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.T he sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of
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 of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of 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 corner
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
Micrdrilms
International
300 N. ZEEB RO AD. A N N A R B O R . Ml 48106
18 BE DFO RD ROW, LO NDO N WC1R 4E J , E N G L A N D

8112156

SLOAN,

BARBARA J.
A STUDY OF GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHER AND SPECIAL
EDUCATION TEACHER-CONSULTANT VIEWS OF PROBLEMS AND
SUPPORT SERVICE NEEDS RELATED TO MAINSTREAMED
HANDICAPPED CHILDREN IN BRANCH INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL
DISTRICT, BRANCH COUNTY, MICHIGAN

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

PH.D.

300 N. Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, MI 48106

1980

A STUDY OF GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHER AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
TEACHER-CONSULTANT VIEWS OF PROBLEMS AND SUPPORT SERVICE
NEEDS RELATED TO MAINSTREAMED HANDICAPPED CHILDREN IN
BRANCH INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
BRANCH COUNTY, MICHIGAN

By
Barbara J . Sloan

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e requirements
f o r t h e degree o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f Elementary and Special Education
1980

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHER AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
TEACHER-CONSULTANT VIEWS OF PROBLEMS AND SUPPORT SERVICE
NEEDS RELATED TO MAINSTREAMED HANDICAPPED CHILDREN IN
BRANCH INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT*
BRANCH COUNTY, MICHIGAN
By
Barbara J . Sloan

Purpose o f t h e Study
The concept o f mainstreaming has t h r u s t classroom t e a c h e r s
and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s i n t o new r o l e s r e l a t i v e t o pr ovid ing educa­
t i o n a l programs f o r handicapped c h i l d r e n .

This s tudy was undertaken

in an a tte m p t t o provide an i n i t i a l view o f mainstreaming through
i d e n t i f y i n g th e concerns and f e e l i n g s expres sed by t e a c h e r s and
teacher-consultants.
Procedures
The t a r g e t p o p u la tio n f o r t h i s s tudy in cl uded t e a c h e r s from
f i v e elementar y schools and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s from c o n s t i t u e n t d i s ­
t r i c t s of Branch I n te r m e d i a te School D i s t r i c t .
and twelve t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s responded.

Seventy-one t e a c h e r s

Q u e s tio n n a ir e s were

developed to o b ta in info rm ation r e l a t i v e to (1) problems which a r i s e
f o r t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s when a handicapped c h i l d ' s edu­
c a t i o n a l program inclu des a mainstream component, (2) a c t u a l and
needed s p e c ia l educa tion s up por t intend ed to a s s i s t in s o lv i n g th e

Barbara J. Sloan
problems in a mainstream placement, (3) d e s c r i p t i v e info rm at ion r e l a t e d
t o c h i l d r e n t e a c h e r s i d e n t i f y as "most s u c c e s s f u l 11 and " l e a s t suc­
c e s s f u l " mainstream place m en ts, and (4) f a c t o r s which a f f e c t the
a t t i t u d e o f t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s .
into categories.

Responses were grouped

Frequency and per ce ntag e d i s t r i b u t i o n s were analyzed

t o i d e n t i f y i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o mainstreaming which need f u r t h e r in -d e p th
stu dy.
Summary o f Major Concerns and Iss ues
Teachers and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s i d e n t i f i e d problems r e l a t e d
to t h e implementation o f mainstreaming.

Teachers were most concerned

about th e academic and s o c i a l behavior o f th e handicapped c h i l d in
t h e i r classroom.
and

T e a c h e r - c o n s u l ta n t s focused more on th e behaviors

^adequacies o f the t e a c h e r .
When asked t o i d e n t i f y the types o f s upport a s s i s t a n c e c u r ­

r e n t l y being pr o v id e d , t e a c h e r s most f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r t e d t h a t c h i l d r e n
were r e c e i v i n g i n s t r u c t i o n d i r e c t l y from s p e c i a l education suppo rt
p e r s o n n e l.

Even though t e a c h e r s were not f e e l i n g t o t a l l y s u ccess fu l

with t h e i r r o l e in mainstrea m ing, they d id not blame the support
a s s i s t a n c e f o r t h e i r problems, as t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s had p r e d i c t e d .
However, in ca s es where they were d i s s a t i s f i e d with a s s i s t a n c e , th e
reason most o f t e n c i t e d was a disagreement with t h e approach being
used by s p e c i a l e ducation s upport p e r so n n e l.

When i d e n t i f y i n g needs,

t e a c h e r s l i m i t e d t h e i r r e q u e s t s t o types o f a s s i s t a n c e which they were
c u rre n tly experiencing.

I t appear s e v i d e n t t h a t t e a c h e r s do want more

c o n t a c t with the t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t , in t h a t th ey most o f t e n r eq u ested

Barbara J. Sloan
a s s i s t a n c e through the t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t pr oviding s u g g e s t i o n s ,
m a t e r i a l s , and c o o p e r a tiv e plann in g.

This would appear t o be e v i ­

dence o f a need f o r classroom t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s t o
work t o g e t h e r .

T e a c h e r - c o n s u lta n t s r e p o r t , however, t h a t most o f

t h e i r time i s s pe nt with c h i l d r e n , and th ey would not change t h i s i f
they could.
On the b a s is o f t h i s s tu d y , g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s a r e n ot a b l e to
be made r e g a rd in g f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g s u c c e ss fu l o r un suc ce ss fu l main­
stream placements.

Dif fe rences between c e r t a i n f a c t o r s and th e types

o f handicapped c h i l d r e n r e p o rte d in t h i s study may be a t t r i b u t e d to
th e unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r c h i l d r e n a n d / o r p a r t i c u ­
l a r t e a c h e r s in t h i s stu dy; thus g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s cannot be developed.
The m a j o r i t y o f t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s r e p o r t
p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward mainstreaming.

Te ac he rs , however, may s t i l l

be somewhat am bivalent in t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward mainstreaming.

The

major f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e a t t h i s time i s t h a t mainstream­
ing i s b e n e f i c i a l to th e handicapped c h i l d .

On t h e o t h e r hand, lack

o f time and inadequacy of s up por t s e r v i c e a r e n e g a t i v e f a c t o r s a l s o
i d e n t i f i e d as a f f e c t i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e .

To my husband, Bob, and d a u g h t e r s ,
Breeze and T r e s s a , w ithout whom
l i f e would have l i t t l e meaning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The c r e d i t f o r t h e completion o f a d o cto r al d i s s e r t a t i o n must
bear the name o f more than j u s t one person .

This w r i t e r wishes to

express a p p r e c i a t i o n to Dr. Charles Mange f o r th e many hours o f
a s s i s t a n c e g ranted in t h i s w r i t i n g e f f o r t .
Dr. Charles Henley and Dr. Edwin K e ll e r must be recognized
f o r t h e i r c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n t r i b u t i o n in th e design o f t h i s r e s e a r c h
e f f o r t as well as f o r t h e i r s up por t and encouragement f o r t h e d u r a t io n
o f th e e n t i r e stu dy .

Coursework with Dr. Richard F e a th e r s to n e has

had s p e c ia l impact on t h i s w r i t e r through t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f knowl­
edge and i n s i g h t o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f h i g h e r e d ucation.
Special mention o f William Tracey and William Robinson must
be made f o r pro viding an environment and encouragement t h a t th e study
be conducted in t h e ' 1'' a d m i n i s t r a t i v e u n i t .

The p r i n c i p a l s and t e a c h ­

e r s who took the time from t h e i r busy p r o f e s s i o n a l l i v e s to share
t h e i r th ou gh ts and opin io ns must a l s o be thanked.
G r a t i t u d e and r e s p e c t a r e extended to Dr. Linda P a t r i a r c a ,
a f r i e n d and p r o f e s s i o n a l c o ll e a g u e who has provided needed s upp ort
along th e way.
F i n a l l y , words a r e unable t o expr es s the h e a r t f e l t g r a t i t u d e I
wish t o extend to my husband, Dr. Robert C. Sloan , who has encouraged
me to i n i t i a t e and complete th e d o c to r a l program f o r which t h i s d i s ­
s e r t a t i o n was a major p r o j e c t .

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF T A B L E S .........................................................................................................

vi

Chapter
I.

INTRODUCTION

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

1

S tatement o f Problem ......................................................................
6
S tatement o f Purpose ......................................................................
7
9
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms ..........................................................................
L i m i t a t i o n s ............................................................................................
11
Overview o f th e S t u d y ...............................................................
12
II.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..........................................................

13

I n t r o d u c t i o n ........................................................................................
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Problems Related to Mainstreaming . .
Special Education Support S e r v ic e s ........................................
Fa ctors A f f e c t i n g Successful o r Unsuccessful
Mainstream Placements ..................................................................
Fa ctors Which A f f e c t A t t i t u d e Toward Mainstreaming . .
Summary..............................................................................................
26
III.

PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY

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

13
16
19
21
22
27

Branch I n t e r m e d i a t e School D i s t r i c t ........................................
27
S u b j e c t s .........................................................................................
28
Design and Development o f t h e Measurement In stru ments .
29
Classroom Teacher Q u es tio nna ir e ............................................
30
T e a c h e r- C o n s u lta n t Questio nna ir e ........................................
32
P i l o t A d m i n is tr a tio n o f th e Measurement Inst rum e nts . .
34
A d m in is t r a ti o n o f t h e Survey Q u e s tio n n a ir e s ......................
36
A d m in is t r a t io n o f th e Classroom Teacher
Q u e s t io n n a ir e ...............................................................................
36
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the Te acher- C onsultan t I n te r v ie w .
40
D i f f e r e n c e s in A d m in istr atio n of Teacher and
Te ach er- C o n s u ltan t Q u e s tio n n a ir e s ...................................
42
Treatment o f th e D a t a ...............................................................
43
Coding Procedures ...........................................................................
43
Data-Analysis Procedures .........................................................
46

iv

Page
IV.

V.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS.............................................

47

I n t r o d u c t i o n ...........................................
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Problems .........................................................
R e s u l t s ................................................................................................
Discussion o f Data Related to I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f
P r o b l e m s .......................................................................................
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Special Education Support S e r v ic e s .
R e s u l t s ................................................................................................
Discussion o f Data Related to I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f
Support S e r v ic e s ......................................................................
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f C e r t a in Factors Which C o n tr ib u te
to Successful o r Unsuccessful Mainstream Placements .
R e s u l t s ................................................................................................
Dis cu ss ion o f Data Related to F acto r s Which
C o n tr ib u te to Successful or Unsuccessful
Mainstream Placement .............................................................
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of F a c to r s Which A f f e c t A t t i t u d e . . . .
R e s u l t s ................................................................................................
Discu ss ion o f Data Related to Teacher and TeacherC o n s ultant A t t i t u d e Toward Mainstreaming ..................

47
48
48

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................

63
68
68
79
82
83
96
97
97
104
110

Review o f the S t u d y ..........................................................................
Summary of Major Concerns and Iss u es ...................................
Recommendations ...................................................................................

110
Ill
113

APPENDICES..................................................................................................................

119

A.

CLASSROOM TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................................

B. TEACHER-CONSULTANT QUESTIONNAIRE

120

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

127

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................

133

V

LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.

2.

3.

4.
5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Page
Problem Types by Number R eportin g, Percentage of
Responses, and Rank Order A sso ciated With Mainstream­
ing Handicapped Students as Cited by Teachers and
T e a c her- C ons ult ants ...........................................................................

55

Problem Types by Number and Per ce ntag e A s sociated With
Providing S e r v ic e s Related t o Mainstreamed,
Handicapped Child re n as Reported by TeacherC o n s u l t a n t s ................... .....................................................................

62

Types o f A s s i s t a n c e Received and A s s i s ta n c e Needed
A sso ciated With Mainstreaming Handicapped Stud ents
as Reported by Classroom Teachers .............................................

74

Reasons f o r D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n With A s s i s t a n c e by Number
and Pe r c e n t as Reported by Classroom Teachers . . . . .

79

Percentage o f Time Spent in Classroom by Number and
P ercent o f Childre n I d e n t i f i e d as "Most S ucces sful"
and "Least S u c c e s sf u l" as Reported by Classroom
T e a c h e r s .....................................................................................................

83

A p propri ate nes s o f Time Spent in Regular Classroom by
Number and P ercent o f Childre n I d e n t i f i e d as "Most
S ucces sful" and "Lea st S u c c e s sf u l " as Reported by
Classroom Teachers ...............................................................................

84

Problem Types by Number A s so ciate d With "Most S ucc es sf ul"
and "Least S u c c e s s f u l" Mainstreamed, Handicapped Child
Placements as Reported by Teachers ...............................................

86

A s s is ta n c e Received and Needed by Number and P er ce nt
A sso ciated With Seventy "Most S u c c e s sf u l" and F i f t y Nine "Lea st S u c c e s s f u l" Placements o f Mainstreamed,
Handicapped Children as Reported by Classroom
T e a c h e r s .....................................................................................................

88

S a t i s f a c t i o n With A s s i s ta n c e Received by Number and
P e r c e n t A s sociated With "Most S u c c e s sf u l " and "Least
S ucces sful" Placements o f Mainstreamed, Handicapped
Childr en as Reported byTeachers ..................................................

89

vi

Table
10.

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

Page
Handicapping Con ditions by Number and Percen t
Asso ci at ed With "Most S ucces sful" and "Least
S ucces sful" Placements ......................................................................

90

Problem Types by Number of Responses Grouped by Type
o f Handicapped Children ..................................................................

92

A s s is ta n c e Received by Number o f Responses Grouped by
Type o f Handicapped C h i l d r e n .........................................................

94

A s s i s ta n c e Needed by Number o f Responses Grouped by
Type o f Handicapped C h i l d r e n .........................................................

95

A t t i t u d e Toward Mainstreaming by Number and Per ce nt as
Reported by Teachers and Te acher- C onsultants ......................

98

Facto rs Which A f f e c t A t t i t u d e by Number and P ercent as
Reported by Teachers and Te acher- C ons ultants ......................

105

Negative and P o s i t i v e F acto r s A f f e c ti n g A t t i t u d e by
Number as Reported by Teachers and T e ach er- C o n s u ltan ts .

vi i

106

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The passage o f P u b lic Law 94-142, Education f o r All Handi­
capped Children Act, on November 29, 1975, has caused many changes
which must be c onfro nted by e d u c a t o r s .

One o f the most c o n t r o v e r ­

s i a l changes i s r e l a t e d t o th e requirement o f p lacin g handicapped
c h i l d r e n in " th e l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e environment" t o r e c e i v e a " f r e e ,
appropriate public education."

This i s in c o n t r a s t to former a c t i v i ­

t i e s which e i t h e r excluded a handicapped c h i l d from school o r pro­
vided an e d u catio n al program in an i s o l a t e d s e t t i n g such as r e s i d e n t i a l
i n s t i t u t i o n s o r s e l f - c o n t a i n e d programs away from the r e g u l a r educa­
t i o n a l environment.
The r e g u l a t i o n s f o r P ub lic Law 94-142 s p e c i f y t h a t ha ndi­
capped c h i l d r e n must be educated with nonhandicapped c h i l d r e n " to th e
maximum e x t e n t a p p r o p r i a t e . "
121a.550 Each p u b l i c agency s h a l l i n s u r e :
(1) That t o t h e maximum e x t e n t a p p r o p r i a t e , handicapped c h i l ­
dren in clu d i n g c h i l d r e n in p u b lic or p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s or
o t h e r car e f a c i l i t i e s , a r e educated with c h i l d r e n who a r e not
handicapped, and
(2) That s p e c i a l c l a s s e s , s e p a r a t e schooling or o t h e r removal
o f handicapped c h i l d r e n from th e r e g u l a r ed u c a ti o n a l environment
occu rs only when th e n a t u r e or s e v e r i t y of th e handicap i s such
t h a t education in r e g u l a r c l a s s e s with the use of supplementary
ai d s and s e r v i c e s cannot be achieved s a t i s f a c t o r i l y (Federal
R e g i s t e r , August 23, 1977, p. 42497).

1

2

The r e g u l a t i o n s r e q u i r e t h a t a "continuum o f a l t e r n a t i v e p l a c e ­
ments" must be a v a i l a b l e to meet t h e needs of the handicapped c h i l d .
121a.551 Continuum o f A l t e r n a t i v e Placements
(a) Each p u b l ic agency s h a l l i n s u r e t h a t a continuum o f
a l t e r n a t i v e placements i s a v a i l a b l e t o meet t h e needs o f h a n d i­
capped c h i l d r e n f o r s p e c ia l e d u catio n and r e l a t e d s e r v i c e s .
(b) The continuum r e q u i r e d under paragraph (a) o f t h i s s e c ­
t i o n must:
(1) Include the a l t e r n a t i v e placements l i s t e d in th e d e f i n i ­
ti o n o f s p e c i a l ed uc atio n ( i n s t r u c t i o n in r e g u l a r c l a s s e s , s p e c i a l
c l a s s e s , s p e c i a l s c h o o ls , home i n s t r u c t i o n , and i n s t r u c t i o n in
h o s p i t a l s and i n s t i t u t i o n s ) , and
(2) Make p r o v is i o n s f o r supplementary s e r v i c e s (such as
reso urce room o r i t i n e r a n t i n s t r u c t i o n ) t o be provided in con­
j u n c t i o n with r e g u l a r c l a s s placement (Federal R e g i s t e r ,
August 23, 1977, p. 42497).
Continuum o f a l t e r n a t i v e placements has been i n t e r p r e t e d by
Deno (1970) to mean providing o p tio n s f o r p la c i n g th e c h i l d approp­
r i a t e l y from a m o s t - i n t e g r a t e d s e t t i n g , which would be f u l l time in
a r e g u l a r classroom, t o a l e a s t - i n t e g r a t e d s e t t i n g , which might be
a s p e c i a l r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t y , h o s p i t a l , o r homebound i n s t r u c t i o n .
Deno suggested a l t e r n a t i v e s between t h e two extremes could i n c l u d e :
1.

Regular classroom placement with c o n s u l t i v e s e r v i c e s o nly.

2.

Regular classroom placement with t u t o r i a l s e r v i c e .

3.

Special ed uc atio n and r e g u l a r e d u catio n c l a s s combination.

4.

S e l f - c o n t a i n e d s p e c i a l c l a s s housed in r e g u l a r school
b u ild in g with l i t t l e or no r e g u l a r c l a s s placement.

5.

Special day school housed in a s e p a r a t e b u i l d i n g .

In a d d i t i o n , a d e t e r m in a tio n o f placement w i t h i n t h e continuum
o f a l t e r n a t i v e s should be made by s e l e c t i n g " t h e l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e
environment . . .
handicapped."

in the school which he o r she would a t t e n d i f not

This i s o u t l i n e d more s p e c i f i c a l l y in the f o llo w in g

s e c t io n o f th e r e g u l a t i o n s f o r P u b l ic Law 94-142.

3
1 2 1 a .552 Each p u b l i c agency s h a l l i n s u r e t h a t :
(a) Each handicapped c h i l d ' s e d u c a tio n a l placement:
(1) Is determined a t l e a s t a n n u a l l y ,
(2) Is based on h i s o r her i n d i v i d u a l i z e d educati on program
and
(3) Is as c l o s e as p o s s i b l e to th e c h i l d ' s home;
(b) The v a r io u s a l t e r n a t i v e placements inc luded a r e a v a i l ­
a b l e t o th e e x t e n t n e c e s s a r y to implement t h e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d
e ducation program f o r each handicapped c h i l d .
(c) Unless a handicapped c h i l d ' s i n d i v i d u a l i z e d ed ucation
program r e q u i r e s some o t h e r arrangement, th e c h i l d i s educated
in th e school which he or she would a t t e n d i f not handicapped;
and
(d) In s e l e c t i n g the l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e environment, c o n s id ­
e r a t i o n i s given t o any p o t e n t i a l harmful e f f e c t on the c h i l d or
on th e q u a l i t y o f s e r v i c e s which he o r she needs ( Federal R e g i s t e r ,
August 23, 1977, p. 42497).
In Michigan, t h e concept o f " l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e environment"
has been r e f l e c t e d in the r e g u l a t i o n s f o r P ublic Act 198 o f 1971.
The l a s t sente nce o f Rule 33(a) s t a t e s :

"Each handicapped person

s h a l l be a s s ig n e d to ed u c a tio n a l programs and s e r v i c e s which ar e
housed in b u i l d i n g s which allow t h a t handicapped person t o p a r t i c i ­
p ate f u l l y in r e g u l a r and s p e c i a l e d u catio n s e r v i c e s " (Michigan
S pecial Education Code, 1976).
Rule 132, which pr ovide s d i r e c t i o n f o r development of an
i n t e r m e d i a t e school d i s t r i c t plan f o r th e d e l i v e r y o f s p e c i a l educa­
t i o n programs and s e r v i c e s , s t a t e s , under S ection 2 . 5 , School-Community
I n t e g r a t i o n o f t h e Handicapped, "Describe th e pro ce du res to be used to
a s s u r e th e i n t e g r a t i o n of each handicapped person i n t o h is school com­
munity" (Michigan Special Education Code, 1976).
While M ic h ig a n 's r e g u l a t i o n s i n c o r p o r a t e d th e concept of
" l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e environment," t h e p r o v i s i o n s f o r t h i s concept were
not as s p e c i f i c as th e f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s .

Michigan had e a r l i e r

i d e n t i f i e d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f s p e c i a l e d u catio n classrooms being

4
l o c a t e d in p u b l i c school f a c i l i t i e s .

However, th e f e d e r a l mandate,

because o f a d d i t i o n a l s p e c i f i c i t y , has caused e d u c a to r s in t h i s s t a t e
t o make programming and placement changes.

The many changes a s s o ­

c i a t e d with t h i s concept ar e of concern t o Michigan ed u cato r s as well
as e d ucators thro ugho ut th e n a t i o n .
This new focus o f educa ting t h e handicapped c h i l d with h i s / h e r
nonhandicapped pe er s has given r i s e t o a new term or concept in edu­
c a t i o n c a l l e d "m ainst ream in g."

Many i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and d e f i n i t i o n s

have been employed by v ar io u s p r o f e s s i o n a l s .

Kenneth Kavalle (1979)

provided an e x c e l l e n t review o f t h e s e d e f i n i t i o n s .

He suggested

t h a t t h e r e a r e two primary c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s under which the d e f i n i ­
t i o n s of mainstreaming f a l l .

Some per sons i n t e r p r e t mainstreaming

t o mean t h a t a l l handicapped c h i l d r e n must be placed in the r e g u l a r
classroom.

The focus or purpose o f mainstream ing, under t h i s i n t e r ­

p r e t a t i o n , would, through placement o f a l l handicapped s tu d e n t s w it h in
the r e g u l a r school and r e g u l a r c l a s s s e t t i n g , be t o delabel o r des eg ­
r e g a t e th e handicapped c h i l d .

This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would su ggest

t h a t placement back in t h e r e g u l a r classroom would be th e goal w i t h ­
o ut t h e u t i l i z a t i o n o f a "continuum o f a l t e r n a t i v e plac em en ts," f o r
the de ci sion-making p r o c e ss .
The second group o f d e f i n i t i o n s which Kavalle i d e n t i f i e d not
only includes a range o f a l t e r n a t i v e placements but a l s o focuses on
general e d u catio n and s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n working t o g e t h e r t o provide
c a r e f u l l y planned and c a r e f u l l y implemented i n d i v i d u a l i z e d ed u c a ti o n a l
programming f o r the handicapped c h i l d .

D e f i n i t i o n s under th e second

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s uggest t h a t th e burden f o r a d a p t a t i o n has s h i f t e d

5
from t h e c h i l d to th e system.

Kavalle has summarized th e problems

encountered in d e f i n i n i n g , i n t e r p r e t i n g , and implementing mainstream­
ing by s u g g e stin g t h a t
Mainstreaming r e p r e s e n t s an idea r a t h e r than a p r e c i s e l y
d e l i n e a t e d e n t i t y . I t r e p r e s e n t s a concept which i s and w i ll
br in g per v asiv e changes t o s p e c i a l e d u c a tio n . Mainstreaming
appe ar s t o be a major i n t e r i m s te p towards a new r o l e and
d e f i n i t i o n f o r s p e c ia l ed u c a t io n .
M eisg ie r (1976) in h i s "Review o f C r i t i c a l Is s u e s Underlying
Mainstreaming" agreed t h a t t h e r e must be changes in philosophy and
management o f th e handicapped c h i l d which in t u r n not only causes
change in s p e c i a l ed ucation d e l i v e r y systems, but a l s o in the r e g u l a r
e d u cati o n system.

He suggested t h a t i n s t e a d of removing t h e c h i l d ,

th e system must adapt i t s programs t o meet the needs o f th e c h i l d as
well as develop a management system which w ill al low s p e c i a l educa­
t i o n s u p p o rt systems and th e r e g u l a r e d u cati o n al environment t o
i n t e r a c t to e s t a b l i s h s u c c e ss fu l mainstreaming f o r th e handicapped
child.
I f we equ ate mainstreaming with " l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e e n v i r o n ­
ment" as i d e n t i f i e d in th e law, th e concept must in c l u d e r e c o g n i ­
t i o n t h a t the "continuum o f a l t e r n a t i v e placements" must be a v a i l a b l e
f o r d e c i s io n making in th e placement o f each handicapped c h i l d .
T y p i c a l l y , however, t h e concept o f mainstreaming i s u s u a l l y l i m i t e d
to tho se a l t e r n a t i v e placements on t h e continuum which i n c l u d e some
p o r t i o n o f th e c h i l d ' s day being as si gned t o th e r e g u l a r classroom.

6
Statem ent o f Problem
With th e passage o f P ublic Law 94-142, th e requirement f o r
implementation o f "mainstreaming" handicapped c h i l d r e n has come
about almost immediately.

L i t t l e time has been s pent s tu d y in g th e

i s s u e s surrounding mainstreaming o r in p r e p a rin g e i t h e r s p e c i a l
e d u c a to r s or classroom t e a c h e r s f o r t h e n e c e s s a r y r o l e changes.

Many

handicapped c h i l d r e n a r e being placed in th e r e g u l a r e d u c a t io n program
f o r a t l e a s t a p o r t i o n o f t h e i r school day, in c o n t r a s t to the former
predominant placement in a s e l f - c o n t a i n e d s p e c i a l e d u catio n program.
Classroom t e a c h e r s a r e expected t o deal with th e s e c h i l d r e n who, many
t i m e s , o f f e r a much wider range of s o c i a l a n d / o r c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s
than the r e g u l a r e d u cati o n t e a c h e r has exper ien ce d in th e p a s t .
Special education personnel and classr oom t e a c h e r s must work t o g e t h e r
to c r e a t e a p p r o p r i a t e a d a p t a t i o n s in programs t o accommodate the
handicapped c h i l d r a t h e r than r e q u i r i n g t h e c h i l d to "adapt t o an
i n f l e x i b l e school program designed f o r a h y p o t h e t i c a l
c h i l d " 1 (M eisgier, 1976).

'a v erag e

S pecial e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s a r e expected

to provide c o n s u l t a n t s u p p o rt t o classroom t e a c h e r s in a d d i t i o n t o or
i n s t e a d o f working with handicapped c h i l d r e n .
A t t i t u d e plays an im port ant r o l e in t h e s u c c e s s fu l implemen­
t a t i o n o f any change.

More i n fo r m a ti o n i s n eces sar y r e g a r d in g f a c t o r s

which in f lu e n c e a t t i t u d e s toward mainstreaming (Corman & G o t t l i e b ,
1978).

Information i s a l s o needed r e g a r d in g problems a s s o c i a t e d with

mainstreaming as well as s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e a n d /o r needed r e l a t e d to
mainstreaming.

Once we have more i n fo r m a t io n r e l a t e d t o t h e im ple­

m entation of mainstream ing, we should be b e t t e r a ble t o p r e p a re

7
s p e c i a l e d u c a to r s and classroom t e a c h e r s to meet th e problems a s s o ­
c i a t e d with mainstreaming.

In a d d i t i o n , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f f a c t o r s

which appear t o i n t e r f e r e with or c o n t r i b u t e t o s u c c e s s f u l mainstreaming and a f f e c t t e a c h e r a t t i t u d e should a s s i s t us in p ro vid ing
a b e t t e r e d u c a t io n a l environment f o r handicapped c h i l d r e n .
Statement o f Purpose
The major purpose o f t h i s s tu dy was t o g a t h e r in fo rm ati on
r eg ar di ng th e implementation o f mainstreaming.

The study focused on

four major a r e a s o f concern:
1.

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f problems which a r i s e f o r t e a c h e r s and

t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s when a handicapped c h i l d ' s e d u c a ti o n a l program
c o n t a in s placement in a r e g u l a r classroom f o r any p o r t i o n o f the
school day.
2.

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f s p e c i a l e d u c a t io n s u p p o rt s e r v i c e s ,

a c tu a l and needed, intended to a s s i s t in a l l e v i a t i n g th e problems.
3.

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c e r t a i n f a c t o r s which c o n t r i b u t e t o

s u c c e s s f u l o r un success fu l mainstream placements.
4.

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f f a c t o r s which a f f e c t a t t i t u d e of

t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s toward mainstreaming.
For each o f th e f o u r major a r e a s o f concern i d e n t i f i e d above,
s p e c i f i c q u e s ti o n s were examined in t h i s study.
1.

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Problems

A. What a r e t h e problems classroom t e a c h e r s a s s o c i a t e with
placement o f a handicapped c h i l d in t h e i r classroom?
B. What a r e th e problems t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s p e r c e i v e t o be
o f concern t o classroom t e a c h e r s who have a handicapped c h i l d in
t h e i r classroom?

8

C. Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s between th e frequency with which
c e r t a i n ty pe s of problems, i . e . , academic l e a r n i n g , b e h a v i o r , e t c . ,
a r e i d e n t i f i e d by classroom t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s ?
D. What a r e th e problems t h a t t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s a s s o c i a t e
w ith pr ov id ing s e r v i c e s t o handicapped c h i l d r e n in mainstreamed e n v i ­
ronments?
2.

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f Special Education Support Serv ic es

A. What s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s designed to a s s i s t in solv ing
problems do classroom t e a c h e r s r e p o r t as being provided?
B.
services?

To what e x t e n t a r e classroom t e a c h e r s s a t i s f i e d with the

C. What a r e th e reasons t e a c h e r s i d e n t i f y , which cause d i s ­
s a t i s f a c t i o n with s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s ?
D. What s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s do t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s r e p o r t
th ey pro vide to a s s i s t in s o lv in g problems?
3.

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of C e r ta i n F acto r s Which C o n tr ib u te t o Su cc es s­
ful or Unsuccessful Mainstream Placements

A.
Are d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e p e r c e n t of time s pent by the han­
dicapped s tu d e n t in th e r e g u l a r classroom a s s o c i a t e d with th e p e r ­
ceived judgments o f success o f such placement?
B. Are d i f f e r e n c e s in c e r t a i n types o f problems, i . e . ,
academic l e a r n i n g , b e h a v io r , e t c . , in th e r e g u l a r classroom a s s o c i a t e d
w ith t h e p erceiv ed judgments o f suc ce ss o f placement?
C. Are d i f f e r e n c e s in c e r t a i n types o f s u p p o r ti v e s e r v i c e s ,
c u r r e n t l y being provided f o r mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n in
t h e r e g u l a r classroom a s s o c i a t e d with th e perceived judgments o f s u c ­
ce s s o f placement?
D. Are d i f f e r e n c e s in c e r t a i n types o f s u p p o r ti v e s e r v i c e s ,
i d e n t i f i e d as needed f o r mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n in the
r e g u l a r classroom a s s o c i a t e d with th e perc eived judgments o f success
o f placement?
E. Are d i f f e r e n c e s in c e r t a i n types o f handicaps a s s o c i a t e d
with the per ce iv ed judgments o f success of placement?
F. Are d i f f e r e n c e s in c e r t a i n types o f problems, s u p p o rti v e
s e r v i c e s , c u r r e n t l y being p r o v id e d , and s u p p o rt iv e s e r v i c e s , i d e n t i ­
f i e d as needed f o r mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n in th e r e g u l a r
classr oom a s s o c i a t e d with c e r t a i n types o f handicaps?

9
4.

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of F actors Which A f f e c t A t t i t u d e

A. To what degree do t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s who
have exp er ienc ed mainstreaming suppo rt t h i s concept?
B. Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s between a t t i t u d e s o f classroom
t e a c h e r s toward mainstreaming and a t t i t u d e s o f t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s
toward mainstreaming?
C. What ar e th e f a c t o r s , e xpress ed by t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r
c o n s u l t a n t s , which a f f e c t t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward mainstreaming?
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms
Mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d —This term i s used t o d e s c r i b e
a c h i l d who has (1) been determined e l i g i b l e f o r s p e c i a l educa­
t i o n s e r v i c e s through an o f f i c i a l e d u c a ti o n a l plan n in g and placement
committee meeting, (2) been placed f o r a l l or any p a r t o f t h e school
day in a r e g u l a r classroom , and (3) had s p e c i a l e d u c a tio n s u p p o r t i v e
s e r v i c e s a v a i l a b l e to him/her.
Most s u c c e s s f u l placem ent--Placement o f a handicapped c h i l d
in a r e g u l a r classroom which t e a c h e r s i d e n t i f i e d a ccording t o th e
follo wing d e s c r i p t i v e c r i t e r i a :

"Problems were s o lv e d , s e r v i c e s

may or may n o t have been provid e d, t h e c h i l d ' s a d j u s t m e n t in th e room
was s a t i s f a c t o r y .

You f e l t s a t i s f i e d with th e placem ent."

Least s u c c e s s f u l placement—Placement o f a handicapped c h i l d
in a r e g u l a r classroom which t e a c h e r s i d e n t i f i e d ac c o r d in g t o th e
fo llow ing d e s c r i p t i v e c r i t e r i a :

"Problems were more d i f f i c u l t t o

s o l v e , s e r v i c e s may or may not have been a v a i l a b l e , t h e c h i l d ' s
ad just m en t in t h e room was not as s a t i s f a c t o r y as you wished.
did not f e e l s a t i s f i e d with the place m en t."

