the a s s i s t a n c e o f sp e c ia l
education p e rso n n el, an in d iv id u a liz e d ed ucatio nal plan which b e st
s u i t s each handicapped s t u d e n t 's le a rn in g s t y l e , " had an "Important"
r a t i n g o f 86.6 p ercen t and a "Can Do Well" r a t i n g o f 19.4 p e rc en t.
Competency #4, "Be a ble to work w ith p a re n ts in planning in d iv id u a liz e d
education p la n s ," had an "Important" r a t i n g o f 85.1 p e rc e n t and a
"Can Do Well" r a t i n g o f 16.4 p e rc e n t.
Four competencies in th e 80.0 to 84.9 p e rc e n t importance range,
Group #4, had low "Can Do Well" a b i l i t y r a t i n g s .

Competency #51,

"Understand the im p lic a tio n s o f th e S ta te Department o f E d ucatio n's
plans r e l a te d to handicapped s t u d e n ts ," received an "Im portant"
r a t i n g o f 83.6 p ercen t and a "Can Do Well" r a t i n g o f 10.4 p e rc e n t.
Competency #31, "Be ab le to match i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods t o handicapped
stu d e n ts based on m edical, p sy c h o lo g ic a l, and d ia g n o s tic f in d in g s ,"
had an "Im portant" r a t i n g o f 82.1 p e rc e n t and a "Can Do Well" r a t i n g
o f 7.5 p e rc e n t.

Competency #26, "Be able to implement le a rn in g c e n t e r s ,

c r i t e r i o n re fe re n c e t e s t s , team te a c h in g , and media to b e n e f i t handicapped
s tu d e n ts ," had an "Im portant" r a t i n g o f 80.6 p e rc e n t and a "Can Do Well"
r a t i n g o f 13.4 p e rc e n t.

Competency #1, "Understand the leg al

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f te a c h e rs d e scrib e d in Public Law 94-142 and
Public Act 198," had an "Im portant" r a t i n g o f 80.6 p e rc e n t and a
"Can Do Well" r a t i n g o f 14.9 p e rc e n t.
Three competencies in the 75.0 to 79.9 p e rc en t importance ran ge,
Group #5, had low "Can Do Well" a b i l i t y r a t i n g s .

Competency #29,

"Be knowledgeable o f the r i g h t s o f handicapped s tu d e n ts under Public
Law 94-142 and Public Act 198," had an "Important" r a t i n g o f 79.1
p ercen t and a "Can Do Well" r a t i n g o f 10.4 p e rc e n t.

Competency #14,

105
"Be a b le to u t i l i z e stu d e n t rec o rd s ( t e s t s c o re s , psychological
r e p o r t s , and performance in d ic a to r s ) to e v a lu a te th e c a p a b i l i t i e s
and p o te n tia l o f handicapped s t u d e n ts ," had an "Im portant" r a t i n g
o f 77.6 p e rc en t and a "Can Do Well" r a t i n g o f 4 .5 p e rc e n t.

Competency

#52, "Understand th e fu n c tio n s o f p r o s t h e t i c d evices f o r handicapped
p e rs o n s," had an "Im portant" r a t i n g o f 77.6 p e rc en t and a "Can Do Well"
r a t i n g o f 6 .0 p e rc e n t.
In Group #6, th o se competencies r a te d by 75.0 p e rc en t o r l e s s
o f th e respondents as being im p o rtan t, th r e e comptencies had
co n sid e ra b ly lower importance r a t i n g s than th e remaining 49 competencies
in a l l o f th e o th e r groups.

Competency #22, "Be a b le to a d m in iste r

and i n t e r p r e t formal assessm ent instru m en ts f o r handicapped s tu d e n ts ,"
as well as Competency #24, "Understand what th e concept ' l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e
environm ent' means," were r a te d "Im portant" by 56.7 p e rc en t o f the
respo ndents.

Competency #46, "Understand th e h i s t o r i c a l development

o f m ainstream ing," was r a te d "Im portant" by 41.8 p e rc e n t o f th e respondents
and as such was r a te d l e a s t "Im portant" o f a l l th e 52 competencies
c ontained in th e q u e s tio n n a ire used f o r t h i s study .
The f in d in g s r e l a t e d to th e use o f th e c h i-s q u a re t e s t s t a t i s t i c
(.0 5 lev e l o f s ig n if ic a n c e ) to answer th e f i v e re s e a rc h q u e stio n s
o f t h i s study a re as follo w s:
Research Question Number One:

" I s th e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between

occupational a re a s reg ard in g th e perceived importance o f and th e
perceived a b i l i t y to perform mainstreaming competencies?"
A skewed response r a t e among th e respondents in the
s ix Occupational Areas made i t im p ra c tic a l to address
t h i s q u e stio n .

106
Research Question Number Two:

"Is th e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between

f u l l - t i m e vocational education te a c h e rs and p a rt- tim e v ocational
education te a c h e rs regarding the perceived importance o f and
th e perceived a b i l i t y to perform mainstreaming competencies?"
The overwhelming number o f respondents in th e F u ll-tim e
category as opposed t o th e lone respondent in th e P a r ttime categ o ry made i t u n r e a l i s t i c to a ttem p t to answer
t h i s q u e stio n .
Research Question Number Three:

" Is th e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between

edu cation al degree le v e ls reg ardin g th e perceived importance o f
and th e perceived a b i l i t y to perform mainstreaming competencies?"
S i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s were found in th e t e a c h e r s '
importance r a t i n g s o f th e follow ing competencies:
Competency #23: "Be a ble to arrange employment o p p o r tu n itie s
with p ro sp e c tiv e em ployers."
This competency rec eiv e d th e h ig h e s t Importance
r a t i n g s a t th e Masters and S p e c i a l i s t Degree
l e v e l s , and th e low est Importance r a t i n g s a t
the Bachelors Degree l e v e l .
Competency #24: "Understand what th e concept ' l e a s t
r e s t r i c t i v e environm ent' means."
This competency rec eiv e d th e h ig h e s t Importance
r a t i n g s a t th e Less than Bachelors Degree l e v e l ,
and th e lowest Importance r a t i n g s a t the Bachelors
Degree l e v e l .
Competency #30:
c o n d itio n s ."