You

10

Special educa tion s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s —This term i s used to
d e s c r i b e a s s i s t a n c e r eceiv ed from s p e c i a l ed uc ation p e r s o n n e l .

The

a s s i s t a n c e o r s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e might be d i r e c t work with th e c h i l d
or i n d i r e c t help t o the c h i l d through c o n s u l t a t i o n with a d u l t s such
as th e classroom t e a c h e r , p a r e n t s , e t c .
T e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t —The S t a t e o f Michigan makes th e f ollow ing
require m en ts f o r a person t o r e c e i v e f u l l approval as a t e a c h e r consultant:
a.

Full approval as a t e a c h e r in one or more a r e a s o f s p e c i a l

e d u c a ti o n ;
b.

A minimum o f t h r e e y e a r s o f s a t i s f a c t o r y t e a c h i n g e x p e r i ­

en ce , in c l u d i n g one y e a r o f e x p e r ie n c e t e a c h in g handicapped p u p i l s
(Michigan Spec ial Education Code as Amended, 1977).
Nine o f th e twelve s p e c i a l ed uca tion persons who p a r t i c i p a t e d
in t h i s study met t h e s e r e q u ir e m e n ts .

Two persons had only one y e a r

o f e x p e r ie n c e and f u l l approval in a t l e a s t one a r e a o f s p e c i a l edu­
cation.

One person had s e v e r a l y e a r s o f t e a c h in g e x p er ien ce in

general e d u c a tio n but was p rovid ing s p e c i a l ed uca ti on s e r v i c e s under
a temporary approval program.
All twelve of t h e s e pe rso ns were expected to perform th e same
j o b r e q uire m en ts r e l a t e d t o mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n in the
schools where th e study took p l a c e ; th us the r es po nses o f a l l twelve
ar e incl uded in th e r e s u l t s o f t h i s s tu d y .

11
Limitations

This s tu dy has c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s .
1.

The study i s l i m i t e d t o t e a c h e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of "most

s u c c e s s f u l " and " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " placements.

No a tte m p t was made

to o b j e c t i f y th e p e r c e p t i o n s o r t o v a l i d a t e them by o t h e r c r i t e r i a .
2.

The study i s l i m i t e d t o a small r u r a l ar ea encompassing

one i n t e r m e d i a t e school d i s t r i c t o f 7,431 c h i l d r e n in s o u t h - c e n t r a l
Michigan.
3.

Because o f th e s i z e o f the d i s t r i c t in which t h e study

was done, only s e v e n t y - f i v e t e a c h e r s and twelve t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s
were a v a i l a b l e t o p a r t i c i p a t e in th e survey.

However, 96 p e r c e n t o f

the t e a c h e r s and 100 p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s c o n t a c t e d ,
responded to t h e survey.
4.

The study is l i m i t e d t o elem en tary t e a c h e r s and does not

include t e a c h e r s s e r v i n g grades seven and above.
5.

Classroom t e a c h e r respons es a r e based on c e r t a i n c h i l d r e n

whom th ey were asked t o i d e n t i f y .

T e a c h e r - c o n s u l ta n t r esp onses were

based on e x p e r ie n c e s with t h e i r t o t a l ca s e l o a d o f c h i l d r e n r a t h e r
than on th e s p e c i f i c c h i l d r e n th e classroom t e a c h e r s had i d e n t i f i e d .
6.

The numbers o f t e a c h e r s r e p o r t e d in th e s tudy ( sev en ty -

one) i s very d i f f e r e n t than t h e number of t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s ( tw e lv e ) ;
thus comparisons can only be made with a g r e a t deal o f c a u t i o n .
7.

The use o f open-ended, u n s t r u c t u r e d r es pon ses in t h i s

s tu dy causes two major l i m i t a t i o n s .

The resp o n s es a r e pro bably

r e s t r i c t e d in number because they were s e l f - g e n e r a t e d .

Given a long

12

l i s t o f v a r i a b l e s from which to choose, o t h e r in fo rm ation may have
been gained .
A d d i t i o n a l l y , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o c a t e g o r i z e or i n t e r p r e t
open-ended r e s p o n s e s .

Because re sponse s may be i n t e r p r e t e d d i f f e r e n t l y

by p e r s o n s , depending upon t h e i r e x perie nces and e d u c a t i o n , mutual
e x c l u s i v e n e s s was probably not f u l l y achieved.

A detailed descrip­

t i o n i s provided in Chapter I I I o f procedures used in th e c a t e g o r i z ­
ing and coding system to reduce t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s .

However, the

r e a d e r should be aware t h a t t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s do e x i s t .
Overview o f t h e Study
Chapter II o f t h i s study prov ides a review o f l i t e r a t u r e
r e l a t e d to th e a r e a s o f concern of t h i s s tu d y .

Chapter I I I d e s c r i b e s

th e procedures and methodology used in t h i s study and inclu des a
d e s c r i p t i o n o f Branch In te rm e d ia te School D i s t r i c t , where th e stu d y
was conducted, d e s c r i p t i o n o f th e p o p u l a t i o n , t h e design and develop­
ment o f t h e measurement i n s t r u m e n t s , th e p i l o t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the
measurement i n s t r u m e n t s , th e procedures used in o b t a i n i n g t h e d a t a ,
and t h e method used to an alyze th e d a t a .

Chapter IV d e s c r i b e s the

r e s u l t s o f th e a n a l y s i s o f th e d ata and a d i s c u s s i o n o f th e se
r e s u l t s in r e l a t i o n to the q u e s tio n s examined f o r t h i s s tud y.

A sum­

mary and recommendations as a r e s u l t o f t h i s study a r e includ ed in
Chapter V.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This c h a p t e r in c lu d e s a review o f r e c e n t l i t e r a t u r e p e r t a i n ­
ing to mainstreaming.

The i n t r o d u c t i o n d i s c u s s e s th e reasons why

Public Law 94-142 emphasizes ed uca ting the handicapped c h i l d in the
"least re stric tiv e altern ativ e."

This change in phil oso phy, as d i s ­

cussed in Chapter I , has given r i s e t o t h e concept of mainstreaming.
The remainder o f th e c h a p t e r focuses on t h e r e c e n t r e s e a r c h r e l a t e d
■v-

t o t h e f o u r major a r e a s o f concern o f t h i s study.
I n tr o d u c t i o n
Reynolds and Birch (1977) i d e n t i f y two major s o c i a l f o r c e s or
t r e n d s o f th e 1970s which helped to cause t h e changes e d u c a to r s a r e
c u r r e n t l y d e a li n g with in pro vid in g s e r v i c e s to handicapped c h i l d r e n .
They c i t e a g g r e s s i v e p a r e n t groups who were concerned t h a t t h e i r c h i l ­
dren were being excluded from school or improperly placed f o r r e c e i v ­
ing s p e c i a l education s e r v i c e s .
M inority groups were a l s o concerned because c h i l d r e n from
t h e s e groups appeared t o be improperly placed in s p e c ia l ed uc atio n
programs.

Kavale (1979) c i t e s s e v e ra l s t u d i e s which i d e n t i f i e d the

high percenta ge of m in o r i t y c h i l d r e n e n r o l l e d in s p e c ia l c l a s s e s com­
pared t o th e p er cen tag e o f c h i l d r e n o f t h e same m i n o r i t y gr oup (s )
e n r o l l e d in t h e general school programs.

13

The concern o f both p a r e n t s and m in o r i t y groups with in ap p r o p ­
r i a t e placement was i n t e n s i f i e d as s t u d i e s evolved dem onstratin g the
n e g a tiv e a f f e c t s o f l a b e l i n g and s e g r e g a t i o n .

Rosenthal and Jacobson

(1968) i s perhaps t h e most well known and widely quoted study r e l a t e d
to th is issue.

This study i d e n t i f i e d t h e importance o f t e a c h e r a t t i ­

tude toward c h i l d r e n and th e n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s o f low e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r
c e r t a i n c l a s s e s of s t u d e n t s .

Jones (1972) did a thorough review o f

the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to "Labels and Stigma in Special E duc atio n."
The r e s u l t s o f t h i s review suggested t h a t l a b e l s do have n e g a t i v e
c onnotati on s which in clude stigmas a t t a c h e d t o c e r t a i n l a b e l s as well
as lowered t e a c h e r e x p e c t a t i o n s reg ard in g them, i n c lu d in g th o s e l a b e l s
a s s o c i a t e d with d i f f e r e n t types o f handica ps .

A d d i t i o n a l l y , th e

p r o b a b i l i t y o f adver se l a b e l i n g and n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e s i n c r e a s e s when
separate id e n tifia b le in stru c tio n a l units are esta b lish ed .
P ar en ts and p r o f e s s i o n a l s a l s o began t o q u e s tio n th e n e g a t i v e
e f f e c t s of s e g r e g a t i o n m an ife st in s e l f - c o n t a i n e d a n d / o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l
programs in which c h i l d r e n were placed.

E f f i c a c y s t u d i e s were under­

taken to determine whether academic i n s t r u c t i o n and s o c i a l development
a c t i v i t i e s were more e f f e c t i v e in s e l f - c o n t a i n e d s p e c i a l e d u catio n
c l a s s e s or in the r e g u l a r classroom.

Kavale (1979) and Meyers,

MacMillan and Yoshida (1979), in reviews o f e f f i c a c y s t u d i e s , p o i n t
o ut t h a t b e n e f i t s of s p e c i a l c l a s s e s as compared t o r e g u l a r c l a s s e s
are a t b e s t q u e s ti o n a b l e with r e s p e c t t o academic achievement and
i n c o n c lu s iv e with r e g a rd t o s o c ia l a d justm ent.
P ar en tal concern over l a b e l i n g and i s o l a t i o n of th e handicapped
c h i l d from h i s / h e r normal pe er s has a l s o le d t o l i t i g a t i o n .

Hobsen v.

15
Hansen (1967), an e a r l y cas e which determined t h a t th e " t r a c k in g " s y s ­
tems o f ed u c a tio n a l placement in Washington, D.C., were i l l e g a l , was
the beginning o f formal s te p s to reduce l a b e l i n g .

Spangler v. Board

o f Education (1970) in C a l i f o r n i a i d e n t i f i e d t h a t " i n t e r c l a s s grouping"
based on i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s was u n f a i r .

The d e c i s i o n s in both cases

were an a tt e m p t t o stop t h e n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s o f t r a c k i n g and a b i l i t y
grouping, p a r t i c u l a r l y where improper t e s t i n g and placement procedures
negated t h e assumed d i f f e r e n c e s which led t o such p r a c t i c e .
Two landmark c o u r t ca s es r e l a t e d t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of
i n d iv id u a l assessment r e s u l t s f o r m i n o r it y s t u d e n t s .

In Diana v.

S t a t e Board o f Education (1970), t e s t s were a d m in is te r e d in English to
s t u d e n t s who had minimal s k i l l s in English because English was t h e i r
second language.

In th e Larry P . v . Riles cas e (1972), th e items in th e

t e s t s were more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f th e c u l t u r e o f m i d d l e - c l a s s Americans;
hence, s tu d e n t s who have not been exposed t o t h i s language and c u l t u r e
would not be expected to perform as well as o t h e r s with such exposure.
In both ca s es t h e jud ge r u le d t h a t th e s t u d e n t s had been improperly
c l a s s i f i e d as r e t a r d e d .
The r e g u l a t i o n s o f Pu blic Law 94-142 a t t e m p t to reduce th e
problems o f s e g r e g a t i o n and l a b e l i n g and t h e problems o f i n a p p r o p r i a t e
assessment through th e re quir em ents f o r the (1) l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e e n v i ­
ronment, (2) require m ents f o r e v a l u a t i o n in th e n a t i v e language, and
(3) requ ire men t o f demonstrated v a l i d i t y o f th e assessm en t i n s t r u ­
ments.

The t o p i c o f p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t in t h i s s tudy r e l a t e s to th e

p r i n c i p l e o f l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e environment.

Houck and Sherman (1979)

sum up th e r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s p r i n c i p l e as f o ll o w s :

16

The und er lying r a t i o n a l e f o r mainstreaming i s l a u d a b l e .
There i s a need f o r deemphasis on i s o l a t i o n and l a b e l i n g ;
i n c r e a s e d p r o t e c t i o n o f human r i g h t s ; i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n in
a l l phases o f e d u c a tio n ; i n c r e a s e d a t t e n t i o n t o th e develop­
ment o f t h e t o t a l c h i l d i n c lu d in g h i s s o c i a l and emotional
w ell-being. . . .
Changes have been implemented as a r e s u l t o f t h e c u r r e n t man­
d a t e t o mainstream handicapped c h i l d r e n .

Many e d u c a to r s a r e concerned

about whether o r not mainstreaming i s being implemented in an approp­
r i a t e manner.

More r e s e a r c h i s n eces sar y t o pro vid e us with a d e s c r i p ­

t i o n of e f f e c t i v e programming f o r handicapped c h i l d r e n with nonhandi­
capped c h i l d r e n .

The remainder of t h i s c h a p t e r focuses on r e s e a r c h

r e l a t i n g t o (1) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f problems r e l a t e d t o ma instrea m ing,
(2) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f s p e c i a l e d u catio n s u p p o rt s e r v i c e s f o r main­
streamed s t u d e n t s , (3) f a c t o r s which c o n t r i b u t e to s u c c e s s f u l o r unsuc­
c e s s f u l mainstream placements, and (4) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f f a c t o r s which
a f f e c t a t t i t u d e toward mainstreaming.
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Problems Related
t o Mainstreaming
When implementing a new proc es s such as mainstrea min g, one
should a tt e m p t t o avoid problems or p i t f a l l s which would cause th e
procedure t o be l e s s than s u c c e s s f u l .

However, one of t h e concerns

r e g a rd in g mainstreaming i s t h a t l i t t l e planning o r r e s e a r c h has been
done to avoid problems as demonstrated by th e absence o f s t u d i e s in
th e l i t e r a t u r e .

MacMillan, J o n e s , and Meyers (1976) p o i n t o u t t h a t

d e s p i t e time given t o t h e concept and implementation in p e r i o d i c a l s
and co n f eren c es t h e r e e x i s t many c onfu si ons and u n c e r t a i n t i e s r e g a rd i n g
even an agreement on a d e f i n i t i o n f o r mainstreaming.

17

Two s t u d i e s have been l o c a t e d which r e l a t e t o i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
o f problems.

Zawadzki (1973) asked 118 r e g u l a r classroom t e a c h e r s

from a l l grade l e v e l s to i d e n t i f y what they co ns ide re d " d e t e r r e n t s to
te a c h i n g th e educ ab le m e n ta ll y r e t a r d e d c h i l d in r e g u l a r c l a s s e s . "
The r esp onses were c l a s s i f i e d under f i f t e e n c a t e g o r i e s .

The c a t e ­

g o r i e s a r e l i s t e d below; number 1 i n c l u d e s t h e h i g h e s t number of
resp o n s es (210), w h il e c ateg o r y 15 c o n ta i n s th e l e a s t number of
re sp onses (15).

The p er cen tag e o f t e a c h e r s who o f f e r e d responses and

th e t o t a l number o f respon ses a r e shown f o r each ca te g o r y .
1.

I n a p p r o p r i a t e classroom behavior o f th e educable m en tally
r e t a r d e d c h i l d in th e r e g u l a r classroom (82%--210 r espons es)

2.

Concerns ab ou t t h e cu rri culu m (what i s t a u g h t ) (57%--102
r e sp o n s e s)

3.

Negative beh av ior o f r e g u l a r classroom p u p il s toward an
educable m e n ta ll y r e t a r d e d c h i l d in r e g u l a r c l a s s (58%-81 r espons es)

4.

Problems o f o r g a n iz a i n g f o r i n s t r u c t i o n (45%--73 r espons es)

5.

Lack o f p r e p a r a t i o n a n d /o r ex per ie nce o f the t e a c h e r (43%—
62 re sp o n s e s)

6.

Emotional problems o f t h e educable m en ta lly r e t a r d e d
c h i l d (37%— 58 r espons es)

7.

Negative a t t i t u d e s o f a d u l t s toward an educable m entall y
r e t a r d e d c h i l d in r e g u l a r c l a s s e s (31%—47 resp o nses)

8.

Lack o f s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s (23%--36 r espons es)

9.

Problems of ph ys ica l d e f e c t s (16%—23 r espons es)

10.

Concerns about s a f e t y (6%—14 r espons es)

11.

Inadequate assessm en t o f achievement (8%—11 r espons es)

12.

Special h e a l t h f a c t o r problems (7%—9 re sp o n s e s)

13.

U n f air grading p o l i c y o f th e school (6%—7 re sp o n s e s)

18
14.

Family problems o f th e educable m e n ta lly r e t a r d e d (3%—
6 resp onses)

15.

Concerns about t e a c h e r l i a b i l i t y ( 3%—3 r e s p o n s e s )

A s m a l l e r number o f t e a c h e r s (43) were asked by Markell (1976),
"What problems have you encountered with a m ild ly r e t a r d e d s t u d e n t in
your r e g u l a r c l a s s ? "

The fo llo wing respons es were given:

1.

"Learning d i f f i c u l t i e s , slow l e a r n e r c o u l d n ' t r e a d , poor
in math" (15 re sp on ses )

2.

" D i s c i p l i n e o r be havior problems" (12 r e s p o n s e s )

3.

" D i f f i c u l t y l o c a t i n g a p p r o p r i a t e m a t e r i a l s or i n d i v i d u a l ­
iz i n g (8 r espons es)

4.

"No problems f i t t i n g i n t o the r e g u l a r c l a s s s o c i a l l y
(5 resp onses)

5.

"Took too much time f o r i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n , s p e c i a l a s s i g n ­
ments needed" (4 re sp onses)

6.

" S i g h t , h e a r i n g , o r speech problem" (4 re sp o n s e s)

7.

"Had t r o u b l e f i t t i n g in to r e g u l a r classr oom s i t u a t i o n
s o c i a l l y " (3 re sp onses)

8.

"Older, more mature p h y s ic a ll y " (2 r esp ons es)

9.

"Student not i n t e r e s t e d " (1 response)

10.

"Special s t u d e n t s t e s t e d too much" (1 resp onse)

11.

"A wide v a r i e t y " (1 response)

I f one t a k e s some l i b e r t i e s in i n t e r p r e t i n g th e c a te g o r y
d e s c r i p t i o n s , both groups o f t e a c h e r s appear t o s hare concerns about
th e following problems:
1.

Behavior problems, i . e . , i n a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v io r ;

2.

Organizing f o r i n s t r u c t i o n , i . e . , i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n ,
s p e c i a l as sig n m en ts, and so f o r t h ;

3.

Concerns about th e c u r ri culum , in c l u d in g s e l e c t i n g and
l o c a t i n g m a t e r i a l s or i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g i n s t r u c t i o n .

19
I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t th e h i g h e s t number o f t e a c h e r s
were concerned about d i f f i c u l t i e s in l e a r n i n g and achievement in
M a r k e l l ' s study.

Zawadzki asked f o r d e t e r r e n t s r a t h e r than problems

and did not i d e n t i f y d i f f i c u l t i e s in l e a r n i n g as a s e p a r a t e f a c t o r in
h i s study.

However, when one s t u d i e s the s u b c a t e g o r i e s f o r " in appro p ­

r i a t e classroom b e h a v i o r , " one f i n d s t w e n t y - s i x respons es i n d i c a t i n g
" i n a b i l i t y to a t t a i n b a s i c s k i l l s " and n i n e te e n respons es which i d e n ­
t i f y "slow academic p r o g re s s" as d e t e r r e n t s to te aching EMI c h i l d r e n
in r e g u l a r c l a s s e s .
Special Education Support Ser vic es
As we gain a p i c t u r e o f th e problems a s s o c i a t e d with mains tr e a m in g , we need a l s o t o look a t what s upport s e r v i c e s a r e c u r r e n t l y
a v a i l a b l e to a n d /o r needed by classroom t e a c h e r s .

The American Federa­

t i o n o f Teachers and th e National Education A s s o c ia tio n have both
developed p o l i c y r e s o l u t i o n s in s u p p o rt o f mainstreaming with th e s t i p u ­
l a t i o n t h a t n e c e s s a r y s u p p o rt s e r v i c e s be a v a i l a b l e f o r mainstreamed,
handicapped c h i l d r e n .

Appropri at e i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s , m o d i f i c a ­

t i o n s in c l a s s s i z e , s c h e d u l i n g , and cu rri culum design ar e types of
s u p p o r ti v e a s s i s t a n c e i d e n t i f i e d in p o l i c y s ta te m e n ts o f t h e s e p r o f e s ­
s io n a l t e a c h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s (AFT, 1975 Convention R e s o lu tio n s ;
R e s o l u t i o n s , New Business and Other A c t i o n s , 1975).

Support s e r v i c e s

f o r handicapped c h i l d r e n a r e a u t h o r iz e d and r e q u i r e d by law.
S tu d ie s were not l o c a t e d r e l a t i v e t o what suppo rt s e r v i c e s
a r e c u r r e n t l y being prov ided.

There i s , however, one study which

a t te m p ts t o i d e n t i f y needed suppo rt s e r v i c e s .

Zawadzki (1973) r e p o r t e d

20
t e a c h e r s ' s u g g e s ti o n s f o r s o l u t i o n s to d e t e r r e n t s in " t eaching the
educable m e n ta lly r e t a r d e d c h i l d in r e g u l a r c l a s s e s . "

The s o l u t i o n s

he r e p o r t e d were s p e c i f i c t o th e d e t e r r e n t s which th e t e a c h e r s had
identified.

The most commonly sug gested s o l u t i o n s incl uded :

1.

Individualizing in stru c tio n ;

2.

Teacher a i d e s ;

3.

P r e s e r v i c e and i n s e r v i c e educ atio n ( c o l l e g e cou rse s or
group i n s t r u c t i o n ) ;

4.

P r ovis io n o f a p p r o p r i a t e m a t e r i a l ;

5.

Ad ditional r e s o u r c e personnel ( s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n ) ;

6.

Proper f a c i l i t i e s f o r i n s t r u c t i o n , i . e . , showers in b a t h ­
rooms, s a f e t y d e v i c e s , e t c .

While t h i s s tudy i d e n t i f y i n g needs in c lu d e s mention o f " a d d i ­
t i o n a l r e s o u r c e personne l" and " p r o v is io n o f a p p r o p r i a t e m a t e r i a l , "
the s upport s e r v i c e s which t e a c h e r s i d e n t i f y as needs a r e n ot l i m i t e d
to s upp ort s e r v i c e s provided only by s p e c i a l e ducation p e r so n n e l.
S pecial e ducation personnel pr ovid ing s upport s e r v i c e s have
voiced many concerns about t h e i r new r o l e in th e implementation o f
mainstreaming.

No formal s t u d i e s were l o c a t e d which a tt e m p t to id e n ­

t i f y s p e c i f i c problems r e l a t i v e to s upport s e r v i c e s .

However, f i f t y -

f i v e t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s i n f o r m a l l y i d e n t i f i e d problems o f concern in
providing c o n s u l t a n t s u p p o rt f o r mainstreamed c h i l d r e n durin g an i n s t i ­
t u t e conducted by th e Michigan Department o f Education.

The t h r e e

problems i d e n t i f i e d most o f te n were " d e f in i n g a r o l e , " "communication,"
and "working with gen er al e d u catio n s t a f f . "

With th e change in focus

f o r th e s p e c ia l ed u c a to r from working with c h i l d r e n as a t e a c h e r to
working with o t h e r t e a c h e r s as a c o n s u l t a n t , i t would appear t h a t much

21
more in fo rm ati o n i s needed t o a s s i s t in t h e implementation o f a suc­
c e s s f u l new r o l e (Teacher Cons ultant Change Agent, 1976).
F a c to r s A f f e c tin g Successful or Unsuccessful
Mainstream Placements
I t i s important in d e s c r i b i n g th e concept o f mainstreaming t h a t
an a t te m p t be made to d i f f e r e n t i a t e f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t e d with " s u c c e s s ­
f u l " and " u n s u c c e s s f u l " placements.

I f problems with e i t h e r type o f

s i t u a t i o n can be i d e n t i f i e d , i t may then be p o s s i b l e t o reduce,
r e s o l v e , o r e l i m i n a t e them, thereby improving an u ns uccess fu l placement
o r making an a l r e a d y s u c c e s s f u l placement even b e t t e r .
An a b s t r a c t * o f one study (Himes, 1976; r e p o r t e d in D i s s e r t a ­
t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 1976) was lo c a t e d r e l a t e d to " s u c c e s s f u l " mainstreaming.
This study focused on " s u c c e s s f u l " mainstreaming by as king 100 t e a c h e r s
to i d e n t i f y in w r i t i n g ten v a r i a b l e s they b e l i e v e d t o be n eces sar y f o r
s u c c e s s f u l i n t e g r a t i o n o f handicapped c h i l d r e n w it h i n t h e r e g u l a r c l a s s ­
room.

Responses were grouped i n t o v a r io u s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s .

The ten

most f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r r in g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d below in p r i ­
ority

order,

with Category 1 c o n t a in i n g th e most r es pon ses and

Category 10 th e fe w est r espons es.
1.

Presence of t e a c h e r a i d e s

2.

Lower c l a s s s i z e

3.

P r e s c r i p t i o n programs

4.

A v a i l a b i l i t y of r eso u r ce t e a c h e r s

5.

I n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s and equipment

♦O rig in al study u n a v a i l a b l e .

22
6.

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e s upport

7.

P ar en t involvement

8.

Teacher i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g

9.

A v a i l a b i l i t y o f co u n s elo rs

10.

Curriculum c e n t e r / l i b r a r y

One must assume t h a t i f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e combination o f t h e s e v a r i a b l e s
were n o t a v a i l a b l e , t e a c h e r s would c o n s i d e r t h e mainstream s i t u a t i o n to
be l e s s than s a t i s f a c t o r y .
One study was l o c a t e d r e l a t e d t o th e c o n s u l t a n t r o l e o f th e
s p e c i a l ed u c a to r .

Evans (1980) surveyed 240 e d u c a to r s from t h i r t y - f o u r

el em en tar y s c h o o ls .

F o r t y - e i g h t were r e s o u r c e room t e a c h e r s , while

th e remainder were r e g u l a r c l a s s t e a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s .

The purpose

o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n was to determine t h e amount of time being used
by s p e c i a l ed uca tion personnel in c o n s u l t a t i o n with t e a c h e r s .

Eighty

p e r c e n t of the r e s o u r c e room t e a c h e r s r e p o r t e d t h a t c o n s u l t a t i o n a c t u a l l y
comprised only 5 p e r c e n t or l e s s o f t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l tim e.

All t h r e e

groups agreed t h a t more time should be s p e n t on c o n s u l t a t i o n .
F acto r s Which A f f e c t A t t i t u d e Toward Mainstreaming
P h i l l i p Mann (1976) suggest s t h a t mainstreamed programming
must be a "mutual r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " between s p e c i a l ed uca ti on and general
e ducation p e r s o n n e l .

He i d e n t i f i e s

im po rta nt f a c t o r s which "can a f f e c t
e ffo rt."

" a t t i t u d e s " as one o f th e most
th e success of any mainstreaming

Research s t u d i e s r e g a rd i n g t e a c h e r a t t i t u d e toward main-

s tream ing appear to f a l l under two general c a t e g o r i e s :

(1) a t t i t u d e

surveys a s s e s s i n g n e g a t i v e o r p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g toward mainstreaming in

23
general and (2) a t t i t u d e surveys which atte m p t to i d e n t i f y f a c t o r s
which a f f e c t a t t i t u d e , such as s upport s e r v i c e a v a i l a b i l i t y , type of
handicap, e t c .
Research s t u d i e s , thus f a r , have produced c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s
re gard ing t e a c h e r a t t i t u d e s toward mainstreaming (Corman & G o t t l i e b ,
1978).

S tudies done by Gickling and Theobald (1975) and Hudson,

Grahm, and Warner (1979) i n d i c a t e t h a t t e a c h e r s do not r e p o r t p o s i t i v e
a t t i t u d e s toward mainstreaming.
On t h e o t h e r hand, Guerin and S za tlock y (1974) r e p o r t e d t h a t
t e a c h e r s g e n e r a l l y had p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward mainstreaming and
t h a t s p e c i a l educa tion and r e g u l a r education t e a c h e r s from t h e same
b u i l d i n g s tended t o have s i m i l a r a t t i t u d e s .

Grahm (1980) a l s o found

t h a t classroom t e a c h e r s were s u p p o r t i v e o f mainstreaming.

This study

c i t e d th e a v a i l a b i l i t y of r e s o u r c e room programs as t h e p o s s i b l e f a c t o r
t h a t made the d i f f e r e n c e in a t t i t u d e .
In c o n t r a s t to Grahm's f i n d i n g s , an e a r l i e r study by S h o t e l ,
Iano, and McGettigan (1972) which a s s e s s e d t e a c h e r a t t i t u d e a t the
beginning o f t h e y e a r , when r e so u r c e room programs and mainstreaming
were in tro duce d i n t o a b u i l d i n g , and ag ai n a t th e end o f th e y e a r ,
wher t e a c h e r s had had experie nce with mainstreamed c h i l d r e n along with
r e s o u r c e room s upport s e r v i c e s , dem onstrated d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s .
Teac he rs' a t t i t u d e s toward mainstreaming and whether o r not th e c h i l d r e n
could f u n c t io n academ ically or s o c i a l l y were l e s s p o s i t i v e a t t h e end
than a t th e beginning o f th e y e a r .

Shotel e t a l . a l s o i d e n t i f i e d d i f ­

f e r e n t a t t i t u d e s of t e a c h e r s toward s p e c i f i c ty pe s o f hand icap s.

24

Teachers were c o n s i s t e n t l y more p o s i t i v e toward l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d
c h i l d r e n and l e a s t p o s i t i v e toward educable r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n .
Williams and Algozzine (1977) found t h a t t e a c h e r s ex per ienced
with mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n d i f f e r e n t i a t e between th e
var io u s handicapping c o n d i t i o n s .

These t e a c h e r s f e l t p h y s i c a l l y han­

dicapped and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d y o u n g s te r s should r e c e i v e more s e r ­
vices in r e g u l a r rooms than r e t a r d e d o r em o ti o n a l ly d i s t u r b e d c h i l d r e n .
Teachers f e l t t h a t th ey a r e b e t t e r a b l e t o program f o r p h y s i c a l l y
handicapped and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n than f o r " d i s tu r b e d " or
" r e ta r d e d " c h i l d r e n .
In c o n t r a s t to t h e s e two s t u d i e s , Over li n e (1977) as s e s s e d
general a t t i t u d e toward m a i n s t r e a i n g r e g a r d l e s s of th e e x t e n t o f
ex p e r ie n c e with handicapped c h i l d r e n .

In t h i s c a s e , r e g u l a r classroom

t e a c h e r s , p r i n c i p a l s , and s p e c i a l e d u catio n t e a c h e r s r e p o r t e d p o s i t i v e
a t t i t u d e s toward mainstreaming f o r a l l c a t e g o r i e s of handicapped c h i l ­
dren.
In an a t t e m p t to i d e n t i f y f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t e a c h e r a t t i t u d e ,
Williams and Algozzine (1979) in a l a t e r study asked 267 t e a c h e r s to
respond to c e r t a i n r ea so ns why the y would be w i l l i n g o r not w i l l i n g to
in c lu d e handicapped c h i l d r e n in t h e i r classro oms.
In g en er al t e a c h e r s who i n d i c a t e d t h a t they would work with
handicapped c h i l d r e n in t h e i r r e g u l a r c l a s s e s chose t h r e e reason s
f o r doing so:
(1) t h e t e a c h e r s had had s u c c e s s fu l e x periences
with handicapped c h i l d r e n , (2) s p e c i a l i z e d suppo rt s e r v i c e s gave
th e t e a c h e r s co n f i d e n c e , (3) th e t e a c h e r s f e l t t h a t programming
f o r p h y s i c a l l y handicapped c h i l d r e n was not d i f f e r e n t from r e g u ­
l a r programming. Teachers who i n d i c a t e d t h a t they would not
v o l u n t e e r to mainstream a handicapped c h i l d chose two major
r easons f o r t h e i r o b j e c t i o n :
(1) th e t e a c h e r s f e l t t h a t th e
handicapped would take too much time from o t h e r c h i l d r e n ,

25
(2) the t e a c h e r s f e l t t h a t they did not have t h e te c h n i c a l
a b i l i t i e s n e c e s s a r y t o be e f f e c t i v e .
Except f o r " p r o g r a m i n g f o r p h y s i c a l l y handicapped," t h e a u th o r s
r e p o r t e d t h a t c o n t r a r y to e x p e c t a t i o n s , th e r e s u l t s did not i n d i c a t e
a s tr o n g d i f f e r e n c e in re as oning f o r any p a r t i c u l a r c a t e g o r y o f c h i l ­
dren.
In a nother s tu d y , t e a c h e r s from 136 s ch oo ls responded to c e r ­
t a i n v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d to f a c t o r s which might a f f e c t t h e i r a t t i t u d e
toward mainstreaming ( l a r r i v e e & Cook, 1979).

They r e p o r t e d t h r e e

f a c t o r s which seemed to have th e most im p o rta n t e f f e c t on t e a c h e r
attitude:

(1) t e a c h e r p e r c e p tio n o f degree' of s u c c e s s , (2) lev el of

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e support r e c e i v e d , and (3) a v a i l a b i l i t y o f s u p p o r t iv e
services.
Wanner and Guenther (1978) asked t e a c h e r s , p a r e n t s , and admin­
i s t r a t o r s t o respond t o a v a r i e t y o f q u e s ti o n s to e x p lo r e the needs,
a t t i t u d e s , and c u r r e n t e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f s e r v i c e s in f o u r lo ca l school
d i s t r i c t s in Michigan.
is unclear.

The number o f persons responding to th e survey

The a u t h o r s ' summary o f t h e survey r e s u l t s s t a t e d , "The

consensus was y e s , mainstreaming i s p o s i t i v e and b e n e f i c i a l , but more
b e n e f i c i a l f o r th e handicapped s t u d e n t . . . . "

S pec ial educa tion

t e a c h e r s and gener al ed u ca tion t e a c h e r s were c o n s i s t e n t , in t h a t both
groups f e l t e m o tionally impaired and educable m enta lly impaired
s tu d e n t s would be l e a s t a c c e p t a b l e in t h e r e g u l a r classroom and t h a t
p h y s i c a l l y impaired and l e a r n i n g d is a b l e d s t u d e n t s would be most
acceptable.

26
Summary
Concern by p a r e n t s and m in o rit y groups has played an impor­
t a n t r o l e in producing change in th e d e l i v e r y of s e r v i c e s f o r hand i­
capped c h i l d r e n .

These concerns were a r e s u l t of improper placement

and i s o l a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n in s p e c i a l educa tion programs.

In a d d i t i o n ,

r e s e a r c h dem onstrated th e n e g a t iv e e f f e c t s of l a b e l i n g and qu es ti oned
th e e f f i c a c y o f s p e c i a l education classroom placements.

These concerns

r e s u l t e d in l i t i g a t i o n and u l t i m a t e l y enactment o f l e g i s l a t i o n r e q u i r ­
ing placement in " t h e l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e . 11 The concept of
mainstreaming e volved, which has caused s p e c ia l ed u cato r s and general
ed u cato r s to work t o g e t h e r t o provide handicapped c h i l d r e n , who should
spend p a r t o r a l l of t h e i r day in the r e g u l a r classroom, with s u c c e s s ­
ful e x p e r i e n c e s .
When a change i s implemented r a p i d l y with l i t t l e p r e p a r a t i o n
o r s tu d y , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o study what i s happening as a r e s u l t o f
t h e changes so t h a t a p p r o p r i a t e adjust m en ts may be i n i t i a t e d .

Iden­

t i f y i n g problems, s up port s e r v i c e s , f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g s u c c e s s f u l
placements, and t e a c h e r a t t i t u d e s i s c r i t i c a l .

A review o f r e s e a r c h

r eg ar ding t h e s e t o p i c s r e v e a l s both th e c u r r e n t lack o f i n form ati on
reg ard in g mainstreaming and i n c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s from s t u d i e s which
have been undertak en.

CHAPTER III
PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY

This c h a p t e r in cludes t h e f o llo w i n g :

(1) d e s c r i p t i o n of

Branch Inte rm e d ia te School D i s t r i c t , where th e survey was conducted;
(2) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of th e s u b j e c t s ; (3) t h e design and development o f
the measurement in s t r u m e n t s ; (4) p i l o t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f th e measure­
ment in s t r u m e n t s ; (5) a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f th e survey q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ; and
(6) tre a tm e n t o f t h e d a t a .
Branch I n te r m e d i a te School D i s t r i c t
Branch Inte rm e d ia t e School D i s t r i c t was s e l e c t e d as th e s i t e
f o r t h e survey.

Special education s e r v i c e s

had been provided to

mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n f o r a t l e a s t t h r e e y e a r s p r i o r to
the survey.

The d i s t r i c t was w i l l i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s survey.

They i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e i n form ation being g ath er ed would be us eful in
e v a l u a t i n g t h e i r c u r r e n t s p e c i a l e d u catio n programs.
Branch Inte rm e d ia t e School D i s t r i c t , l o c a t e d in th e south c e n t r a l ar ea o f Michigan, i s made up p r i m a r i l y o f a r u r a l p o p u l a t i o n .
Studen ts a t t e n d t h r e e l o c a l K-12 programs.

The enrollm ent in each o f

the d i s t r i c t s f o r the 1977-1978 school y e a r incl uded :

Bronson Commu­

n i t y Schools with 1,607 s t u d e n t membership, Coldwater Community Schools
with 4,192 s t u d e n t membership, and Quincy Community Schools with 1,532
s tu d e n t membership.

27

28

S ub jects
The p o p u l a tio n f o r t h i s study included a l l classroom te a c h e r s
and t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s in seven elementary b u i l d i n g s in c o n s t i t u e n t
d i s t r i c t s o f Branch In te rm e d ia t e School D i s t r i c t , where handicapped
s tu d e n t s were mainstreamed and where a t l e a s t one s p e c i a l educa tion
t e a c h e r or t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t was in t h e b u i ld in g f u l l time.

Chil­

dren needing s p e c i a l education s e r v i c e s in t h e o t h e r t h r e e b u i ld in g s
were e i t h e r bused t o one o f th e seven b u i l d i n g s where f u l l - t i m e s e r ­
v ices were a v a i l a b l e or r eceiv ed s e r v i c e s from an i t i n e r a n t s p e c ia l
e d u c a ti o n t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t .
P r i n c i p a l s in each o f t h e seven b u i l d i n g s were c o n t a c t e d to
e s t a b l i s h when a t e a c h e r s ' meeting could be held t o conduct the survey.
The f i r s t two s ch ools scheduled were used f o r p i l o t t e s t i n g o f the
measurement i n s t r u m e n t s , and r e s u l t s a r e not r e p o r t e d f o r th e s e two
sc hools .
Seventy-two t e a c h e r s (96%) o f th e s e v e n t y - f i v e t e a c h e r s in th e
remaining f i v e elemen tary schoo ls in th e two c o n s t i t u e n t school d i s ­
t r i c t s o f Quincy and Coldwater p a r t i c i p a t e d in th e survey.

Seventy-

one (95%) o f t h e s e v e n t y - f i v e t e a c h e r s had had exp erie nce with main­
streamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n .

Three o f th e s e b u i l d i n g s served

grades K-5; two b u i l d i n g s include d grades K-6.

Since grade level d i f ­

f e r e n c e s were not measured in t h i s s tu d y , a l l t e a c h e r s were asked to
p articip ate.
Special e d u cati o n t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s who provided s e r v i c e s
t o mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n in th e seven elementary schools
where t h e survey was conducted were i n t e rv i e w e d .

Survey r e s u l t s

29
i n d i c a t e d t h a t nine o f t h e s e twelve had f u l l approval in a t l e a s t one
area o f s p e c i a l educati on and t h r e e or more y e a r s o f e x p e r ie n c e ,
a t l e a s t one o f which had been in s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n ; thus they were
e l i g i b l e f o r f u l l approval as t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s .

Two had had only

one y e a r o f e x p e r ie n c e and f u l l approval in a t l e a s t one ar ea of
s p e c ia l e d u c a t i o n .

One person was on a temporary approval program

f o r t h e f i r s t tim e.

All twelve were c a l l e d Resource Teachers and had

a ca s eload of f i f t e e n o r l e s s .

All were expected to work both d i r e c t l y

with c h i l d r e n as well as t o c o n s u l t with classroom t e a c h e r s to a s s i s t
them with problems they might en c o u n te r with mainstreamed c h i l d r e n in
t h e i r classroom.

They were a l s o expected t o provide ed uca tional d i a g ­

n o s t i c s e r v i c e s f o r new r e f e r r a l s .

Because of t h e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t

r o l e in which a l l o f t h e s e people f u n c t i o n , th ey w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o ,
f o r th e purposes o f t h i s s tu d y , as t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s .

The r e s u l t s

a r e r e p o r t e d f o r a l l twelve perso ns.
Design and Development o f t h e
Measurement Inst rum ents
The purposes o f t h i s study were to gain information from
t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s who had exper ien ce d mainstreaming
r e g a rd in g :

(1) problems which a r i s e f o r t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r -

c o n s u l t a n t s when a handicapped c h i l d ' s e d u c a tio n a l program in c lu d e s a
mainstream component, (2) a c tu a l and needed s p e c i a l ed uca tion s upp ort
inten ded t o a s s i s t in s o lv i n g t h e problems in a mainstream placement,
(3) d e s c r i p t i v e in fo rm ation r e l a t e d t o c h i l d r e n t e a c h e r s i d e n t i f y as
"most s u c c e s s f u l " and " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " mainstream placements, and

30
(4) f a c t o r s which a f f e c t th e a t t i t u d e of t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s toward mainstreaming.
t i o n n a i r e s were developed:

To accomplish th e s e g o a l s , two ques ­

one f o r use with groups o f t e a c h e r s and

the second to be used to i n t e r v i e w each o f t h e twelve t e a c h e r consultants.
Classroom Teacher Q u es tio n n a ir e
A copy of th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e used in t h i s study i s l o c a t e d in
Appendix A.

I t c o n s i s t s of f o u r p a r t s .

The f i r s t group o f q u e s t i o n s

was designed t o a s s i s t t e a c h e r s to i d e n t i f y two s p e c i f i c mainstreamed,
handicapped c h i l d r e n with whom they had had ex per ie nce in th e p a s t
t h r e e y e a r s , one o f whom they i d e n t i f i e d as a "most s u c c e s s f u l " p l a c e ­
ment and one o f whom they i d e n t i f i e d as a " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " placement.
To accomplish t h i s , s i x respon ses were r eq u ested :
1.

Name o f each c h i l d (based on verbal d e f i n i t i o n o f "most
s u c c e s s f u l " and " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " ) , *

2.

Rating o f l e v e l o f s u c c e s s - - s c a l e o f 1 ( s u c c e s s f u l ) to
4 (unsuccessful),

3.

Type o f handicapping c o n d i t i o n ,

4.

Per ce ntage o f time c h i l d was in classroom,

5.

Per ce ntag e o f time th e t e a c h e r f e l t th e c h i l d should be
in t h e classroom,

6.

The y e a r the c h i l d was in th e room.

Infor mation was r e p o r t e d by t e a c h e r s about f i f t y - e i g h t c h i l ­
dren in t e a c h e r s ' classrooms during th e 1977-1978 school y e a r ,

*Refer t o pages 9-10 f o r d e s c r i p t i o n of d e f i n i t i o n s used.

31
t h i r t y - n i n e c h i l d r e n dur ing th e 1976-1977 school y e a r , and t h i r t y one c h i l d r e n during th e 1975-1976 school y e a r .
The second p a r t of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e asked t e a c h e r s t o r e p o r t
f o r each c h i l d :

two problems a s s o c i a t e d with having a handicapped

c h i l d , s u p p o r ti v e a s s i s t a n c e t o s olv e each problem, whether or not
th e t e a c h e r was s a t i s f i e d with the a s s i s t a n c e being p r ovided, and any
o t h e r a s s i s t a n c e needed t o s olve each problem.

The t e a c h e r s were

asked t o g en er ate r es pon ses r a t h e r than to r e a c t to a predetermined
l i s t of v ariab les.

A predetermined l i s t could have a s s i s t e d t e a c h e r s

to r e a c t to concerns t h a t might not come t o mind in a r e c a l l s i t u a t i o n ;
however, by r e q u i r i n g them to g e n e r a te t h e i r own r e s p o n s e s , i t was f e l t
t h a t the respons es would be those t h a t were o f most concern to the
teachers.
The t h i r d s e c t i o n o f th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was designed to study
te a c h e r a t t i t u d e r e l a t e d t o mainstreaming.

Teachers were asked to

r a t e t h e i r general a t t i t u d e toward mainstreaming on a f o u r - p o i n t
scale:

1 - n e g a t i v e , 2-somewhat n e g a t i v e , 3-somewhat p o s i t i v e ,

4-positive.

They were a l s o asked to r e p o r t f a c t o r s which in f l u e n c e

their attitu d e.

These f a c t o r s were l i m i t e d to those t h a t immediately

came t o mind a t th e time o f t h i s survey.
The f o u r t h s e c t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was prepared f o r the
purpose o f Branch I n te r m e d i a te School D i s t r i c t t o e v a l u a t e f u r t h e r
t h e i r s p e c i a l ed uca ti on programs.

Responses were r e q u e s t e d to ques ­

t i o n s f o r which a d m i n i s t r a t o r s wanted s p e c i f i c answers r e l a t e d to
components o f the Branch I n te r m e d i a te School D i s t r i c t s p e c i a l educ ation
s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y system and a r e not r e p o r t e d as p a r t o f t h i s study.

32
Teac her -Consultan t Questionna ir e
The q u e s t i o n n a i r e used to conduct in te rv ie w s with th e twelve
t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s c o n s i s t e d of f i v e p a r t s .
P a r t 1 o f t h e i n t e r v i e w q u e s t i o n n a i r e was designed t o o b ta in
b a s ic demographic d a t a .

Six v a r i a b l e s o f i n t e r e s t were s e l e c t e d :

(1) grade l e v e l s s e rv e d , (2) y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e , (3) number o f s t u ­
den ts on c a s e l o a d , (4) how many on ca s elo ad a r e mainstreamed,
(5) what types of handicaps ar e c u r r e n t l y being se rv e d , and (6) type
o f t e a c h e r ap p r o v al.

This in fo rm ation was o btained to v e r i f y :

(1) t h a t t h e s e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s were s e r v in g mainstreamed, h a n d i­
capped elementary c h i l d r e n in b u i l d i n g s where th e survey was con­
ducted and (2) whether or n o t each o f t h e i n t e rv ie w e e s was e l i g i b l e
as a t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t according t o s t a t e g u i d e l i n e s ( t h r e e y e a r s of
e x p e r i e n c e , in cl u d in g one in s p e c i a l e d u catio n and approval in one
a r e a of s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n ) .

Inform ation o b ta i n e d from p a r t one o f th e

survey s u b s t a n t i a t e d t h a t a l l twelve o f t h e r e so u r c e t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s were s e r v in g mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n in e l e ­
mentary school b u i l d i n g s where t h e survey was conducted.
The second s e c t i o n of th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e asked th e t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t t o i d e n t i f y problems s h e /h e has while p ro vid ing a s s i s t a n c e
to mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n .

T e a c h e r - c o n s u l ta n t s were a l s o

asked to i d e n t i f y p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s t o t h e s e problems.
Section t h r e e asked t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s t o i d e n t i f y what prob ­
lems they thought classroom t e a c h e r s were most concerned about because
they have a mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d in t h e i r classroom .
were a l s o asked t o t e l l what a s s i s t a n c e th ey t y p i c a l l y provided

They

33
r e l a t e d t o t h e problems th ey had i d e n t i f i e d .

Although t e a c h e r -

c o n s u l t a n t s work in t h e same b u i l d i n g s as th e classroom t e a c h e r s who
were surveyed, t h e i r r es po nses were not n e c e s s a r i l y s p e c i f i c t o c e r ­
t a i n c h i l d r e n but were general to th e po p u latio n o f c h i l d r e n whom
they s e r v e .
Sectio n f o u r asked t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s whether or not they
f e l t th ey had any p a r t i c u l a r problems r e s u l t i n g from not having
approval in t h e d i s a b i 1 i t y area of c h i l d r e n f o r whom they were pr oviding
assistance.

They were a l s o asked t o i d e n t i f y th e per ce ntag e o f time

each day f o r which they work with t e a c h e r s and whether or not th ey
would change t h e amount i f th ey could.
The f i f t h and f i n a l s e c t io n o f th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was designed
to stu dy t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t a t t i t u d e s r e l a t e d t o mainstreaming.

The

procedure and form used with t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s was t h e same as t h a t
d e s c ri b e d and used with classroom t e a c h e r s .

I t included a f o u r - p o i n t

r a t i n g s c a l e and asked t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s to r e p o r t f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g
their attitu d e.
The development o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s was accomplished with
two u n i v e r s i t y p r o f e s s o r s experienced in both s p e c ia l e d u catio n and
r e s e a r c h d e s ig n .

Questions r e q u i r i n g open-ended r es pon ses were con­

s t r u c t e d t o allo w t e a c h e r s to r e c a l l concerns d e s c r i p t i v e o f mains tr e a m in g , r a t h e r than s t r u c t u r e d q u e s ti o n s c a l l i n g f o r a r e a c t i o n to
a predetermined l i s t o f ideas f o r t h r e e reasons :

(1) t o s t i m u l a t e

t e a c h e r s t o provid e d e s c r i p t i o n s and express t h e i r f e e l i n g s and con­
ce rn s in t h e i r own terms w ith o u t p r e j u d i c i n g them toward p a r t i c u l a r
language o r i d e a s ; (2) to encourage t e a c h e r s to focus on major idea s

34
o f immediate concern r a t h e r than asking them t o r e a c t t o voluminous
numbers o f i d e a s , many o f which may be of l e s s e r s i g n i f i c a n c e to them;
and (3) t o allow them to s t a t e ideas which may not be incl uded in a
structured l i s t .
Inform ation was to be based on both s u c c e s s f u l and unsucc es s­
ful e x p e r i e n c e s .

This led to th e use of a modified " c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t "

technique (Flanagan, 1962).

Teachers were asked t o i d e n t i f y a c h i l d ,

by f i r s t name, who had been a "most s u c c e s s f u l " mainstream placement
and a c h i l d who had been a " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " mainstream placement,
and t o base t h e i r respons es on t h e s e s p e c i f i c c h i l d r e n .
Once t h e classroom t e a c h e r and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t q u e s t i o n ­
n a i r e s were i n i t i a l l y developed, th ey were p r e s e n te d to one s p e c ia l
e d u cati o n a d m i n i s t r a t o r and one ge ner al ed uc atio n a d m i n i s t r a t o r .

As

a r e s u l t o f t h e i r i n p u t , th e d e f i n i t i o n s f o r " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " and
"most s u c c e s s f u l " were r e f i n e d .
P i l o t A dm in i str a tio n of th e Measurement Inst rume nts
The t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t in t e r v i e w q u e s t i o n n a i r e was adminis­
t e r e d to one t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t c u r r e n t l y employed in a school d i s t r i c t
n e a r Lansing, Michigan.

This t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t held a p o s i t i o n s i m i ­

l a r t o t h e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s who were p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e i n t e r v i e w s .
Feedback was o b ta in ed from t h i s person in r e l a t i o n t o t h e c l a r i t y o f
t h e i n t e r v i e w q u e s ti o n s and th e o b j e c t i v i t y o f t h e i n t e r v i e w e r .
major changes were needed in th e i n t e r v i e w format.

A detailed descrip­

t i o n o f t h e format o f t h e i n t e r v i e w i s contai ned in th e fo llow ing
section.

No

35
Three classroom te a c h e r s who were ex perienced with having
handicapped c h i l d r e n in t h e i r classrooms were asked to complete th e
t e a c h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e form.

They were asked t o comment and c r i t i q u e

t h e in strum ent and method o f p r e s e n t a t i o n .

Several s u g g e s t i o n s were

r e c e iv e d and were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o th e p r e s e n t a t i o n .
The f i n a l p i l o t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f th e in str u m e n t was completed
with twenty o f t h e t w e n ty - fo u r t e a c h e r s from Anderson and Ryan Elemen­
t a r y Schools in Bronson.

All o f th e schoo ls t h a t had been s e l e c t e d

t o p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e study were scheduled f o r meeting times t o admin­
i s t e r th e survey .

Because t h e t e a c h e r s in Anderson and Ryan were

scheduled to be f i r s t and were p a r t i c i p a t i n g in a combined m ee ting,
th e f i n a l p i l o t t e s t was ad m inist ered t o t h i s group.
The procedure used to a d m i n i s t e r th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s d e s c r i b e d
in d e t a i l in th e f ollow ing s e c t i o n .

The p i l o t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n procedure

d i f f e r e d only in t h a t t e a c h e r s were t o l d a t t h e beginning o f t h e meet­
ing t h a t they were t h e f i r s t group t o p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e s tu d y and
were d i r e c t e d t o comment upon the p r e s e n t a t i o n and q u e s t i o n n a i r e a f t e r
they had p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h e survey.

Three major changes r e s u l t e d from

comments and s u g g e s t io n s made by t e a c h e r s .

Teachers ex p r e ss e d concern

t h a t t h e r e was nowhere in t h e survey t o express "how th ey r e a l l y f e l t "
about mainstreaming.

T h e re f o re , t e a c h e r s were s u b s e q u e n tl y a s k e d , in

the modified q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t o i d e n t i f y " f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t h e i r
a t t i t u d e " in a d d i t i o n to r a t i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward m a i n s t r e a i n g on
a numerical s c a l e .

The second change was t o d e l e t e t e a c h e r i d e n t i ­

fic a tio n of "direct" or "in d irect" services.

The i n v e s t i g a t o r f e l t

in a n aly zin g th e r es pons es t h a t th e d e s c r i p t i o n s o f a s s i s t a n c e

36
provided by th e resp onden ts includ ed enough in fo rm ation t o determine
whether s e r v i c e s were d i r e c t t o t h e c h i l d o r i n d i r e c t t o th e c h i l d
through a s s i s t a n c e to th e t e a c h e r o r p a r e n t .
The t h i r d change includ ed reducing t h e number o f pages f o r
i d e n t i f y i n g problems f o r " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " and "most s u c c e s s f u l "
placements from t h r e e to two.

During t h e p i l o t t e s t , t e a c h e r s con­

s i s t e n t l y used only two o f the t h r e e s h e e t s .

I f more than two prob­

lems were i d e n t i f i e d , th ey were l i s t e d on one o f t h e f i r s t s h e e t s .
I t was f e l t t h e survey would be l e s s cumbersome i f t h i s change were
made.
The p i l o t t e s t confirmed th e c l a r i t y o f th e p r e s e n t a t i o n , and
th e b a s ic a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e remained the same exce pt
to add b r i e f d i r e c t i o n s f o r i d e n t i f y i n g f a c t o r s which a f f e c t resp on­
d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward ma instrea m ing, t o d e l e t e d i r e c t i o n s f o r i d e n ­
t i f y i n g whether s e r v i c e s were d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t , and t o r e q u e s t two
problems r a t h e r th an t h r e e problems r e l a t e d t o each placement.
The f i n a l in s tr u m e n t and procedure were reviewed and approved
by two u n i v e r s i t y p r o f e s s o r s f a m i l i a r with survey de sig n and s p e c ia l
e d u c a tio n .
A d m i n is t r a ti o n o f t h e Survey Q u e s tio n n a ir e s
A d m in istr a tio n o f t h e Classroom
Teacher Q u e s t io n n a ir e
Meetings were scheduled by p r i n c i p a l s f o r classroom t e a c h e r s
in each o f th e b u i l d i n g s e i t h e r p r i o r t o o r a f t e r t h e school day.
Teacher c o n s u l t a n t s did n o t a t t e n d t h e s e m e e tin g s .

The purpose of

t h e s e meetings was t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

The

37
q u e s t i o n n a i r e was p r e s e n te d in e x a c t l y th e same manner a t each
t e a c h e r ' s meeting.

All meetings were scheduled during th e month of

May, 1978.
This i n v e s t i g a t o r was in tr oduce d by th e b u ild i n g p r i n c i p a l
a t t h e beginning of each meeting.

A b r i e f o r a l p r e s e n t a t i o n was

made to pro vid e t e a c h e r s with background inform atio n r e l a t i v e t o the
s urv ey .

The i n t r o d u c t i o n included th e e f f e c t Public Law 94-142 has

had in g e n e r a ti n g i n t e r e s t and a need f o r more inf or m at io n about mains tream ing.

A r a t i o n a l e of why Branch County was chosen f o r t h i s study

was a l s o p r e s e n t e d .

This included th e f a c t s t h a t l o c a l d i s t r i c t

t e a c h e r s had been involved in mainstreaming f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s and
s p e c i a l ed uca tion s e r v i c e s t o s u p p o rt mainstreaming had a l s o been
a v a i l a b l e du rin g t h a t tim e.

A need f o r information from t e a c h e r s , "who

a r e th e people most involved with mai nstreaming," was emphasized.
Teachers were t o l d th e info rm at ion was n e c e s sa r y f o r th e fo llow in g
reasons:

(1) to i d e n t i f y needs which have been met and t h o s e which

remain, (2) t o aid o t h e r s to program more e f f e c t i v e l y to meet th e needs
o f handicapped c h i l d r e n based on inf or m at ion from t h i s s tu d y , and
(3) t o a s s i s t u n i v e r s i t y personnel t o i d e n t i f y p r e - s e r v i c e and i n s e r v i c e ed u c a tio n a l a c t i v i t i e s f o r general and s p e c i a l e d u catio n t r a i n ­
ing programs based on problems and s u p p o rt s e r v i c e s i d e n t i f i e d by
teachers.

Teachers were then a s su r e d o f th e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f t h e i r

re s p o n s e s .
I t was f e l t im port an t to e s t a b l i s h some r a p p o r t with each
group o f t e a c h e r s .

T h e r e f o r e , t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n was p r e s e n te d from an

38
o u t l i n e r a t h e r than being read from a s c r i p t .

The i n t r o d u c t i o n was

c o n s i s t e n t in c o n t e n t a t each b u i l d i n g meeting; however, s l i g h t d i f ­
f e r e n c e s in wording and manner o f p r e s e n t a t i o n occurre d.
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f mainstreamed c h i l d r e n . - - B e f o r e P a r ts I
and II o f th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e were given t o th e t e a c h e r s , they were
asked t o r e f l e c t on a l l o f th e " o f f i c i a l l y i d e n t i f i e d , handicapped,
mainstreamed c h i l d r e n " they
three years.

had had ex pe rien ce with during th e p a s t

They were then asked t o i d e n t i f y a "most s u c c e s s f u l " and

" l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " placement among t h e s e c h i l d r e n .

The following

d e f i n i t i o n s were read t o them:
"Most S u c c e s s f u l" -- " P ro b l e m s were s o lv e d , s e r v i c e s may or may
n o t have been provid e d, t h e c h i l d ' s ad just m ent in t h e room was s a t i s ­
factory.

You f e l t s a t i s f i e d with t h e placement."
" Least S u c c e s sf u l" -- " P ro b l e m s were more d i f f i c u l t to s o lv e ,

s e r v i c e s may or may n o t have been a v a i l a b l e , th e c h i l d ' s adjustment in
th e room was not as s a t i s f a c t o r y as you wished.

You did not f eel

s a t i s f i e d with th e place men t."
Page one was then d i s t r i b u t e d , and t e a c h e r s were asked t o f i l l
i t o u t , w r i t i n g t h e f i r s t name o f each c h i l d in th e a p p r o p r i a t e blank
l a b e l e d "most s u c c e s s f u l " and " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l . "

I f th e y had not had

ex p e r ie n c e with mainstreamed c h i l d r e n or only had had ex per ience with
one c h i l d , th ey were asked t o put "none" in th e a p p r o p r i a t e name bla nks.
The remaining q u e s ti o n s were read t o the t e a c h e r s .

They were asked to

complete page one based on in fo r m a tio n about each o f th e i d e n t i f i e d
chiIdren.

39
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problems, a s s i s t a n c e , and a t t i t u d e s .--When
a l l t e a c h e r s had completed page one o f th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , th e remaining
pages o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e developed f o r t h i s study were d i s t r i b u t e d .
This incl uded th e second p a r t , f o r use in i d e n t i f y i n g problems and
s uppo rt s e r v i c e s , as well as th e t h i r d p a r t , to g a t h e r info rm ation
re la te d to teacher a t titu d e s .
Teachers were d i r e c t e d t o f i l l

in th e f i r s t name o f t h e c h i l d

they had i d e n t i f i e d as "most s u c c e s s f u l " on th e f i r s t two s h e e t s
l a b e l e d "most s u c c e s s f u l " and to do th e same on t h e second two s h e e t s
with the f i r s t name o f th e c h i l d they had i d e n t i f i e d as " l e a s t suc­
cessful."

I f th ey had i d e n t i f i e d only one c h i l d o r had n o t had e x p e r i ­

ence with any o f f i c i a l l y i d e n t i f i e d mainstreamed c h i l d r e n , they were
asked t o put "none" in th e a p p r o p r i a t e b la nks.

The s ev en ty-o ne e x p e r i ­

enced t e a c h e r s i d e n t i f i e d seventy c h i l d r e n whom the y p er ceiv ed as "most
s u c c e s s f u l " placements and f i f t y - n i n e c h i l d r e n p e r c e iv e d as " l e a s t
s u c c e s s f u l " placements.
The one experienced t e a c h e r who did not pro v id e p e r c e p t i o n s o f
a "most s u c c e s s f u l " placement i n d i c a t e d t h a t s he/h e had n o t had a
s u c c e s s f u l mainstream placement.

Three o f t h e twenty-one t e a c h e r s who

did n o t d e s c r i b e a " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " placement l e f t t h a t p o r t i o n o f
th e form blank.

The o t h e r nine i n d i c a t e d by w r i t i n g in "none" or

some o t h e r comment, i . e . , "Haven't had any I f e e l were u n s u c c e s s f u l . "
The following s c r i p t was read as t e a c h e r s were given d i r e c ­
t i o n s f o r f i l l i n g in t h e remainder of t h e s e f o u r pages:
When f i l l i n g out t h e s e f our p ages , f i l l them o u t based on
t h e c h i l d you have i d e n t i f i e d in th e upper r i g h t - h a n d c o r n e r.
I d e n t i f y two problems f o r each c h i l d which you were or a r e

40
most concerned about. The problems t h a t you l i s t might be
r e l a t e d to academic o r s o c i a l behav iors o f th e c h i l d ; f o r
example, not being a b le to r e a d , not being able to s i t s t i l l ,
not being a b l e t o g e t along with o t h e r s , e t c . The problems
might a l s o be o u t s i d e o f t h e c h i l d , such as not having approp­
r i a t e m a t e r i a l s , th e a t t i t u d e o f o t h e r c l a s s members, lack o f
knowledge about what to do f o r t h e c h i l d , e t c .
Next: "Did you r e c e i v e a s s i s t a n c e ? " C i r c l e yes i f you d i d ,
no i f you did n o t . Describe the a s s i s t a n c e you r e c e i v e d on th e
top h a l f of th e form. Was a s s i s t a n c e r e c e iv e d s a t i s f a c t o r y ?
C i r c l e yes i f you f e l t i t was s a t i s f a c t o r y . C i r c l e no i f you
f e l t i t should be d i f f e r e n t and d e s c r i b e why you were d i s s a t i s ­
f i e d . I f no a s s i s t a n c e was needed, w r i t e "none needed" on th e
bottom of t h e page. Do you have any q u e s t i o n s ? [Any q u e s ti o n s
were answered a t t h i s t i m e . ]
On th e f i n a l page r a t e your a t t i t u d e , in g e n e r a l , about
mainstreaming and l i s t th e f a c t o r s t h a t make you fee l t h a t way.
There a r e f i v e numbers on th e page, but l i s t as many f a c t o r s as
you wish.
When you have completed t h i s p o r t i o n , r a i s e your hand and
I w i l l give you th e f i n a l s e c t i o n o f t h i s survey. [The i n f o r ­
mation g athered from t h e f i n a l s e c t i o n was f o r d i s t r i c t purposes
o n ly , and not p a r t o f t h i s s t u d y . ] D i r e c t i o n s ar e s e l f - e x p l a n a t o r y .
I w i ll answer any q u e s tio n s you have i n d i v i d u a l l y . When you f i n i s h ,
t u r n in a l l p a r t s t o g e t h e r .
A d m in istr atio n o f th e
Teac her -C onsultan t In te rv iew
Each of t h e twelve t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s was in terv iew ed i n d i ­
vidually.

The i n t e r v i e w s took p la c e du rin g th e l a s t week of May and

th e f i r s t two weeks o f J un e, 1978.
the f i n a l t e a c h e r meeting.

This was w ith in one week a f t e r

The t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s had n o t a tte n d e d

th e t e a c h e r meetings in t h e i r b u i l d i n g s in which t h e surveys had been
conducted.

There was no way o f c o n t r o l l i n g c o n v e r s a ti o n between

te a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s about problems o r a s s i s t a n c e i n d i ­
vidual t e a c h e r s may have i d e n t i f i e d durin g t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the
survey.

However, t h e r e was n o t an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r in te r v ie w e e s to

have knowledge o f c o l l e c t i v e r e s u l t s o f t h e t e a c h e r survey e i t h e r by
b u i ld in g or by d i s t r i c t .

41
The fo llo wing s c r i p t was used f o r each o f the i n t e r v i e w s .
Whenever responses were r e q u e s t e d , they were recorded by t h e examiner
on th e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e form.