"Be a b le to recognize speech impairment

This competency re c eiv e d th e h ig h e s t Importance
r a t i n g s a t th e Masters and S p e c i a l i s t Degree
l e v e l s , and th e low est Importance r a t i n g s a t
th e Bachelors Degree l e v e l .
S i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s were found in the t e a c h e r s '
Can Do Well categ o ry o f a b i l i t y r a t i n g s o f th e
follow ing competencies:

107
Competency #4: "Be a b le to work w ith p a re n ts in planning
in d iv id u a liz e d education p la n s ."
This competency rec eiv e d th e h ig h e s t Can Do Well
a b i l i t y r a t i n g a t the Masters and S p e c i a l i s t
Degree l e v e l s , and th e lowest Can Do Well a b i l i t y
r a t i n g a t th e Bachelors Degree l e v e l .
Competency #23: "Be a ble to arrange employment o p p o r tu n itie s
w ith p ro sp e c tiv e em ployers."
This competency receiv ed th e h ig h e s t Can Do Well
a b i l i t y r a t i n g a t the Less than Bachelors Degree
l e v e l , and th e low est Can Do Well a b i l i t y r a t i n g
a t the Bachelors Degree l e v e l .
Competency #33: "Be able to make physical a d a p ta tio n s
in th e classroom to meet th e s p e c i f i c needs o f handicapped
stu d e n ts ."
This competency rec eiv e d t h e h ig h e s t Can Do Well
a b i l i t y r a t i n g a t th e Less than Bachelors Degree
l e v e l , and th e lowest Can Do Well a b i l i t y r a t i n g
a t the Masters and S p e c i a l i s t Degree l e v e l s .
Competency #45: "Have a knowledge o f how to adapt physical
c o n d itio n s o f jo b s to f i t handicapped in d iv i d u a ls ."
This competency re c eiv e d th e h ig h e s t Can Do Well
a b i l i t y r a t i n g a t th e Less than Bachelors Degree
l e v e l , and th e low est Can Do Well a b i l i t y r a t i n g
a t the Bachelors Degree l e v e l .
Research Question Number Four:

"Is th e r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p

between c a te g o rie s o f y e a rs o f v ocational education teach in g
experien ce reg ardin g th e perceived importance o f and th e
p erceived a b i l i t y to perform mainstreaming competencies?"
A s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found in the follow ing
competency:
Competency #1: "Understand th e leg al r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
o f te a c h e rs de scrib e d in P u blic Law 94-142 and Public
Act 198."
The h ig h e s t importance r a t i n g f o r t h i s competency was in
th e category o f Less than 2 Years o f Teaching Experience.
The lowest importance r a t i n g f o r t h i s competency was

108
recorded by th e te a c h e rs in th e c ateg o ry o f
12 o r more Years o f Vocational Education
Teaching Experience.
Research Question Number F ive:

"Is th e re a re la tio n s h ip

between ty p e ( s ) o f handicapping c o n d itio n ( s ) p r e s e n t in
c la s s e s reg a rd in g th e perceived importance o f and th e perceived
a b i l i t y to perform m ainstream ing competencies?"
Due to th e f a c t t h a t resp o n d en ts could s e l e c t more than
one c ateg o ry concerning ty p es o f h andicap s, th e d a ta
were not m utually e x c lu s iv e . I t i s t h e r e f o r e im possible
to a ttem p t to answer Question Number Five.
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions o f t h i s study a re :
1.

The competencies c o n ta in e d in th e q u e s tio n n a ir e used in
t h i s stu d y were, w ith few e x c e p tio n s , im po rtant t o th e
resp o n d en ts in o r d e r t o mainstream handicapped s t u d e n ts .
This i n d i c a t e s a need f o r v o c a tio n a l edu catio n te a c h e r s to
be a p p r o p r i a te ly prepared t o p r a c t i c e th e im po rtant
com petencies.

2.

Michigan Area Vocational C enter t e a c h e r s ' p e rc eiv e d a b i l i t y
t o perform th e competencies co n ta in e d in th e q u e s tio n n a ir e
used in t h i s study i n d i c a t e a need f o r improved p re p a ra tio n
o f te a c h e r s t o mainstream handicapped s t u d e n ts .

3.

E ducational Degree Level i s r e l a t e d to t h r e e o f th e

perceived

importance r a t i n g s o f m ainstream ing com petencies.
4.

Educational Degree Level i s r e l a t e d to f o u r o f th e p erceiv ed
a b i l i t y r a t i n g s o f v o c a tio n a l e d u ca tio n te a c h e r s t o
m ainstream ing com petencies.

perform

109
5.

Years o f Vocational Education Teaching Experience i s r e l a t e d
to one o f th e p erceived importance r a t i n g s o f mainstreaming
competencies.

6.

Years o f Vocational Education Teaching Experience i s n ot
r e l a t e d to th e p e rc eiv e d a b i l i t y r a t i n g s o f v o c atio n a l
education te a c h e rs to perform mainstreaming com petencies.
RECOMMENDATIONS

In l i g h t o f th e fin d in g s o f t h i s s tu d y , th e fo llow ing recommendations
a re made:
1.

Considering th e high importance r a t i n g s and low a b i l i t y
r a t i n g s o f th e competencies con tain ed in t h i s s tu d y ,
Michigan Area Vocational Center te a c h e rs should be
upgraded in t h e i r a b i l i t y to perform mainstreaming
competencies.

2.

Due to th e f a c t t h a t a t t i t u d i n a l competencies re c e iv e d th e
h ig h e s t importance r a t i n g s and so urces r e l a t e d t o mainstreaming
i n d ic a t e a s i m i l a r im portance, a t t i t u d e s should be emphasized
very s tro n g ly in i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs which prepare
v ocational education te a c h e rs to teach in a mainstreaming
se ttin g .

3.

Although competencies d e a lin g w ith Mainstreaming Laws re c eiv e d
th e low est importance r a t i n g s o f th e nine to p ic a l a re a s in
t h i s s tu d y , sources r e l a t e d to mainstreaming i n d i c a t e t h a t
such competencies a re im po rtant and should be inclu d ed in
i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs which p repare vocatio n al edu catio n
te a c h e r s to tea ch in a mainstreaming s e t t i n g .

110
4.

Because a t t i t u d i n a l competencies a re o f so much importance
and because t h i s stu d y was concerned w ith nine competency
to p ic a l a re as r a t h e r than w ith a t t i t u d i n a l competencies
a lo n e , resea rch should be conducted t o s p e c i f i c a l l y determ ine
a l l o f th e a t t i t u d i n a l competencies v o c atio n a l edu catio n te a c h e rs
need to be f a m i l i a r with in o rd e r t o e f f e c t i v e l y teach in a
mainstreaming s e t t i n g .

For th e same re a so n , a complete

c o l l e c t i o n o f a t t i t u d i n a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a te r ia ls should be
procured and arranged f o r r e fe re n c e and use in p ro v id in g
e x p e r t i s e in a t t i t u d i n a l competencies to v o c atio n a l edu catio n
te a c h e r s .
5.

Because each o f th e competencies which had s i g n i f i c a n t
r e l a t i o n s h i p s was r a t e d low est in importance by respondents in
th e Bachelors degree l e v e l , re s e a rc h should be conducted to
determ ine the c a u s e (s ) o f th e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between degree
l e v e ls in reg ard to th e importance r a t i n g s o f th e com petencies:
"Be a b le to a rra n g e employment o p p o r t u n it i e s with
p ro s p e c ti ve em ployers."
"Understand what th e concept ' l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e
environm ent' means."
"Be a b le to recognize speech impairment c o n d it i o n s ."

6.

Because th r e e o f th e fo u r competencies which had s i g n i f i c a n t
r e l a t i o n s h i p s were r a t e d low est in a b i l i t y by respondents in
th e Bachelors degree l e v e l , re s e a rc h should be conducted to
determ ine th e c a u s e (s ) o f th e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between degree
le v e ls in regard to th e a b i l i t y r a t i n g s o f th e competencies:
"Be a b le to work w ith p a re n ts in planning in d iv id u a liz e d
edu catio n p la n s ."

Ill

"Be a b le to arrang e employment o p p o r tu n itie s
w ith p ro sp e c tiv e em ployers."
"Be able to make physical a d a p ta tio n s in the
classroom t o meet th e s p e c i f i c needs o f
handicapped s t u d e n ts ."
"Have a knowledge o f how to adapt physical
c o n d itio n s o f jobs to f i t handicapped i n d iv id u a ls ."
7.

Because th e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between y e ars
o f vo cational education teach in g experience in regard to
the importance r a t i n g o f th e competency:
"Understand th e leg a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f
te a c h e rs describ ed in Pub lic Law 94-142
and Pub lic Act 198 .",
re se a rc h should be conducted to determine th e c a u se (s)
o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Almanza, H. P. Where Are We Going? R e fle c tio n s on Mainstreaming.
Washington, D.C.: Education S e rv ice C enter, Region I I I ,
U.S. O ffice o f Education, 1976.
Andelman, F . , e t . a l . Mainstreaminq.
March - A p r il, 1976, 18-29.

Today's Education,

B axter, J . Development and Implementation o f Secondary Special
Education Programs^ Lake Odessa, Michigan: M entally, P h y s ic a lly ,
and Emotionally Handicapped o f E .B .I. Breakthrough, I n c . , 1975.
Bureau o f Education f o r th e Handicapped. The D ecisive Decade.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. O ffice o f E ducation, U.S. Government
P r i n t in g - O f f ic e , 1971.
College o f E ducation, Ohio S t a te U n iv e rs ity . Mainstreaming P re p ara tio n
f o r Regular Education P e rso n n e l. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio S ta te
U n iv e rs ity , 1976.
College o f Education, U n iv e rs ity o f Minnesota. Mainstreaming:
O rigins and I m p lic a tio n s . M inneapolis, Minnesota: U n iv e rsity
o f Minnesota. Volume 2, Number 2, Winter 1976.
College o f Education, U n iv e rs ity o f Missouri - Columbia. Competencies
f o r Teaching Exceptional Children in th e Regular Classroom.
Columbia, M issouri: U n iv e rs ity o f Missouri - Columbia.
College o f Education, W ichita S t a te U n iv e rs ity . Competencies.
W ichita, Kansas: W ichita S ta te U n iv e rs ity .
Council f o r Exceptional C hildren.
1976, 43.

O f f ic ia l A ctions.

Reston, V ir q in ia :

Dean's P r o j e c t , U n iv e rs ity o f Maine. Competencies f o r Mainstreaming.
Orono, Maine: U n iv e rs ity o f Maine.
Department o f Special E ducation, The Pennsylvania S t a te U n iv e rs ity .
Proposed Student Teacher Competencies Based on EEC 400.
U n iv e rs ity Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania S ta te
U n iv e rsity .