In an a t t e m p t to make

responses as s p e c i f i c as p o s s i b l e , o t h e r prompts were us ed, such a s :
"Tell me more e x a c t l y how you would d e s c r i b e t h e problem" o r " I s
t h e r e anything e l s e you can t e l l me about t h a t , " e t c .
Before we begin th e i n t e r v i e w , I need you t o give me some
info rm at ion about your e x p e r ie n c e s and your j o b .
What grades do you work with?
How many y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e have you had?
How many handicapped s t u d e n t s ar e c u r r e n t l y on your c a s elo ad ?
How many o f your ca s eload a r e mainstreamed?
What type o f handicaps do you c u r r e n t l y serv e?
What c e r t i f i c a t i o n a n d /o r endorsements do you have?
We a r e doing a study as kin g classroom t e a c h e r s to i d e n t i f y
problems and needed a s s i s t a n c e o r s e r v i c e s f o r mainstreamed,
handicapped c h i l d r e n . We f e e l i t i s im p o rtan t t o g e t a p i c t u r e
o f mainstreaming from th e p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t
as w e l l . Your respo ns es w i l l be kept co m pletely c o n f i d e n t i a l .
A nalys is w il l be done a t MSU.
F i r s t I would l i k e you t o t e l l me about problems you en co unter
as a t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t while p r ovid ing a s s i s t a n c e o r s e r v i c e s to
mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n .
Now we have a l i s t i n g o f problems you f a c e as th e t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t . L e t ' s go back over them and I ' d l i k e you t o t e l l me
what would he lp to s o lv e th e problems. [At t h i s p o i n t , t h e exam­
i n e r p r e se n te d p r e v i o u s l y i d e n t i f i e d pr ob lems.]
We've t a l k e d about problems from your p e r s p e c t i v e as the
teacher-consultant.
I ' d l i k e you t o p u t y o u r s e l f in t h e p l a c e of
th e classroom t e a c h e r , and t e l l me what you t h i n k a r e t h e pro b­
lems th e classroom t e a c h e r i s most concerned about t h a t a f f e c t
her/him because th ey have a handicapped c h i l d mainstreamed in
t h e i r classroom. These might be behaviors o f t h e c h i l d o r f a c t o r s
o u t s i d e of t h e c h i l d t h a t c r e a t e problems t h a t might r e q u i r e a s s i s ­
t an ce.
Do you pr ovide o r a tte m p t t o provid e a s s i s t a n c e t o s o lv e any
of t h e s e problems? [Each problem was then d i s c u s s e d and r es pons es
record ed. ]
You have c e r t i f i c a t i o n in t h e a r e a o f [whatever d i s a b i l i t y was
i n d i c a t e d on demographic d a t a s h e e t ] . You've a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t
you pro vide s e r v i c e s f o r c h i l d r e n who a r e l a b e l e d [whatever d i s ­
a b i l i t i e s a r e on c a s e l o a d ] . Do you f e e l you have any p a r t i c u l a r
problems r e s u l t i n g from not being c e r t i f i e d in t h e d i s a b i l i t y a r e a
o f some o f t h e c h i l d r e n to whom you a r e p r o v id i n g s e r v i c e ? [ I f
y e s ] : What a r e t h e problems you f e e l you have because o f n o t being

42
c e r t i f i e d in t h e same ar ea o f th e d i s a b i l i t y o f t h e c h i l d you
have been asked t o serve?
This i s th e l a s t q u e s t i o n . Approximately what p e r c e n t of
your day would you e s t i m a t e i s s pent (1) working d i r e c t l y with
c h i l d r e n and (2) working with t e a c h e r s ? Would you change t h i s
i f you could? I f y e s , how would you change t h e per ce ntag e?
At th e end o f th e i n t e r v i e w , t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s were given
th e f i n a l page of the form used with t e a c h e r s .

They were asked to

r a t e t h e i r a t t i t u d e in general abou t mainstreaming and to l i s t the
f a c t o r s t h a t made them f e e l t h a t way.

They were a l s o t o l d t h a t they

were n o t l i m i t e d t o th e f i v e numbers on th e page but could l i s t as
many f a c t o r s as th e y wished.
D i f f e r e n c e s in A d m i n is tr a tio n
o f Teacher and TeacherCo n s u lta n t Q u e s t io n n a ir e s
Two major d i f f e r e n c e s need t o be addres sed in t h e a d m i n i s t r a ­
t i o n of t h e i n s t r u m e n t s .

The f i r s t d i f f e r e n c e i s with r e g a rd t o group

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f th e t e a c h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e in c o n t r a s t t o th e i n d i ­
vidual i n t e r v i e w procedure used with t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s .
t e a c h e r s would have each been interv iew ed i n d i v i d u a l l y .
and time involved made t h i s i m p o ss i b le .

Ideally,
The numbers

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was p r e ­

sented p e r s o n a l l y t o small groups o f t e a c h e r s du rin g a scheduled b u i l d ­
ing meeting r a t h e r than using a l e s s p e r s o n a l i z e d approach such as a
m ail-out.

The 94 p e r c e n t response r a t e as well as th e time devoted by

t e a c h e r s du rin g th e meeting (minimum o f f o r t y - f i v e minutes) appeared
to d e m onstrate t h e i r i n t e r e s t in pr o v id in g complete in fo r m atio n .
Te achers were a dvis e d o f th e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f t h e i r r e s p o n s e s ,
both with r e g a r d to s t u d e n t s th ey had i d e n t i f i e d and a l l o t h e r m a t t e r s .

43
As a consequence, i t was not p o s s i b l e t o r e q u e s t re sp onses from
t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s about c h i l d r e n who had been i d e n t i f i e d by t e a c h e r s .
Treatment o f t h e Data
The d ata ob tai ned from t h e open-ended r es pons es from t e a c h e r s
and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s were coded and analyzed.
Coding Procedures
C a tegories were i n i t i a l l y developed by grouping respo ns es
o b tain ed from p i l o t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

One u n i v e r ­

s i t y p r o f e s s o r experienced with coding procedures and d ata a n a l y s i s
and t h i s i n v e s t i g a t o r read each response f o r "problems" w i th in th e
c o n t e x t o f a l l th e d e s c r i p t i v e data t e a c h e r s had p ro v id e d , i n c l u d i n g :
(1) problem, (2) a s s i s t a n c e r e c e i v e d , and (3) a s s i s t a n c e needed.
Each respons e was judged accor ding t o whether o r not i t was concep­
t u a l l y l i k e or c o n c e p tu a lly d i f f e r e n t from a n o th e r re s p o n s e ; i . e . ,
"low academic performance" compared to " d i s r u p t s c l a s s " would be
a s sig n ed t o two d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s .

I f t h e n ex t res ponse was "low

r e a d in g s k i l l s , " i t would be grouped with "low academic s k i l l s . "

If

th e n e x t response was "poor h e a l t h , " a new grouping would begin.

Both

people had to agree on th e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n b e f o r e t h e s ta t e m e n t was
classified.

A s i m i l a r procedure was used by t h i s i n v e s t i g a t o r , a l o n e ,

to e s t a b l i s h c a t e g o r i e s f o r " a s s i s t a n c e r e ceived " and "needed,"
"re as on s f o r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with a s s i s t a n c e , " and " f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g
attitudes."

T e a c h e r - c o n s u l ta n t respons es were coded t o th e c a t e g o r i e s

which had been e s t a b l i s h e d from t e a c h e r r es po nses f o r (1) problems
th e y f e l t would be o f concern t o t e a c h e r s , (2) a s s i s t a n c e provided to

44
s olv e t h e s e problems, and (3) f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e .
Because re spon se s i d e n t i f y i n g problems with which they were concerned
in pro viding a s s i s t a n c e were c o n c e p t u a l l y d i f f e r e n t from any o f th e
c a t e g o r i e s used f o r t e a c h e r r e s p o n s e s , new c a t e g o r i e s were developed
from t h e i r r esp o n s es.
C er tain d i f f i c u l t i e s a r o s e in t h e coding pro ce du re.

Because

some items were open t o d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and t h e r e appeared
to be o v e r l a p in some o f t h e r e s p o n s e s , mutual e x c l u s i v e n e s s was prob­
a b ly not f u l l y achiev ed .

In a d d i t i o n , th e background and e x p e r ie n c e s

o f per sons who i d e n t i f y t h e major c a t e g o r i c a l groupings could have an
i n f l u e n c e on th e s e l e c t i o n o f th e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system; i . e . , one
person might choose t o group re sp onses o f "more one-on-one i n s t r u c t i o n
needed" in a c a te g o r y e n t i t l t e d Reduced Class Size while a n o t h e r p e r ­
son with a c i f f e r e n t background and e x p e r ie n c e s might view t h i s as
I ncr ea sed Support Needs.

Another example i s t h a t r esp onses o f prob­

lems such as "withdrawal" o r " d o e s n ' t p a r t i c i p a t e in c l a s s a c t i v i t i e s "
might be c l a s s i f i e d under a heading o f Class Adjustment F a i l u r e —
Non disru ptive/ N onag gres sive while a n o t h e r person might e s t a b l i s h a
c a te g o r y o f Behaviors C h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f Emotional o f P e r s o n a l i t y
Disorders.
In o r d e r t o overcome some o f t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s , one u n i v e r s i t y
p r o f e s s o r f a m i l i a r with s p e c i a l education and coding pro ce dures was
asked t o check t h e v a l i d i t y o f th e coding by indep en den tly coding t h e
r es po nses o f t h i r t y o f t h e seventy-one t e a c h e r s , using th e c a t e g o r i e s
which had been developed and used e a r l i e r t o code a l l r e s p o n s e s .

It

became a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e p er ce ntag e o f agreement was u n s a t i s f a c t o r y .

45
To as su r e a h i g h e r degree o f ac curacy with regard to c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
and coding, a l l o f th e respo nses were recoded using th e f ollow in g
procedure:
1.

The o r i g i n a l c a t e g o r i e s were r e c l a s s i f i e d using major

conceptual groupings with more s p e c i f i c s u b c a t e g o r i e s under each o f
th e s e major head in gs .

I t was a l s o found n e c e s s a r y t o combine some

o f the o r i g i n a l c a t e g o r i e s because o f conceptual ov e r la p and to e s t a b ­
l i s h some new c a t e g o r i e s which more s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f i n e d th e newly
e s t a b l i s h e d major conceptual gr ou pings .
2.

Each o f t h e re spons es was coded by t h i s i n v e s t i g a t o r and

one u n i v e r s i t y p r o f e s s o r ex pe rienc ed in s p e c i a l ed ucation and coding
pr ocedure s, using t h e new c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system.

Coding was i n i t i a l l y

done in dependently f o r t h e f i r s t group of problems.
compared.

R e s u l ts were

I f th e resp on se was not coded by both people t o th e same

c a te g o r y , t h e item was d i s c u s s e d in o r d e r to a t te m p t t o reach a g r e e ­
ment.

I f agreement could n o t be r e a c h e d , th e item was d es ig n a te d not

codable and was not includ ed in t h e r e s u l t s .

A f te r the f i r s t group,

some re sp onses were unable t o be coded in dependently and d i s c u s s i o n
took p lace immediately.

I f agreement could not be reached, t h e item

was e l i m i n a t e d .
3.

I f a t e a c h e r made two or more respons es which were s i m i l a r

enough in co ncept to be as s ig n e d t o th e same c a t e g o r y , th e response
was only counted once.
The c a t e g o r i e s which evolved from t h i s procedure a r e d e s c r i b e d
in Chapter IV.

All r es po nses c o n tain ed t h e r e i n a r e th ose f o r which

t h e r e was complete agreement between the two r a t e r s .

46
Data-Anal.ysis Procedures
The d a ta o b tain ed from th e respons es o f th e t e a c h e r s and
t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s were analyzed by t a b u l a t i n g t h e numbers and p e r ­
ce ntage of respons es t o pro vide a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e p e r c e p tio n s of
mainstreaming d e s c rib e d by t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s .

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
I n tr o d u c t i o n
This c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s an a n a l y s i s and d i s c u s s i o n o f th e d a t a .
An a tte m p t i s made t o i d e n t i f y f i n d i n g s o f p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t which
may a s s i s t in d e s c r i b i n g c e r t a i n a r e a s r e l a t e d t o th e p r a c t i c e of
mainstreaming handicapped c h i l d r e n .

Four major a r e a s o f concern

were ad dr essed:
1.

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f problems which a r i s e f o r t e a c h e r s and
t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s when a handicapped c h i l d ' s educa­
t i o n a l program c o n t a i n s placement in a r e g u l a r classroom
f o r any p o r t i o n o f t h e school day.

2.

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f s p e c i a l e d u c a tio n s uppo rt s e r v i c e s ,
a c t u a l and needed, in te nded t o a s s i s t in a l l e v i a t i n g
t h e problems.

3.

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f c e r t a i n f a c t o r s which c o n t r i b u t e to
s u c c e s s f u l or uns uccess fu l mainstream placements.

4.

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f f a c t o r s which a f f e c t a t t i t u d e o f
t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s toward mainstreaming.

For each o f th e f o u r major a r e a s o f concern i d e n t i f i e d above,
r e s u l t s a r e p r e s e n te d in an a tte m p t to answer s p e c i f i c q u e s ti o n s
examined in t h i s s tu d y .

The r e a d e r should be aware t h a t th e r e s u l t s

o f t h i s study a r e d e s c r i p t i v e and e x p l o r a t o r y in n a t u r e .

The com­

p l e x i t y and v a r i e t y of t h e i n d i v i d u a l , open-ended responses did not
perm it an i n - d e p t h s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f th e r e s u l t s .

Sim ilarly,

in th o s e i n s t a n c e s where s p e c i f i c re sp onses were e l i c i t e d , no formal

47

48
s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s was done because o f th e d e s c r i p t i v e and e x p l o r a ­
t o r y n a t u r e o f t h e stu dy.

An a tt e m p t has been made to provid e an

i n i t i a l view o f mainstreaming through i d e n t i f y i n g th e concerns and
f e e l i n g s expres sed by t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s .
The r e s u l t s ar e d i s c u s s e d under each major a r e a o f concern
in t h i s c h a p t e r in an a tt e m p t t o i d e n t i f y i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o mainstreaming which need f u r t h e r i n - d e p th s tu d y .
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f Problems
The d a t a were analyzed in an a t t e m p t t o examine c e r t a i n ques­
t i o n s r e l a t e d t o problems which a r i s e f o r t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s when a handicapped c h i l d ' s e d u c a t i o n a l program c o n t a i n s
placement in a r e g u l a r classroom f o r any p o r t i o n o f th e school day.
1.

What a r e t h e problems classroom t e a c h e r s a s s o c i a t e with
placement o f a handicapped c h i l d in t h e i r classroom?

2.

What a r e th e problems t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s p e r c e i v e t o be
o f concern t o classroom t e a c h e r s who have a handicapped
c h i l d in t h e i r classroom?

3.

Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e frequency with which
c e r t a i n types o f problems, i . e . , academic l e a r n i n g ,
be h a v io r , e t c . , a r e i d e n t i f i e d by classroom t e a c h e r s and
teacher-consultants?

4.

What a r e th e problems t h a t t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s a s s o c i a t e
w ith pr ov id in g s e r v i c e s t o handicapped c h i l d r e n in main­
streamed environments?

R es u lts
What a r e th e problems classroom t e a c h e r s a s s o c i a t e w ith
placement o f a handicapped c h i l d in t h e i r classroom?
The r esp onses given by t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s
r e g a rd in g problems r e l a t e d t o mainstreaming were grouped i n t o eleven

49

categories.

Six o f t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s a r e r e l a t e d t o behavior o f th e

c h i l d , t h r e e r e l a t e t o th e t e a c h e r , and two ap pea r to be u n r e l a t e d
s p e c i f i c a l l y t o t h e c h i l d or to th e t e a c h e r .

The eleven c a t e g o r i e s

i n c lu d e :
Problems R e l a t i n g t o th e Behavior of th e Child
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.

A ttendin g Behaviors
Phy sical o r H ealth-R ela ted Problems
I n a b i l i t y to Perform Academic o r Classroom Work
Co nditions or Behavior S ugge stive o f P o t e n t i a l f o r
Emotional Impairment
D i s r u p t i v e / A g g r e s s i v e Social Behavior
P o t e n t i a l So cial/Em otional Adjustment Problem, Unspecified

Problems R e l a t i n g to th e Teacher o r Teaching Function
G.
H.
I.

Scheduling
Lack o f Teacher P r e p a ra tio n o r Knowledge
Adequacy o f Support A s s i s t a n c e

Other Problems
J.
K.

Home C ond itio ns
S a f e t y Iss u es

Category d e s c r i p t i o n s .- - T h e ele ve n c a t e g o r i e s a r e c h a r a c t e r ­
ized by th e f o ll o w in g d e s c r i p t i o n s :
Problems R e l a t i n g t o t h e Behavior o f th e Child
A.

Attendin g Behaviors--Any s ta te m e n t which im plies t h a t the

c h i l d was having a problem a t t e n d i n g to t a s k s was includ ed in t h i s
category.

Examples o f s tate m en ts in t h i s c a t e g o r y i n c l u d e :

"finish­

ing work," "would not s t a y on t a s k , " "does not pay a t t e n t i o n in
c l a s s , " "does n o t complete work."

This ca t e g o r y i s d i f f e r e n t from

Category D --C ond iti on s or Behavior Sugg es tive o f P o t e n t i a l f o r Emo­
t i o n a l I mpa ir m ent--i n t h a t the s ta t e m e n t s a s s ig n e d t o t h i s c ateg o r y
mention o r imply t h a t t h e c h i l d i s having d i f f i c u l t y with a t t e n d i n g

50
to o r completing t a s k s r e l a t e d to t h e classroom r a t h e r than a more
g e n e r a l i z e d c l a s s adjustmen t problem.
B.

Physical or H e a lth - R elate d Problems—Any problem which

included a r e f e r e n c e to o r im p l i c a t i o n o f physical problems or h e a l t h
needs was include d in t h i s c a t e g o r y , i . e . , " h e a l t h and grooming,"
" h e a r i n g ," " physic al problem," "wet p a n t s , " "bathroom d i f f i c u l t i e s . "
C.

Inability

to Perform Academic or Classroom Work—This

category includ ed any sta te m e n t which implied t h a t th e c h i l d had d i f ­
f i c u l t y in l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s .

This d i f f e r s from Category A in

t h a t th e problem implied in s ta te m e n t s in t h i s c ate g o r y i s one of
lack of a b i l i t y r a t h e r than l ack o f a t t e n t i o n or d i f f i c u l t y in com­
p l e t i o n of work.

General s ta t e m e n ts such as " l e a r n i n g problems,"

"very slow l e a r n e r , " " l e a r n in g d i s a b i l i t y , " and "slow r e a d e r" ar e
examples of s ta te m e n ts included in t h i s c a te g o r y .
D.

Con ditions o r Behavior S ugg es tiv e o f P o t e n t i a l f o r

Emotional Impairment—This ca t e g o r y included s ta t e m e n ts which implied
t h a t t h e s t u d e n t was n o t a d j u s t i n g t o t h e classroom o r demonstrated
b eha viors o f te n a s s o c i a t e d with lowered s e l f - e s t e e m .

In a d d i t i o n ,

s t a te m e n ts which i n d i c a t e c r i t i c i s m o r r e j e c t i o n by p e e r s were
as si gn ed to t h i s c a t e g o r y because t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s could cause a
c h i l d t o have lower s e l f - e s t e e m .

The s ta t e m e n t did not imply t h a t

the behavior or a c t i v i t y demonstrated was d i s r u p t i v e to th e c l a s s or
t h a t th e c h i l d was a c t i n g in an a g g r e s s i v e manner.

Examples o f spe­

c i f i c s ta te m e n t s a s sig n ed t o t h i s c a t e g o r y includ ed "extremely
q u i e t , " " i n a b i l i t y t o cope with d a i l y r o u t i n e , " "was not t r u s t w o r t h y , "

51
"being di scouraged by c r i t i c i s m o f o t h e r s , " " f e e l i n g s about s e l f
because o f being unable t o a c h i e v e , " " l y i n g , " and " s t e a l i n g . "
E.

D i s r u p tiv e /A g g r e s s iv e Social Behavior—This c ate g o r y

included behaviors or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of th e c h i l d which i n d i c a t e d
e x c e s s i v e ag g ress ion a n d /o r d i s r u p t i o n in t h e cl as sr o om .
o f s ta te m e n ts included in t h i s cate gory a r e as f o ll o w s :

Examples
"constant

d i s r u p t i o n o f th e c l a s s , " " p e r s i s t e n t d i s o b e d i e n c e , " "behavio r pro b­
lem in th e clas sroom," " a c t i n g out in th e classroom and on the p l a y ­
ground ," " i n j u r e d o t h e r s , " "throwing t h i n g s , " and " c o n s t a n t n o i s e . "
F.

P o t e n t i a l Social/Emotional Adjustment Problem, Unspeci-

f i e d - - S t a t e m e n t s as si gned to t h i s c ateg o r y i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e problem
was one o f t h e c h i l d ' s b e h a v i o r , but t h e r e was n o t enough informa­
t i o n to i n d i c a t e i f i t was a behavior c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f an emotional
problem as in Category D or a d i s r u p t i v e s o c i a l be hav ior as d e s c r i b e d
in Category E.

Examples of respons es included in t h i s c a te g o r y a r e

" i n a p p r o p r i a t e s o c i a l behavior" and " em o tio n ally u p s e t . "
Problems R ela tin g to th e Teacher or Teaching Function
G.

Scheduling—This c ateg o r y i n c l u d e s s t a t e m e n t s o f problems

which imply o r s t a t e a concern about sch ed uling o f c h i l d r e n o r th e
movement of c h i l d r e n in and out o f th e room.

Comments in c l u d e

" d ec rea se d f l e x i b i l i t y in scheduling" and " s c h e d u l i n g . "
H.

Lack o f Teacher P r e p a r a t i o n or Knowledge—The concern

t h a t t e a c h e r s ex pressed as si gned to t h i s c a t e g o r y i s lack of t r a i n i n g
or knowledge r e l a t e d t o d e a l in g with handicapped c h i l d r e n .

This c a t e ­

gory i nc lu ded s ta te m e n t s such as "I d i d n ' t have t h e e x p e r ie n c e or
t r a i n i n g to teach t h i s kind o f c h i l d " and "I wondered i f I was handling

52
th e c h i l d e f f e c t i v e l y - - I d i d n ' t f e e l q u a l i f i e d t o deal with his
emotional problem."
I.

Adequacy of Support A s s i s t a n c e —Statements as signed to

t h i s c ateg o r y s t a t e d o r implied t h a t t e a c h e r s did not have enough
time t o pro vid e t h e c h i l d with needed a s s i s t a n c e or t h a t th e y were
in some way d i s s a t i s f i e d with t h e s up port a s s i s t a n c e being provided.
Examples of s ta te m e n ts included in t h i s category a r e :

"not having

enough time to work with t h e c h i l d , " " d i s c i p l i n e in homeroom and
s p e c ia l educati on room d i f f e r e n t , " and " d i f f e r e n c e s in classroom and
EMI room."
Other Problems
J.

Home C o n d itio n s —This category included any problem in

which th e t e a c h e r r e f e r r e d t o th e home or p a r e n t s in h i s / h e r d e s c r i p ­
t i o n of the problem, i . e . , "home problems o f major s i z e , " "p ar en t
p r e s s u r e , " and "de pr ived home l i f e . "
K.

S a f e ty I s s u e s - - T h i s c ateg o r y include d problems concerned

with s a f e t y o f t h e c h i l d e i t h e r during an emergency s i t u a t i o n or
because of t h e classroom environment not being adapted f o r a p a r t i c u ­
l a r handicapping c o n d i t i o n .

Examples of s ta te m e n ts a s sig n ed t o t h i s

c ate g o r y i n c lu d e "removing her in cas e of emergency" and "I was con­
cerned about h i s physic a l s a f e t y . "
Number o f respo ns es r e l a t e d t o problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .--A t o t a l
of 218 problems were c i t e d by 71 classroom t e a c h e r s based on t h e i r
e x periences with 129 d i f f e r e n t handicapped c h i l d r e n .

One hundred two

o f th e re spons es were based on ex p e r i e n c e t e a c h e r s had had with seventy
c h i l d r e n i d e n t i f i e d as "most s u c c e s s f u l " placements, with an average

53
o f 1.5 re sponse s per t e a c h e r .

One hundred s i x t e e n o f th e respo nses

were based on f i f t y - n i n e c h i l d r e n i d e n t i f i e d by th e t e a c h e r s as
" l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " placements, with an average o f 1.9 re spon se s per
teacher.

Four of the 218 responses were unable t o be coded because

of th e vagueness of th e s ta te m e n t s and th e i n a b i l i t y of the coders
t o ag ree on a p a r t i c u l a r c a te gory.

These s ta t e m e n ts were e l i m i n a t e d .

T e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s were asked t o i d e n t i f y problems about
which they thought t e a c h e r s might be concerned.

F o r t y - f i v e problems

were i d e n t i f i e d by twelve t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s , with an average of 3.7
re sp onses each.

T h i r t y - n i n e respo nses were a b l e t o be coded t o c a t e ­

g o r i e s e s t a b l i s h e d from t e a c h e r r e s p o n s e s .
The d i f f e r e n c e in t h e average number o f problems c i t e d by
t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s may be a t t r i b u t e d t o d i f f e r e n c e s in
d a t a - c o l l e c t i o n pr ocedure s.

Teachers were asked t o be c h i l d - s p e c i f i c .

They were provided with space f o r two problems f o r each i d e n t i f i e d
child.

However, they were not c o n s i s t e n t in t h e number o f problems

identified.

The most problems r e l a t e d to one c h i l d i d e n t i f i e d by any

one t e a c h e r was f o u r .

The few es t i d e n t i f i e d by any one t e a c h e r was

none.
T e a c h e r - c o n s u l ta n t s were in te rv iew ed p e r s o n a l l y and were not
r e q u i r e d t o f i l l o ut forms, while t e a c h e r s were provided with forms
in a small-group s e t t i n g .

Because an i n t e r v i e w e r was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r

r e c o rd in g respons es o f the t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s , more respo nses may
have been e l i c i t e d from t h i s group.

T e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s were not

lim ited to s p e c ific a lly id e n tifie d children.

Thus, they were

responding from a broader base of c h i l d r e n , which may have allowed

54
them to i d e n t i f y a g r e a t e r number of problems which they p e r c e iv e d
t o be of concern t o t e a c h e r s .

The g r e a t e s t number o f problems i d e n ­

t i f i e d by any one o f the twelve t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s was f i v e .

The

fewest was t h r e e .
Table 1 p r e s e n t s b a s ic s t a t i s t i c a l d a ta re gard in g th e pr ob ­
lems i d e n t i f i e d by t e a c h e r s and problems which t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s
perceived to be o f concern to t e a c h e r s .

Examination o f re sp on ses

showed t h a t a s i n g l e problem i d e n t i f i a b l e under one o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s
may have been d e s c r i b e d f o r an in d iv id u a l s tu d e n t in two or t h r e e
s e p a r a t e items by th e resp o n d en ts .

Rather than count t h e s e s e p ­

a r a t e l y , i t was determined to count such d u p l i c a t i v e c i t a t i o n s as
one problem t y p e .

In t h i s way, as des crib ed in Chapter I I I , durin g

th e assignment o f r es pon ses t o c a t e g o r i e s , d u p l i c a t e r esp onses when
c i t e d f o r any one c h i l d were e l i m i n a t e d .
In a d d i t i o n , f o r the purposes o f Table 1, we a r e not i n t e r ­
e s te d in t o t a l number o f r e s u l t i n g r e s p o n s e s , but r a t h e r in t h e r e l a ­
t i v e number o f t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s who i d e n t i f i e d
p a r t i c u l a r type s o f problems.
Responses r e p o r t e d in t h i s t a b l e a r e th e r e s u l t o f e l i m i n a t ­
ing d u p l i c a t e r e sp o n s e s when r e p o r te d by one t e a c h e r f o r both s t u d e n t s
f o r whom s h e /h e was r e p o r t i n g ; e . g . , i f Teacher A i d e n t i f i e d Problem C
f o r both a "most s u c c e s s f u l " placement and f o r a " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l "
placement, i t was only counted once under t h a t ca te g o r y .

By removing

d u p l i c a t e r es pon ses made by t e a c h e r s who had i d e n t i f i e d both a "most
s u c c e s s f u l " and a " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " mainstreamed c h i l d , th e number
o f coded resp o n s es was reduced from 214 to 184.

Table 1 . —Problem types by number r e p o r t i n g , percentage o f re sp o n se s, and rank o r d e r a s s o c ia te d w ith mainstreaming handicapped stu d e n ts
as c i t e d by te a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s .

Type of Problem

Number o f
Teachers
Reporting

Teachers
(N = 71)
Percent of
Teachers
Reporting

T eacher-C onsultants
(N = 12)
Rank

Number o f
T /C 's
Reporting

P erce nt of
T/C 's
Reporting

Rank

R elated to Child (140 problems)
A—Attending Behaviors

15

21%

5

3

25%

7.75

B—Physical o r Health R elated

11

15%

6

0

0

0

C— I n a b i l i t y to Perform Academic or
Classroom Work

41

58%

1

6

50%

2.5

D—C onditions or Behavior S uggestive of
P o t e n t i a l f o r Emotional Impairment

35

49%

3

5

42%

5.5

E—D isru p tiv e /A g g re ssiv e Social Behavior

36

51%

2

5

42%

5.5

F—P o te n ti a l S ocial/Em otional Adjustment
Problem, U nspecified

10

14%

7

3

25%

7.75

G—Scheduling

2

3%

10.5

3

25%

7.75

H—Lack o f Teacher P re p aratio n o r Knowledge

8

11%

8

6

50%

2.5

16

23%

4

7

58%

1.0

J —Home Conditions

4

6%

9

1

8%

10.0

K—S afety Issues

2

3%

10.5

0

0

R elated t o Teacher o r Teaching Function
(26 problems)

I —Adequacy o f Support A ssista n c e
Other

Not codable

4

0

0

56
Over 50 p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s were concerned about problems
in Category C - - I n a b i l i t y t o Perform Academic or Classroom Work (58%)
and Category E - - D i s r u p tiv e /A g g r e s s i v e Social Behavior (51%).

Forty -

nine p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s were concerned about Category D—Condi­
t i o n s or Behavior Sugges tive o f P o t e n t i a l f o r Emotional Impairment.
The next most f r e q u e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d types o f concerns were Category I —
Adequacy of Support A s s i s ta n c e (23%) and Category A- -Attending
Behaviors (21%).

Category B— Physical or H e alt h - R elate d Problems

(15%) and Category F— P o t e n t i a l So cial/Em otional Adjustment Problem,
U nspe cified (14%) were o f concern to over 10 p e r c e n t o f the t e a c h e r s .
I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t th e f i r s t t h r e e , and s i x o f the f i r s t
seven c a t e g o r i e s a r e r e l a t e d to the c h i l d .
What a r e th e problems t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s p e r c e i v e t o be
o f concern t o classroom t e a c h e r s who have handicapped c h i l ­
dren in t h e i r classrooms?
T h i r t y - n i n e o f th e f o r t y - f i v e re sp onses from t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s were a b l e t o be coded using th e same c a t e g o r i e s which
had been developed from responses made by classroom t e a c h e r s .

As i s

ap p a r e n t from t h e r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d in Table 1, t h e respo nses were
varied.

F i f t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s thoug ht

t e a c h e r s would be most concerned about problems coded to Category I —
Adequacy o f Support S e r v ic e .

Problems r e l a t e d to Category C—

I n a b i l i t y to Perform Academic or Classroom Work and Category H—Lack
o f Teacher P r e p a r a t i o n or Knowledge were r e p o r t e d by 50 p e r c e n t of
the te a ch er-c o n su ltan ts.

Forty-two p e r c e n t o r f i v e of th e t e a c h e r -

c o n s u l t a n t s tho ugh t t e a c h e r s would be concerned about Category D-Conditions or Behavior Suggestive of P o t e n t i a l Emotional Impairment

57
and Category E - - D is r u p t iv e / A g g r e s s iv e Behavior.

Twenty-five p e r c e n t

o r t h r e e o f th e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s f e l t classroom te a c h e r s would be
concerned about problems r e l a t e d to Category A—Attending Behavior,
Category F— P o t e n t i a l Social/Emotional Adjustment Problem, Unspeci­
f i e d , and Category G--Scheduling.
T e a c h e r - c o n s u l ta n t s made s i x responses f o r which no ca te g o r y
was a v a i l a b l e .

Because o f t h e c l a r i t y and uniqueness o f th e r e s p o n s e s ,

i t i s f e l t th ey should be includ ed :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

" H y p e r a c t i v i t y " —two respo nses
"Special ed uca tion kids throw t e s t s c o r e s o f f"
"Lack o f d i s c i p l i n e with o t h e r k i d s —need t o d i s c i p l i n e
d i f f e r e n t l y than o t h e r s "
"Children a r e d i f f e r e n t - - d o n ' t have c u l t u r a l advantages
and have language d e f i c i t s "
"Negative f e e l i n g s o f p r i n c i p a l —no f o llow -through on
r e f e r r a l s or recommendations"

Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s between th e frequency with which
c e r t a i n typ es o f problems a r e i d e n t i f i e d by classroom
t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s ?
Table 1 a l s o ranks th e problems in t h e o r d e r of frequency
with which they were r e p o r t e d by t e a c h e r s and by t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s .
As one compares t h e ranking o f th e problems in Table 1, t h e d i f f e r ­
ence in numbers o f t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in
the s tudy must be kept in mind.

We can, however, observe c e r t a i n

d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e problems r e p o r t e d by t e a c h e r s and those problems
t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s ex p ect t e a c h e r s t o e x p e r ie n c e .

Overall, c la s s ­

room t e a c h e r s focused on problems r e l a t e d t o t h e c h i l d , while t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s more f r e q u e n t l y p r e d i c t e d t h a t classroom t e a c h e r s would
be more concerned about problems r e l a t i n g t o them selves , such as
"adequacy o f s u p p o rt a s s i s t a n c e " and " la c k o f t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n or

58
knowledge."

Teachers appear t o be more f r e q u e n t l y concerned about

" d i s r u p t i v e / a g g r e s s i v e behavior" and " i n a b i l i t y t o perform academic
o r classroom work" than t h e frequency with which t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s
would p r e d i c t th e s e concerns.
Before d i s c u s s in g t h e r e s u l t s of t h i s ar ea o f co ncern, i t i s
important t h a t a f o u r t h q u e s tio n be addressed.
What a r e t h e problems t h a t t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s a s s o c i a t e
w ith pr ov id in g s e r v i c e s to handicapped c h i l d r e n in r e g u ­
l a r classrooms?
The respons es were grouped i n t o e i g h t c a t e g o r i e s .

Responses

coded to f i v e of th e c a t e g o r i e s appear to be problems o f concern
r e l a t e d t o th e classroom t e a c h e r .

The remaining t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s

r e l a t e to o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s which may c r e a t e problems in d e l i v e r y of
services.

The e i g h t c a t e g o r i e s inclu de :

Te ac he r-R elated Problems
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Negative Teacher A t t i t u d e Toward Handicapped Children
Lack o f Communication a nd/o r Cooperation with Classroom
Teacher
Classroom T e a c h e r 's Lack of Background and Knowledge
Lack o f Follow-Through or App ro pria te Change in th e
Classroom
D i s c i p l i n e Used by Classroom Teachers

Other Problems
F.
G.
H.