112

Evans, R. N., Phelps, L. A ., Abbas, E. K., & F riso n , K. D. Vocational
Education f o r Special Needs S tu d e n ts: Competencies and Models
f o r Personnel P re p a ra tio n . Final Report. National Workshop on
Vocational Education f o r Special Needs S tu d en ts. Urbana, I l l i n o i s
U n iv e rsity o f I l l i n o i s , Urbana-Champaign, 1976.
Federal Supplement, H airston e t . a l . v. D rosick.
1976, 180.

Volume 423,

Gear, G. H. Educating Mildly Handicapped Children in th e Regular
Classroom: Needs Assessment in Teacher P r e p a r a tio n . Birmingham,
Alabama: I n t e r r e l a t e d Teacher Education P r o j e c t , U n iv e rsity
o f Alabama in Birmingham, 1976.
Gerlach, K. Preparing f o r Mainstreaming in Teacher Education
I n s t i t u t i o n s . Sioux F a l l s , South Dakota: Augustana C ollege,
April 13, 1977.
Goldhammer, K ., Rader, B ., & R euschlein, P. Mainstreaming: Planning
f o r a P re-S erv ice Program in V o c a tio n a l, T n d u s tria l A rts and
Physical Education" East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan
S t a te U n iv e rs ity , 1976.
Goldhammer, K ., Rader, B ., & R euschlein, P.
Competencies. East Lansing, Michigan:
1977.

Mainstreaming: Teacher
Michigan S t a te U n iv e rs ity ,

H a rtle y , N. Channeling Students in to th e Mainstream.
October 1978, 39-42.

Voc Ed,

Heath, E. In -S e rv ic e T rain in g : Preparing to Meet Today's Needs.
Academic Therapy, 1974, IX ( 5 ) , 267-279.
Hobbs, N. The Futures o f C hildren.
Jossey-B oss, 1975.

San F ra n cisco , C a lif o r n ia :

J e n k in s, J. R ., & Mayhall, W. F. Development and E valuation o f a
Resource Teacher Program. Exceptional C h ild re n , 1976, 43.
Mackie, R. P. S p o tlig h tin g Advances in Special Education.
Exceptional C h ild re n , 1965, 32, 77-81.
Mackie R. P. & Dunn, L. N. College and U n iv e rs ity Programs f o r th e
P re p ara tio n o f Teachers~o~f Exceptional Children (O ffic e o f
Education B u l l e t i n , 1954, No. 13). Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government P rin tin g O ffic e , 1954.
M arquette-Alger In term ed iate School D i s t r i c t .
Assessment Survey. M arquette, Michigan:
In term ed iate School D i s t r i c t , 1977.

In -S e rv ic e Needs
M arquette-Alger

114
Michigan Department o f Education. Michigan Inter-A gency Model
and D elivery System o f Vocational Education S e rv ice s f o r
th e Handicapped. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department
o f E ducation, 1976.
Michigan Department o f Education. Michigan Special Education Code.
Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department o f E ducation, 1977.
Michigan Department o f Education. S t a te Special Education S e rv ic e s
October 1 Counts, 1977 - 1978. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan
Department o f E ducation, 1977.
Michigan Department o f E ducation, V o cational-T echnical Education
S e rv ic e s . Program /Course/Section Data V e r if i c a t io n &
Enrollm ent Report. Lansing, Michigan: Department o f
Ediication," 'January, 1978.
P e t e r , L. J . Competency f o r Teaching Teacher E ducation.
C a li f o r n ia : Wadsworth P u b lish in g Company, 1975.
P o r t e r , John.

Belmont,

Education o f th e Handicapped, 1978, 5.

Rader, B. Competencies f o r Mainstreaming T eachers: An A n a ly s is .
East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan S t a te U n iv e r s ity , 1978.
Redden, M. R. An I n v e s t ig a ti o n o f Mainstreaming Competencies o f
Regular Elementary Teachers" (Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n ,
U n iv e rs ity o f Kentucky, 1976). L is te d w ith U n iv e rs ity
A b s tr a c ts , U n iv e rs ity o f Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Reynolds, M. Special Education. Encyclopedia o f Educational
Research. Toronto: Macmillan, 1969.
Reynolds, M. VESEP I I : V ocational E d ucation /S pecial Education
P r o je c t I I . Mt. P l e a s a n t , Michigan: Central Michigan
U n iv e rs ity , June 30, 1976.
Reynolds, M. & B irch , J . Teaching E xceptional C hildren in All
Am erica's Scho ols. Reston, V ir g in ia : The Council f o r
Exceptional Chi1d r e n , 1977.
School o f E ducation, C a li f o r n ia S t a te U n iv e rs ity , San F ran cisco .
Competency Areas and Corresponding Competencies f o r Mainstream
Classroom T ea ch e rs. San F ra n c is c o , C a li f o r n ia : C a li f o r n ia
S t a te U n iv e rs ity , San F ra n cisco .
School o f E ducation, U n iv e rs ity o f L o u is v il l e . Teacher Competencies
and S k i l l s P r e r e g u i s i t e t o Mainstreaming in th e Regular
ITementary School Classroom! L o u i s v i l l e , Kentucky: U n iv e rs ity
o f L o u is v il l e .

115
Sloan, W. Four Score and Seven.
D eficien cy , 1963.

American Journal o f Mental

S ta te o f Michigan. Public Act 198 o f 1971.
76th L e g is la tu r e , 1971.