Scheduling
Lack o f Acceptance by Nonhandicapped
Lack o f Support or I n t e r e s t o f A d m i n i s tr a to rs

Category d e s c r i p t i o n s .--The c a t e g o r i e s a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by
t h e following d e s c r i p t i o n s .
T eac her -Related Problems
A.

Negative Teacher A t t i t u d e Toward Handicapped C h i l d r e n - -

Responses coded under t h i s c ateg o r y s t a t e d o r implied t h a t t e a c h e r s

59
had a n e g a t iv e a t t i t u d e toward handicapped c h i l d r e n .
respons es in c lu d e :

Examples of

" t e a c h e r s s i n g l e d them out as th e ones who did

th in g s wrong," "lack o f un der st an ding o f th e handicapped," and
" i n c o n s i d e r a t e o f handicapped."
B.

Lack o f Communication a n d /o r Cooperation with Classroom

Teachei— Responses coded under t h i s ca t e g o r y i n d i c a t e d a concern t h a t
t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s did n o t have enough personal con­
t a c t with each o t h e r t o d i s c u s s th e c h i l d or s olv e problems.

Some

re spons es implied t h a t t h e classroom t e a c h e r would not seek help from
th e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t .

Examples of r es po ns es i n c lu d e "communication"

as th e problem, " lack of c o n s i s t e n c y , " and " l i t t l e co o p e r a tio n to
work out problems."
C.

Classroom T e a c h e r ' s Lack o f Background and Knowledge—

Responses as sig ned t o t h i s c ate g o r y i n d i c a t e d t h a t t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s
f e l t t h e classroom t e a c h e r ' s lack o f background a n d / o r knowledge about
s p e c ia l education made i t d i f f i c u l t t o pr ov ide s e r v i c e s because the
"classroom t e a c h e r did not understand what they [ t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s ]
were t a l k i n g about" o r because th e "classroom t e a c h e r f e l t incompe­
ten t."
D.

Lack o f Follow-Through or A p p r o p ria te Change in th e

Classroom—Responses coded under t h i s c a te g o r y i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e
classroom t e a c h e r had s a i d h e/she would do something and d i d n ' t , or
th e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t f e l t t h a t a change should be made but was not
done.

Examples o f re spon se s coded under t h i s ca t e g o r y i n c l u d e :

" r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s do n o t change anything f o r handicapped c h i l d " and
"th ey d o n ' t fo llow through on s u g g e s t i o n s . "

This d i f f e r s from

60
Category B— Lack o f Communication a n d /o r Cooperation.

In Category D

th e focus i s on a change needed in th e classroom as d i f f e r e n t i a t e d
from a lack of c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t , as i s implied in Category B.
E.

D i s c i p l i n e Used by Classroom Teachers--Responses coded

under t h i s c a t e g o r y s t a t e d or implied t h a t t e a c h e r s used in ap prop­
r i a t e d i s c i p l i n e f o r handicapped c h i l d r e n o r used d i s c i p l i n e as an
a lte r n a tiv e to m otivation.

"Teachers d i s c i p l i n e t o help l e a r n

r a t h e r than m ot ivat e" and "punishment o f te n used" a r e examples of
responses in t h i s c a t e g o r y .
Other Problems
F.

Sch eduling--Re sponses as signed t o t h i s c a te g o r y i n d i c a t e d

t h a t t h e r e was d i f f i c u l t y in keeping t r a c k o f t h e s t u d e n t or t h a t th e
s t u d e n t missed o u t on t h i n g s because o f s chedulin g problems.

Examples

o f respons es as s ig n e d t o t h i s c a t e g o r y s t a t e d " schedu lin g" or " d i f f i ­
c u l t y in keeping t r a c k o f s tu d e n t " as the problem.
G.

Lack o f Acceptance by Nonhandicapped—Responses coded

under t h i s c a t e g o r y s t a t e d o r implied t h a t peer r e j e c t i o n or o t h e r
i n d i c a t i o n s o f lack o f a c c e p t a n c e by nonhandicapped p e e r s might have
a n e g a tiv e e f f e c t on the handicapped c h i l d .

"Lack o f acc ep tance "

and "peer r e j e c t i o n in th e classroom" a r e examples o f re sp on ses coded
under t h i s c a te g o r y .
H.

Lack o f Support o r I n t e r e s t o f A d m i n i s t r a t o r s —Responses

coded under t h i s c a t e g o r y s t a t e d o r implied t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were
d i s i n t e r e s t e d o r did n o t pr ovid e s u p p o rt when t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s
f e l t th ey needed i t .

"Lack o f s upp ort" or " l a c k o f i n t e r e s t " ar e

examples o f r esp onses coded under t h i s c a te g o r y .

61
Number o f respons es r e l a t e d to pr oviding a s s i s t a n c e . —Thi r t y s i x problems r e l a t e d t o pro vid ing a s s i s t a n c e were c i t e d by twelve
t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s based on t h e i r e x p e r ie n c e s with mainstreaming.
T h i r ty -tw o o f t h e s e problems were coded under t h e various d e s c r i b e d
categories.

Four o f t h e problems were u n r e l a t e d to th e e s t a b l i s h e d

c a t e g o r i e s and a r e l i s t e d below:
1.
2.
3.
4.

" D iff e r e n c e s in home and school sta nda rd s "
"Lack o f adequate f a c i l i t i e s - - r o o m too small"
"Too many s tu d e n t s in room a t one time to i n d i v i d u a l i z e "
"Teachers expec t a l l answers from s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n —
l a y on 'h e a l i n g ha nds'"

Table 2 p r e s e n t s th e number and per ce ntag e of t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s who made s t a te m e n ts which were coded under each of t h e
categories described.

S e v e n ty - f iv e p e r c e n t of the t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s

were concerned about Category A--Lack o f Teacher Acceptance of t h e
Handicapped.

Forty-two p e r c e n t of th e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s were

concerned ab out Category B—Lack o f Communication a n d /o r Cooperation
with Classroom Teachers and Category C—Classroom T e a c h e r 's Lack of
Background and Knowledge in Special Education.

Scheduling was o f

concern to 34 p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s .
I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note th e emphasis th e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s
placed on problems r e l a t i n g to t h e a t t i t u d e s , knowledge, or beha viors
of t h e t e a c h e r .

Twenty-four o f th e t h i r t y - s i x respons es d e a l t with

t h e s e problems which implied some d e f i c i e n c i e s in t h e t e a c h e r s .

Only

two o f t h e t h i r t y - s i x respons es r e l a t e d to d i f f i c u l t i e s produced by
s t u d e n t s ; both r e l a t e d t o peer acce ptan ce by th e nonhandicapped.
r es po nses were r e l a t e d t o th e behavior o f th e handicapped c h i l d .

No

62
Table 2 . —Problem types by number and percentag e a s s o c i a t e d with
pr ov id ing s e r v i c e s r e l a t e d t o mainstreamed, handicapped
c h i l d r e n a s - r e p o r t e d by t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s .
T e acher- C ons ult ants
(N = 12)
Problems

Number o f
T /C 's
Re por ting

P e r c e n t of
T / C 's
Reporting

A--Negative Teacher A t t i t u d e Toward
Handicapped Child

9

75%

1

B—Lack o f Communication a n d /o r
Cooperation with Classroom Teacher

5

42%

2. 5

C—Classroom T e a c h e r ' s Lack o f Back­
ground and Knowledge

5

42%

2. 5

D—Lack o f Follow-Through or Approp­
r i a t e Change in t h e Classroom

3

25%

5

E - - D i s c i p i i n e Used by Classroom
Teachers

2

17%

7

F—Scheduling

4

34%

4

G—Lack o f Acceptance by Non­
handicapped

2

17%

7

H—Lack o f Support or I n t e r e s t of
A d m in is tr a t o r

2

17%

7

Rank

Te ac he r- Related Problems

Other Problems

63
Discussion o f Data Re lated to
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f Problems
The r e s u l t s of t h i s study i n d i c a t e t h a t th e problems most
o f t e n i d e n t i f i e d by t e a c h e r s r e l a t e t o t h e c h i l d ' s beha vior.

The

t h r e e most o f te n i d e n t i f i e d problems incl ud ed (1) I n a b i l i t y to Perform
Academic o r Classroom Work, (2) D i s r u p t i v e / A g g r e s s i v e Social Behavior,
and (3) Conditions or Behavior Sugges ti ve or P o t e n t i a l f o r Emotional
Impairment.
In o r d e r t o compare t h i s stu d y with th e r e s u l t s o f s i m i l a r
s t u d i e s c i t e d in Chapter I I , a l i s t has been provided comparing th e
t h r e e most o f te n i d e n t i f i e d s u b c a t e g o r i e s o f Zawadzki's Category 1 —
I n a p p r o p r i a t e Classroom Behavior, th e t h r e e top c a t e g o r i e s in M a r k e l l ' s
s t u d y , and th e t h r e e most o f te n i d e n t i f i e d problem c a t e g o r i e s in t h i s
study.
Markell

Sloan

1. Demands too much
te a c h e r time

1. " l e a r n i n g d i f f i ­
c u l t i e s . . ."

1. I n a b i l i t y to p e r ­
form academic
. . . work

2. Class conduct
problems

2. " d i s c i p l i n e o r
be hav ior problems"

2. D i s r u p t i v e /
aggressive
behavior

3. I n a b i l i t y to
a t t a i n bas ic
skilIs

3. " d i f f i c u l t y l o c a t ­
ing m a t e r i a l "

3. Conditions o r
be ha vior s u g g e s t i v e
of potential for
emotional impairment

Zawadzki

In comparing t h e s e t h r e e s t u d i e s , one f i n d s very c l o s e a g r e e ­
ment with two o f t h e t h r e e major concerns c i t e d in t h i s stu dy.

While

p a r a l l e l comparisons c a n ' t be made because th e c a t e g o r i e s a r e some­
what d i f f e r e n t and t h e p revio us s t u d i e s a r e based on educable m e n ta lly

64
r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n , i t i s obvious, when examining th e s u b c a te g o r ie s
o f ca t e g o r y one in Zawadzki's s tu dy, t h a t two o f th e t h r e e most o f te n
r e p o r t e d " d e t e r r e n t s " in his study ar e c o n s i s t e n t with two of th e
t h r e e most o f te n i d e n t i f i e d problems i d e n t i f i e d in t h i s study.
Although t h e number of s u b j e c t s in M ark elV s study was much
s m a l l e r than in t h e p r e s e n t s tu d y , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t
two o f t h e t h r e e top c a t e g o r i e s of respons es most f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r t e d
in M ark elV s study and th e ones r e p o r te d in t h i s study ar e a l s o in
agreement.

The agreement between t h e s e t h r e e s t u d i e s would s u b s t a n ­

t i a t e t h a t th e problems which come to t e a c h e r s ' minds in open-ended
s t u d i e s a r e r e l a t e d to e i t h e r th e i n a b i l i t y o f c h i l d r e n to perform
academic or classroom work or d i s r u p t i v e / a g g r e s s i v e behavior.
There appeared to be s i m i l a r i t i e s between some of the o t h e r
c a t e g o r i e s c i t e d in each o f the t h r e e s t u d i e s ; however, th e rank o r d e r
was d i f f e r e n t .

In a d d i t i o n , th e number of r es pon ses w i th i n each o f

t h e remaining c a t e g o r i e s r e p r e s e n t e d fewer than 25 p e r c e n t of the
teachers.

Thus, they may r e p r e s e n t problems o f s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e

in p a r t i c u l a r c o n d i t i o n s but may not g e n e r a l l y be problems one may
ex pect in mainstreaming; e . g . , h e a l t h - r e l a t e d problems may be i d i o ­
s y n c r a t i c t o p h y s i c a l l y or o th er w ise h e a l t h - i m p a i r e d s t u d e n t s , not
to mainstreamed c h i l d r e n in g e n e r a l .
One might p r e d i c t t h a t t e a c h e r s would be concerned about
d i s r u p t i v e / a g g r e s s i v e behavior in th e classroom because of i t s e f f e c t
on t h e o t h e r s t u d e n t s and th e d i f f i c u l t i e s i t must cause in m a i n t a i n ­
ing a good l e a r n i n g environment, but t e a c h e r s in t h i s study were even
more concerned about th e c h i l d ' s i n a b i l i t y t o do academic and classroom

65
work and n e a r l y e q u a l l y concerned about c o n d i t i o n s or beh av io r sugges­
t i v e o f p o t e n t i a l emotional impairment.

The concern of t e a c h e r s with

t h e s e a r e a s , in p a r t i c u l a r , i s a l s o demonstrated by th e gap between
th e pe rce ntag e of t e a c h e r s r e p o r t i n g t h e s e types o f problems and th e
next most o f te n i d e n t i f i e d problem:

adequacy of s up po rt a s s i s t a n c e .

A d i f f e r e n c e of tw e n t y - s i x percentag e p o i n t s e x i s t s .
These t h r e e problems appear t o c l u s t e r around th e beh av io r of
the c h i l d .

Upon r e f l e c t i o n , c e r t a i n e x p l a n a t i o n s emerge.

have c e r t a i n e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r c h i l d r e n in t h e i r clas sroom s.

Teachers
The han­

dicapped c h i l d may not be p r o g re s s i n g a n d / o r performing w ith in the
normal range o f e x p e c t a t i o n s .

I f t e a c h e r s have not been made aware

o f a l t e r e d e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r t h e handicapped c h i l d because o f th e
c h i l d ' s p a r t i c u l a r i m p a i r m e n t ( s ) , t h e t e a c h e r may view th e c h i l d ' s
lack of academic o r s o c i a l p r o g r e s s as a problem.

These t h r e e prob­

lems, most o f t e n c i t e d by t e a c h e r s , be ar a r e l a t i o n s h i p t o each o t h e r .
Low academic performance may be caused because of d i s r u p t i v e / a g g r e s s i v e
behavior o f th e c h i l d or c o n d i t i o n s o r be ha vior s u g g e s t i v e of po ten­
t i a l f o r emotional impairment.

On t h e o t h e r hand, d i s r u p t i v e behav­

i o r a n d /o r emotional impairment may r e s u l t from a c h i l d ' s i n a b i l i t y
to perform academic or classroom work.

These t h r e e problems may be

c i r c u l a r in n a t u r e , each i n t e r r e l a t e d with th e o t h e r .

Second, i f th e

classroom t e a c h e r views h i s / h e r major j o b as one o f academic i n s t r u c ­
t i o n and views t h e c h i l d r e n as c l i e n t s who a r e not succeeding in
classroom work, then th e t e a c h e r i s n o t succeeding.
I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s a l s o focused on
t h r e e type s o f problems which th ey thought would be of concern to

66

classroom t e a c h e r s .

They f e l t t e a c h e r s would be concerned about:

(1) Lack of Teacher P r e p a r a t io n or Knowledge, (2) Adequacy o f Support
A s s i s t a n c e , and (3) th e c h i l d ' s I n a b i l i t y to Perform Academic or
Classroom Work.

In examining t h e s e top t h r e e problems, t e a c h e r -

c o n s u l t a n t s appear to be aware o f t e a c h e r concerns r e l a t i v e to th e
c h i l d ' s i n a b i l i t y to perform academic or classroom work.

However,

the o t h e r two types of problems which t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s f e l t would
be of concern to t e a c h e r s a r e very d i f f e r e n t from those which t e a c h e r s
a ctu ally reported.

Rather than t o focus on r e l a t e d behav iors o f the

c h i l d , as did t e a c h e r s , t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s f e l t classroom t e a c h e r s
would be concerned about t h e i r own in adequacies in knowledge and
p r e p a r a t i o n f o r working with t h e handicapped or th e adequacy o f th e
supp ort s e r v i c e s being pro vid ed.

Two of t h e s e t h r e e m o s t - o f t e n -

i d e n t i f i e d problems focused on th e t e a c h e r r a t h e r than th e c h i l d .
In examining the problems t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s i d e n t i f i e d with
r eg ar d t o providing s e r v i c e s , t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s focused on the
classroom t e a c h e r r a t h e r than th e c h i l d .

They f e l t t h a t t e a c h e r s

have n e g a ti v e a t t i t u d e s toward handicapped c h i l d r e n , a r e l ack in g in
background and knowledge, and do not f o llo w through o r make approp­
r i a t e changes in th e classroom f o r th e handicapped.
The major d i f f e r e n c e between r esp onses o f t e a c h e r s and those
o f t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s in t h i s study i s t h a t , in c o n t r a s t t o t e a c h e r s ,
t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s , even though th ey spend most o f t h e i r time with
c h i l d r e n , as do t e a c h e r s , did not i d e n t i f y behaviors o f c h i l d r e n as
c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r s t o problems in p rovid in g s e r v i c e s , nor did they
i d e n t i f y th e behaviors of c h i l d r e n as a major concern o f the classroom

67
teacher.

One might s p e c u l a t e on a number o f reasons f o r th e s e d i f ­

ferences.

C e r t a i n l y , c o n s i d e r a t i o n must be given to the desig n of

the study.

There were c e r t a i n d i f f e r e n c e s in t h a t t e a c h e r s were

asked to focus on s p e c i f i c c h i l d r e n , while t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s '
respon se s were based on more ge ner al ex p e r i e n c e s .

Considering t h a t

t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s m aintained t h e i r focus on t e a c h e r s when r e l a t i n g
problems which were of concern t o them and problems which they thought
would be o f concern to classroom t e a c h e r s , one q u e s ti o n s whether
t h i s could have caused such gr os s d i f f e r e n c e s in th e focus of
r espons es.
In reviewing the concerns expressed by both gr oups , one might
s p e c u l a t e t h a t i f th e classroom t e a c h e r views th e c h i l d as h i s / h e r
c l i e n t and th e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t views th e t e a c h e r as h i s / h e r c l i e n t ,
then th e focus of problems te n d s to be on th e c l i e n t r a t h e r than a
s earc h f o r in ad eq uac ie s in o n e ' s s e l f , thus causing a d i f f e r e n c e in
th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f problems.

T e a c h e r - c o n s u l ta n t s may f e e l t h a t

t e a c h e r s must be aware o f t h e inad eq uac ies which they see in t e a c h e r s ;
thus th ey would probably i d e n t i f y t h e s e as problems along with th e
need of more adequate s u p p o rt s e r v i c e s to make up f o r t h e s e in ad e­
quacies.

T e achers , on t h e o t h e r hand, ex pr ess concern abou t c h i l d

b e havior because c h i l d r e n a r e th e c l i e n t s f o r whom they a r e resp on­
sible.
Another view with r egard to t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s i s t h a t they
may expec t problems in t h e academic and s o c i a l behavior o f t h e handi­
capped c h i l d and f e e l t h e s e ar e normal f o r t h i s group.

The t e a c h e r ,

on th e o t h e r hand, f e e l s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a balance o f s e r v i c e t o both

68
handicapped and nonhandicapped c h i l d r e n and t h e r e f o r e may focus on
problems r e l a t i v e to th e d e v i a n t behavior o f t h e handicapped.
Regardless of th e causes o f t h e s e p o t e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s
between problems i d e n t i f i e d by t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s , i t
i s im portant t h a t t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s be r e so lv e d in o rder t h a t a s s i s ­
tance f o r mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n be maximized.

Recom­

mendations f o r r e s o l v i n g some o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s , as well as the
problems i d e n t i f i e d , a r e d i s c u s s e d l a t e r in t h i s c h a p t e r .
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f S pecial Education
Support S e r v ic e s
The data were analyzed in an a t te m p t t o examine c e r t a i n ques ­
t i o n s r e l a t e d to s upport s e r v i c e s designed to a s s i s t in s o lv i n g prob­
lems which a r e o f concern t o th e classroom t e a c h e r .
1.

What s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s designed t o a s s i s t in s o lv in g
problems do classroom t e a c h e r s r e p o r t as being provided?

2.

To what e x t e n t a r e classroom t e a c h e r s s a t i s f i e d with th e
services?

3.

What a r e th e r ea so ns t e a c h e r s i d e n t i f y , which cause d i s ­
s a t i s f a c t i o n with s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s ?

4.

What s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s do t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s r e p o r t
they pro vide t o a s s i s t in s o l v in g problems?

R esults
What s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s des ign ed t o a s s i s t in s o lv i n g
problems do classroom t e a c h e r s r e p o r t as being provided?
The respo nses given by t e a c h e r s r e g a r d in g a s s i s t a n c e provided
o r needed were grouped i n t o ele ven c a t e g o r i e s .

Seven o f t h e s e c a t e ­

g o r i e s were r e l a t e d t o d i r e c t a s s i s t a n c e to th e c h i l d .

One ca te g o r y

69
included a s s i s t a n c e being provided t o t h e t e a c h e r .
l i s t e d o t h e r types o f a s s i s t a n c e .

Two c a t e g o r i e s

The eleve n c a t e g o r i e s i n c l u d e :

D i r e c t A s s i s ta n c e to th e Child
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.

Additio nal I n s t r u c t i o n —P la ce U ns pecif ied
Additional I n s t r u c t i o n —Outs ide o f Classroom
A dditiona l I n s t r u c t i o n — In Regular Classroom
Remove from Classroom
Counseling
A p p lic a tio n o f Behavior Management Techniques
Social-Emotional Help
Health Care o r Ev alu ation

A s s i s ta n c e t o th e Teacher
I.

S u g g e s tio n s , M a t e r i a l s , Cooperation

Other Types o f A s s is ta n c e
J.
K.

P a r e n t Contact
Diagnosis

Category d e s c r i p t i o n s .-- Th e el ev en c a t e g o r i e s a r e c h a r a c t e r ­
ized by th e f o ll o w in g d e s c r i p t i o n s .
D i r e c t A s s i s ta n c e to the Child
A.

A dditiona l I n s t r u c t i o n —Plac e U n s p e c i f i e d —Responses

assig ned t o t h i s ca te g o r y i n d i c a t e d i n s t r u c t i o n was t a k i n g p l a c e ,
but t h e r e was not enough in fo rm ation t o i d e n t i f y whether th e c h i l d
was or should be a s s i s t e d on a o n e - t o - o n e or s m a l l e r group b a s i s
w i t h i n his r e g u l a r classroom o r in a s p e c i a l e d u c a t io n room.
B.

A d d it io n al I n s t r u c t i o n —Outside o f Classroom—Responses

as si gn ed t o t h i s c a te g o r y i n d i c a t e d t h e c h i l d was going t o a s p e c i a l
educa tion room t o r e c e i v e a d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n o r t h a t a s p e c i a l
ed ucation t e a c h e r was working with t h e c h i l d .
included in t h i s ca t e g o r y were:

Examples o f s ta te m e n ts

" c h i l d r e c e i v e d a l l academic i n s t r u c ­

t i o n in s p e c i a l education room" and "worked on remedial re a d in g [with
t e a c h e r i d e n t i f i e d by name o r p o s i t i o n ] . "

70
C.

A d ditio nal I n s t r u c t i o n — In Regular Classroom—Responses

a s sig n ed to t h i s ca te g o r y i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e c h i l d was o r should be
r e c e i v i n g a d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n while remaining in h is r e g u l a r
classroom s e t t i n g .

Examples o f s t a te m e n ts as si gn ed to t h i s c ategory

included "need an a i d e in th e classroom t o provide more o n e - to -o n e
help" and "p re se nc e o f t e a c h e r or a i d e du rin g le s s o n s in cl as sr oom ."
D.

Remove from Classroom—Statements as sign ed t o t h i s c a t e ­

gory im plied

t h a t t h e c h i l d was plac ed in the s p e c i a l e d u catio n room

or t h e r e was a need f o r th e c h i l d t o be t h e r e f o r a long er per iod of
time.

These

s ta t e m e n t s did n o t s p e c i f y how th e time in s p e c i a l

c a t i o n would

be used.

t h i s c a t e g o r y i n c lu d e :

edu­

Examples o f s p e c i f i c s ta te m e n ts a s s ig n e d to
"remove from classroom when d i s r u p t i o n s come

to th e p o i n t o f d e s tr o y i n g a l l c l a s s order" and "keep c h i l d in EMI
room f o r l o n g e r p e r i o d s . "

When s ta te m e n ts s p e c i f i e d a c e r t a i n kind

of he lp du rin g t h e removal, th ey were assi gn ed to Category A, B,
C— I n s t r u c t i o n , o r E—Counseling.
E.

Counseling—This c a t e g o r y included any r es po ns es t h a t

s t a t e d o r implied t h a t t h e c h i l d was r e c e i v i n g o r needed some type
o f o n e - t o - o n e or group c o u n s e l in g .
in cluded a r e :

Examples of s ta te m e n ts which were

" c h i l d needs per so na l c o u n s e l in g , " " t a l k e d with c h i l d

ab ou t how to t r e a t o t h e r p e o p l e ' s p r o p e r t y , " and "th era p y f o r emo­
t i o n a l pr oblems."
F.

A p p lic a ti o n o f Behavior Management Techniques—This c a t e ­

gory inclu ded any s ta te m e n t t h a t i n f e r r e d some type o f beh av io r
management or b e havio r m o d i f i c a t i o n system was involved or d e s i r e d .
Examples o f r esp onses coded under t h i s c ategory i n c lu d e :

"contracted

71
with s t u d e n t to improve be havior" and "worked on beh av io r m o d if ic a ­
t i o n program."
G.

Social-Emotional Help—A number o f re spon se s i n d i c a t e d

th e c h i l d was r e c e i v i n g help f o r some type o f s o c ia l o r emotional
problem, but th e response was not s p e c i f i c in terms o f whether coun­
s e l i n g or be hav ior management s t r a t e g i e s were being provide d.

Responses

t y p i c a l o f thos e assi gned to t h i s ca t e g o r y a r e "helped her be more
outgoing" and " re ceived help with s e l f - c o n c e p t . "
H.

Health Care o r E v a lu a t i o n —This c ate g o r y in cl uded items

which i n d i c a t e d t h a t a s s i s t a n c e was needed or provided by th e h e a l t h
n u r s e , d o c t o r , o r o t h e r medical p e r s o n n e l , o r was d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d
to health care.

S p e c i f i c s ta t e m e n ts in clu d ed :

"help f o r grooming

and emotional behavior r e l a t e d t o an i n f e c t i o n , " " r e g u l a r checkups,"
" c o r r e c t i n g bad h a b i t s and e s t a b l i s h i n g good h e a l t h h a b i t s , " and
" helping c h i l d r e g u l a t e s e l f [ t o i l e t ] . "
A s s i s ta n c e to th e Teacher
I.

S u g g e s tio n s , M a t e r i a l s , C o o p e r a ti o n - -T h is category

included s ta te m e n ts which implied or s t a t e d t h a t th e a s s i s t a n c e p r o ­
vided o r needed was or should be accomplished through s u g g e sti o n s to
t h e gen er al ed uca tion t e a c h e r on how to deal with i n s t r u c t i o n a l or
beha vioral problems m anife sted by th e handicapped c h i l d .

This c a t e ­

gory incl uded s ta te m e n ts which i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e s p e c i a l ed uc ation
t e a c h e r was or should be p rovid in g equipment or m a t e r i a l s as a s s i s t a n c e .
In a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s , re sp on ses which implied t h a t
t h e classroom t e a c h e r and th e s p e c i a l ed uca tion t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t
were e i t h e r working t o g e t h e r or needed t o work t o g e t h e r more t o plan

72
a c t i v i t i e s or m aintain c o n s i s t e n t i n s t r u c t i o n were a l s o a s s i g n e d to
t h i s ca t e g o r y .
in c l u d e :

Examples o f responses a s s ig n e d t o t h i s c a te g o r y

" su g g e s t io n s f o r how t o help or handle c h i l d w h ile in th e

room were p r o v id e d ," "provided m a t e r i a l s , " "EMI t e a c h e r should be
w i l l i n g to

co oper ate with classroom t e a c h e r on types and kinds o f

t r e a t m e n t , " and " s p e c ia l ed ucation t e a c h e r and I worked t o g e t h e r and
planned program and o b j e c t i v e s . "
Other Types o f A s s i s ta n c e
J.

P arent Contact—This c ate g o r y inc lud ed s t a t e m e n t s which

i d e n t i f i e d t h a t a s s i s t a n c e was o r needed to be provided through
s p e c ia l or o t h e r ed uca tion personnel c o n t a c t i n g p a r e n t s .
included:

Statements

"mother and f a t h e r should become aware why th e c h i l d i s th e

way he i s , " "worked with both p a r e n t s , " "home environment check o u t , "
and "she has c o n tacted the p a r e n ts about r e p l a c i n g broken i t e m s . "
K.

D i a g n o s is - - A s s i s t a n c e r e c e iv e d o r needed a s s i g n e d t o t h i s

ca t e g o r y i n d i c a t e d t h a t " t e s t i n g " was pro vided o r needed.
Number o f respons es r e l a t e d to s u p p o rt s e r v i c e s . —A t o t a l o f
163 respon ses d e s c r i b i n g a s s i s t a n c e r e c e i v e d and 42 r e sp o n s e s r e g a r d ­
ing a s s i s t a n c e needed were provided by 71 classroom t e a c h e r s based
on t h e i r experience with 129 d i f f e r e n t handicapped c h i l d r e n .

Ninety-

s i x o f th e re sp onses i d e n t i f y i n g a s s i s t a n c e r e c e i v e d and nine re spons es
i d e n t i f y i n g a s s i s t a n c e needed were based on e x p e r ie n c e s t e a c h e r s had
had with seve nty c h i l d r e n i d e n t i f i e d as "most s u c c e s s f u l , " w ith an
average of 1.3 r es po nses per t e a c h e r f o r a s s i s t a n c e r e c e i v e d and an
average o f .1 respons e f o r a s s i s t a n c e needed.

S i x t y - f i v e o f th e

73
r es po nses i n d i c a t i n g a s s i s t a n c e r e c e iv e d and t h i r t y - t h r e e o f th e
r es po nses i n d i c a t i n g a s s i s t a n c e needed were based on f i f t y - n i n e c h i l ­
dren i d e n t i f i e d by th e t e a c h e r s as " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " placements,
with an av er ag e o f 1.1 re sp onses p e r t e a c h e r f o r a s s i s t a n c e r e c e i v e d
and .6 r espon s e f o r a s s i s t a n c e needed.

The most responses from any

one t e a c h e r f o r any one c h i l d was t h r e e ; t h e l e a s t was ze ro .
As p r e v i o u s l y n o te d , only u n d u p lic a t e d respons es were coded
f o r th e p r o b l e m - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n q u e s t i o n .

The same procedure was

followed f o r a s s i s t a n c e r e c e i v e d and needed in t h i s s e c t i o n f o r th e
same r e a s o n s .

The number o f r esp onses was reduced from 163 d e s c r i b ­

ing a s s i s t a n c e r e c e iv e d t o 144 and 42 re sp onses d e s c r i b i n g a s s i s t a n c e
needed t o 40.

Table 3 pr ov ides b a s ic s t a t i s t i c a l d a ta reg ard in g

a s s i s t a n c e r e c e iv e d and a s s i s t a n c e needed as r e p o r t e d by classroom
teachers.
S i x t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s r e p o r t e d t h a t c h i l d r e n
r e c e i v e d a s s i s t a n c e through d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n o u t s i d e of th e c l a s s ­
room.

The n e x t - m o s t - o f t e n - r e p o r t e d a s s i s t a n c e was co uns eling th e

c h i l d (28%).

Twenty-four p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s r e p o r te d r e c e i v i n g

a s s i s t a n c e from th e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t through s u g g e s t i o n s , m a t e r i a l s ,
or c o o p e r a t i v e pl anning.

Eighteen p e r c e n t s a i d a s s i s t a n c e r e c e iv e d

involved removing th e c h i l d from t h e classroom without s p e c i f y i n g
what took p l a c e o u t s i d e o f th e classroom.

Sixteen p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d

t h a t a s s i s t a n c e involved c o n t a c t o r work with th e p a r e n t by s p e c i a l
e d u cati o n p e r s o n n e l.
The a s s i s t a n c e t e a c h e r s most o f t e n r e p o r t e d needing was
S u g g e s ti o n s , M a t e r i a l s , and Cooperation (21%).

Additional

Table 3 . —Types o f a s s i s t a n c e rec eiv e d and a s s i s t a n c e needed a s s o c ia te d w ith mainstreaming handicapped stu d e n ts as r e p o r te d by
classroom te a c h e r s .
A ssista n c e Received

A ssistan c e Needed

Number o f
Teachers
Reporting
(N = 70)

P erce nt of
Teachers
Reporting

Rank

5

7%

B—A dditional I n s t r u c t i o n —O utside o f Classroom

44

C—A dditional I n s t r u c t i o n — In Regular Classroom

Number of
Teachers
Reporting
(N = 33)

P ercent of
Teachers
Reporting

Rank

9

5

15%

2

63%

1

2

6%

7.5

3

4%

11

2

6%

7.5

D—Remove from Classroom

13

18%

4

4

12%

4 .5

E—Counseling

20

28%

2

4

12%

4 .5

F—A p p lic a tio n o f Behavior Management Techniques

4

6%

10

1

3%

9 .5

G—Social-Em otional Help

7

10%

6

4

12%

4 .5

H—Health Care o r Evaluation

6

8%

7 .5

0

0

0

17

24%

3

7

21%

1

11

16%

5

3

9%

6

6

8%

7.5

1

3%

9.5

Type o f A ssistan c e

D ir e c t A ssista n c e to Child
A—A dditional I n s t r u c t i o n —Place U nspecified

A ss is ta n c e t o Teacher
I —Su g g estio n s, M a te r ia ls , Cooperation
Other
J —P aren t Contact
K—Diagnosis
Not codable

8

7

75
I n s t r u c t i o n - - P l a c e Un sp ec ified was i d e n t i f i e d n ex t most o f t e n by
15 p e r c e n t of the t e a c h e r s .

Three o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s were i d e n t i f i e d

by 12 p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s :

Remove from Classroom, Cou nseling, and

Social-Emotional Help.
What s u p p o rt s e r v i c e s do t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s r e p o r t th ey
provide t o a s s i s t in solv ing problems?
Twelve t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s were asked t o i d e n t i f y a s s i s t a n c e
which th ey provided o r attempted t o pro vide t o help s olv e problems
with which they f e l t classroom t e a c h e r s might be concerned.