Lansing, Michigan:

S to v a l1, T. A D escrip tion o f th e TEMPO P ro je c t to Prepare Mainstream
Classroom T eachers. N a sh v ille , Tennessee: George Peabody
College f o r T eachers, August, 1976.
Train Classroom, Not Special Education T eachers, Report Says.
Education D a ily , October 15, 1976, 5-6.
U.S. Department o f H ealth, Education and W elfare. Public Law
88-352: C ivil Rights Act o f 1964. Washington, D.C.:
Department o f H ealth, Education, and W elfare, 1964.
U.S. Department o f H ealth, Education and W elfare. Public Law
92-318: P ro h ib itio n o f Sex D iscrim ination Act~ Washington, D.C.:
Department o f H ealth , Education and W elfare, 1972.
U. S. Department o f H ealth, Education and W elfare. P u blic Law
93-112: Vocational R e h a b ilita tio n A ct. Washington, D.C.:
Department o f H ealth, Education and W elfare, 1973.
U.S. Department o f H ealth, Education and W elfare. Public Law
94-142: Education f o r All Handicapped C hildren A ct.
Washington, D.C.: Department o f H ealth, Education and
W elfare, Bureau f o r th e Education o f Handicapped, Washington,
D.C., 1975.
U.S. Department o f H ealth, Education and Welfare. Public Law
94-482: Vocational Education Amendments o f 1976. Washington
D.C.: Department o f H ealth, Education and W elfare, O ffice
o f Vocational Education, 1976.
Weintraub, F. J . , Obeson, A ., B a lla rd , J . , & La Vor, M. L. (E d s.).
P ub lic P o licy and th e Education o f Exceptional C h ild re n .
Reston, V irg in ia : The Council f o r Exceptional C h ild ren ,
1976, 43.
Zimmerman, M. D. R e h a b ilita tio n E ngineering: Technology f o r th e
Handicapped. Machine Design, November 9, 1978, 24-29.

APPENDIX A

116

MICHIGAN AREA VOCATIONAL CENTERS INCLUDED IN SAMPLE
W alter C. A v e r i l l , J r . Career O p p o rtu n ities Center
2102 Weiss S t r e e t
Saginaw, Michigan 48603
Bay-Arenac S k ill Center
6311 Monitor Road
Bay C ity , Michigan 48706
Branch Area Career Center
366 Morse S t r e e t
Box 509
Coldwater, Michigan 49039
Calhoun Area Vocational Education Center
475 E ast Roosevelt
B a tt l e Creek, Michigan 49017
C apital Area Career Center
611 Hagadorn Road
Mason, Michigan 48854
Dickinson Area Vocational Center
300 N. Boulevard
Kingsford, Michigan 49801
Genesee Area S k ill Center
G-5081 Torrey Road
F l i n t , Michigan 48507
Jackson Area Career Center
6800 Browns Lakes Road
Jackson, Michigan 49201
Kent S k ill Center - Downtown
111 College Avenue
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506
Kent S k i l l s Center - East B e lt l in e
1655 E ast B e l t l i n e , N.E.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506
Lapeer County Vocational Technical Center
690 Lake P le asan t Road
A t t i c a , Michigan 49412

117
Lenawee V ocational-Technical Center
2345 North Adrian Highway
A drian, Michigan 49221
Mecosta-Osceola Career Center
205 Maple S t r e e t
Big Rapids, Michigan 49307
Newaygo Area Vocational Education Center
4645 West 48th S t r e e t
Fremont, Michigan 49412
N ortheast Oakland Vocational Education Center
1371 N. Perry S t r e e t
P o n tia c , Michigan
Northwest Oakland Vocational Education Center
8211 Big Lake Road
C lark sto n , Michigan 48016
Ottawa Area Vocational Center
P.O. Box 628
Grand Haven, Michigan 48417
S a n ila c Career Center
175 E. A itk in s Road
Peck, Michigan 48466
S ou theast Oakland Vocational Education Center
5055 Delemere
Royal Oak, Michigan
Southwest Oakland Vocational Education Center
1000 Beck Road
Walled Lake, Michigan 48088
S t. C l a i r County S k ill Center
499 Range Road, POCS-1
M a ry sv ille , Michigan 48046
T raverse Bay Area Vocational Center
880 Parsons Road
T raverse C ity , Michigan 49684
Van Buren S k ill Center
250 South S t r e e t
Lawrence, Michigan 49064
Wexford-Missaukee Area Vocational Center
9901 E. 36 Mile Road
C a d illa c , Michigan 49601

APPENDIX B

C E N T R A L M ICHIGAN U N IV ER SITY

September 28, 1978

Dear Vocational Education Teacher:
Your help i s needed t o develop te a c h e r p re p a ra tio n programs which
provide tea ch in g s k i l l s n e cessary to educate handicapped s tu d e n ts
in r e g u l a r classroom s. Our s o c ie ty has e x h ib ite d in c r e a s in g awareness
and l e g i s l a t i v e su p p o rt f o r th e r i g h t s o f handicapped s tu d e n ts to a
f r e e , a p p ro p r ia te p u b lic e d u ca tio n . Consequently te a c h e r s w ill be
se rv in g an in c re a s in g number o f handicapped s tu d e n ts .
The enclosed q u e s tio n n a ire i s being s e n t to v o c atio n a l education
te a c h e r s a t a re a v o c a tio n a l c e n te r s throughout Michigan. The i n t e n t
o f t h i s study i s to determ ine im portant competencies f o r v o c atio n a l
education te a c h e r s in r e s p e c t to tea ch in g handicapped s tu d e n ts in
r e g u l a r classroom s and l a b o r a t o r i e s . You can help by providing
inform ation which w i l l perm it an a n a ly s is o f c u rr e n t c o n d itio n s
reg a rd in g te a c h e r competencies and th ereb y a s s i s t in i d e n t i f y i n g
competencies which need to be s t r e s s e d in p r e - s e r v i c e and i n - s e r v i c e
t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g programs.
P le ase help us in t h i s e f f o r t t h a t we may a l l help handicapped
s tu d e n ts r e c e iv e th e education they need and d e serv e . Your
completion and r e t u r n o f th e accompanying q u e s tio n n a ire by
October 6, 1978, w ill be very b e n e f ic ia l and most a p p re c ia te d .
All respon ses a r e c o n f i d e n t i a l . A stamped, p re-a d d resse d envelope
i s enclosed f o r your r e t u r n .
Thank you f o r your a s s i s t a n c e .
S in c e r e ly ,

J e r r y b J R o ite r
A s s i s t a n t P ro fe ss o r
C entral Michigan U n iv e rs ity

MOUNT PLEASANT, MICHIGAN 48859

C E N T R A L M ICHIGAN U N IV ERSITY

October 19, 1978

Dear Vocational Education Teacher:
Recently you were m ailed a q u e s tio n n a ir e as p a r t o f a sta te w id e study
o f vo catio n al education t e a c h e r s , seeking your e v a lu a tio n o f c e r t a i n
mainstreaming com petencies. S p e c i f i c a l l y t h i s study i s seeking answers
to such q u e stio n s a s , "What mainstreaming competencies do Michigan
a rea v o c atio n a l c e n t e r te a c h e r s f e e l a re im portant?" and "How do th e s e
te a c h e rs p e rc eiv e t h e i r p r e s e n t c a p a b i l i t y to perform th e s e competencies?"
Since we have not y e t re c e iv e d your re s p o n se , a n o th e r copy o f th e
q u e s tio n n a ir e i s e n c lo se d . P le ase complete t h i s q u e s tio n n a ir e and
r e t u r n i t in th e accompanying stamped, addressed envelope by
October 28, 1978.
Your coo p eratio n in h elping to plan te a c h e r ed ucatio n cou rses to
in c o rp o ra te i n s t r u c t i o n in mainstreaming competencies w ill be very
much a p p re c ia te d .
S in c e r e ly ,

'Roiter
A s s i s t a n t P ro fe ss o r
C entral Michigan U n iv e rs ity

MOUNT PLEASANT, MICHIGAN 4 8 8 5 9

CEN TRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY

February 12, 1979

Dear Vocational Education Teacher:
Your help i s needed to develop te a c h e r p re p a ra tio n programs which provide
teaching s k i l l s necessary to educate handicapped s tu d e n ts in r e g u la r
classroom s. Our s o c ie ty has e x h ib ite d in c re a s in g awareness and
l e g i s l a t i v e support f o r th e r i g h t s o f handicapped s tu d e n ts t o a f r e e ,
a p p ro p ria te pub lic edu cation . Consequently te a c h e r s w ill be serving
an in c re a sin g number o f handicapped s tu d e n ts .
The enclosed q u e stio n n a ire i s being se n t to v ocation al education te a c h e rs
a t area vocatio nal c e n te r s throughout Michigan. The i n t e n t o f t h i s
study i s to determine im portant competencies f o r v ocatio n al education
te a c h e rs in r e s p e c t to teach in g handicapped s tu d e n ts in r e g u la r
classrooms and l a b o r a t o r i e s . You can help by providing inform ation
which w ill perm it an a n a ly s is o f c u rr e n t c o n d itio n s reg ard in g te a c h e r
competencies and thereby a s s i s t in id e n tif y in g competencies which
need to be s tr e s s e d in p r e - s e r v ic e and i n - s e r v i c e te a c h e r p re p a ra tio n
programs.
Please help us in t h i s e f f o r t t h a t we may a l l help handicapped stu d e n ts
re c e iv e th e education they need and d eserv e. Your completion and
re tu rn o f th e accompanying q u e s tio n n a ire by February 21, 1979, w ill
be very b e n e f ic ia l and most a p p re c ia te d . All responses a re c o n f i d e n ti a l.
A stamped, p re-ad dressed envelope i s enclosed f o r your r e t u r n .
Thank you f o r your a s s i s t a n c e .
S in c e r e ly ,

A s s is ta n t P ro fesso r
Department o f I n d u s tr ia l
Education and Technology
pks
Enclosures

MOUNT PLEASANT, MICHIGAN 4 8 859

121
MAINSTREAMING COMPETENCIES ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT
FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION TEACHERS
Name:
PART I . In o rd e r to analyze th e d a ta c o l l e c t e d by t h i s survey,
i t i s n e ce ssa ry t o c o l l e c t in form atio n about th e backgrounds and
ex p erien c es o f re sp o n d en ts. P lease c i r c l e th e number which
precedes each a p p ro p ria te resp o n se.
1.

In what occup atio nal a r e a ( s ) a r e you c u r r e n t l y te a c h in g ?
1 A g ric u ltu ra l Education
2 D i s t r i b u t i v e Education
3 Health Education

2.

What i s your c u r r e n t employment s t a t u s ?
1

3.

2 P a rt- tim e

l e s s than B a cc alau re ate 4 S p e c i a l i s t
Bachelors
5 D octorate
Masters

How many y e a rs have you been te a ch in g v o c a tio n a l ed ucation?
1
2
3

5.

F u ll-tim e

What i s th e h ig h e s t education degree you have earned?
1
2
3

4.