As noted

in Chapter I I I , they were not asked t o r e l a t e t o t h e s p e c i f i c c h i l d r e n
on whom classroom t e a c h e r re spons es had been based.
An i n i t i a l review o f th e d ata sug ge sted some problems r e l a t i v e
to an a ly s is of the data.

Responses were v a r i e d and were, in g e n e r a l ,

unable to be coded to t h e s p e c i f i c c a t e g o r i e s developed from t e a c h e r
res p o n s e s .

In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e p o r t s by t e a c h e r s o f a s s i s t a n c e r e c e iv e d

and c o n f l i c t i n g r e p o r t s by t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s o f a s s i s t a n c e provided
would i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e design of t h e s tu d y may have i n f l u e n c e d t h e
r e s p o n s e s , causing an i n a c c u r a t e d e s c r i p t i o n o f a s s i s t a n c e c u r r e n t l y
being pr ovide d.

Because o f t h e s e problems, t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t

r esp o n s es r e g a rd i n g a s s i s t a n c e provided were coded i n t o t h r e e very
ge neral c a t e g o r i e s :

(1) D i r e c t A s s is ta n c e t o t h e C h i l d , (2) A s s i s t a n c e

t o th e Teacher, and (3) No A s s i s ta n c e Provided.

The d a t a r e v e a l e d

seven o f t h e twelve t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s r e p o r t e d t h a t th ey were con­
cerned t h a t they were a b l e t o provide l i t t l e , i f any, a s s i s t a n c e f o r
c e r t a i n problems with which they f e l t t e a c h e r s may have concern
(8 r e s p o n s e s ) .

The re spons es were v a r i e d in t h a t t h e r e did n o t seem

76
t o be any one ty pe o f problem f o r which no help was being provided.
All twelve t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s r e p o r t e d t h a t they provide some type
o f a s s i s t a n c e to t h e t e a c h e r (47 r e s p o n s e s ) .

Eig ht t e a c h e r -

c o n s u l t a n t s r e p o r t e d pr o v id in g d i r e c t a s s i s t a n c e t o th e c h i l d (21
responses).
T e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s were asked to i d e n t i f y th e percentage of
the school day which i s s p ent with c h i l d r e n and t h e per ce ntag e o f
r e l e a s e d time th e y use f o r p la n n i n g , c o u n s u l t i n g , e t c .

Ten of the

twelve t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s r e p o r t e d 85 to 100 p e r c e n t o f t h e i r time
was spen t with c h i l d r e n ; two r e p o r t e d 60 t o 66 p e r c e n t o f t h e i r time
was spent with c h i l d r e n .

This r e p o r t by t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s of time

use would s u b s t a n t i a t e th e r e p o r t o f th e classroom t e a c h e r s which
i d e n t i f i e d a l a r g e amount o f t h e a s s i s t a n c e r e c e i v e d as d i r e c t t o the
child.

Seven o f t h e twelve t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s s a id they would not

change t h e time r a t i o i f th ey co uld.
time c o n s u l t i n g with t e a c h e r s .

Four s a i d they would spend more

One did n o t respond.

To what e x t e n t a r e t e a c h e r s s a t i s f i e d with s e r v i c e s ?
Teachers s a i d t h a t they were s a t i s f i e d with a s s i s t a n c e
r eceiv ed f o r 78 o f th e 129 c h i l d r e n r e p o r t e d in th e study and d i s s a t i s ­
f i e d in th e cas e o f 32 c h i l d r e n .

The remaining n in e t e e n c h i l d r e n were

e i t h e r n o t r e c e i v i n g a s s i s t a n c e or t e a c h e r s f a i l e d t o i n d i c a t e whether
o r not they were s a t i s f i e d .

These d a t a w i ll be d i s c u s s e d in t h e next

s e c t i o n , which a t t e m p t s t o i d e n t i f y f a c t o r s r e l a t e d to th e s ucc es s o f
mainstream placements.

77
What a r e t h e r ea so ns which cause d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with
supportive services?
The r esp onses given by t e a c h e r s i n d i c a t i n g why they were d i s ­
s a t i s f i e d with a s s i s t a n c e were grouped i n t o f i v e c a t e g o r i e s .

These

c a t e g o r i e s in c lu d e :
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Lack o f Feedback and Communication
Disagree with Approach
Lack o f Progress
Disagree with Placement
Needed More Help

Category d e s c r i p t i o n s . -- T h e f i v e c a t e g o r i e s a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d
by th e fo llow in g d e s c r i p t i o n s .
A.

Lack o f Feedback and Communication—Some t e a c h e r s were

d i s s a t i s f i e d because th ey f e l t they did not have enough in fo rm ati on
about the c h i l d or about what th e c h i l d was doing when he/ sh e was o u t ­
s i d e o f the classroom .

Examples o f re spons es coded under t h i s ca te g o r y

in clu d e "I did n o t g e t d a i l y feedback needed t o give a s s i s t a n c e in th e
classroom to th e c h i l d " and "communication l a c k i n g . "
B.

Disagree with Approach-Some t e a c h e r s were d i s s a t i s f i e d

because they f e l t t h e approach being used was i n c o r r e c t or i n c o n s i s ­
t e n t with what th ey th ou gh t should be happening.

"Pampered too much"

and " i n c o r r e c t approach" a r e examples o f s ta t e m e n t s as sig ned to t h i s
c a te g o r y .

This c a te g o r y d i f f e r e d from Category D—Disagree with

Placement, in t h a t t h e r e was no r e f e r e n c e to placement but only to
methods o r approach being used.
C.

Lack o f P r o g r e s s - S o m e of th e d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n appeared t o

be because t h e t e a c h e r could see l i t t l e or no p r o g r e s s , i . e . , "became

78
worse," "no p r o g r e s s , " "he was more d i s r u p t i v e , " and "I saw no d i f ­
ference."
D.

Disagree with Placement--This ca t e g o r y inclu de d s ta te m e n t s

which i n d i c a t e d t h e t e a c h e r d is a g r e e d with th e placement and f e l t the
c h i l d was in a s p e c i a l educa tion room too much or too l i t t l e or in
the wrong program.

Statements such as "could have used classr oom

time t o help him p e r s o n a l l y , " "she only f u n c t i o n s in s p e c i a l educa­
t i o n room," "more c ontro l i f I had her a l l th e t im e ," and "should be
in El room r a t h e r than LD room" were as si gned to t h i s c a te g o r y .
E.

Needed More Help--Responses coded under t h i s c ateg o r y

i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e t e a c h e r was d i s s a t i s f i e d because s he/h e f e l t more
help was needed.
inclu de

Examples o f r es po nses as signed to t h i s c ateg o r y

"only l a s t e d s h o r t tim e—needed more h e l p , " "no-one h e lp e d , "

and "needs more a t t e n t i o n . "
Number o f r e s p o n s e s . —F or ty-one r ea so ns were given by t e a c h e r s
f o r why th ey were d i s s a t i s f i e d with a s s i s t a n c e r e c e i v e d .

Thirty-four

o f t h e s e reasons were coded under t h e c a t e g o r i e s d e s c rib e d above.
Seven o f t h e reason s were u n r e l a t e d to t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s but should be
mentioned here:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

"Problems were too sev ere"
"Her problems have never been i d e n t i f i e d "
"Special ed uca ti on t e a c h e r d i d n ' t know what t o do"
"Lack of p a r e n t support"
"Could not see c h i l d r e g u l a r l y "
"Came too l a t e t o help"
"Length o f time involved in r e c e i v i n g s e r v i c e s "

Ta ble 4 p r e s e n t s t h e reason s f o r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n by number
and p e r c e n ta g e o f t e a c h e r s who ex pr essed reasons f o r t h e i r d i s s a t i s ­
faction.

79
Table 4 . --Reasons f o r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with a s s i s t a n c e by number and
p e r c e n t as r e p o r t e d by classroom t e a c h e r s .

Reasons

Number of
Teachers
Reporting
(N = 31)

A--Lack o f Feedback

6

19%

2

15

48%

1

C—Lack o f Progress

5

16%

3.5

D--Disagree with Placement

3

10%

5

E—Needed More Help

5

16%

3.5

B—Disagree with Approach

Per ce nt o f
Teachers
Reporting

Rank

The reason t e a c h e r s gave most f r e q u e n t l y f o r being d i s s a t i s f i e d
with a s s i s t a n c e was t h a t th ey d i s a g r e e d with th e approach being used
(48%).
Discussion o f Data Related to
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f Support S e r v ic e s
Teachers most o f te n r e p o r t e d t h a t a s s i s t a n c e r e c e i v e d was
d i r e c t to t h e c h i l d and i nc luded e i t h e r some kind o f a d d i t i o n a l
i n s t r u c t i o n or c o u n s elin g .

A s s i s ta n c e to t h e t e a c h e r through sugges­

t i o n s , p ro v is io n of m a t e r i a l s , o r c o o p e r a t i v e plan ning was a l s o
r e p o r te d but much l e s s f r e q u e n t l y .
Although t h e r e were only a few r es po ns es r e g a r d i n g a s s i s t a n c e
needed i n s t e a d o f , o r in a d d i t i o n t o , t h a t which was c u r r e n t l y being
pr ov ided, t h e one most o f t e n r e q u e s te d was a s s i s t a n c e to th e t e a c h e r
through s u g g e s t i o n s , p r o v is i o n o f m a t e r i a l s , or c o o p e r a t i v e p l a n n i n g .
Teachers a l s o f e l t a need f o r s e r v i c e s d i r e c t to t h e c h i l d f o r

80
additional in stru c tio n .

The needs t e a c h e r s r e p o r t e d were a l l ty pes o f

a s s i s t a n c e which th e y had a l s o r e p o r t e d as a s s i s t a n c e r e c e iv e d or
c u r r e n t l y r e p o r t e d by o t h e r t e a c h e r s in t h i s study as a s s i s t a n c e
received.
I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o compare a s s i s t a n c e r e c e i v e d and needed
with th o s e type s o f s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s i d e n t i f i e d by t e a c h e r p r o f e s ­
s io nal groups (NEA and AFT).

The r e s u l t s o f t h i s stu d y would be in

agreement t h a t a p p r o p r i a t e i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s a r e needed f o r
mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n .

However, when given th e o p p o r tu ­

n i t y t o e x p r e s s nee ds, t e a c h e r s in t h i s study d id not d i r e c t l y r e p o r t
o r r e q u e s t reduced c l a s s s i z e o r a s s i s t a n c e with c urri culum d e s ig n ,
as i s s p e c i f i e d in th e recommendations o f both o r g a n i z a t i o n s .
Six typ es o f s o l u t i o n s to d e t e r r e n t s were proposed in Zawadzki's
stud y and r e p o r t e d in Chapter II o f t h i s pap er .

" P ro v is io n of approp­

r i a t e m a t e r i a l " was t h e only one t h a t was s i m i l a r t o any o f those id e n ­
t i f i e d in t h i s stu dy.

The c r i t i c a l i s s u e s u r f a c i n g from t h i s study i s

t h a t i t ap pea rs t h a t t e a c h e r s want more o f th e same kinds o f a s s i s t a n c e
which th ey a r e a l r e a d y r e c e i v i n g .

They e i t h e r d o n ' t f e e l t h a t th ey

r e a l l y need o t h e r kinds of a s s i s t a n c e such as t e a c h e r a i d e s , a s s i s t a n c e
with i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g i n s t r u c t i o n and c u r ric u lu m d e s i g n , and reduced
c l a s s s i z e , as a r e mentioned in Zawadzki's stu d y and t h e s t a te m e n ts of
p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , or t h e s e d i f f e r e n t kinds o f a s s i s t a n c e do
not immediately come t o mind when th ey a r e asked t o i d e n t i f y t h e i r
a s s i s t a n c e needs.

One q u e s ti o n s i f t e a c h e r s , by l i m i t i n g t h e i r

r e q u e s t s f o r a d d i t i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e kinds o f t h i n g s they a r e
a l r e a d y e x p e r i e n c i n g , f e e l t h a t th ey cannot i n f l u e n c e t h e broader

81
i s s u e s o f ed uc ation such as c l a s s s i z e , s t r u c t u r i n g f o r i n d i v i d u a l i ­
z a t i o n and c urri culum change, e t c .
Considering t h a t a number o f t e a c h e r s who a r e now d i s s a t i s ­
f i e d with s e r v i c e s wish more c o n s u l t a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s from t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t ten o f t h e twelve t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s a r e c u r r e n t l y spending n e a r l y a l l o f t h e i r time working
with c h i l d r e n and very l i t t l e time with t e a c h e r s , and s i x o f th e ten
would not change th e r a t i o even i f they could.
T e a c h e r - c o n s u l ta n t s may be h e s i t a n t t o change t h e i r time r a t i o
and r o l e from working with c h i l d r e n t o working with t e a c h e r s because
of th e f r u s t r a t i o n s and problems i d e n t i f i e d e a r l i e r in th e c h a p t e r .
They may f e e l they cannot change t e a c h e r a t t i t u d e and a c t i o n s toward
th e handicapped or t h a t they do not po sse ss th e s k i l l s f o r working
with a d u l t s r a t h e r than c h i l d r e n .
Teachers r e p o r t e d t h a t about o n e - f o u r t h o f th e c h i l d r e n id en ­
t i f i e d in th e study were r e c e i v i n g a s s i s t a n c e with which th ey were
dissatisfied.

Teachers s a id th ey were d i s s a t i s f i e d most o f t e n because

they d i s a g r e e d with t h e approach being used; i . e . , c h i l d r e n were
r e c e i v i n g rewards th ey c o u l d n ' t a f f o r d to use in t h e clas sr oom , t e c h ­
niques were causing t h e c h i l d t o be de pendent, and so on.

I t would

be i n t e r e s t i n g to know i f th e t e a c h e r s in t h i s s tudy were involved in
plan ning f o r t h e s e c h i l d r e n o r i f they became d i s s a t i s f i e d with the
approaches being used in s p i t e o f any involvement th ey may have had in
the planning p r o c e s s .

One would q u e s ti o n whether th o s e who ex pr essed

d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n f e l t a d e q u a te l y in volv ed.

Regardless o f t h e i r c u r ­

r e n t involvement, i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t many t e a c h e r s wish more

82
i n t e r a c t i o n with t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s through s u g g e s t i o n s , p r o v is i o n
o f m a t e r i a l s , and c o o p e r a t i v e p la nning.

I f t e a c h e r s have not been

a d e q u a t e ly in cluded in th e pl anning p r o c e s s , i t i s c r i t i c a l t h a t t h i s
be changed so t h a t t e a c h e r s a s s i s t in de ter m in ing a p p r o p r i a t e
approaches to rem ediate b a s i c s k i l l s and improve i n a p p r o p r i a t e behav­
i o r s so t h a t a c t i v i t i e s ar e c o n s i s t e n t w i th in and o u t s i d e o f th e
classr oom in which th e c h i l d r e n a r e based.
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f C e r ta i n F a c to r s Which C o n tr i b u t e
t o S uc ce ssf ul o r Unsuccessful Mainstream Placements
In an a t te m p t t o e l i c i t info rm at ion r e l a t e d t o th e t h i r d major
concern o f th e s t u d y , a s e r i e s o f s i x s u b q u estio n s were posed r e l a t e d
t o "most s u c c e s s f u l " and " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " mainstream placements?
1.

Are d i f f e r e n c e s in th e percentage o f time s pent by the
handicapped s tu d e n t in th e r e g u l a r classroom a s s o c i a t e d
with t h e p er ceiv ed judgments o f s ucc es s o f such placement?

2.

Are d i f f e r e n c e s in c e r t a i n types o f problems, i . e . , a c a ­
demic l e a r n i n g , b e h a v i o r , e t c . , in th e r e g u l a r classroom
a s s o c i a t e d with th e p erceived judgments o f s uc ce ss of
placement?

3.

Are d i f f e r e n c e s in c e r t a i n types o f s u p p o r ti v e s e r v i c e s
c u r r e n t l y being provided f o r mainstreamed, handicapped
c h i l d r e n in th e r e g u l a r classroom a s s o c i a t e d with th e p e r ­
ceived judgments o f success o f placement?

D.

Are d i f f e r e n c e s in c e r t a i n ty p e s o f s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s
i d e n t i f i e d as needed f o r mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n
in th e r e g u l a r classroom a s s o c i a t e d with th e p erceived
judgments o f success o f placement?

E.

Are d i f f e r e n c e s in c e r t a i n t y p e s o f handicaps a s s o c i a t e d
w ith th e p er ceiv ed judgments o f success o f placement?

F.

Are d i f f e r e n c e s in c e r t a i n type s o f problems, s u p p o r t iv e
s e r v i c e s c u r r e n t l y being p r o v id e d , and s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s
i d e n t i f i e d as needed f o r mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n
in t h e r e g u l a r classroom a s s o c i a t e d with c e r t a i n types o f
handicaps?

83
The r e s u l t s a r e based on th e respons es o f seventy-one t e a c h e r s
who a r e ex perienced with m a i n s t r e a i n g .
placements were i d e n t i f i e d .
were a l s o i d e n t i f i e d .

Seventy "most s u c c e s s f u l "

F i f t y - n i n e " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " placements

S p e c i f i c numbers o f resp o n s es have been provided

e a r l i e r in t h i s c h a p t e r .

This s e c t i o n w i l l ad d r e ss th e q u e s ti o n s

l i s t e d above.
Resul t s
Are d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e p er ce nta ge o f time s pent by t h e han­
dicapped s t u d e n t in t h e r e g u l a r classroom a s s o c i a t e d with
t h e p er ceiv ed judgments o f success o f such placement?
For each c h i l d i d e n t i f i e d as a "most s u c c e s s f u l " o r " l e a s t
s u c c e s s f u l " mainstream placement, th e t e a c h e r was asked t o i n d i c a t e
the p e r c e n ta g e o f time t h e c h i l d s p ent i n t h e r e g u l a r classroom.
Table 5 pr o v id e s th e r e s u l t s o f th e t e a c h e r s ' r e s p o n s e s .

Table 5 . — Perce ntag e o f time spen t in classroom by number and p e r c e n t
o f c h i l d r e n i d e n t i f i e d as "most s u c c e s s f u l " and " l e a s t
s u c c e s s f u l " as r e p o r t e d by classroom t e a c h e r s .

Percent o f Day
in Regular Class

Most Successful

Le ast S uccessful

Number
(N=70)

Per ce nt

Number
(N=59)

Percent

1-25%

12

17%

15

25%

26-50%

12

17%

6

10%

51-75%

7

10%

11

19%

76-99%

30
8

43%

16

27%

11%

11

19%

All day

84
No c l e a r l y d i s c e r n i b l e p a t t e r n emerges from t h i s t a b l e .

In

both groups th e g r e a t e s t numbers o f s t u d e n t s s pent 76 t o 99 p e r c e n t o f
the day in th e r e g u l a r classroom.
Te achers ' p e r c e p t i o n s r e g a rd in g whether c h i l d r e n a r e placed
a p p r o p r i a t e l y o r should spend more or l e s s time a r e r e p o r t e d in
Table 6.

Table 6 . —A ppro pri atenes s o f time s p e n t in r e g u l a r classroom by number
and p e r c e n t o f c h i l d r e n i d e n t i f i e d as "most s u c c e s s f u l " and
" l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " as r e p o r t e d by classroom t e a c h e r s .
Most Successful

Least Successful

Number
(N=70)

Percen t

Number
(N=59)

Per ce nt

Agree with placement

42

62%

16

27%

Should be in classroom more

11

16%

5

8%

Should be in classroom l e s s

15

21%

34

58%

Agreement

Table 6 i n d i c a t e s , as might be e x p ected , t h a t t e a c h e r s f e e l a
high p e r c e n ta g e o f " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " placements should be in th e
classroom l e s s .

Teachers a g r e e with th e amount o f time c h i l d r e n a r e

a s sig n ed t o classrooms more o f te n f o r "most s u c c e s s f u l " placements
than f o r " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " placements.

The s u r p r i s i n g f a c t o r i s

t h a t a few c h i l d r e n who a r e i d e n t i f i e d as " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " placements
a r e seen by t e a c h e r s as needing more time in th e r e g u l a r classroom.

On

t h e o t h e r hand, a number o f "most s u c c e s s f u l " placements a r e i d e n t i f i e d
as needing l e s s time in t h e r e g u l a r classroom.

85
Are d i f f e r e n c e s in c e r t a i n types of problems, i . e . , academic
l e a r n i n g , b e havior , e t c . , in th e r e g u l a r classroom a s s o c i a t e d
with th e per ce ived judgments o f success o f placement?
D e f i n i t i o n s o f c a t e g o r i e s under which re spons es o f problems
i d e n t i f i e d by t e a c h e r s were grouped have been provided e a r l i e r in
t h i s chapter.

Unduplicated co unts were provided f o r problems to i d e n ­

t i f y general concerns o f t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s r e g a rd in g
mainstreaming.
Table 7 p r e s e n t s th e number o f problems coded under each o f
th e c a t e g o r i e s which t e a c h e r s a s s o c i a t e d with t h e mainstreamed c h i l ­
dren they had i d e n t i f i e d by "most s u c c e s s f u l " and " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l "
placements.

In g e n e r a l , t h e r e i s l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between ty p e s o f

problems r e p o r t e d f o r "most s u c c e s s f u l " and " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " main­
stream placements.

Teachers most f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r t problems a s s o c i a t e d

with i n a b i l i t y t o perform academic or classroom work, be hav ior c h a r ­
a c t e r i s t i c o f emotional o r p e r s o n a l i t y d i s o r d e r s , and d i s r u p t i v e /
a g g r e s s i v e s o c i a l behavior f o r both "most s u c c e s s f u l " and " l e a s t
s u c c e s s f u l " placements.
Are d i f f e r e n c e s in c e r t a i n types o f s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s
c u r r e n t l y being provided f o r mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l ­
dren in t h e r e g u l a r classroom a s s o c i a t e d with th e p e r c e i v e d
judgments of success o f placement?
D e f i n i t i o n s o f c a t e g o r i e s under which r esp o nses o f a s s i s t a n c e
r e c e i v e d and needed were grouped have been provided e a r l i e r i n t h i s
chapter.

Unduplicated counts were provided t o i d e n t i f y g e n e r a l l y what

kind o f a s s i s t a n c e t e a c h e r s r e p o r t with r eg ar d to mainstreaming.

Table 7 . —Problem types by number asso ci at ed with "most successful" and " l e a s t successful"
mainstreamed, handicapped child placements as reported by te achers.
Most Successful
Type of Problem

Number of
Responses
(N = 100)

Percent of
Responses

Least Successful
Number of
Responses
(N = 114)

Percent of
Responses

Problems Related to the Child
A—Attending Behaviors
B—Physical or Health-Related Problems
C—I n a b i l i t y to Perform Academic or Classroom
Work
D—Conditions or Behavior Suggestive of
Poten tial f o r Emotional Impairment
E--Disruptive/Aggressive Social Behavior
F—Poten tial Social/Emotional Adjustment
Problem, Unspecified

8
7

8%
7%

7
5

6%
4%

26

25%

30

26%

18
17

18%
17%

25
24

22%
21%

1

1%

9

8%

2
7
11

2%
7%
11%

0
2
9

0
2%
8%

1
2

1%
2%

3
0

3%
0

2

2%

2

2%

Problems Related to the Teacher or
Teaching Function
G—Scheduling
H—Lack of Teacher Preparation or Knowledge
I--Adequacy of Support Assistance
Other
J —Home Conditions
K—Safety Issues
Not codable

87
Table 8 p r e s e n t s th e number and percentage of r esp onses
a s sig n e d t o each o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s o f a s s i s t a n c e provided and a s s i s ­
tance needed which t e a c h e r s a s s o c i a t e d with th e mainstreamed c h i l d r e n
they had i d e n t i f i e d as "most s u c c e s s f u l " and " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " p l a c e ­
ments.

I t a p p e a r s , from examining Table 8, t h a t t h e r e may be only one

d i f f e r e n c e between t h e v a r io u s kinds o f a s s i s t a n c e r e c e iv e d f o r "most
s u c c e s s f u l " and " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " placements i n t h a t c h i l d r e n a r e
more o f t e n "removed from th e classroom" in th e case o f " l e a s t s u c c e s s ­
f u l " placements.

In both " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " and "most s u c c e s s f u l "

pl ac em en ts , a s s i s t a n c e i s p r i m a r i l y provided d i r e c t l y t o th e c h i l d ,
with a r e l a t i v e l y small per ce ntag e r e p o r t e d as a s s i s t a n c e provided
to th e t e a c h e r through s u g g e s t i o n s , m a t e r i a l s , or c o o p e r a t i o n .
Although th e number of responses i n d i c a t i n g a s s i s t a n c e needed
i s s m a l l , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t responses i n d i c a t i n g a need
f o r a s s i s t a n c e to th e t e a c h e r were among t h e most f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d
f o r both "most s u c c e s s f u l " and " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " placements.
Table 9 i n d i c a t e s th e number o f i d e n t i f i e d c h i l d r e n f o r whom
t e a c h e r s i n d i c a t e d whether or n o t th ey were s a t i s f i e d with a s s i s t a n c e
received.

As might be expected, t h e r e was a h ig h e r number and p e r ­

ce ntage o f t e a c h e r s s a t i s f i e d with a s s i s t a n c e r e c e i v e d f o r "most
s u c c e s s f u l " placements than f o r " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " placements.

Those

responding f o r " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " placements were about e q u a l l y d i v i d e d
between being s a t i s f i e d or n o t being s a t i s f i e d .

Table 8 . —Assistance received and needed by number and percent associated with seventy "most successful" and f if t y - n in e " le a s t
successful" placements of mainstreamed, handicapped children as reported by classroom teachers.
A s sista n c e Received
Most Successful
A ssista n c e

Number of
Responses
(N = 90)

Percent
of Total
Responses

A ssistan c e Needed

L east Successful

Most Successful

L east Successful

Number of
Responses
(N = 65)

P ercent
o f Total
Responses

Number of
Responses
(N = 8)

P ercent
of Total
Responses

Number of
Responses
(N = 27)

Percent
of Total
Responses

D ir e c t A ssista n c e to Child
A—A dditional I n s t r u c t i o n —Place
U nspecified

4

4%

1

1.5%

2

25%

3

11%

31

34%

25

38%

0

0

2

7%

C—A dditio nal I n s t r u c t i o n —In
Regular Classroom

3

3%

1

1.5%

0

0

2

7%

D—Remove from Classroom

2

2%

13

20%

0

0

4

15%

13

14%

8

12%

1

12.5%

3

11%

F—A p p lic a tio n o f Behavior Management
Techniques

2

2%

2

3%

1

12.5%

0

0

G—Social-Em otional Help

5

6%

5

8%

0

0

4

15%

H—H ealth Care o r Evaluation

5

6%

0

0

0

0

0

0

13

14%

4

6%

2

25%

7

26%

J —P aren t Contact

9

10%

3

5%

2

25%

1

4%

K—Diagnosis

3

3%

3

5%

0

0

1

4%

B—A dditional I n s t r u c t i o n —O utside
o f Classroom

E—Counseling

A s s is ta n c e t o Teacher
I —S u g g estio n s, M a t e r i a l s , Cooperation
Other

Not codable

6

2

1

6

89
Table 9 . - - S a t i s f a c t i o n with a s s i s t a n c e r e c e iv e d by number and p e r c e n t
a s s o c i a t e d with "most s u c c e s s f u l " and " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l "
placements o f mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n as r e p o r t e d
by t e a c h e r s .
Least Successful

Most Successful
Sat i s f a c t i o n

Number of
Chi 1dren
(N = 70)

P er ce nt of
Responses

Number of
Children
(N = 59)

P ercent of
Responses

S atisfied--yes

54

77%

24

Sat i s f i e d - - n o

10

14%

22

41%
37%

6

9%

13

22%

S a t i s f a c t i o n not
indicated

Are d i f f e r e n c e s in c e r t a i n types o f handicaps a s s o c i a t e d
with th e p e r c e iv e d judgments o f s uc ce ss o f placement?
Teachers were asked to i n d i c a t e what type o f handicap had been
a s sig n e d to each of t h e c h i l d r e n r e p o r t e d in t h i s stu d y.

Thirty-nine

em o t io n a l ly im pai re d, n i n e t e e n educable m e n ta ll y im paired, t h i r t y seven l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d , f i v e p h y s i c a l l y or o th e r w is e h e a l t h im pa ire d,
two v i s u a l l y im pai re d, and s i x hear ing impaired c h i l d r e n were i d e n t i ­
fied.

In t h e ca s es o f e i g h t e e n c h i l d r e n , t e a c h e r s i n d i c a t e d more

than one type o f ha ndicap; i . e . , f o r c h i l d A t h e t e a c h e r may have
c i r c l e d both e m o t i o n a l l y impaired and educab le m en ta lly im pair ed,
and f o r Child F a t e a c h e r may have c i r c l e d both p h y s i c a l l y o r o t h e r ­
wise h e a l t h impaired and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d .

These c h i l d r e n were

grouped under t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f m u l t i p l e impairment.

Table 10

provid e s i n fo r m a ti o n r e g a rd i n g th e types o f handicapping c o n d i t i o n s
a s s o c i a t e d with "most s u c c e s s f u l " and " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " placem ents.

90
Table 1 0 . --Handicapping c o n d i t i o n s by number and p e r c e n t a s s o c i a t e d
with "most s u c c e s s f u l " and " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " placements.
Most Successful

Leas t Successful

Number o f
Childr en
(N = 70)

P ercent
o f Total

Number of
ChiIdren
(N = 59)

P ercen t
o f Total

Emotionally impaired

17

24%

22

37%

Educable m entall y impaired

10

14%

9

15%

Learning d is a b l e d

24

34%

13

22%

P h y s i c a l l y handicapped

5

7%

0

0

V i s u a ll y impaired

1

2%

1

2%

Hearing impaired

4

6%

2

3%

M u lti p l e impairment

7

10%

11

19%

Not i d e n t i f i e d

2

3%

0

0

Don't know

0

0

1

2%

Handicap

Table 10 i n d i c a t e s a somewhat higher pe r c e n ta g e o f " l e a s t s u c ­
c e s s f u l " placements a r e i d e n t i f i e d as em o tio n a l ly impaired c h i l d r e n
o r as having more than one handicap.

Learning d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n

appear t o be somewhat more o f te n i d e n t i f i e d as "most s u c c e s s f u l "
placements.

P h y s i c a l l y handicapped c h i l d r e n were i d e n t i f i e d as "most

s u c c e s s f u l " but not i d e n t i f i e d as " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " plac em en ts.

Other

handicapped c h i l d r e n were i d e n t i f i e d with n e a r l y th e same r e l a t i v e
frequency f o r both "most s u c c e s s f u l " and " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l " placements.
Any gener al d i f f e r e n c e s a s s o c i a t e d with type o f handicaps and c l a s s i ­
f i c a t i o n o f success must be viewed with c a u t i o n .

C ertainly, there is

need f o r f u r t h e r in - d e p th study o f i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s .

91
Are d i f f e r e n c e s in c e r t a i n ty pe s o f problems, s u p p o r tiv e
s e r v i c e s c u r r e n t l y being provid e d, and s u p p o r ti v e s e r v i c e s
i d e n t i f i e d as needed f o r mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n
in th e r e g u l a r classroom a s s o c i a t e d with c e r t a i n types of
handicaps?
Table 11 groups th e number o f respons es coded under each
c a te g o r y o f problems by type o f handicap.

I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o com­

pare problems a s s o c i a t e d with the v a r io u s handicaps r e p o r t e d in
Table 11 because o f t h e d i f f e r i n g numbers of s t u d e n t s on which t e a c h ­
e r s r e p o r t e d in t h i s s tudy.

Because o f small numbers and th e v a r i e t y

of problems r e p o r t e d , no p a t t e r n s were i d e n t i f i e d f o r p h y s i c a l l y han­
d ic apped, v i s u a l l y im pai re d, and hea ring impaired c h i l d r e n .

Teachers

most o f te n i d e n t i f i e d c o n d i t i o n s or behavior s u g g e s t i v e o f p o t e n t i a l
f o r emotional impairment (14 r espons es) and d i s r u p t i v e / a g g r e s s i v e
beha viors (26 r e s p o n s e s ) when d e s c r i b i n g problems a s s o c i a t e d with
e m o ti o n a l ly im pai re d, mainstreamed c h i l d r e n , while i n a b i l i t y t o p e r ­
form academic or classroom work (26 re sp o n s e s) i s more o f te n a s s o ­
c i a t e d with l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n .

A number o f t e a c h e r s a l s o

r e p o r t e d problems with c o n d i t i o n s o r beh av ior s u g g e s t i v e o f p o t e n t i a l
f o r emotional impairment (10 responses) f o r l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n .
Although t h e numbers of educable m e n t a lly impaired and m u l t i p l y
impaired c h i l d r e n i d e n t i f i e d in t h i s study were each about o n e - h a l f
t h e number o f t h o s e i d e n t i f i e d e i t h e r as em o t io n a lly impaired or
l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t t e a c h e r s were con­
cerned about problems s i m i l a r t o th o s e a s s o c i a t e d with th e l e a r n i n g
d i s a b l e d c h i l d - - i n a b i l i t y t o perform academic or classroom work and
c o n d i t i o n s or be h a v io r s u g g e s tiv e o f p o t e n t i a l f o r emotional im p a ir ­
ment.