4 Home Economics Education
5 O ffic e Education
6 Trade & I n d u s t r i a l Education

l e s s than 2 y e a r s
3 to 5 y e a rs
6 to 8 y e a rs

4 9 to 11 y e a rs
5 12 o r more y e a rs

What ty p e ( s ) of im pairm ent(s) have s tu d e n ts in your p r e s e n t a n d /o r
p a s t c la s s e s had? ( C ir c le as many as apply)
1
2
3
4

None
Emotional Impairment
Hearing Impairment
Learning D i s a b i l i t y

5
6
7
8

Mental Impairment
Physical Impairment
Speech Impairment
Visual Impairment

The follow ing d e f i n i t i o n i s included to provide a common concept
o f mainstreaming among resp o n d en ts:

122
Mainstreaming: In c lu sio n o f handicapped stu d e n ts * in r e g u la r
classroom i n s t r u c t i o n t o th e g r e a t e s t e x te n t which t h e i r impairments
w ill perm it them to b e n e f i t . Handicapped s tu d e n ts w ill be placed
by an edu cation al planning and placement committee; placements
w ill range from a f u l l schedule in r e g u la r classroom s to no in c lu sio n
a t a l l in r e g u la r classroom s, depending upon th e degree o f th e
impairment o f each in d iv id u a l handicapped s tu d e n t.
*Handicapped s tu d e n ts a re d efin ed as tho se s tu d e n ts who a re
m entally im paired, em o tionally im paired, hearing im paired, v i s u a ll y
im paired, p h y s ic a lly im paired, speech im paired, o r le a rn in g d is a b le d ;
o r who have a combination o f any two o r more o f th e s e impairments.
PART I I . The follow ing i s a l i s t o f s e le c te d mainstreaming competencies
f o r vocatio nal education te a c h e r s . P lease read each competency
c a r e f u l l y then in d ic a t e :
A.

Is th e competency im portant f o r vo catio n al education
te a c h e rs who may be te a ch in g in a mainstreaming s e t t i n g ?
I f you th in k th e competency i s im p o rtan t, c i r c l e th e
number 1 under th e column marked "IMPORTANT".
I f you th in k th e competency i s not im p o rtan t, c i r c l e
th e number 2 under th e column marked "NOT IMPORTANT".

B.

To what degree do you b e lie v e you a re now a b le t o perform
th e competency?
I f you f e e l you can now do th e competency w e l l, c i r c l e
th e number 1 under th e column marked "CAN DO WELL".
I f you fe e l you can now do th e competency somewhat,
c i r c l e th e number 2 under th e column marked "CAN DO SOMEWHAT".
I f you fe e l you cannot do th e competency, c i r c l e th e
number 3 under th e column marked "CANNOT DO".

123
MAINSTREAMING COMPETENCY STATEMENTS

hZ

<c

z
«c
1
—
O'
o
CL
S
t—
i
1

2

1

1

2

1

l_

1.

understand th e leg al r e s p o n s i­
b i l i t i e s o f te a c h e rs describ ed
in Public Law 94-142 and Public
Act 198.

2.

be ab le to recognize stu d e n ts
w ith physical impairments.

3.

be ab le to use o b se rv atio n and
o th e r informal methods to a sse ss
handicapped s tu d e n ts ' classroom
performances.

4.

be a b le to work w ith p a re n ts
in planning in d iv id u a liz e d
education p lan s.

5.

understand when to involve
s p e c i a l i s t s , such as a psychol­
o g i s t , speech t h e r a p i s t , e t c . ,
in c o n s u lta tio n .

6.

be a b le to f o s t e r a p o s i t iv e
r e l a t i o n s h i p between handicapped
and non-handicapped s tu d e n ts .

7.

be a b le to provide handicapped
stu d e n ts with communication
s k i l l s necessary f o r interv iew ing
f o r a job and f o r performing the
d u t ie s o f a procured jo b .

8.

understand c h ild development and
le a rn in g t h e o r i e s .

_i
_i
U
J
3
o

J
—
OC
O
a.
£
1
—
1
1
—
o
z

□

z
■
st
o

CAN DO SOMEWHAT

In o rd e r to e f f e c t i v e l y educate handicapped s t u d e n ts , th e vo cational
education te a c h e r should:

2

3

1
—
z
c
t—
cc
o
Q.
s:
►
-1
9.

understand th e fu n c tio n s o f the
edu cation al planning and placement
commi t t e e s .

10.

be a b le to provide p a re n ts o f
handicapped s tu d e n ts w ith a
d e s c r ip tio n o f goals and tech niq ues
used to teach t h e i r handicapped
c h ild .

11.

be aware o f and understand admin­
i s t r a t o r , te a c h e r , p a re n t, and
stu d e n t a t t i t u d e s toward handi­
capped s tu d e n ts .

12.

be a b le to recognize mental
impairment c o n d itio n s .

13.

be ab le to plan educational
programs which provide handicapped
s tu d e n ts w ith the maximum number
o f jo b o p p o r t u n it i e s t h e i r
impairments w ill allow .

14.

be a b le to u t i l i z e stu d e n t re c o rd s
{ t e s t s c o r e s , psychological
r e p o r t s , and performance in d ic a to r s )
to e v a lu a te th e c a p a b i l i t i e s
and p o te n tia l o f handicapped
s tu d e n ts .

15.

be a b le t o provide p r e s c r i p t i v e
teaching methods.

16.

be a b le to implement tu to r i n g
o f handicapped s tu d e n ts by
non-handicapped s tu d e n ts .

17.

understand th e s e lf -c o n c e p ts held
by handicapped s tu d e n ts .

iz:
—
tcc
—
o
Q.
iz:
—
<
j—
o
Z

_
_ll
L
U
3
O
o
z
o

<c

CAN DO SOMEWHAT

124

tz
<
h
—
o
c
o
Q.
s:

18.

have knowledge o f agencies
a s s i s t i n g in th e employment
o f handicapped s tu d e n ts .