Table 1 1 .—Problem types by number o f responses grouped by type o f handicapped c h i ld r e n .
Type of Handicap
Problems

El

EMI

LD

POHI

VI

HI

M ultiple

(N=39)

(N=19)

(N=37)

(N=5)

(N=2)

(N=6)

(N=18)

Not
I.D.
(N=3)

T otals

Problems Related to th e Child
A—A ttending Behaviors

8

1

3

1

1

0

0

1

15

B—Physical o r Health Related

1

3

1

2

1

2

1

1

12

C—I n a b i l i t y to Perform Academic or Classroom Work

7

8

26

0

0

2

10

3

56

D—C onditions o r Behavior S uggestive o f P o te n ti a l
f o r Emotional Impairment

14

6

10

0

1

2

9

1

43

E—D isru p tiv e /A g g re ssiv e Social Behavior

26

3

3

2

0

0

5

2

41

3

0

3

0

0

0

3

1

10

6—Scheduling

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

2

H—Lack o f Teacher P re p a ra tio n o r Knowledge

2

3

0

1

0

2

1

0

9

I —Adequacy o f Support A ssistanc e

5

4

4

1

1

1

4

0

20

J —Home Conditions

1

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

4

K—S afety Issu es

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

2

Not codable

1

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

68

32

51

8

4

9

37

9

218

F—P o te n ti a l Social/Em otional Adjustment Problem,
U nspecified
Problems Related to Teacher o r Teaching Function

Other

T o ta ls

10
ro

93
Table 12 groups th e numbers o f re sp o nses as si gn ed to each
c a t e g o r y o f a s s i s t a n c e r e c e iv e d by type o f handicap f o r which i t i s
d e s c r ib e d .

The type s o f a s s i s t a n c e r e p o r t e d most o f t e n f o r em o tio n a lly

impaired s tu d e n t s were removal from th e classroom (11 r e s p o n s e s ) and
counsel in g (12 r e s p o n s e s ) .

A s s i s t a n c e t o th e t e a c h e r and p a r e n ts

(7 r es pon ses each) was r e p o r t e d more o f t e n f o r em o tio n a lly impaired
s tu d e n t s than f o r o t h e r typ es of handicaps.

In c o n t r a s t , a s s i s t a n c e

r e p o r t e d most o f t e n f o r l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d s t u d e n t s was i n s t r u c t i o n
o u t s i d e o f the classr oom (25 r e s p o n s e s ) .

Although th e numbers of

educable m en ta lly impaired s t u d e n t s r e p o r t e d in t h i s study a r e about
o n e - h a l f as many as e i t h e r l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d o r em o ti o n ally im pair ed,
a p r o p o r t i o n a t e number o f re sponse s i n d i c a t e d t h a t , l i k e t h e l e a r n i n g
d i s a b l e d c h i l d , i n s t r u c t i o n o u t s i d e o f th e classroom was th e most f r e ­
q u e n tl y r e p o r t e d ty p e o f a s s i s t a n c e r e c e i v e d .
Table 13 groups the number o f r esp onses as sign ed t o each c a t e ­
gory of a s s i s t a n c e needed f o r each ty pe o f handicap f o r which they
were r e p o r t e d .

Responses f o r types o f a s s i s t a n c e needed were small

and v a r i e d ; thus no p a t t e r n s could be i d e n t i f i e d f o r any one type o f
handicap.

Table 12.—Assistance received by number of responses grouped by type of handicapped children.
Type o f Handicap
A ssistan c e

El

EMI

LD

POHI

VI

(N=39)

(N=19)

(N=37)

(N=5)

(N=2)

(N=6)

HI

M u ltiple
(N=18)

Not
I.D.
(N=3)

Total

D ir e c t A s sista n c e to Child
A—A ddition al I n s t r u c t i o n —Place U nspecified

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

5

B—A dditional I n s t r u c t i o n —O utside o f Classroom

6

10

25

0

2

2

9

2

56

C—A dditio nal I n s t r u c t i o n — In Regular Classroom

0

0

0

0

1

3

0

0

4

D—Remove from Classroom

11

2

0

0

0

0

2

0

15

E--Counseling

12

1

1

2

0

1

4

0

21

F—A p p lic a tio n o f Behavior Management Techniques

3

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

4

G—S ocial-Em otional Help

2

0

6

0

0

1

1

0

10

H—Health Care o r Evaluation

1

1

1

2

0

0

0

0

5

7

2

0

1

2

3

2

0

17

J —P arent Contact

7

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

12

K—Diagnosis

1

1

2

0

0

0

2

0

6

2

2

3

0

0

0

0

1

8

53

21

40

6

5

11

23

4

163

A ss is ta n c e t o Teacher
I —S u g g estio n s, M a t e r i a l s , Cooperation
Other

Not codable
T o ta ls

Table 13.--A ssistance needed by number of responses grouped by type of handicapped child re n .
Type o f Handicap
A ssistan ce

El

EMI

LD

POHI

VI

HI

M ultiple

Not
I.D.
(N=3)

Total

(N=39)

(N=19)

(N=37)

(N=5)

(N=2)

(N=6)

A—A ddition al I n s t r u c t i o n —Place U nspecified

2

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

5

B—A dditional I n s t r u c t i o n —Outside Classroom

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

2

C—A dditio nal I n s t r u c t i o n — In Regular Classroom

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

2

D— Remove from Classroom

3

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

4

E—Counseling

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

4

F—A p p lic atio n o f Behavior Management Techniques

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

G—Social-Em otional Help

0

3

0

0

0

0

1

0

4

H—Health Care or E valuation

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

1

3

0

0

1

1

0

9

J —P aren t Contact

0

1

0

0

0

0

2

0

3

K—Diagnosis

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

2

1

2

0

0

0

2

0

7

13

7

8

0

1

2

9

2

42

(N=18)

D ir e c t A ssista n c e to Child

A ssista n c e to Teacher
I —S ug gestions, M a te r ia ls , Cooperation
Other

Not codable
T o ta ls

96

Discu ss ion o f Data Related t o Factors
Which C o n t r ib u te t o Successful or
Unsuccessful Mainstream Placement
The r e s u l t s o f t h i s s tu d y do not appear t o shed l i g h t on
v a r i a b l e s which might g e n e r a l l y a s s i s t in d e s c r i b i n g or d i f f e r e n ­
t i a t i n g a s u c c e s s f u l or unsucc es sfu l mainstream placement.

I t would

appear t h a t th e s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e s which do emerge may be based as
much on t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and beha viors of th e c h i l d as on th e
problems or s u p p o r t iv e a s s i s t a n c e r e p o r t e d by t e a c h e r s .
th e r e p o r t o f t e a c h e r s i s based on t h e i r e x p e r ie n c e s .

In a d d i t i o n ,
T h e ir p er cep ­

t i o n s or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of t h e s e exp e r ie n c e s may have c r e a t e d some
of the differen ces.
One i s tempted, in a f u r t h e r s ea rc h f o r c l u e s or l e a d s with
which t o g e n e r a l i z e v a r i a b l e s i d e n t i f i e d in t h i s s tu d y , t o s h i f t th e
focus t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e s e v a r i a b l e s with t h e types of
handicapped c h i l d r e n r e p o r t e d by t e a c h e r s .

A casual p e r u s a l o f the

d ata sug gested t h a t one might i d e n t i f y important d i f f e r e n c e s , but upon
c a r e f u l re view, i t appeared t h a t the r e s u l t s o f t h i s s tu d y do not pr o­
vide enough c l e a r - c u t evidence which could a c c u r a t e l y be used to
d e s c r i b e types o f problems, ty pes of a s s i s t a n c e r e c e i v e d and needed,
and lev el of success f o r th e v a r io u s typ es o f handicaps .

D iffer­

ences which a r e suggested by th e d ata may be due t o th e s e v e r i t y
a n d /o r n a t u r e of th e handicap t y p i c a l o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r d i s ­
trict.
I t appears from th e r e s u l t s o f t h i s study t h a t more in - d e p th
r e s e a r c h r e l a t e d to i n d iv id u a l c h i l d r e n in a mainstreamed s e t t i n g i s
critical.

97
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f F a c to r s Which A f f e c t A t t i t u d e
The d a t a were analyzed in an a tte m p t t o examine c e r t a i n ques ­
t i o n s r e l a t e d t o th e a t t i t u d e o f t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s
toward mainstreaming.
1.

To what degree do t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s who
have exper ienc ed mainstreaming s upport the concept?

2.

Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e a t t i t u d e o f classroom
t e a c h e r s and th e a t t i t u d e o f t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s toward
mainstreaming?

3.

What a r e th e f a c t o r s expr es sed by t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r consul t a n t s which a f f e c t t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward mainstreaming?

Results
To what degree do t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s who have
e x p er ien ced mainstreaming s u p p o rt t h e concept?
S i x t y - t h r e e o f th e s eventy-o ne t e a c h e r s and twelve o f th e
twelve t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s r a t e d t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward mainstreaming
on a s c a l e o f one to f o u r :
p o s i t i v e , and 4 - p o s i t i v e .
resu lts of th is rating.

1 - n e g a t i v e , 2-somewhat n e g a t i v e , 3-somewhat
Table 14 pro vid e s information r e l a t i v e to

Seventy-one p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r s r e p o r t e d

t h a t they a r e p o s i t i v e t o some degree r e g a rd i n g mainstreaming.
Ninety-one p e r c e n t o f th e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s r e p o r t e d a p o s i t i v e
a t t i t u d e toward mainstreaming.
Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e a t t i t u d e of classroom
t e a c h e r s and t h e a t t i t u d e of t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s toward
mainstreaming?
I t would appear from examining Table 14 t h a t ac cording to
s e l f - r a t i n g , t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s a r e somewhat more p o s i t i v e toward
mainstreaming than a r e classroom t e a c h e r s .

No at tem pt was made to

98
o b j e c t i f y th e p e r c e p t i o n s or v a l i d a t e them by o t h e r c r i t e r i a ; th us
comparisons should be made with a g r e a t deal o f c a u ti o n .
Table 1 4 . —A t t i t u d e toward m a in s tr e a in g by number and p e r c e n t as
re p o r t e d by t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s .
Number of
Teachers
Responding
(N = 71)

Rating

P ercent of
Teachers
Responding

P er ce nt o f
T/C 's
Responding

Number of
T/C's
Responding
(N = 12)

2

3%

0

0

2—Somewhat n eg ativ e

11

15%

1

8%

3—Somewhat p o s i t i v e

38

54%

4

33%

4—P o s i t i v e

12

17%

7

58%

No response

8

11%

0

0

1—Negative

What a r e t h e f a c t o r s ex pr essed by t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s which a f f e c t t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward mainstream­
ing?
Teachers and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s were asked to i d e n t i f y th e
f a c t o r s which a f f e c t t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward mainstreaming.
were grouped i n to t h i r t e e n c a t e g o r i e s .

The re sp onses

Four o f the c a t e g o r i e s r e l a t e d

to s c h o o l / p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s , two c a t e g o r i e s had to do with p r i o r
ex p e r ie n c e with mainstream ing, f our c a t e g o r i e s were r e l a t e d to e f f e c t
on s t u d e n t s , and two c a t e g o r i e s r e l a t e d to t e a c h e r adequacy.

One

c a t e g o r y was unique and i s n o t r e l a t e d t o any o f t h e s e major c l a s s i ­
fications.

The t h i r t e e n c a t e g o r i e s i n c l u d e :

S c h o o l- P r o f e s s io n a l Conditions
A.
B.
C.
D.

Adequate Support A v ail ab le
Inadequate Support A v a ila b l e
Scheduling Problems
Lack o f Time

99
P r i o r Experience with Mainstreaming
E.
F.

Suc ce ssfu l Experience
Unsuccessful Experience

E f f e c t Upon Stud ents
G.
H.
I.
J.

Beneficial
Detrimental
Beneficial
Detrimental

to t h e Handicapped Child
t o t h e Handicapped Child
to Nonhandicapped Child
t o Nonhandicapped Child

Teacher Adequacy
K.
L.

Inservice
Lack o f T rain in g

Other
M.

Combined D i s t r i c t Programs

Category d e s c r i p t i o n s . —The c a t e g o r i e s a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by
t h e f oll ow ing d e s c r i p t i o n s .
S c h o o l-P r o f e s s i o n a l Conditions
A.

Adequate Support A v a i l a b l e —Responses coded under t h i s

c a t e g o r y i d e n t i f i e d s p e c i a l education a s s i s t a n c e as a f a c t o r which
in flu en c ed t e a c h e r s ' a t t i t u d e .

Comments inclu ded in t h i s ca te g o r y

were e i t h e r an acknowledgment t h a t a s s i s t a n c e was a v a i l a b l e , i . e . ,
"in most i n s t a n c e s t e a c h e r s can r e c e i v e help when th ey need i t , " or a
p o s i t i v e comment about t h e a s s i s t a n c e , i . e . , "good co o p e r a tio n from
r eso u r ce room te a c h e r " and "we have been g e t t i n g good s upport from
s p e c i a l educa tion t e a c h e r s . "
B.

Inadequate Support A vailable--A ny comment i n d i c a t i n g some

type o f d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with s e r v i c e s i s included in t h i s ca te g o r y .
The d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n might be a p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i f f e r e n c e , a d i f f e r e n c e
in t h e approach used which made i t d i f f i c u l t f o r th e classr oom t e a c h e r ,
or t h a t t h e r e was not enough a s s i s t a n c e a v a i l a b l e .

Examples o f

100
comments as signed to t h i s c a t e g o r y i n c lu d e :

"the classroom t e a c h e r

d o e s n ' t have th e time or money t o reward h i s / h e r s tu d e n t s th e same
way," "I have problems with th e reward system used with some of the
s p e c i a l educa ti on rooms," " i t i s d i f f i c u l t f o r th e t e a c h e r when a
c h i l d l e a r n s to ex pect e x t r a help and thus d o e s n ' t develop indepen­
den ce ," " lack o f communications with s p e c i a l educa tion p e r s o n n e l , "
and " not enough s p e c i a l help a v a i l a b l e . "
C.

Scheduling Problems—Some t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s

i d e n t i f i e d problems with s chedulin g and keeping t r a c k o f c h i l d r e n
t r a v e l i n g between rooms as a f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward
mainstreaming.
D.

Lack o f Time—This c a t e g o r y in c l u d e s comments which i n d i ­

c a t e t h a t the handicapped c h i l d needs more help in th e classroom
which i s not a b l e t o be pv'ovided by classroom t e a c h e r s .
comments

in clu d e:

S e le c te d

"overloaded clas sroom ," "I do not f e e l th e c l a s s ­

room t e a c h e r should tak e needed time away from th e r e s t o f th e c l a s s , "
and "p la c e s an e x t r a burden on t h e classroom t e a c h e r . "
P r i o r Experience with Mainstreaming
E.

Successful Expe rience—Comments assi gn ed to t h i s c ate g o r y

s t a t e d o r implied t h a t s u c c e s s f u l exp e r ie n c e s with mainstreaming
a c t i v i t i e s were a f a c t o r which a f f e c t e d t h e i r a t t i t u d e .
t h e s e comments i n c l u d e :

Examples of

"my e x p e r ie n c e with mainstreaming has been

s u c c e s s f u l " and "more handicapped c h i l d r e n were s u c c e s s fu l in my
c l a s s r a t h e r than u n s u c c e s s f u l . "
F.

Unsuccessful Experi en ce — In c o n t r a s t t o s u c c e s s f u l e x p e r i ­

e n c e s , some r esp onses i n d i c a t e d t h a t an uns ucc es sful e x p er ien ce had

101

a f f e c t e d t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward mainstreaming.
coded under t h i s c ateg o r y in c lu d e :

Examples o f respon ses

" t h e s e c h i l d r e n have been my b i g ­

g e s t d i s c i p l i n e problem" and " they add t o my problems."
E f f e c t Upon Students
G.

B e n e fi c ia l t o th e Handicapped Child--The comments inc luded

in t h i s ca te g o r y s t a t e d or implied t h a t c o n t a c t with t h e "normal"
c h i l d in t h e r e g u l a r classroom s e t t i n g would be b e n e f i c i a l to th e
handicapped c h i l d .

The comments did n o t always s t a t e how the ha ndi­

capped c h i l d would b e n e f i t .
include:

Examples o f comments in t h i s ca te g o r y

"helps them with s o c i a l a d ju s t m e n t, " "a more r e a l i s t i c

s i t u a t i o n f o r t h e c h i l d t o a d j u s t to l i f e " and "stigma i s l e s s . "
H.

Detrimental t o t h e handicapped c h i l d - - S t a t e m e n t s a s sig n ed

t o t h i s ca te g o r y i n d i c a t e d t h a t t e a c h e r s f e l t comparisons would be
made between the handicapped c h i l d and his "normal" p e e r s .

They

implied t h a t t h e handicapped c h i l d might be r e j e c t e d by h i s / h e r pee rs
o r make n e g a t i v e s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t s in r e l a t i o n t o h i s / h e r c o n t a c t
with "normal" p e e r s .

In e i t h e r c a s e , th e i m p l i c a t i o n made by the

t e a c h e r was t h a t t h i s would be d e tr im e n t a l to th e handicapped c h i l d .
Comments t y p i c a l of t h i s ca te g o r y in clu d e:

" c h i l d becomes f r u s ­

t r a t e d when he sees what o t h e r s can do" and "some o f them a r e n ' t
acc epted by t h e r e s t o f t h e c l a s s . "
I.

B e n e fic ia l t o Nonhandicapped C h i ld —Any comment which

implied t h a t t h e r e was b e n e f i t t o t h e nonhandicapped c h i l d r e n in th e
clas sro om was included in t h i s c a t e g o r y .

" I t i s a good ex p e r ie n c e

f o r th e whole c l a s s t o l e a r n t o work with and a c c e p t s t u d e n t s o f d i f ­
f e r e n t a b i l i t i e s " i s t y p i c a l o f t h e comments as s i g n e d to t h i s c a t e g o r y .

102
J.

Detrimental t o Nonhandicapped Ch ild—Comments as s ig n e d t o

t h i s c a t e g o r y s t a t e d a concern f o r t h e e f f e c t on " o t h e r s " in th e
classroom i f th e handicapped c h i l d was in cl uded .
sample o f s ta te m e n ts as s ig n e d t o t h i s c a t e g o r y :

Following i s a
"I f e e l my own c l a s s

s u f f e r e d because o f t h e i n c l u s i o n o f t h e s e s tu d e n t s in r e g u l a r c l a s s e s , "
"I have seen o t h e r problems o f t h e El s tu d e n t t h a t d i s r u p t s t h e c l a s s ­
room," and "can be d i s r u p t i v e t o o t h e r c h i l d r e n who a r e t r y i n g to
learn."
Teacher Adequacy
K.

Inservice--Comments a s s ig n e d t o t h i s c ateg o r y i n d i c a t e d

t h a t i n s e r v i c e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o t e a c h e r s were a f a c t o r which a f f e c t e d
t h e i r a t t i t u d e about mainstreaming.
L.

Lack o f Training--Comments as sig ned t o t h i s ca t e g o r y

were th o s e which s t a t e d o r implied t h a t th e c h i l d could not g e t
needed help because t h e classroom t e a c h e r f e l t t h a t he/ sh e "does not
have th e t r a i n i n g t o be a t e a c h e r f o r t h e handicapped."
Other
M.

Combined D i s t r i c t Programs--Responses as s i g n e d t o t h i s

c ateg o r y s a i d a f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e was b r in g i n g c h i l d r e n
from o t h e r d i s t r i c t s f o r a mainstreaming program.

Having t o " s e r v i c e

c h i l d r e n from o t h e r school d i s t r i c t s " i s an example of re sp onses
assi gne d t o t h i s c a te g o r y .
Number o f r e s p o n s e s .-- A t o t a l o f 163 re spons es d e s c r i b i n g
f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e were provided by s i x t y - t h r e e o f t h e
s eventy-one t e a c h e r s and a l l twelve o f t h e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s .

103
One hundred t h i r t y - t h r e e respons es were from t e a c h e r s .
121 were as signed to th e d e s c rib e d c a t e g o r i e s .

Of t h e s e ,

Six re sp on ses were

not codable because o f t h e i r vagueness or l a c k o f c l a r i t y and because
coders could not ag ree on an assignment t o a s p e c i f i c ca te g o r y .
These respons es were e l i m i n a t e d .

Six o t h e r s ta te m e n t s were made by

classroom t e a c h e r s which c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d c e r t a i n f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g
t h e i r a t t i t u d e but did not appear to be r e l a t e d t o any o f th e c a t e ­
g o r ie s or to each o t h e r .
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

These s ta te m e n t s i n c l u d e :

"Physical space inadequate"
"I have my own handicapped c h i l d and am i n t e r e s t e d in
helping o t h e r s "
"[Mainstreaming] provides t e a c h e r awareness and f l e x i b i l i t y
"Personal ch alle nge"
"[Handicapped have] r i g h t t o be in th e classroom"
"[My a t t i t u d e i s ] i n fl uenc ed by in d i v i d u a l needs o f th e
child"

T h i r t y o f th e responses were from t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s .
t h e s e , twenty were as signed to th e d e s c r i b e d c a t e g o r i e s .
codable and was e li m i n a t e d .

Of

One was not

Nine o f t h e s ta t e m e n t s c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d

c e r t a i n f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e b u t did not appear t o be
r e l a t e d to any o f th e c a t e g o r i e s under which resp o n s es from classroom
t e a c h e r s had been grouped.

These s t a t e m e n t s , unique t o t e a c h e r -

c o n s u l t a n t s , include:
1.

Two s ta t e m e n ts i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e " n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e o f
t e a c h e r s " a f f e c t s th e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t 1s a t t i t u d e .

2.

Three s ta te m e n t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e s p e c i a l e d u c a tio n room
was a b e t t e r environment f o r handicapped c h i l d r e n and t h a t
th e r e g u l a r c l a s s i s in ad eq uat e in some way.

3.

Two s ta te m e n ts i n d i c a t e d t h a t mainstreaming improves
t e a c h e r s k i l l s and t h a t t h i s a f f e c t s th e t e a c h e r consultant's a ttitu d e .

4.

One sta t e m e n t was t h a t mainstreaming "promotes i n d i v i d u a l ­
ized e d u c a t i o n . "

104

5.

One s ta te m e n t was t h a t th ey a r e "concerned t h a t s tu d e n t s
d o n ' t want to be taken o u t o f room and 'b la m e 1 t e a c h e r con su ltan t."

Table 15 p r e s e n t s th e number o f re sponse s f o r t e a c h e r s and
t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s which were a s s i g n e d to each of th e d e s c rib e d
categories.

The f a c t o r which t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s most

o f te n i d e n t i f i e d as a f f e c t i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e i s t h a t mainstreaming
i s b e n e f i c i a l to th e handicapped c h i l d .

Indeed, f o r t e a c h e r con­

s u l t a n t s , t h i s i s the only f a c t o r which appears t o s tan d o u t .

The

next t h r e e f a c t o r s which most o f t e n a f f e c t t e a c h e r a t t i t u d e were
re la te d to school/professional conditions:

lack o f time (32%), in a d e ­

quate s upport a v a i l a b l e (24%), and adequate s up port a v a i l a b l e (24%).
Table 16 p r e s e n t s th e number o f re spons es f o r t e a c h e r s and
t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s grouped a ccording t o whether th e f a c t o r i s nega­
tiv e or p o s itiv e .

I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t th e respons es o f t e a c h e r s

ar e n e a r l y e q u a l l y di v id e d between p o s i t i v e and n e g a tiv e f a c t o r s
which a f f e c t t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward mainstreaming.

T e a c h e r - c o n s u l ta n t s

i d e n t i f y a s l i g h t l y h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n o f p o s i t i v e f a c t o r s than nega­
tive factors.
Discuss ion of Data Related to
Teacher and T e a c h e r- C o n s u lta n t
A t t i t u d e Toward Mainstreaming
When one examines t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s s tu d y , i t becomes
a p p ar en t t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y of both t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s
r a t e themselves as p o s i t i v e t o some degree toward mainstreaming.
T e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s , however, a p p ear t o be somewhat more p o s i t i v e
toward mainstreaming than a r e clas sro om t e a c h e r s .

Both groups focus

Table 1 5 .—F acto rs which a f f e c t a t t i t u d e by number and p e r c e n t as r e p o r te d by te a c h e r s and te ac h er-c o n su l t a n t s .
Teachers (N = 63)

T each er-C onsultants (N = 12)

Number o f
Responses
Assigned to
C atego ries
(N = 121)

Percent of
Teachers
Responding

Number o f
Responses
Assigned to
C atego ries
(N = 20)

Percent o f
Teacher
C onsultants
Responding

A—Adequate Support A v ailab le

15

24%

0

0

B— Inadequate Support A vailab le

18

29%

1

8%

3

5%

3

25%

20

32%

2

17%

10

16%

1

8%

6

10%

0

0

21

33%

10

83%

H—Detrim ental to th e Handicapped Child

6

10%

0

0

I —B e n e fic ia l to th e Nonhandicapped Child

6

10%

2

17%

J--D e trim e n ta l t o th e Nonhandicapped Child

7

11%

0

0

K --In se rv ic e

2

3%

0

0

L—Lack o f Training

4

6%

1

8%

3

5%

0

0
8%

F acto rs

S ch o o l-P ro fessio n al C onditions

C—Scheduling Problems
D--Lack o f Time
P r i o r Experience with Mainstreaminq
E—S uccessful Experience
F—Unsuccessful Experience
E f f e c t Upon Students
6 - - B e n e f ic ia l to th e Handicapped Child

Teacher Adequacy

Other
M—Combined D i s t r i c t Programs
Not codable

6

1

In dividual f a c t o r s not assig n ed to c a te g o r ie s

6

9

106

Table 1 6 . —Negative and p o s i t i v e f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g a t t i t u d e by number
as r e p o r t e d by t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s .

F a c to r s

Number of
Teachers
Responding
(N = 63)

Number o f
T/C 's
Responding
(N = 12)

Negative
B --Inad eq uate Support A v a il a b le

18

1

3

3

20

2

F—Unsuccessful Experience

6

0

H—Detrimental t o Handicapped Child

6

0

J - - D e t r i m e n t a l t o Nonhandicapped Child

7
4

0

64

7

A—Adequate Support A v a i l a b l e

15

0

E—Successful Experience

10

1

G—B e n e f i c i a l t o Handicapped Child

21

10

6

2

_2

_0

54

13

C—Scheduling Problems
D— Lack o f Time

L— Lack o f T r a in in g
Positive

I —B e n e f ic i a l t o Nonhandicapped Child
K— I n s e r v i c e

Other
M—Combined D i s t r i c t Program

3

107
on t h e b e n e f i t s o f mainstreaming to t h e handicapped c h i l d as th e p o s i ­
t i v e f a c t o r which most o f t e n a f f e c t s t h e i r a t t i t u d e .

One i s not a b le

to de te rm ine why th e y f e e l mainstreaming i s b e n e f i c i a l .

I t may be

t h a t based on t h e i r own exp e r ie n c e s they have observed b e n e f i t s f o r
th e handicapped c h i l d .

They may a l s o be in fl uenc ed by the law and r e g u ­

l a t i o n s which r e q u i r e placement in th e l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e .
Teachers may, through v a r io u s means, have ac ce pted th e p o s i t i o n t h a t
t h e r e ar e b e n e f i t s which accrue from being w it h in th e mainstream of
society.
In a n a ly z in g th e re sp onses o f classroom t e a c h e r s more c l o s e l y ,
i t appea rs t h e r e may be some ambivalence r e g a rd i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e
toward mainstreaming.

Although th ey f eel t h a t mainstreaming i s bene­

f i c i a l to th e handicapped c h i l d and t h i s a f f e c t s t h e i r a t t i t u d e , they
i d e n t i f y two n e g a t i v e f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t e d with s c h o o l - p r o f e s s i o n a l con­
d i t i o n s with n e a r l y equal fre qu en cy :

(1) lack o f time and (2) i n a d e ­

q uat e s u p p o rt s e r v i c e s .
In a d d i t i o n to th e mixed f a c t o r s which were i d e n t i f i e d , e i g h t
of t h e s eventy-o ne t e a c h e r s (11%) were e v i d e n t l y h e s i t a n t to r a t e and
d i s c u s s t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward mainstream ing, even though they had p a r ­
t i c i p a t e d in th e r e s t o f t h e survey.

They may not f e e l comfor table in

d i s c u s s i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward mainstreaming a t t h i s time because
th ey have not made up t h e i r minds r e g a r d in g th e i s s u e or may h e s i t a t e
t o ex p r e ss an o p in i o n c o n t r a r y t o th e requirements of law.
F i f t y - f o u r p e r c e n t o f th e 71 p e r c e n t r e p o r t i n g p o s i t i v e a t t i ­
tudes r e p o r t e d only "somewhat p o s i t i v e " a t t i t u d e s , a n o t h e r e x p r e s s i o n

108
o f u n c e r t a i n t y in terms o f a s t a t e d p o s i t i o n reg ard in g t h e i r a t t i t u d e
toward mainstreaming.
Since p o s i t i v e t e a c h e r a t t i t u d e i s extr em ely im portant with
r eg ar d t o th e success o f any program, we may be a t a c r i t i c a l p o i n t
in t h e implementation o f mainstreaming.

C u r r e n t l y , i t appears t h a t

t e a c h e r s f e e l th e b e n e f i t s to the handicapped c h i l d outweigh th e d i s ­
advantages caused by c e r t a i n s c h o o l - p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s .

In o r d e r

to r e i n f o r c e t h e s e p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s , s p e c i f i c kinds o f b e n e f i t s need
to be i d e n t i f i e d f o r each c h i l d with th e t e a c h e r so t h a t the t e a c h e r
has r e a l i s t i c e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r th e c h i l d and un der st an ds th e impor­
tan ce o f th e r o l e o f t h e classroom placement in th e c h i l d ' s t o t a l
program.
I t i s a l s o im port an t t h a t n e g a tiv e f a c t o r s d e a lin g with s c h o o lp r o f e s s i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s be reduced.

The r e s u l t s o f th e study s uggest

t h a t a number o f t e a c h e r s view adequate s upport s e r v i c e s as a p o s i t i v e
f a c t o r which a f f e c t s t h e i r a t t i t u d e .
reduce t h e n e g a ti v e f a c t o r s .

We need to b u ild upon t h i s to

When one examines t h e two n e g a t i v e f a c ­

t o r s of co ncern, inad eq ua te s u p p o rt and lack o f ti m e , i t would appear
t e a c h e r s a r e e x press ing s i m i l a r concerns as th ey did e a r l i e r in t h e
study reg ard in g t h e i r reaso n s f o r being d i s s a t i s f i e d with a s s i s t a n c e .
They want s p e c i a l education personnel t o use s t r a t e g i e s and te ch n iq u es
which a r e c o n s i s t e n t and compatible with th o s e a b l e t o be implemented
in th e classroom.

The classroom t e a c h e r appears to need to be more

involved in the handicapped c h i l d ' s t o t a l program to b e t t e r meet
i d e n t i f i e d needs.

I f , as i s sug gested in t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , we a r e a t a

109
c r o s s r o a d s in terms o f t e a c h e r a t t i t u d e toward main stream ing, i t i s
c r u c i a l t h a t t h e s e i s s u e s be f u r t h e r add res sed .

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s (1) a b r i e f review o f th e s tu d y , (2) a
summary o f t h e major concerns and i s s u e s which evolved from d e s c r i p ­
t i v e information provided by t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s , and
(3) recommendations.
Review o f t h e Study
The concept o f mainstreaming has t h r u s t classroom t e a c h e r s
and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s i n t o new r o l e s r e l a t i v e t o p rovid ing educa­
t i o n a l programs f o r handicapped c h i l d r e n .

This study was undertaken

in an atte m p t t o pro vide an i n i t i a l view o f mainstreaming through
i d e n t i f y i n g t h e concerns and f e e l i n g s ex pressed by t e a c h e r s and
teacher-consultants.
The t a r g e t p o p u l a tio n f o r t h i s stu dy included t e a c h e r s from
f i v e elementary scho ols and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s from c o n s t i t u e n t d i s ­
t r i c t s of Branch I n te r m e d i a t e School D i s t r i c t .

Q u e s t io n n a ir e s were

developed to o b t a i n in form ation r e l a t i v e t o (1) problems which a r i s e
f o r t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s when a handicapped c h i l d ' s edu­
c a t i o n a l program i n c l u d e s a mainstream component, (2) a c t u a l and
needed s p e c i a l ed uca tion s u p p o r t intended t o a s s i s t in s o lv in g th e
problems in a mainstream placement, (3) d e s c r i p t i v e in fo r m atio n r e l a t e d
to c h i l d r e n t e a c h e r s i d e n t i f y as "most s u c c e s s f u l " and " l e a s t
110

Ill
s u c c e s s f u l " mainstream placem ents, and (4) f a c t o r s which a f f e c t th e
a t t i t u d e of t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s .
into categories.

Responses were grouped

Frequency and per ce ntag e d i s t r i b u t i o n s were analyzed

to i d e n t i f y i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o mainstreaming which need f u r t h e r i n - d e p t h
stu dy .
Summary o f Major Concerns and Iss u es
I t appear s from in fo r m ati o n r e p o r t e d by t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t s in t h i s study t h a t t h e r e ar e c e r t a i n problems r e l a t e d t o
th e implementation o f mainstreaming.

Teachers were most concerned

about th e academic and s o c i a l behavior o f th e handicapped c h i l d in
t h e i r classroom.

T e a c h e r - c o n s u l ta n t s focused more on t h e behavio rs

and inad eq ua cies o f t h e t e a c h e r .

Each group appeared t o be concerned

about th e c l i e n t f o r whom they f e l t r e s p o n s i b l e r a t h e r than s e a rc h in g
f o r inad eq ua cies in themselves which might need t o be modified con­
s i d e r i n g th e new r o l e in which each has been pl aced.
When asked t o i d e n t i f y th e type s o f s upport a s s i s t a n c e c u r ­
r e n t l y being provid e d, t e a c h e r s most f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r t e d t h a t c h i l d r e n
were r e c e i v i n g i n s t r u c t i o n d i r e c t l y from s p e c i a l educa tion s up port
p er s o n n e l.

Even though t e a c h e r s were not f e e l i n g t o t a l l y s u c c e s s fu l

with t h e i r r o l e in mainstreaming, they did n o t blame th e s u p p o rt
a s s i s t a n c e f o r t h e i r problems, as t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s had p r e d i c t e d .
However, in cases where th ey were d i s s a t i s f i e d with a s s i s t a n c e , th e
reason most o f te n c i t e d was a disagreement with th e approach being
used by s p e c i a l educa tion s u p p o rt p e r s o n n e l.

When i d e n t i f y i n g nee ds,

t e a c h e r s did n o t i d e n t i f y with the broader i s s u e s o f e d u catio n such
as c u rri culu m change, i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n , and so f o r t h ,

112
which might a s s i s t in s o lv in g some o f th e problems f o r which they
were concerned, but l i m i t e d t h e i r r e q u e s t s t o types o f a s s i s t a n c e
which they were c u r r e n t l y e x p e r ie n c i n g .

I t appears e v i d e n t t h a t

t e a c h e r s do want more c o n t a c t with th e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t , in t h a t
they most o f te n r e q u e s t e d a s s i s t a n c e through th e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t
pro viding s u g g e s t i o n s , m a t e r i a l s , and c o o p e r a t i v e plann ing.

This

would appear to be evidence o f a need f o r classroom t e a c h e r s and
t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s t o work t o g e t h e r .

T e a c h e r - c o n s u l ta n t s r e p o r t ,

however, t h a t most o f t h e i r time i s s pent with c h i l d r e n , and they
would n o t change t h i s i f they could.

Teacher-consultants are e v i ­

d e n t l y h e s i t a n t t o change t h e i r time r a t i o and r o l e from working with
c h i l d r e n to working with t e a c h e r s .
On th e b a s i s o f t h i s s tu d y , g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s a r e not a b le to
be made r e g a rd in g f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g s u c c e s s f u l o r unsuc ce ss fu l main­
stream placements.

There may be s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e s between c e r t a i n

f a c t o r s and th e types o f handicapped c h i l d r e n r e p o r t e d in t h i s stud y.
However, t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s may a l s o be a t t r i b u t e d to th e
acteristics

unique c h a r ­

of t h e p a r t i c u l a r c h i l d r e n a n d / o r p a r t i c u l a r t e a c h e r s in

t h i s s tu d y ; thus g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s cannot be developed.
The

m a j o r i t y of t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s r e p o r t

p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward mainstreaming.

There i s e v i d e n c e , however,

to i n d i c a t e t h a t t e a c h e r s may s t i l l be somewhat ambivalent in t h e i r
a t t i t u d e toward mainstreaming.

The major p o s i t i v e f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g

t h e i r a t t i t u d e a t t h i s time i s t h a t mainstreaming i s b e n e f i c i a l to
the handicapped c h i l d .

On th e o t h e r hand, lack o f time and i n a d e ­

quacy o f s u p p o rt s e r v i c e a r e n e g a t iv e f a c t o r s .

113
Recommendations
I t i s ap p a r e n t from th e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h i s i n i t i a l view o f
mainstreaming as r e p o r t e d by t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s t h a t
c e r t a i n problems e x i s t .

The d a ta from t h i s stu d y do not t e l l us what

to do to s o lv e t h e s e problems, but they do say t h a t something needs
to be done.

I t appears t o t h i s w r i t e r t h a t i t i s c r i t i c a l t h a t b e t t e r

use be made o f t h r e e avenues which ar e a l r e a d y a v a i l a b l e t o us:
(1) improvement o f th e us® of th e r e f e r r a l , a sse ssm ent, p l a n n in g ,
implemen tation , and t h e e v a l u a t i o n system e s t a b l i s h e d by th e r u l e s
and r e g u l a t i o n s o f f e d e r a l and s t a t e mandates r e q u i r i n g s t u d e n t p a r ­
t i c i p a t i o n in t h e l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e ; (2) a d a p t a t i o n o f
c u r r e n t p r e - s e r v i c e and i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g programs; and (3) appr op­
r ia te future research.
In o r d e r to improve th e use o f the system e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e
r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s o f f e d e r a l and s t a t e mandates, i t i s recom­
mended t h a t :
1.

The handicapped c h i l d ' s r e g u l a r classroom t e a c h e r be

involved i n th e e n t i r e planning p rocess .
2.

The planning and e v a l u a t i o n pr oc es s should emphasize

i n d i v i d u a l p r o g re s s and achievement in a d d i t i o n to or in p lace o f th e
c u r r e n t o r i e n t a t i o n toward achievement measured a g a i n s t group norms.
3.

C o n s i d e ra ti o n be given durin g t h e planning and placement

decisio n-m ak ing pr oc es s to t e a c h e r / p u p i l matching.
4.

Planning should take p l a c e in lo c a l school d i s t r i c t s to

pr ovide t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s with an i n c e n t i v e and

114

o p p o r t u n i t y t o work t o g e t h e r on a co n tin u in g b a s i s once the planning
has been completed and th e c h i l d ' s program has been implemented.
Involvement of t h e classroom t e a c h e r in t h e e n t i r e planning
p roc es s should a l l e v i a t e some of th e problems and a s s u r e development
o f c o n s i s t e n t s t r a t e g i e s f o r use by both th e classroom t e a c h e r and
teacher-consultant.

Michigan has recognized th e need f o r t h i s i n v o l v e ­

ment in th e proposed r e v i s i o n o f th e s p e c i a l e d u c a t io n r u l e s and r e g u ­
l a t i o n s by i n c r e a s i n g th e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f t h e classroom t e a c h e r in
the i n d i v i d u a l ed u c a ti o n a l planning meeting f o r mainstreamed c h i l d r e n .
I f emphasis i s given to c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d i n d i v i d u a l progre ss as
p a r t o f th e e v a l u a t i o n system, by being involved in th e planning
p r o c e s s , t e a c h e r s w il l be provided with an o r i e n t a t i o n to measuring
s t u d e n t p r o g re s s o f th e handicapped c h i l d in t h e i r classroom r e l a t i v e
to th e e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r t h a t c h i l d r a t h e r than comparing h i s / h e r prog­
r e s s with group norms, thus reducing the concerns and f r u s t r a t i o n s
t e a c h e r s expr es s r e l a t e d to academic and s o c i a l b e havior o f th e c h i l d
in th e classroom.

I f c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s given du rin g t h e planning and

placement decision-making pro cess to matching s t u d e n t s and t e a c h e r s ,
th e needs o f c h i l d r e n can be b e t t e r met through p l a c i n g them with t e a c h ­
e r s who have a t o l e r a n c e f o r behaviors a s s o c i a t e d with t h e i r p a r t i c u ­
l a r han dica p, as well as choosing t e a c h e r s who pr ovid e an a p p r o p r i a t e
classroom s t r u c t u r e ; e . g . , some c h i l d r e n need a f o r m a l , s t r u c t u r e d
classroom environment, and t h e c h i l d might be place d with a t e a c h e r
who s t r u c t u r e s h i s / h e r classroom in t h i s way r a t h e r than a t e a c h e r
who uses a more open classroom s t r u c t u r e .

I f t e a c h e r s a r e not expected

to i n t e r a c t with c h i l d r e n who e x h i b i t behav iors unacceptable t o th e

115
t e a c h e r and th e c h i l d can e a s i l y f i t i n t o the b a s ic s t r u c t u r e o f the
clas sroom , th e p o t e n t i a l f o r n e g a t i v e f e e l i n g s on the p a r t o f the
t e a c h e r toward th e c h i l d i s reduced.

As te a c h e r s and t e a c h e r -

consul t a n t s work t o g e t h e r on a co n tin u in g b a s is during t h e implemen­
t a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d ' s program, they w i l l have an o p p o r tu n i t y to
under stand each o t h e r ' s concerns and deal with p er ceiv ed problems and
i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s as they a r i s e .

These a c t i v i t i e s should c o n t r i b u t e

g r e a t l y to t h e development o f a r e a l team e f f o r t in a s s i s t i n g th e
mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d .
P r e - s e r v i c e and i n - s e r v i c e programs have been developed to
pr ovide t r a i n i n g f o r both r e g u l a r and s p e c i a l education p e r s o n n e l.
In o r d e r to improve th e se programs, th e following recommendations
are offered.
1.

Planning f o r i n - s e r v i c e r e l a t i v e to mainstreaming should

be a j o i n t e f f o r t between general and s p e c i a l e d u c a t o r s .
2.

T e a c h e r - c o n s u lta n ts should be provided with e x p e r ie n c e s

which w ill help them understand t h e needs and concerns o f classroom
t e a c h e r s as well as knowledge and a p p l i c a t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n a l
s t r a t e g i e s to s h a re with th e s e t e a c h e r s .
3.

Teachers and t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s must be provided with

p r a c t i c e in how to f u n c tio n as p a r t o f an e d u catio n al team.
Because o f the d i f f e r e n c e s in p e r s p e c t i v e of t e a c h e r s and
t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s in t h i s s tu d y , i t i s f e l t t h a t a j o i n t planning
e f f o r t to determine f u t u r e i n - s e r v i c e needs and a c t i v i t i e s i s c r i t i ­
cal.

Not only would t h i s be an a d d i t i o n a l way t h a t t e a c h e r s and

t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s could become aware o f t h e concerns and needs f e l t

116
by each o t h e r , but j o i n t plan ning f o r i n - s e r v i c e could i d e n t i f y
a p p r o p r i a t e t r a i n i n g exp e r ie n c e s f o r t h e i r own group as well as
e x periences each f e e l s would be he lp f u l t o o t h e r s .

A dditionally,

w ith in t h e framework of p r e - s e r v i c e and i n - s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s ,
e x periences could be provided t o a s s i s t t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t s , not only
to i d e n t i f y the needs and concerns o f t e a c h e r s , but to understand
b e t t e r t h e b a s is or r a t i o n a l e f o r th e f e e l i n g s and a t t i t u d e s expressed
by classroom t e a c h e r s .

Supervised p r a c t i c e as a team member i s c r i t i ­

cal i f ed u cato r s a r e going t o make th e changes n e c e s sa r y t o assuming
the new r o l e s r e q u i r e d f o r s u c c e s s f u l mainstreaming.

Those persons

un w illin g to make needed changes a n d /o r f u n c t i o n as a team member
could be i d e n t i f i e d a t t h i s time and provided with assignments which
did not i n clu d e mainstreaming as a component.

This would lend

f u r t h e r s upport t o p u p i l / t e a c h e r matching d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y .

It

could a l s o avoid j e o p a r d i z i n g th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of mainstreaming by
e l i m i n a t i n g use o f i n e f f e c t i v e or unc o o p e r a tiv e p e r s o n n e l.
G e n e r a l i z a t i o n s r e l a t e d to f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g success and f a c ­
t o r s a s s o c i a t e d with types o f handicaps could n o t be made on r e p o r t e d
group d a t a .

In f a c t , because o f th e very n a t u r e o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f ­

f e r e n c e s a s s o c i a t e d with handicapped i n d i v i d u a l s , t h e r e may be c e r ­
t a i n dangers in making d e c i s i o n s based on such g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s .

As

an example, i f r e s e a r c h showed t h a t p h y s i c a l l y impaired c h i l d r e n a r e
g e n e r a l l y as sig ned to a r e g u l a r classroom f o r 75 p e r c e n t o f a day
and a d e c i s io n i s made in a d i s t r i c t t h a t ev ery p h y s i c a l l y impaired
c h i l d should be as sig ned t o a classroom 75 p e r c e n t o f a day based on
th e r e s u l t s o f t h a t r e s e a r c h r a t h e r than t h e needs o f th e c h i l d ,

117

c e r t a i n l y , f o r some c h i l d r e n , t h e d e c i s i o n would be i n a p p r o p r i a t e .
T h e re f o re , two recommendations f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h ar e sugg ested:
1.

F u r th e r r e s e a r c h r e l a t e d to mainstreaming should focus on

an in - d e p th c a s e - b y - c a s e o b s e rv a t io n and a n a l y s i s o f s u c c e s s f u l and
unsucc es sful mainstreamed c h i l d r e n .
2.

Observation and a n a l y s i s of t e a c h e r / t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t

i n t e r a c t i o n s should i d e n t i f y e f f e c t i v e c o n s u l t a t i o n te c h n iq u e s as
well as th e s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s o f t h e s e techn iq ue s to th o s e
o f c o n s u l t a t i o n approaches used by th o s e in o t h e r f i e l d s such as
psychology and s o c i a l work.
By d i r e c t i n g th e focus o f f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h to i n d iv id u a l cases
of mainstreamed c h i l d r e n and in d i v id u a l t e a c h e r / t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t
r e l a t i o n s h i p s , t h e dangers o f g e n e r a l i z a t i o n can be avoided.

Because

of t h e m u l t i p l i c i t y of v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d with t h e success of mains tream in g, i t becomes very d i f f i c u l t to g e n e r a l i z e from group data
witho ut a g r e a t number o f c a s e s .

I t may be somewhat e a r l y to id e n ­

t i f y a l l o f t h e p o t e n t i a l f a c t o r s and t h e c r i t i c a l mix and s t r e n g t h
o f t h e s e f a c t o r s as the y i n t e r a c t t o i n f l u e n c e th e degree o f s u c c e ss .
However, by b u i l d i n g a base with i n d i v i d u a l in - d e p th a n a l y s i s , c e r ­
t a i n f a c t o r s and t r e n d s may be a ble to be i d e n t i f i e d which could be
useful in dec is ion- mak ing and implementation a c t i v i t i e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l s
r e l a t i v e t o mainstreaming.

U l t i m a t e l y , when f i n a n c i a l s upport i s

a v a i l a b l e f o r a massive and c a r e f u l l y c o n t r o l l e d study o f f a c t o r s
r e l a t e d t o s u c c e s s f u l mainstreaming, us efu l d a ta could be a v a i l a b l e .
In t h e i n t e r i m , t h e i n d i v i d u a l case a n a l y s i s appears to be th e most
us eful approach.

118
A f i n a l comment i s a p p r o p r i a t e .

School d i s t r i c t s need to

e v a l u a t e t h e i r mainstreaming programs by us in g t o o l s such a s th e one
developed f o r use in t h i s study t o o b t a i n a d e s c r i p t i o n o f mainstreaming in t h e i r d i s t r i c t .

The d i s t r i c t in which the d a t a f o r

t h i s study were c o l l e c t e d used t h e in form ation g ath er ed f o r t h i s
study to a s s e s s t e a c h e r p e r c e p t i o n s o f a t t i t u d e s and problems
encountered in mainstreaming in each o f th e b u i l d i n g s where th e s tu d y
was conducted.

F u r th e r a n a l y s i s was done to i d e n t i f y f a c t o r s which

appeared t o cause n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e s o r problems i d e n t i f i e d by
teachers.

While t h e d i s t r i c t found i t extr em ely d i f f i c u l t t o o b j e c ­

t i f y and i s o l a t e c a u s a t i v e f a c t o r s , they found t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e
study t o be very u s e f u l .

F u r th e r a c t i v i t i e s were undertaken to

a l l e v i a t e n e g a t i v e f a c t o r s and promote p o s i t i v e f a c t o r s in an a tte m p t
to improve mainstreaming in t h e s e s c h o o ls .

APPENDICES

119

APPENDIX A
CLASSROOM TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

120

TEACHER VIEWS OF PROBLEMS AND SUPPORT SERVICE NEEDS RELATED TO MAINSTREAMED, HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
Part I
MOST SUCCESSFUL

LEAST SUCCESSFUL

D i r e c t i o n s : Choose 1 o f f i c i a l l y i d e n t i f i e d , handicapped c h i ld
t h a t was pla ce d in your classroom w ith in th e p a s t 3 y ea rs
where you f e e l th e placement was "most s u c c e s s f u l ."
WRITE THE CHILD'S NAME ON LINE NUMBER 1.

D i r e c t i o n s : Choose 1 o f f i c i a l l y i d e n t i f i e d , handicapped c h i ld
t h a t was placed in your classroom w ith in th e p a s t 3 y e a rs
where you fee l th e placement was " l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l ."
WRITE THE CHILD'S NAME ON LINE NUMBER 1.

1.

1.

___________________

________________
F i r s t Name "L east Successful"

F i r s t Name "Most Successful"
2.

RATE THE CHILD ACCORDING TO HOW SUCCESSFUL YOU FEEL THE
PLACEMENT WAS ON THE SCALE OF 1 TO 4.
1
Successful

3.

2.

CIRCLE THE CHILD’S MAJOR HANDICAPPING CONDITION:

3.

CIRCLE THE CHILD'S MAJOR HANDICAPPING CONDITION:

b. educable m en tally impaired

a. em otionally impaired

b. educable m en tally impaired

c.

le a r n in g d isa b le d

d. p h y s ic a l ly handicapped

c.

le a r n in g d is a b le d

d. p h y s ic a lly handicapped

e.

v i s u a l l y impaired

f . hearing impaired

e.

v i s u a l l y impaired

f . hearing impaired

g.

d o n ' t know

CIRCLE THE %OF TIME THE CHILD IS/WAS IN YOUR ROOM:
1-25%

b. 26-50%

c.

51-75%

d. 76-99%

b. 26-50%

c.

51-75%

d. 76-99%

1977-1978

b. 1976-1977

c. 1975-1976

CIRCLE THE % OF TIME THE CHILD IS/WAS IN YOUR ROOM:
a.

5.

1-25%

6.

b. 26-50%

c. 51-75%

d. 76-99%

e.

All day

CIRCLE THE % OF TIME YOU FEEL THE CHILD SHOULD BE/HAVE
BEEN IN YOUR ROOM:
a. 1-25%
f . None

e. All

CIRCLE THE YEAR THE CHILD IS/WAS IN YOUR ROOM:
a.

4.

e . All day

CIRCLE THE % OF TIME YOU FEEL THE CHILD SHOULD BE/HAVE
BEEN IN YOUR ROOM:
a. 1-25%
f . None

6.

4
Unsuccessful

a. em o tio n a lly impaired

a.
5.

2__________ 3

1
Successful

2__________ 3__________ 4_
Unsuccessful

g. d o n ' t know
4.

RATE THE CHILD ACCORDING TO HOW SUCCESSFUL YOU FEEL THE
PLACEMENT WAS ON THE SCALE OF 1 TO 4.

b. 26-50%

c. 51-75%

d. 76-99%

e.

CIRCLE THE YEAR THE CHILD IS/WAS IN YOUR ROOM:
a . 1977-1978

b. 1976-1977

c. 1975-1976

All

ro

—1

C hild's F i r s t Name "Most Successful"
ASSISTANCE

PROBLEM
L i s t problem you a r e o r were
concerned about because th e
c h i ld was placed in your room.

Did you
re c e iv e
assistance?

L ist t i t l e
o f p erso n (s)
providing
assista n ce .

RECEIVED
Describe a s s i s t a n c e rec eiv e d .

YES
NO
( I f no, d e s c r ib e why
you were d i s s a t i s f i e d . )

YES

ASSISTANCE
L ist t i t l e
o f p erso n (s)
who should
provide
assista n ce .

NO

Were you s a t i s f i e d
w ith a s s i s t a n c e ?

NEEDED
D escribe a s s i s t a n c e needed.

C h ild's F i r s t Name "Most Successful"
ASSISTANCE

PROBLEM
L i s t problem you a r e o r were
concerned about because th e
c h i ld was placed in your room.

Did you
r ec eiv e
assistance?

RECEIVED
L ist t i t l e
o f p erso n (s)
providing
assista n ce .

Describe a s s i s t a n c e r e c e iv e d .

YES
NO
( I f no, d e s c r ib e why
you were d i s s a t i s f i e d . )

YES

ASSISTANCE
L ist t i t l e
o f p erso n (s)
who should
provide
assistan ce.

NO

Were you s a t i s f i e d
with a s s is ta n c e ?

NEEDED
D escribe a s s i s t a n c e needed.

C hild 's F i r s t Name "Least Successful"
ASSISTANCE

PROBLEM
L i s t problem you a r e or were
concerned about because th e
c h i l d was placed in your room.

Did you
r e c e iv e
assistance?

L ist t i t l e
o f perso n (s)
providing
assistance.

RECEIVED
Describe a s s i s t a n c e r e c e iv e d .

YES
NO
( I f no, d e s c r ib e why
you were d i s s a t i s f i e d . )

YES

ASSISTANCE
L ist t i t l e
o f p e rso n (s)
who should
provide
assistance.

NO

Were you s a t i s f i e d
with th e a s s i s t a n c e ?

NEEDED
D escribe a s s i s t a n c e needed.

C hild's F i r s t Name "Least Successful1'
ASSISTANCE

PROBLEM
L i s t problem you a r e or were
concerned about because th e
c h i l d was placed in your room.

L ist t i t l e
of p erso n (s)
providing
assista n ce .

Did you
r e c e i ve
assistan ce?

RECEIVED
D escribe a s s i s t a n c e r e c e iv e d .

YES
NO
( I f no, d e s c r ib e why
you were d i s s a t i s f i e d . )

YES

ASSISTANCE
L ist t i t l e
o f p e rso n (s)
who should
provide
assistance.

NO

Were you s a t i s f i e d
w ith th e a s s i s t a n c e ?

NEEDED
D escribe a s s i s t a n c e needed.

D irec tions :

Circle the number t h a t i d e n t i f i e s your r a t i n g .

I WOULD RATE MY ATTITUDE TOWARD MAINSTREAMING AS GENERALLY:

1
Negative

2_________ 3_________ 4_
Somewhat Somewhat Posi tive
Negative P osi tive

IDENTIFY THE FACTORS INFLUENCING YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARD MAINSTREAMING:
1.

ro
<J>

3.

5.

APPENDIX B
TEACHER-CONSULTANT QUESTIONNAIRE

127

128
Demographic Data
Teac he r- Consultant
Before we begin th e r e s t of th e i n t e r v i e w , I need you to give
me some inform ation abou t your ex periences and your jo b .
(Appropriate answers w i l l be c i r c l e d by the i n t e r v i e w e r . )
1.

What grades do you work with?

2.

How many y e a r s o f experie nce have you had?

3.

How many handicapped s t u d e n t s a r e c u r r e n t l y on your ca s eload?
0-5

4.

6-10

11-15

16-20

K

21-25

1

2

3

4

1

2

5
3

6
4

5

6

more

more than 25

How many o f your ca s e lo a d a r e mainstreamed?
w i ll be w r i t t e n in blank by i n t e r v i e w e r . )

(Appropriate number

75% or more of th e day
50-74% o f t h e day
Less than 50% o f th e day
Not mainstreamed
5.

What type of handicaps do you c u r r e n t l y serve?
El

LD

EMI

VI

HI

P0HI

_____________________
6.

What c e r t i f i c a t i o n a n d /o r endorsements do you have?
El

7.

Howmanyo f each?

LD

EMI

VI

HI

P0HI

My general a t t i t u d e toward mainstreaming i s :
1
2
Positive

3

4

5
Negative

129
TEACHER-CONSULTANT VIEWS OF PROBLEMS AND SUPPORT SERVICE
NEEDS RELATED TO MAINSTREAMED, HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
I n te rv i e w Form
I n tr o d u c t i o n :

We a r e doing a study as kin g classroom t e a c h e r s t o i d e n ­
t i f y problems and needed a s s i s t a n c e o r s e r v i c e s f o r
mainstreamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n .
We f e e l i t i s important t o g e t a p i c t u r e o f mainstream­
ing from th e p e r s p e c t i v e o f th e t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t as
wel 1.
Your respo ns es w i ll be kept completely c o n f i d e n t i a l .
Ana lysis w i l l be done a t MSU.

D ir e c ti o n 1 :

Direction 2 :

F i r s t I would l i k e you t o t e l l
me about problems you en counter as
a t e a c h e r - c o n s u l t a n t while p r o v id ­
ing a s s i s t a n c e o r s e r v i c e s t o main­
streamed, handicapped c h i l d r e n .

Now we have a l i s t i n g o f prob­
lems you fac e as th e t e a c h e r c o n s u l t a n t . L e t ' s go back over
them and I ' d l i k e you t o t e l l me
what would help t o s o lv e th e prob­
lems.

(Helps t o be s p e c i f i c , i . e . , t e l l
me more e x a c t l y how you would
d e s c r ib e t h e problem, e t c . )

(Attempt to g e t s p e c i f i c respon ses
and a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s , i . e . ,
t e l l me more about how t h a t could
be done. Is t h e r e anything e l s e
t h a t you th in k would help?)
SOLUTIONS

PROBLEMS
1.

3.

3.

130
D ir e c tio n 3:
We've ta lk e d about problems
from your p e r s p e c t i v e as the t / c .
Now I ' d l i k e you to put y o u r s e l f
in t h e place o f th e classroom
t e a c h e r and t e l l me what you
t h i n k a r e th e problems t h e c l a s s ­
room t e a c h e r i s most concerned
about t h a t a f f e c t her/him because
they have a handicapped c h i l d main­
streamed in t h e i r classroom. There
might be behaviors o f t h e c h i l d or
f a c t o r s o u t s i d e of the c h i l d t h a t
c r e a t e problems t h a t might r e q u i r e
assistance.

Do you provide or a tte m p t t o p r o ­
vide a s s i s t a n c e to s olve any of
th e se problems? (Go over each
problem and record re sp onses in
Column 2 . )

CLASSROOM TEACHER PROBLEMS

ASSISTANCE

1.

1.

2.

2.

3.

3.

4.

4.

131
D ir e c tio n 4:

( I f T/C has c e r t i f i c a t i o n in a r e a s o t h e r than th e d e s i r a ­
b i l i t y which some o f he r cas eload has been i d e n t i f i e d as
having)

You have c e r t i f i c a t i o n in th e ar ea o f (whatever d i s a b i l i t y i n d i ­
cated on demographic d a t a s h e e t ) . You've a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t you p r o ­
vide s e r v i c e s f o r c h i l d r e n who a r e l a b e l e d (whatever d i s a b i l i t i e s ar e
on c a s e l o a d ) .
Do you f e e l you have any p a r t i c u l a r problems r e s u l t i n g from not
being c e r t i f i e d in t h e d i s a b i l i t y ar ea o f some o f t h e c h i l d r e n you a r e
pr ov id ing s e r v i c e f o r ?
Yes

No

I f y e s , go on t o d i r e c t i o n 5.
D ir e c t io n 5:

D i r e c ti o n 6:

What a r e t h e problems you f e e l
you have because o f n o t being c e r t i f i e d in th e same ar ea o f th e
same d i s a b i l i t y ar ea o f th e c h i l d
you have been asked to s er ve ?

How could t h e s e problems be
overcome?

PROBLEMS

SOLUTIONS

1.

1.

3.

3.

132

D i r e c t i o n 7:

This i s th e l a s t q u e s ti o n . Approximately what p ercen tag e
o f your day would you e s t i m a t e i s sp ent?

Curren t Time %

Change Time

%

1.

___________________ working d i r e c t l y with c h i l d r e n ___________________

2.

____________________working with t e a c h e r s
Would you change t h i s i f you could?
I f y e s , how would you change th e per ce ntage ?
column.)

__________________
Yes

No

(Record in r ig h t- h a n d

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

American Federati on o f Te ac he rs . 1975 Convention R e s o l u t i o n s .
N .p .: American F ed er ati o n o f Te ac her s, 1975.
Corman, L . , and G o t t l i e b , Jay. "Mainstreaming Mentally Retarded
C hildre n: A Review o f Research." In I n t e r n a t i o n a l Review of
Research in Mental R e t a r d a t i o n , v o l . 9, pp. 251-75. Edited
by N. R. E l l i s . New York: Academic P r e s s , 1978.
Deno, E.

"Special Education as Developmental C a p i t a l . "
Children (November 1970): 229-37.

Exceptional

Diana v. S t a t e Board of Educ ation, C-7037RFP, D i s t r i c t Court of
Northern C a l i f o r n i a (February 1970).
Evans, Susan. "The C on sultan t Role o f th e Resource Teac her ."
Exceptional Children 46 (February 1980): 402-405.
Federal R e g i s t e r , 42 (1963), August 23, 1977, p. 42497.
F lanagan, J . Measuring Human Performance.
I n s t i t u t e f o r Res ear ch, 1962.

Pittsburgh:

American

G i c k l i n g , E. E . , and Theobald, J . T. "Mainstreaming: A f f e c t or
E f f e c t . " Journal of S pecial Education 9 (1975): 317-28.
Grahm, S . , Burdg, N. B . , Hudson, F . ; and C a r p e n te r , D. "Educational
P e r s o n n e l ' s P e r c e p t i o n s o f Mainstreaming and Resource Room
E f f e c t i v e n e s s . " Psychology in th e Schools 17 (January 1980):
128-34.
Guerin, G. R . , and S z a t l o c k y , K. " I n t e g r a t i o n Programs f o r t h e Mildly
R etarded." Exceptiona l Ch ildren 41 (November 1974): 173-79.
Himes, J . W. " S ele cte d Educ ator s' P e r c e p t io n s Concerning th e Success­
f u l I n t e g r a t i o n o f Handicapped Children I n t o t h e Regular
Classroom." D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s 37/11A (1976): 7072.
Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 401 (1967).
Houck, C . , and Sherman, A. "The Mainstreaming Cu rren t Flows Two
Ways." Academic Therapy 15 (November 1979): 133-40.

134

135
Hudson, F . ; Graham, S . ; and Warner, M. "Mainstreaming: An Examination
o f the A t t i t u d e s and Needs o f Regular Classroom T e a c h e rs ."
Learning D i s a b i l i t y Q u a r te rl y ( in p r e s s ) . Referred t o in
Grahm, S . ; Burdg, N. B . ; Hudson, F . ; and C a r p e n t e r , D.
"Educational P e r s o n n e l ' s P e r c e p tio n s o f Mainstreaming and
Resource Room E f f e c t i v e n e s s . " Psycholoq.y in th e Schools 17
(January 1980): 128-34.
J o n e s , R. L. "Labels and Stigma in Special Ed ucat io n."
Childr en (March 1972): 553-64.
Kavale, K. "Mainstreaming: The Genesis o f an I d e a ."
Child 26 (March 1979): 3-21.

Exceptional

The Exceptional

L a r r i v e e , B . , and Cook, L. "Mainstreaming: A Study o f V a r i a b le s
A f f e c ti n g Teacher A t t i t u d e . " The Journal o f S pe cial Education
13 (1979): 315-24.
Larry P. v. R i l e s , 6-71-2270, 343 F. Supp. 1036, D i s t r i c t Court of
Northern C a l i f o r n i a (1972).
Macmillan, D. L . ; J o n e s , R. L . ; and Meyers, C. E. "Mainstreaming the
Mildly Retarded: Some Ques tions , Cautions and G u i d e l i n e s . "
Mental R e ta r d a tio n (February 1976): 151-57.
Mann, P h i l l i p H. "Mainstreaming: An Evolutionary Concept o f Mutual
R e s p o n s i b i l i t y . " In Shared R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r Handicapped
S tu d e n t s : Advocacy and Programming, pp. 27-36. Ed ited by
P h i l l i p H. Mann. Coral Gables, F l a . : U n i v e r s i t y o f Miami
T r a in in g and Technical A s s is ta n c e C e n te r , 1976.
M a r k e l l , C lark. "Exceptional Stude nts in Regular C l a s s e s : I n te rv ie w s
With 43 North Dakota Elementary T e a c h e rs ." Bethesd a, Md.:
ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e , ED 117 912, 1976.
M e is g i e r , C h a r le s . "A Review o f C r i t i c a l Is s u e s Underlying Mains tr e a m i n g ." In The Third Review o f Special E d u c a t io n ,
pp. 245-69. Edited by L. Mann and D. A. S a b a tin o . New York:
Grune and S t r a t t o n , 1976.
Meyers, E. C.; Macmillan, D. L . ; and Yoshida, R. K. "Regular Class
Education o f EMR S t u d e n t s , From E f f ic a c y t o Mainstreaming:
A Review o f Is s u e s and Rese ar ch ." In Educating Men tally
Retarded Persons in th e Mainstream, pp. 176-206. Ed ited by
J . G o t t l i e b . Ba ltim ore, Md.: U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s , 1979.
Michigan Department of Education. "Teacher C o n s u lt a n t Change Agent,
Final Report o f an I n s t i t u t e . " Lansing: Michigan Department
of Edu cation, 1976.

136

Michigan.

Special Education Code (1976).

________ .

Special Education Code as amended (1977).

National Education A s s o c i a t i o n . R e s o l u t i o n s , New Bus in ess, and
Other Actions. New York: National Education A s s o c i a t i o n ,
1975.
O v e r l in e , H. M. Mainstreaming--Making I t Happen. Sacramento:
C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e Department o f E du cation , October 1977.
Reynolds, M. C., and B ir c h , J . W. Teaching Exceptional Children in
All America's S ch o o ls . Reston, Va.: Council f o r Exceptional
C h il d r e n , 1977.
Rosen thal, R., and Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in th e Classroom.
York: H o i t , R i n e h a r t , and Winston, 1968.

New

S h o t e l , J . R.; Iano, R. P . ; and McGettigan, J . F. "Teacher A t t i t u d e s
Associated With th e I n t e g r a t i o n o f Handicapped C h i l d r e n ."
Exceptional Childre n 38 (May 1972): 677-83.
Spangler v. Board o f Education, 311 F. Supp. 501 (1970).
Wanner, S. R., and Guenther, C. Current Opinions Concerning Mains t r e a m i n g . Research Report, J u l y 1978.
Williams, R. J . , and Alg ozz ine, B. " D i f f e r e n t i a l A t t i t u d e s Toward
Mainstreaming: An I n v e s t i g a t i o n . " The A lb e r ta Journal o f
Educational Research 23 (September 1977): 207-12.
________ . "Teachers' A t t i t u d e s Toward Mainstreaming."
School Journal 80 (November 1979): 63-67.

Elementary

Zawadski, R. F. "A Study o f What Regular Classroom Teachers Consider
D e t e r r e n t s to Teaching th e EMR Child in Regular C l a s s e s . "
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f P i t t s b u r g h , 1973.