19.

be a b le to develop, w ith th e
a s s i s t a n c e o f s p e c ia l ed u catio n
p e rso n n e l, an in d iv id u a liz e d
ed u ca tio n al plan which b e s t
s u i t s each handicapped s t u d e n t 's
le a rn in g s t y l e .

20.

be a b le t o i n d iv i d u a li z e
commercially a v a i l a b l e programs
and t e x t s .

21.

be a b le to rec o g n ize hearing
impairment c o n d itio n s .

22.

be a b le to a d m in is te r and
i n t e r p r e t formal assessm ent
in stru m e n ts f o r handicapped
s tu d e n ts .

23.

be a b le to a rrange employment
o p p o r t u n it i e s w ith p ro s p e c tiv e
em ployers.

24.

understand what th e concept
" l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e environment"
means.

25.

be a b le to conduct a c t i v i t i e s
which promote p o s i t i v e i n t e r ­
a c tio n o f handicapped s tu d e n ts
w ith non-handicapped s tu d e n ts .

26.

be a b le to implement le a rn in g
c e n t e r s , c r i t e r i o n re fe r e n c e
t e s t s , team te a c h in g , and media
t o b e n e f i t handicapped s t u d e n ts .

z
<
c
i—
cc
o
a.
S

_ 1
—I
LU

i—i

t—
O
z

3
O
a
z
<
o

1

2

1

1

2

1

t—i

CAN D
O SOMEWHAT

125

1

2

3

2

3

2

3

2

3

Of

O

a.

o

a

ai
Q.
o

<
o

CAN DO SOMEWHAT

126

27.

be a b le to recognize v isu a l
impairment c o n d itio n s .

2

2

3

28.

be a b le to e s t a b l i s h a system
f o r recording stu d e n t progress
in terms o f s t a t e d o b j e c ti v e s .

2

2

3

29.

be knowledgeable o f th e r i g h t s
of handicapped stu d e n ts under
Public Law 94-142 and Public
Act 198.

30.

be a b le to recognize speech
impairment c o n d itio n s .

31.

be a b le to match i n s t r u c t i o n a l
methods to handicapped stu d e n ts
based on m edical, p sy c h o lo g ic al,
and d ia g n o s tic fin d in g s .

32.

be ab le to develop p o s i t iv e
and a c t iv e communications with
handicapped s tu d e n ts .

33.

be a b le to make physical
a d a p ta tio n s in th e classroom
to meet th e s p e c i f i c needs
o f handicapped stu d e n ts .

34.

u t i l i z e s e r v ic e s provided by
school p sy c h o lo g is ts .

35.

be a b le to e v a lu a te re a d in e ss
sk ills .

36.

be knowledgeable o f th e r i g h t s
o f handicapped stu d e n ts to
employment.

37.

be aware o f employer a t t i t u d e s
toward handicapped employees.

2

3

2

1

<
i—
az
o
D.
S
i—i
1—
o
z

1—
z
h—
QC
O
o.
S
i—i

CAN DO SOMEWHAT

127

_1
-J
UJ
3
o
o
<
o

38.

be a b le to i d e n t i f y occupations
and s k i l l s which match th e
c a p a b i l i t i e s o f handicapped
s tu d e n ts .

1

2

1

2

3

39.

u t i l i z e s e r v ic e s provided by
school so c ia l workers.

1

2

1

2

3

40.

be aware o f th e a t t i t u d e s o f
non-handicapped employees toward
handicapped employees.

1

2

1

2

3

41.

be a b le to p o s i t iv e l y r e i n f o r c e
handicapped stu d e n ts f o r t h e i r
achievements.

1

2

1

2

3

42.

be ab le to o b tain and u t i l i z e
pa re n ta l knowledge o f t h e i r
handicapped c h ild to f u r t h e r
th e understanding o f t h a t
handicapped s tu d e n t.

1

2

1

2

3

43. be knowledgeable o f stu d e n t
reco rd s a v a ila b le t o vocational
education te a c h e r s .

1

2

1

2

3

44. be a b le to a c c u ra te ly e v a lu a te
handicapped s tu d e n ts f o r
occupational placement.

1

2

1

2

3

45. have a knowledge o f how to
adapt physical c o n d itio n s o f
jo b s to f i t handicapped
i n d iv id u a ls .

1

2

1

2

3

46.

understand th e h i s t o r i c a l
development o f mainstreaming.

1

2

1

2

3

47.

be a b le to provide sa fe le a rn in g
c o n d itio n s in th e classroom (s)
and th e 1 a b (s).

1

2

1

2

3

128

48.

understand due process procedures
regarding c o n te ste d placements
o f handicapped s tu d e n ts .

49.

understand school d i s t r i c t and
bu ild in g procedures d e a lin g with
handicapped s tu d e n ts .

50.

be a b le to u t i l i z e p a ra p ro fe s s io n a ls
and v o lu n te e rs in th e classroom .

51.

understand th e im p lic a tio n s o f
th e S ta te Department o f E d u ca tio n 's
plans r e l a t e d to handicapped
s tu d e n ts .

52.

understand th e fu n c tio n s o f
p r o s t h e ti c devices f o r handicapped
persons.

PART I I I . The space below i s provided f o r you to w r ite any mainstreaming
competencies which you b e lie v e a re im portant and which have not been
included in th e preceding 52 mainstreaming competencies.

Thank you f o r your a s s i s t a n c e . P lease r e tu r n t h i s form in the
accompanying pre-add ressed and stamped envelope to :
J e r r y L. R o ite r
A s s is ta n t P ro fe sso r
Mainstreaming Survey
Room 202
Wightman Hall
C entral Michigan U n iv e rsity
Mt. P le a s a n t, Michigan 48859